Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:”

The voice of my Wonderful Shepherd is written all throughout the Bible. I’m sure of it and I recognize it, when I read or hear it preached. Something inside says “YES!” when He speaks or is revealed in Scripture. John the Baptist was given that ability before birth. Most of us must wait much longer, but it is just as real and sure, when the Holy Spirit indwells us by God’s Grace.

So, it’s your faith that let’s you know the Bible is the inspired word of God. It’s faith for all of us, but not faith in the Bible alone since the Bible cannot establish it’s own authority.

Men put the canon together. These men have to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Their decisions on which Books were inspired and what books aren’t had to themselves have been inspired. If we trust the Bible to be God’s Word, we have to trust those who made the final decisions to be infallible. If they were not infallible, then the Bible may not be infallible. Those men were Church Fathers, such as Augustine. They were Fathers who met in official Church Councils and HAD to have been guided by the Holy Spirit; HAD to have had the grace of infallibility, if we believe the outcome (the Bible) to be infallible. In other words, the Church presupposes the Bible and the Bible presupposes the Church.

These men had the authority to put together the canon. If those men, 300 plus years after the death of the Apostles, had no authority from God, then how can the Bible have any authority? How can those who had the authority to decide which Books are inspired possibly not have the authority to interpret them?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Hi Brkn,

Stop! Listen to yourself, You definitely sound like them Jews.

You and the Jews are saying (JOHN 6: 52)“How can this man give us his flesh to eat.”

UFAMTOBIE

Actually, it is you that sounds like the Jews that rejected Jesus.

Both of you assume that Jesus was saying to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

That incorrect assumption is what makes both of you the same in what you understood Jesus was saying.

Neither of you were able to see that Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, as he later explained His words ( John 6:63)

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:”
Those words eliminate the possibility of physically eating Jesus, since that is a base fleshly idea to begin with and it violates the law that Jesus came to complete.
How can literally eating Jesus’ flesh profit you, if Jesus clearly said that the flesh profiteth NOTHING?

Jesus made it further clear that He was not not speaking literally, by saying: “the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life.” Jesus was speaking spiritually.

Jesus defined what He meant spiritually by “bread” and “eating” and
“drinking” in an earlier verse:
(John 6:35) " And Jesus said unto them, I am the BREAD OF LIFE (the source of eternal life, which is of the Spirit): he that COMETH TO (eateth) Me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON (drinketh) Me shall never thirst."

We all physically hunger and physically thirst after coming to and believing on Jesus Christ, so the NEVER doing so does not apply to the physical.
Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, and both you and those Jews could not get past the literal or physical understanding of what Jesus said. Jesus clearly stated that His words “are spirit,and they are life”. Words of spirit are not words of flesh.

 

[brkn1]

So, it’s your faith that let’s you know the Bible is the inspired word of God. It’s faith for all of us, but not faith in the Bible alone since the Bible cannot establish it’s own authority.

Men put the canon together. These men have to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Their decisions on which Books were inspired and what books aren’t had to themselves have been inspired. If we trust the Bible to be God’s Word, we have to trust those who made the final decisions to be infallible. If they were not infallible, then the Bible may not be infallible. Those men were Church Fathers, such as Augustine. They were Fathers who met in official Church Councils and HAD to have been guided by the Holy Spirit; HAD to have had the grace of infallibility, if we believe the outcome (the Bible) to be infallible. In other words, the Church presupposes the Bible and the Bible presupposes the Church.

These men had the authority to put together the canon. If those men, 300 plus years after the death of the Apostles, had no authority from God, then how can the Bible have any authority? How can those who had the authority to decide which Books are inspired possibly not have the authority to interpret them?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

I think you are trying to change the subject.

 

[brkn1]

Taken from New Advent, Holy Scripture:

"Luke 22:19. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

Commentary:
Do this for a commemoration of me… This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to show forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.

