B
bibleapologist
Guest
And what makes Ignatius’ notion better than mine. I am not trying to convince you of my own notion, but that of the scripture compared with your conscience.
John
www.gideonsword.net
- Status
John
www.gideonsword.net
P
Pax
Guest
Please go to my earlier post and explain precisely why your take is superior to mine. When doing this keep in mind how you should understand the words “flesh availeth nothing” and how Jesus words are “spirit and life.”
P
Pax
Guest
You don’t get it. It’s not his notion. He got it straight from the apostle John.
O
Odell
Guest
your right it is your conclusion. ours is based on the Churches conlusion and previous notions of transubstantiation of the early fathers in which you have seen many quotes from early fathers here on this thred.
your saying God cant leave heaven. we agree, he never does. The mass takes part of the same sacrafice of calvery. Is this really hard for you to understand? Do you not believe that God is present every time you gather in his name, does that mean God left heaven?
think about it.
now you prove our poin the Lamb had to be ate. and John sees the vision of the Lamb in heaven which happens to be on the Lords day which is when they broke bread. John is cought up in spirit on the Lords day in revelations. thats what catholics believe we are cought up in spirit participating in the same sacrifice that is still taking place in heaven hence the lamb that is slain.
operhaps you should read revelation over again as someone else has said.
we are the true church come home
S
Sabda
Guest
WOW!!! Your saying you don’t care what the early fathers wrote? You don’t care what the people who were the closest to Jesus in time wrote? Could it be that the reason you don’t care is because their writings show that they don’t believe the same as you do? For me, I care what he says about heretics. Why, because I don’t want to be one!
St Justin the Martyr
First Apology (148 - 155)
And this food is called among us Eucharisti’a(5) [the Eucharist],** of
which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things
which we teach are true,** and who has been washed with the washing that is
for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive
these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made
flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer
of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are
nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
Your not arguing with me. Your arguing with our precious Savior, the apostles, and the early fathers.
L
LIMolly0721
Guest
bibleapologist,
This has already been addressed, but you are then one taking that verse out of ceontext by interpreting “spirit and life” as sybmolic, which does not make any sense. It’s on your shoulders to prove how this means symbolic.
This has already been addressed, but you are then one taking that verse out of ceontext by interpreting “spirit and life” as sybmolic, which does not make any sense. It’s on your shoulders to prove how this means symbolic.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
With all due respect, you think you defend the Bible, but you are in fact only defending your *interpretation *of the Bible. Your argue against the actual words in the Bible by saying those words are only symbolic. I don’t believe in such symbolism; I believe in Jesus and the Bible.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
The bible is a Catholic document, compiled by Catholics and ratified by a Pope.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
If we take this from a different angle.
Moses was pretty much the most important man in the OT.
If he had taught his son the Jewish faith,
and we had writings from that son which explained their beliefs,
then… do you think it better to trust Moses son, or
someone who disagrees with him 2000 years later, living in a different culture, with the holy book written in language not that of the original, and whose message is deemed heretical by Moses son.
Peace and God Bless in Christ Jesus.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is not in evidence from the verse you use here and it certainly is not born out by the context of the passage nor by the writings of the ECF that I cited.
In fact this is plainly a case where you are projecting your interpretation onto the passage instead of simply accepting what the Word of God and the verifiable historical writings of the very early church show that they took it to mean.
The only way one can assert that this is symbolic is to refuse to accept the passage as it stands and project an agenda driven interpretation onto it. I can’t play that with the Word of God.
Pax tecum,
F
ferdie
Guest
IT is not a notion. St. Ignatius actually conversed with Apostle John. Can you imagine the questions he asked his teacher? Can you imagine the tons of question he asked and the answers he directly received from the Apostle? Who can better answer St. Ignatius questions than his master, St. John? Don’t tell me the bible coz, St. John is the writer of John 6 that we are discussing.
Imagine St. Ignatius reading John 6 and having a hard time understanding it , who better explain it than his master?
Who is your guidance in explaining John 6, the Holy Spirit? Your pastor? Your **karnal **knowledge? Who?
