Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

  • Thread starter Thread starter terryobrien80
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?
– St. Cyril of Jerusalem
It “is” His body just as He is the “bread” of life as He often says. But in Matthew, right after He says it is His blood,(my post #140) He then calls it the fruit of the vine, which it really is, but symbolically and figuratively it IS the blood of Christ.

I notice that in a later post than this, someone said when they eat the bread and drink the wine, it tastes like bread and wine and that is because it actually is, but it represents the flesh and blood of Christ. It is a spiritual thing but if anyone were to check the chemical make up of both they would find it is still bread and wine.
 
It “is” His body just as He is the “bread” of life as He often says. But in Matthew, right after He says it is His blood,(my post #140) He then calls it the fruit of the vine, which it really is, but symbolically and figuratively it IS the blood of Christ.

I notice that in a later post than this, someone said when they eat the bread and drink the wine, it tastes like bread and wine and that is because it actually is, but it represents the flesh and blood of Christ. It is a spiritual thing but if anyone were to check the chemical make up of both they would find it is still bread and wine.
It’s a both/and thing my man, both/and…not either/or.
 
I agree That’s the problem. So true. , so why should your interpretation trump mine?Yes, it does, and yes I do. I have been in Bible studies for over 10 years, Catholic and non-Denominational. I went to Jesuit University. I’ve been going to mass since I was a baby (even baptized, (see my signature), so I’ve been spoon fed on Scripture my entire life. The non-Catholic Bible study people knew a lot about the Catholic Church, even more than me. They were constantly telling me that Catholics don’t read the Bible…:rolleyes:
I don’t say that my interpretation trumps yojurs because I don’t know your interpretation. However I believe that if you were to interpret Scripture, your church would consider it anathema. I question my church’s interpretation, if it is different from mine, and I expect them to show me and prove to me, by Scripture, that I am wrong and then I will better understand

As far as reading the Bible, the number of the RCC that doesn’t even own a Bible is supposedly quite large. I have friends who profess to be Catholics but admit they don’t own a Bible. They say they are taught it isn’t important; they will get all the knowledge they need from the church.
 
Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?
– St. Cyril of Jerusalem
I believe it is His body, just as I believe He is in my heart. But the wine and bread has not changed into flesh and blood. It is still bread and wine but there again, it is His body and blood.
 
Old Scholar,

If you trust the Bible then you trust the Traditions and the authority of the Catholic Church. It is a source outside of the Bible in which the Bible itself was put together. There is no inspired table of contents! No where in Scripture is it written what belongs in the Bible!

Quotation does not equal canonicity! If that was true we would have 11 books taken out of the Protocanonical Books and would have added another letter of St. Paul’s, the Book of Enoch, and much more.
I trust all the traditions of the church that does not contradict the written word of God and doesn’t add to it or take away from it. There are many traditions and they are important. But once a tradition begins to involve faith and morals, then it must be found in Scripture or it is false.
 
I believe it is His body, just as I believe He is in my heart. But the wine and bread has not changed into flesh and blood. It is still bread and wine but there again, it is His body and blood.
I guess you’d disagree with St. Justin Martyr, correct?
“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 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.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
 
I believe it is His body, just as I believe He is in my heart. But the wine and bread has not changed into flesh and blood. It is still bread and wine but there again, it is His body and blood.
You are 1/2 right.
 
I find most of your posts similarly amusing, especially considering the username you selected. Have you even read the many references that people have given you?
I read all the references given me unless it required me buying a book and then I attempt to find it at my local library.

As for the “Old Scholar”, compared to many, I am old and I am a scholar. Look up the definition and you should see what a scholar is.

Besides, when I see some of the names chosen here, I cringe when someone questions mine…

👍
 
It “is” His body just as He is the “bread” of life as He often says. But in Matthew, right after He says it is His blood,(my post #140) He then calls it the fruit of the vine, which it really is, but symbolically and figuratively it IS the blood of Christ.

I notice that in a later post than this, someone said when they eat the bread and drink the wine, it tastes like bread and wine and that is because it actually is, but it represents the flesh and blood of Christ. It is a spiritual thing but if anyone were to check the chemical make up of both they would find it is still bread and wine.
Could you then explain why, if it is only symbolic, were the reactions so strong in John 6? Why does Our Lord feel the need to repeat Himself so many times in this single chapter?