This is my body… He does not say, This is the figure of my body–but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.

If Jesus said, “Do this in commemoration of (my sacrifice for you).”, then there would be room for the “real presence” to possibly be included in the meaning of “commemoration” or “remembrance”.
The plain fact of Jesus words are that He said, “Do this in commemoration of ME.”
You can not do something in “commemoration” of an actually present Person, object, or event, if that Person, object, or event is present. The meaning of “commemoration” or “remembrance” would be lost with the actual presence of Whoever or whatever was being commemorated or remembered.
The words of the Bible are not meant to be twisted that way.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are precluding all from “understanding” Scripture by your question and you are partly right.
We can not truly understand God’s Word, if we do not have the Holy Spirit inside us guiding us unto all truth and revealing the true meaning and interpretation of the Word. In effect, it is God doing the work for those seekers of His Truth. We can never fully understand all Truth, but God will reward those who diligently search for it. Only those who are God’s own will be able to understand what God allows them to know.

If we are given to “thirst” after God, that is the invitation inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.”
“He that believeth on Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” This is the same thing that Jesus offered to the woman at the well. It is salvation, by the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, Who is the Gospel.

The “rivers of living water” speaks of the Spirit inside us, as shown in (John 7:39). This indwelling Holy Spirit is available to everyone who comes to Jesus by the Grace of true faith. Don’t listen to anyone who says only some believers get that Spirit inside them. All get it when they become a new creature in Christ.

and where in here says that any one can interpret the Word of God?

 

[MelanieAnne]

and where in here says that any one can interpret the Word of God?

Some people seem to believe they know more than the Apostles themselves.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you are trying to change the subject.

Actually, I thought I was responding to your objection to someone using early Church fathers since as you said, “Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr are not in the Bible, so I can ignore anything they say that doesn’t line up with Scripture”. You also said, “The only answer I will give you now is to clearly prove where what I pointed out is wrong. Please use Scripture, since I’m not interested in man’s interpretations”.

So, it’s your faith that let’s you know the Bible is the inspired word of God. It’s faith for all of us, but not faith in the Bible alone since the Bible cannot establish it’s own authority.

Men put the canon together. These men have to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Their decisions on which Books were inspired and what books aren’t had to themselves have been inspired. If we trust the Bible to be God’s Word, we have to trust those who made the final decisions to be infallible. If they were not infallible, then the Bible may not be infallible. Those men were Church Fathers, such as Augustine. They were Fathers who met in official Church Councils and HAD to have been guided by the Holy Spirit; HAD to have had the grace of infallibility, if we believe the outcome (the Bible) to be infallible. In other words, the Church presupposes the Bible and the Bible presupposes the Church.

These men had the authority to put together the canon. If those men, 300 plus years after the death of the Apostles, had no authority from God, then how can the Bible have any authority? How can those who had the authority to decide which Books are inspired possibly not have the authority to interpret them?

I have replaced my thoughts and questions above and would be interested in seeing what your thoughts are. Besides, I don’t believe anyone will object to where we’re going with this part of the discussion as I believe it can help us establish the authority of the Bible and it’s the Bible interpretations that we seem to differ on.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[Bwsherman]

If Jesus said, “Do this in commemoration of (my sacrifice for you).”, then there would be room for the “real presence” to possibly be included in the meaning of “commemoration” or “remembrance”.
The plain fact of Jesus words are that He said, “Do this in commemoration of ME.”
You can not do something in “commemoration” of an actually present Person, object, or event, if that Person, object, or event is present. The meaning of “commemoration” or “remembrance” would be lost with the actual presence of Whoever or whatever was being commemorated or remembered.
The words of the Bible are not meant to be twisted that way.