O
Odell
Guest
Lk 24: 18-35) Notice Jesus Himself quotes scripture when he appered to two deciples he quotes how Mosses and the prophets foretold that all these things will happen to the Christ. But they still didn’t know it was Jesus conversing with them. It wasn’t until the breaking of the bread. Verse 30 “He was with them at table, He took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that there eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus. Isn’t that something, after walking with them and interpreting the scriptures for them he was not made known until the breaking of the bread. Than in verse 35 they were so excited about Jesus being made know in the breaking of the bread they recounted to everyone how he was made known in the breaking of the bread.
thats how Jesus is made known to catholics fist the word of God then the flesh of God.
it seems to me you are claiming to be the true Church but I bet you cant trace your church all the way back to Christ. I bet you dont celebrate church like the erly fathers, oh yeah the early fathers dont count for you, just your personal interpritation of scripture.
(Acts 20:7-11) we see that they gathered every week and broke bread. Just as the Catholic Church still does today. Notice after Paul’s sermon they broke bread. Just as we do in the Mass. Our celebration has changed very little from how the apostles worshiped. Also if you were to look into the oldest Churches in the world you would see that this is what they believe, they do not believe the new belief of this is symbolic of.
does your Church break bread every week?
I think you forget the Church is the defender and upholder of the truth. not your interpritaion of scripture. there is one Pope and you are not him.
thats how Jesus is made known to catholics fist the word of God then the flesh of God.
it seems to me you are claiming to be the true Church but I bet you cant trace your church all the way back to Christ. I bet you dont celebrate church like the erly fathers, oh yeah the early fathers dont count for you, just your personal interpritation of scripture.
(Acts 20:7-11) we see that they gathered every week and broke bread. Just as the Catholic Church still does today. Notice after Paul’s sermon they broke bread. Just as we do in the Mass. Our celebration has changed very little from how the apostles worshiped. Also if you were to look into the oldest Churches in the world you would see that this is what they believe, they do not believe the new belief of this is symbolic of.
does your Church break bread every week?
I think you forget the Church is the defender and upholder of the truth. not your interpritaion of scripture. there is one Pope and you are not him.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
S
Sabda
Guest
But He gave them plenty of signs! Remember, just before the bread of life discourse Jesus fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. You saying that’s not a miracle? Boy, I’d love to see someone do that today!
Also the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea. You don’t think that’s a great sign? The disciples WERE given signs and miracles and they STILL choose NOT to believe in Him when He said His flesh was real food and His blood was real drink. And because they did not believe they walked away and He let them.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if He were on earth teaching these same things today that most people who profess to believe in Him would actually leave Him because they would say His teachings are to hard to understand.
M
Milliardo
Guest
He was taught by John the Apostle Himself, the same John who wrote the Gospel, the very same John you are quoting. If Ignatius was taught that it is literal, then what makes you think your notion is better then? The point is simple: he was taught by the Apostle, you’re not. So convince us you have it better.
No, you’re trying to convince us by what you think Scripture says. There’s a difference between what Scripture says in itself, and what you deem to be what Scripture is trying to say. You’re attempting to convince people here of your belief based on your understanding of it.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
See also forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111099 for my :twocents:
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Odell,
What I said was, Jesus (the glorified body) was in heaven. My substantiation for saying this from the scripture…
But, that in no way means His body leaves Heaven to occupy the elements of the Lord’s supper. In fact the scripture explicitly denies that Christ’s body will leave heaven until He returns coming in the clouds.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Here is an interesting point to discuss. I didn’t say God can’t leave Heaven… In fact He is everywhere at all times… that is what Omnipresent means.
What I said was, Jesus (the glorified body) was in heaven. My substantiation for saying this from the scripture…
Jesus’ resurrected body will not return to earth until after the tribulation period.
Christ being fully God as the trinity, is with us spiritually as the Holy Spirit. (I can give you references if you need them but as a Catholic I trust you don’t).
But, that in no way means His body leaves Heaven to occupy the elements of the Lord’s supper. In fact the scripture explicitly denies that Christ’s body will leave heaven until He returns coming in the clouds.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
LIMolly1721,
John
www.gideonsword.net
You have misquoted me. I have only interpreted the terms “eat”, “drink”, “manna” and “bread” to be symbolic.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Church Militant,
John
www.gideonsword.net
Explain to me the interpretation of scripture, or the logic behind why you trust the ECF.
Again, where is YOUR argument. If you really understood what the early Church fathers wrote and explicated, you would have no problem explaining that to me.
I don’t understand how you can say that, and not give an opposing side to what I have proposed. All I see from your posts are that you stand by the CF on whatever they say.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
sabda,
John
www.gideonsword.net
Those particular Jews were absolutely seeking a sign from Jesus. That is why Jesus told them…
Assuming that if He would ascend up to heaven again, it would prove to them that He came down from heaven as he previously asserted.
John
www.gideonsword.net
- Status