If the Eucharist is purely symbolic, why does Our Lord explicitly command us to eat His flesh and drink His blood? (ref. - John 6:52-56)

OS, you claim that we, as Catholics, are reading things into scripture that aren’t there when we cite certain verses supporting doctrines not explicit in the Bible, but revealed through Tradition. How can a person honestly claim that Our Lord is talking only about a symbol in those verses?
 
It “is” His body just as He is the “bread” of life as He often says. But in Matthew, right after He says it is His blood,(my post #140) He then calls it the fruit of the vine, which it really is, but symbolically and figuratively it IS the blood of Christ.

I notice that in a later post than this, someone said when they eat the bread and drink the wine, it tastes like bread and wine and that is because it actually is, but it represents the flesh and blood of Christ. It is a spiritual thing but if anyone were to check the chemical make up of both they would find it is still bread and wine.
As a scholar, you are aware that we are bound to discern thing in its context as relating to that verse, that paragraph, that Gospel, the whole Bible, the whole historical circumtances…As a Catholic, we are also bound by the context of Tradition and the Magisterial teachings (the so-to-speak think tank). When dealing with an historical event two thousands years ago, relying on the true eyewitnesses at the time is also very important.

Now if we go back and read John 6:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews doubted Him:

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

He repeated and emphasized His words:

**53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
**

Still they didn’t believe:

**60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” **

He reiterated his point, the current life and flesh are of no avail, believing his words are the spirit and life (IMO: if one believes in resurrection and ascension, why it is so hard to believe this is his true body and blood)

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


Hard to believe, they left:

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

IMO: Many even now do not believe it is His true body and blood and leaving His Church.

Then we need to see evidences from other Gospels, Paul and others writings.

I also would like to call to your attention that many early Christians were persecuted because they were allegedly committing “Carnivore”.

The evidences are so overwhelming, Old Scholar!

🙂

ETL
 
I will attempt to explain this one more time and it is done in order to give all views and not to try and change anyone’s mind. It is what I believe and I hope everyone receives it as that.

The 6th chapter of John is where this all starts, with the feeding of the 5,000. The crowd that had been fed real bread later came back for another free handout. So let’s see if this is literal or symbolic.

When they came back for more, Jesus told them: "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26)

It had always been taught that when the Messiah came, He would outdo Moses when his people received manna from heaven. Jesus had told them: John 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” Then they asked what must they do in verse 28. Jesus then tells them: *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent.” *(John 6:29)

He did not say anything about “eating” or “drinking”, only believing.

Because of the miraculous sign they had been given in the desert, the manna, they asked for this bread because they did not understand what Jesus was trying to tell them. He told them He was the true bread out of heaven. John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33) “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

It should be obvious to all that Jesus is not referring to physical bread but spiritual bread. If you eat of the “spiritual” bread you will not be hungry again. Here Jesus is defining the “eating” of Himself as “He who comes to me” and the drinking of Himself as *“he who believes in me.” *

This should define the entire metaphor as being symbolic. There are other places where Jesus refers to the eating and drinking also and is symbolic. Read Matthew 5:6 *“Blessed are those who hunger for righteousness, for they will be filled.” *This tells us that if we “believe” in Jesus, our spiritual hunger will be satisfied. You won’t satisfy your physical hunger with the Eucharist and it can’t satisfy your spiritual hunger either. It is the living bread that is required and that is the Lord Himself.

John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

This entire chapter(John 6) should be read thoroughly if you want to know the truth. Even after Christ had told them they did not understand.

Just as the manna rained down from heaven, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. Real bread does not come down from heaven but is grown in the earth. Jesus had to be speaking of spiritual bread. The analogy is clear, Jesus is the spiritual bread from heaven that gives spiritual (eternal) life. Physical bread gives physical life. Spiritual bread gives spiritual life.

Look at how Jesus summarized it: John 6:49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50) "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51) “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

If you believe you must actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, during the Eucharist, then problems arise. Over and over again, Jesus tells us that eternal life comes from “believing” in Him. We are to “eat” jesus only in a spiritual sense. Eating is not a spiritual act, but believing is. Did Jesus tell the man on the cross he had to “eat” His body and drink His blood? He told Him he would be with Him in paradise. He was given eternal life without doing either. It was the “believing” that saved him.