Brkn1,

You are obviously a very intelligent person in terms of how much time you spend in your study of scripture. I am just not understanding one thing: If you cannot be certain that how you interpret the Bible is correct, how can you say with absolute certainty that what the Catholic Church says is wrong? That is a non sequitur line of argumentation. I cannot say that I know you are wrong if in addition I say that I am not certain if I am right. Or, if you are certain that you are correct. I would ask you in what way do you to check to make sure you are correct? I know that you can say that I ‘feel’ the truth when I hear it, but what does that even mean? I believe it is more reasonable to listen to those that immediately proceeded the Apostles because they were taught by those who had the best understanding of what Jesus actaully taught. The Bible itself is not clear and straightforward as this entire forum proves, and so it is necessary to find someone outside of the writers of scripture to shed light on things which are not easily understood. The situation we have today would show that the entire Bible must be interpreted for us or there would be no objective truth…

 

[whitenight21]

Actually, it is you that sounds like the Jews that rejected Jesus.

Both of you assume that Jesus was saying to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

That incorrect assumption is what makes both of you the same in what you understood Jesus was saying.

Actually, not only both of them believe literally Jesus’ words, but also me, many others registered to this website, the Holy Father Benedict XVI, and all the other one billion Catholics in the world! (thats not counting all the Saints and Martyrs that died for the cause of Jesus REALLY PRESENT in the HOLY EUCHARIST!!)

Neither of you were able to see that Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, as he later explained His words ( John 6:63)

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:”
Those words eliminate the possibility of physically eating Jesus, since that is a base fleshly idea to begin with and it violates the law that Jesus came to complete.
How can literally eating Jesus’ flesh profit you, if Jesus clearly said that the flesh profiteth NOTHING?

New Advent, Holy Scripture:
John 6:64.
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Latin Translation:
Spiritus est qui vivificat caro non prodest quicquam verba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus et vita sunt

Commentary:
The flesh profiteth nothing… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ), profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life… By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

Jesus made it further clear that He was not not speaking literally, by saying: “the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life.” Jesus was speaking spiritually.

Jesus defined what He meant spiritually by “bread” and “eating” and
“drinking” in an earlier verse:
(John 6:35) " And Jesus said unto them, I am the BREAD OF LIFE (the source of eternal life, which is of the Spirit): he that COMETH TO (eateth) Me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON (drinketh) Me shall never thirst."

But ya got to keep reading, unless you read the whole text, there will be holes in your understanding of what is being said.

Again, from New Advent, Holy Scripture:

John
6:31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
6:32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.
6:34. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
6:35. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

So the whole time, Christ was talking about Himself, that He is the Bread of Life come down from heaven.

And then later in the text:
Holy Gospel according to John:
6:50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
6:52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
6:53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Commentary:
Except you eat and drink, etc… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall liver for ever.

And then the final punch:

We all physically hunger and physically thirst after coming to and believing on Jesus Christ, so the NEVER doing so does not apply to the physical.
Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, and both you and those Jews could not get past the literal or physical understanding of what Jesus said. Jesus clearly stated that His words “are spirit,and they are life”. Words of spirit are not words of flesh.

6:55. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
6:57. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Again, you have to read the whole text to understand the whole message, you cant just pick and choose to make it lean the way you want it to.

God Bless

 

[ufamtobie]

Actually, it is you that sounds like the Jews that rejected Jesus.

Both of you assume that Jesus was saying to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

That incorrect assumption is what makes both of you the same in what you understood Jesus was saying.

Neither of you were able to see that Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, as he later explained His words ( John 6:63)

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:”
Those words eliminate the possibility of physically eating Jesus, since that is a base fleshly idea to begin with and it violates the law that Jesus came to complete.
How can literally eating Jesus’ flesh profit you, if Jesus clearly said that the flesh profiteth NOTHING?

Jesus made it further clear that He was not not speaking literally, by saying: “the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life.” Jesus was speaking spiritually.

Jesus defined what He meant spiritually by “bread” and “eating” and
“drinking” in an earlier verse:
(John 6:35) " And Jesus said unto them, I am the BREAD OF LIFE (the source of eternal life, which is of the Spirit): he that COMETH TO (eateth) Me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON (drinketh) Me shall never thirst."

We all physically hunger and physically thirst after coming to and believing on Jesus Christ, so the NEVER doing so does not apply to the physical.
Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, and both you and those Jews could not get past the literal or physical understanding of what Jesus said. Jesus clearly stated that His words “are spirit,and they are life”. Words of spirit are not words of flesh.

brkn, you go on believing what you believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. for the Lord is saying to YOU in: *** (Rev 22: 11) Let the wicked continue in their wicked ways, the depraved into their depravity!

The virtuous must live on in their virtue and the holy ones in their holiness*** Which the Catholic Church is doing

When you are in front of Jesus on judgement day along with those other Jews like yourself who do not believe in (JOHN 6: 52) May God have mercy on your soul.

Ufamtobie

 

[brkn1]

Brkn1,

You are obviously a very intelligent person in terms of how much time you spend in your study of scripture. I am just not understanding one thing: If you cannot be certain that how you interpret the Bible is correct, how can you say with absolute certainty that what the Catholic Church says is wrong? That is a non sequitur line of argumentation. I cannot say that I know you are wrong if in addition I say that I am not certain if I am right. Or, if you are certain that you are correct. I would ask you in what way do you to check to make sure you are correct? I know that you can say that I ‘feel’ the truth when I hear it, but what does that even mean? I believe it is more reasonable to listen to those that immediately proceeded the Apostles because they were taught by those who had the best understanding of what Jesus actaully taught. The Bible itself is not clear and straightforward as this entire forum proves, and so it is necessary to find someone outside of the writers of scripture to shed light on things which are not easily understood. The situation we have today would show that the entire Bible must be interpreted for us or there would be no objective truth…

God’s gift of intelligence has little to do with understanding Scripture. It seems that man’s reliance on his own wisdom is what prevents many from understanding God’s Word. Look at the Pharisees with all their knowledge and intelligence. They saw and admitted to the miracles of Jesus, but still could not believe that Jesus was the Christ. It truly is not that difficult for a true believer and seeker of God to understand the important parts of the Bible. The simple gospel of Jesus Christ can be understood by a child. Jesus meant it about us needing to come as a child to God.

The real Gift (Grace) of God, that is truly necessary, is the Gift of the Holy Spirit, Who indwells a child of God. That is Who we must rely on to understand His Word. The Bible says that about the role of the Holy Spirit. If we start relying on what others say for truth, we will likely be misled; either accidentally or intentionally. God, being all Truth, is the only Source of all Truth. His Word of Truth takes precedence over all others and His Word is written clearly in Scripture. Anything someone brings up that does not line up with Scripture, is dismissed by me as false.

It is not a feeling as you describe. It is a knowing that passes all understanding. That knowing comes out of God’s Gift of saving faith. The Holy Spirit makes it real. It goes way beyond any “feeling”.

 

[brkn1]

New Advent, Holy Scripture:
John 6:64.
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Commentary:
The flesh profiteth nothing… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ), profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life… By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

But ya got to keep reading, unless you read the whole text, there will be holes in your understanding of what is being said.

Again, from New Advent, Holy Scripture:

John
6:31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
6:32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.
6:34. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
6:35. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

So the whole time, Christ was talking about Himself, that He is the Bread of Life come down from heaven.

And then later in the text:
Holy Gospel according to John:
6:50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
6:52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
6:53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Commentary:
Except you eat and drink, etc… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall liver for ever.

And then the final punch:

6:55. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
6:57. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Again, you have to read the whole text to understand the whole message, you cant just pick and choose to make it lean the way you want it to.