Another problem is that if we were truly drinking Jesus’ blood we would be sinning by doing so. Still another is that Jesus is sacrificed at every mass when there was only one sacrifice and that was on the cross.

Jesus again tells us by establishing the metaphor he would use later. *“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to yo are spirit and they are life.” *John 6:63. He promises spiritual nourishment to all who come to Him while He is telling those who seek physical benefits from Him that it is in vain.

Jesus said He was the light of the world. “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12. Was He composed of fire?

He also said he was the gate. “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” John 10:7

He said: *“I am the good shepherd."

“I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener.”*

He said He would give the woman at the well “living water.” What did He mean by that? Spiritual truth of course.

Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” John 4:13-14

Augustine seemed to understand it perfectly, as did other early church leaders.

“Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat life, drink life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live: Eat life, drink life; you will have life, and the life is entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man’ life; If what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life.”

Augustine also indicated that the sacrament was to be commemorated, but not relived:

Augustine (Faustis 20.18, 20): Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

If you are a Roman Catholic, I do not list all this in order to discourage your faith or even to question your belief. The communion is very significant to all Christians. It is a special time when we celebrate the sacrifice Jesus gave in order to allow us to come into the presence of God as holy people who are cleansed by the blood of the New Covenant.

It is our faith that is important; I just want every Christian to learn all they can about Christ and be better able to follow Him and what all He taught. I believe these forums provide us an opportunity to learn all we can and we cannot do that without dialog.

 
I believe it is His body, just as I believe He is in my heart. But the wine and bread has not changed into flesh and blood. It is still bread and wine but there again, it is His body and blood.
To understand Transubstantiation there are two things we should consider: Accidental and Substantial.

Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.

In the Eucharist “a supernatural transformation” a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69).

chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_5.htm

The Eucharist contains both “Body and Blood”. You will see the priest consecrates a small piece of Eucharist into the Chalice too. You can take the Eucharist alone or you can take both if offered. The Church said it is OK either way.

Hope it helps.

🙂

ETL
 
:confused: Get the Catholic Universal Church back on track ??

So, you believe God used the Reformation to reorganize/revitalize/refocus the Catholic Church ?

Sounds like good logic to me. After 1500 plus years … a little provocation from a Catholic monk may of done us some good. If nothing else … it gave impetus to the formation of good ole USA.

However, unless your Church of God can clearly show us a lineage back over last 2000 years outside of Catholic Church] … its high time all the Protestants come back home and rejoin the Universal Church. Christ wants you rebels to read some history and come back into the fullness of faith and enjoy all 7 sacraments.
Actually I believe it was God’s way of extracting His true church from the one that had moved so far away from His teachings.

And I can show just as good a lineage all the way back as you can.
 
Give us more specifics on your Church. What was Garner Ted Armstrong’s church called ? He used to have that radio program called … The World Tomorrow.

You’re not with that group are you ?
I’m not sure I have ever heard Garner Ted Armstrong, but I believe there was a television program called something like that I used to watch but I believe it was done by the 7th Day Adventists. They had some excellent programs. The only one I have never studied is Ellen White. The visions are what kept me from studying her.

I am not afraid to watch shows, or read flyers, etc. from other groups at all. I want to learn all I can about Christianity. If that means reading JW’s lit(in fact they come by and leave me lit every week) or the book of Mormon or whoever, then I will read and study it. After all we were told to test the Scriptures and the only way to do that is to reas what others believe. That is how I started reading about the Roman Catholics—a dialog with a Roman Catholic on a forum for a couple of years.

When that bus comes, if you don’t have a ticket, then it will pass you by…
 
Actually I believe it was God’s way of extracting His true church from the one that had moved so far away from His teachings.

And I can show just as good a lineage all the way back as you can.
:rotfl:

go ahead.
 
But once a tradition begins to involve faith and morals, then it must be found in Scripture or it is false.
Therein lies the impasse. I believe that Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s teaching authority (Magesterium) are all equally important, you only believe in Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top