God Bless

Christ’s flesh profitted everything when He died on Calvary to redeem us and the world. It was a one time event though. Jesus died once in His flesh and He rose in a glorified body, never to die again. He sits at the right hand of the Father now, as He waits until His enemies become His footstool.
Jesus can dwell spiritually inside us through the presence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus will not come down again physically as some assume, until the second coming, which Jesus spoke about.
Jesus said it was necessary for Him to go to the Father first, so that He could send Holy Spirit to take His place for now.
If Jesus were physically in the bread and wine, as many believe, that would contradict the necessity of Jesus having to go to the Father before the Holy Spirit could come.

 

[Bwsherman]

God’s gift of intelligence has little to do with understanding Scripture. It seems that man’s reliance on his own wisdom is what prevents many from understanding God’s Word. Look at the Pharisees with all their knowledge and intelligence. They saw and admitted to the miracles of Jesus, but still could not believe that Jesus was the Christ. It truly is not that difficult for a true believer and seeker of God to understand the important parts of the Bible. The simple gospel of Jesus Christ can be understood by a child. Jesus meant it about us needing to come as a child to God.

The real Gift (Grace) of God, that is truly necessary, is the Gift of the Holy Spirit, Who indwells a child of God. That is Who we must rely on to understand His Word. The Bible says that about the role of the Holy Spirit. If we start relying on what others say for truth, we will likely be misled; either accidentally or intentionally. God, being all Truth, is the only Source of all Truth. His Word of Truth takes precedence over all others and His Word is written clearly in Scripture. Anything someone brings up that does not line up with Scripture, is dismissed by me as false.

It is not a feeling as you describe. It is a knowing that passes all understanding. That knowing comes out of God’s Gift of saving faith. The Holy Spirit makes it real. It goes way beyond any “feeling”.

I meant my initial comment as a compliment, but I am sorry if that somehow was offensive. I would agree with most of what you said, but I still do not see how it is even possible to have anything but a personal interpretation of scripture when we read the Bible outside of the Church (outside of Mass). An interpretation which you have stated could indeed be wrong. I do not believe that God would have left us alone in this manner. Why would He give us the scriptures and then not give us a way to be certain of what they say? Children can indeed understand the basic message of the gospel if it is explained to them by responsible adults, but how many five year olds do you know that could give you an explanation of lets say the beatitudes? The reality is that you and I will read the same passage of scripture and get different truths from it. I believe that it can be totally fine to get subjective truth from the scriptures to help us in our daily walk. However, when it comes to establishing objective truths such as the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. it is neccessary to have the Church to explain these essential parts of the Christian life. And whether you like it or not these doctrines of the faith were first codified within the Catholic Church. And it was done primarily through the reading of the scriptures and the reading of the Early Church Fathers. You talk about truth coming from the Holy Spirit. I agree totally with that and yet you ignore that the scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is then logical to conclude that it is necessary for the Church through the working of the Divine Paraclete to have the final say on what is indeed truth. Which is where the Magisterium comes in to play.

Tell me this (and I have asked this before on this forum), how can you find out what the objective truth in scripture is?

 

[whitenight21]

Many Protestants argue “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

I believe that this is the title of this thread? is it not?

Then if it is, (as it is) then lets go to Holy Scripture and find where exactly this quote is:
6:52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
6:53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Oh, look there it is!!! and now lets read the next line too!

6:54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Anyone who does not believe that the Holy Eucharist is the REAL and EVER PRESENT FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST,
please,
try to explain to me, why then did Christ say such in John 6:54?

I mean, that is as literal as it can get! I do not understand what more you are looking for!

Please let go of your pride and BELIEVE! * That* you will never regret!

God Bless

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s really very simple. Some say that Jesus didn’t really mean it when He said “This is My Body” or “This is My Blood”. If such people want to believe that Jesus did not keep His word, that problem belongs to them. They can answer later for their opinion that Jesus did not keep His word.

Or perhaps they do not believe that Jesus could transform the Bread and the Wine into His Body and His Blood. Then they essentially believe that Jesus is not God. They can answer later for that opinion.

If, on the other hand, you believe Jesus, you trust Jesus, then you will believe His words and you will believe that He did what He said He would do. This wasn’t a parable. This was a directive.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The real Gift (Grace) of God, that is truly necessary, is the Gift of the Holy Spirit, Who indwells a child of God. That is Who we must rely on to understand His Word. The Bible says that about the role of the Holy Spirit. If we start relying on what others say for truth, we will likely be misled; either accidentally or intentionally. God, being all Truth, is the only Source of all Truth. His Word of Truth takes precedence over all others and His Word is written clearly in Scripture. Anything someone brings up that does not line up with Scripture, is dismissed by me as false.

Hello again brkn1,

I see you have avoided answering my thoughts so I’d like to ask a question of you, if I may.

How did the Bible receive it’s authority? What I mean, is how did it come to pass which books would be included and excluded? I’ve already contended that men put the canon together and I feel those men were guided by the Holy Spirit, but I will admit that this is not written in the scriptures. Someone had to have interpreted the books of the Bible to decide which books were to be included. So once more, I ask please explain to me how you see the Bible as coming together?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[c659smith]

Actually, it is you that sounds like the Jews that rejected Jesus.

Both of you assume that Jesus was saying to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

That incorrect assumption is what makes both of you the same in what you understood Jesus was saying.

Neither of you were able to see that Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, as he later explained His words ( John 6:63)

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:”
Those words eliminate the possibility of physically eating Jesus, since that is a base fleshly idea to begin with and it violates the law that Jesus came to complete.
How can literally eating Jesus’ flesh profit you, if Jesus clearly said that the flesh profiteth NOTHING?

Jesus made it further clear that He was not not speaking literally, by saying: “the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life.” Jesus was speaking spiritually.

Jesus defined what He meant spiritually by “bread” and “eating” and
“drinking” in an earlier verse:
(John 6:35) " And Jesus said unto them, I am the BREAD OF LIFE (the source of eternal life, which is of the Spirit): he that COMETH TO (eateth) Me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON (drinketh) Me shall never thirst."

We all physically hunger and physically thirst after coming to and believing on Jesus Christ, so the NEVER doing so does not apply to the physical.
Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms, and both you and those Jews could not get past the literal or physical understanding of what Jesus said. Jesus clearly stated that His words “are spirit,and they are life”. Words of spirit are not words of flesh.

But you must see it is the spirit with the flesh that saves even ourselves.

For man as Jesus is Spirit and Flesh

Without the flesh a spirit is just that a spirit.

For Jesus taught through the Father sending His Son Jesus Christ not down to earth as only a Spirit but Man.

Jesus was literally the pascal sacrafice saving us from death.

The Jews needed to eat of the sacrafice–the Lamb-- so must we.
Should the Angel of death pass over us like in Egypt.

For Christ did not come down to replace the old law but confirm it, to complete it, to destroy death with a new covenant.

By replacing the animal sacrafice that never allowed man to overcome the death sentence imposed on us from God for the sins of Adam and Eve.

Christ as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve

Both born without sin as were Adam and Eve

But dying without sin so that the veil to heaven could be re opened,
For the veil was closed for all of man till that time.

 

[brkn1]

I meant my initial comment as a compliment, but I am sorry if that somehow was offensive. I would agree with most of what you said, but I still do not see how it is even possible to have anything but a personal interpretation of scripture when we read the Bible outside of the Church (outside of Mass). An interpretation which you have stated could indeed be wrong. I do not believe that God would have left us alone in this manner. Why would He give us the scriptures and then not give us a way to be certain of what they say? Children can indeed understand the basic message of the gospel if it is explained to them by responsible adults, but how many five year olds do you know that could give you an explanation of lets say the beatitudes? The reality is that you and I will read the same passage of scripture and get different truths from it. I believe that it can be totally fine to get subjective truth from the scriptures to help us in our daily walk. However, when it comes to establishing objective truths such as the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. it is neccessary to have the Church to explain these essential parts of the Christian life. And whether you like it or not these doctrines of the faith were first codified within the Catholic Church. And it was done primarily through the reading of the scriptures and the reading of the Early Church Fathers. You talk about truth coming from the Holy Spirit. I agree totally with that and yet you ignore that the scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is then logical to conclude that it is necessary for the Church through the working of the Divine Paraclete to have the final say on what is indeed truth. Which is where the Magisterium comes in to play.

Tell me this (and I have asked this before on this forum), how can you find out what the objective truth in scripture is?

I took no offense on your initial comment and you need not worry about me being easily offended.
Our disagreement will be on the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Bible I use has the same 66 books that are also in your Bible, although there are extra books in yours.
I have been using those same books to explain my understanding of God’s Word.
You seem to want to direct this discussion towards the authority of the Scripture that I quote, which is an entirely different topic than this thread.
I find the objective truth in Scripture to be self-evident.
There are parts of the Bible that are not so easily understood at first, but they reveal their truth to any serious student that is a child of God.
God did not author His Written Word to be only understood by an elite group. The Holy Spirit is not limited only to one group of people. The Holy Spirit indwells all that are in Christ.
The idea of different truths coming out of the same passage must be that one or both interpretations are wrong. God’s Word is never wrong.
One way that the Holy Spirit confirms the Truth is by showing that there are no contradictions to any of the rest of Scripture in what one understands about a particular part of Scripture.
I don’t see any point in going further in this, since it is a different subject.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I took no offense on your initial comment and you need not worry about me being easily offended.
Our disagreement will be on the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Bible I use has the same 66 books that are also in your Bible, although there are extra books in yours.
I have been using those same books to explain my understanding of God’s Word.
You seem to want to direct this discussion towards the authority of the Scripture that I quote, which is an entirely different topic than this thread.
I find the objective truth in Scripture to be self-evident.
There are parts of the Bible that are not so easily understood at first, but they reveal their truth to any serious student that is a child of God.
God did not author His Written Word to be only understood by an elite group. The Holy Spirit is not limited only to one group of people. The Holy Spirit indwells all that are in Christ.
The idea of different truths coming out of the same passage must be that one or both interpretations are wrong. God’s Word is never wrong.
One way that the Holy Spirit confirms the Truth is by showing that there are no contradictions to any of the rest of Scripture in what one understands about a particular part of Scripture.
I don’t see any point in going further in this, since it is a different subject.

Hello brkn1,

I also, did not mean any offense with my questions.

I was merely trying to address the subject you brought up referencing the fact you only accept scriptures and no man’s interpretation of those scriptures.

It’s evident that you are unready or unwilling to discuss this, whether it’s the arguments we brought up or for other reasons.

As you addressed the fact that there are more books in our Bible, I would like to state why. It was not that the Catholic Church added books it was because those who were part of the reformation took books away. I would like to point out that those who took books away were men who disagreed with the interpretation of the Bible by others. Those books that are missing from your Bible were a part of the Bible for over 1000 years.

Until you address the authority of the Bible, which is not given by the Bible itself, it would be hard for us as Catholics to understand your intrepretation of the Bible. We understand it was men who, through the canon, selected the contents of the Bible. We believe it was the Holy Spirit that guided those men and their interpretation. Those men were a part of the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that exists today. Without this understanding or at the very least accepting the fact that depending on the Bible is depending on some man’s interpretation of the Bible, I do not think one can defend the authority of the Bible.

I only brought up the authority of the Bible because of your staunch reliance upon it and your interpretation. I still do not understand how protestants can argue their interpretation of the Bible with the thousands of different denominations that have slightly different interpretations of the Bible, all claiming their interpretation of the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit. I do not believe God to be a God of confusion and therefore do not believe that all those personal interpretations are of His works. If this were so it would be an example of contradictions of the scriptures, to use your words.

Catholics do not claim to be an elite group as you’ve stated. We believe that the Church presupposes the Bible and the Bible presupposes the Church. With this, we have one interpretation and one Church. Because of personal interpretations there was a reformation some 500 years ago. Since then, personal interpretations have produced thousands more churchs, some established since 1984 (and probably much more recent, I only mention 1984 as it’s the most recent year I’ve heard a church state it’s establishment).

Continue seeking.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Hello brkn1,

I was merely trying to address the subject you brought up referencing the fact you only accept scriptures and no man’s interpretation of those scriptures.

It’s evident that you are unready or unwilling to discuss this, whether it’s the arguments we brought up or for other reasons.

As you addressed the fact that there are more books in our Bible, I would like to state why. It was not that the Catholic Church added books it was because those who were part of the reformation took books away. I would like to point out that those who took books away were men who disagreed with the interpretation of the Bible by others. Those books that are missing from your Bible were a part of the Bible for over 1000 years.

Until you address the authority of the Bible, which is not given by the Bible itself, it would be hard for us as Catholics to understand your intrepretation of the Bible. We understand it was men who, through the canon, selected the contents of the Bible. We believe it was the Holy Spirit that guided those men and their interpretation. Those men were a part of the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that exists today. Without this understanding or at the very least accepting the fact that depending on the Bible is depending on some man’s interpretation of the Bible, I do not think one can defend the authority of the Bible.

I only brought up the authority of the Bible because of your staunch reliance upon it and your interpretation. I still do not understand how protestants can argue their interpretation of the Bible with the thousands of different denominations that have slightly different interpretations of the Bible, all claiming their interpretation of the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit. I do not believe God to be a God of confusion and therefore do not believe that all those personal interpretations are of His works. If this were so it would be an example of contradictions of the scriptures, to use your words.

Continue seeking.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

The authority of the Bible can be seen in the root word “author”.
We know the Author is God, even though He used chosen men to write it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
No man or group has the right to claim that the Bible is their book. It is God’s Word and, therefore, it is God’s Book.
Any agent, that had a role in preserving it, has no claim to own or sole right to decree how it is interpreted, just because God used that agent to preserve it. God did not need anyone to preserve His Word and it is arrogance to assume so.
God is the One Who did the real preserving of His Scripture, even if he used agents on earth to do so.

There are several verses in Scripture that explain how anyone who is born of the Spirit can understand God’s Word.
(John 16:13) “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come.”
Jesus was speaking to the disciples here, not just the Apostles. That means all of Jesus’ disciples are included in the Holy Spirit’s role of making the Bible understood. Anyone born of the Spirit can be Jesus’ disciple.

There are other verses explaining how we are given by God the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him. (Ephesians 1:17-18) and (Colossians 1:9-10)

See (1Corinthians 2:11-14) and (John 14:26)

I do not depend on someone else’s interpretation of the Bible, for the simple reason of what you pointed out as the great variety of interpretations out there.
I use the Bible as the rule to measure whether what others say is the truth is really the truth. If I find a contradiction, then I search God’s Word to find out why there is a contradiction.
My dependence for truth is God’s Word as the Holy Spirit guides me. God’s Wisdom should never be put on a par with man’s foolish wisdom. I do not care if a trillion people go along with some “truth”. If it can not be verified by God’s Word, I reject it until the Holy Spirit shows me whether it is true or not.
I want to add that it seems to be laziness on many people’s part to not seriously study God’s Word for themselves. Such laziness can be dangerous, if that person depends on others for truth. They might be seriously wrong. The Holy Spirit will let a true believer know when something said by others is false. It is time to check Scripture then for confirmation. One should not blindly accept what other men claim as truth.
I trust God’s Word alone in the final analysis.
I trust my salvation to God alone too. That was all the thief on the cross had, so why complicate the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.