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

[anthony022071]

I never said that the breaking of bread in commemoration of Jesus’ Sacrifice was not to be observed. There is a spiritual blessing in doing so often.
My primary disagreement with you and others here has to do with whether the elements of the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus.

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;3770616:

The bread and wine are his immortal body and blood. He is the bread from heaven.

It was Jesus who said to “this is my body” and “this is my blood”,and he did not qualify that statement. The Jews would have considered Jesus sacreligious even if they thought he did not mean his actual body and blood. He should not even have suggested eating a spiritual body and blood. They were accostomed to him speaking figuratively and in parables,so there is no reason to think that they would have stayed with him if they thought he was speaking of spiritual flesh and blood.

Jesus did not say that he was speaking only spiritually. Paul said that we will be resurrected with a spiritual body. But Christ’s spiritual body is no less an actual or literal body.

Even the disciples who stayed with Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about. They could not have fully known until after the Resurrection.

Jesus did not say that they misunderstood him.

He did not tell his disciples they must eat with him,but eat him.
He does not qualify his statement,but emphasizes it.

“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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57).

See posts 113 and 115.

Our faith in Jesus and what He did to redeem us that is what saves us from our sins and gives us eternal life.
Jesus gave his flesh and shed His blood to redeem us.
We eat and drink of His body and blood when we come to Him in true faith. Jesus even said that those who have not actually seen and believed are more blessed by such true spiritual faith.
Many want to have a literal understanding of eating and drinking of Jesus, which is forbidden in many verses in the OT law.

(John 6:63) has Jesus saying, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profitteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Jesus is clearly telling them that He was not talking about His literal body by the above verse.
Jesus’ literal body was going to be sacrificed once on Calvary to redeem those who would come to Jesus and believe in Him and thereby receive eternal life.
It is the spirit that gives life.
Jesus earlier had told the Samaritan woman that “…the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”
The words of the Lord Jesus are spirit and they are life. Our faith in Jesus must be based on the spiritual “eating and drinking” of Jesus as we remember that He bore the bitter cup of shedding His blood for our sins as He sacrificed His flesh to save us.

 

[brkn1]

Yet, rather than “save” those who misunderstood, he let them walk away? How come everytime he spoke metaphorically, in parables, he explained himself so there would be no misinterpretation? Instead, this time he continued with, John 6:
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

To me he was clearing things up by restating what they could not bare to hear

The law not to drink blood was from pagan sacrifices where they would kill a bull for example and drink it’s blood to receive it’s strength. Drinking the blood of a false God was prohibited. To drink the blood of our Lord, the real God, as he asks, gives spiritual strength instead.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

The law is very clear about NO drinking ANY manner of blood.

(Leviticus 7:26-27), (Leviticus 17:10-14), (Genesis 9:4), (Deut. 12:23)

I bet there are more.

Is your explanation official RCC doctrine?

It changes scripture if it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since you have changed the subject to the old law, I will respond accordingly.

I know the under the old covenant laws, all blood had to be drained from meat. There is a process to remove blood from meat to make it “kosher”.

Wasn’t the law also quite clear, as you put it, about Jews sitting and eating with sinners and tax collectors?

We all know it upset the Pharisees when our Lord did this.

The Pharisees held fast to the old covenant standards of holiness that required all citizens of Israel to separate themselves from all things unclean including keeping the company with the likes of Gentiles. Jesus served as an example of the new covenant.

At Passover, the Jews were instructed to make a sacrifice of an unblemished lamb and to sprinkle the blood on their doorposts. That in itself was not enough to save their firstborn, they had to eat the sacrifice.

Jesus’ sacrifice was part of the new covenant, with all people and not just the Israelites.

Jesus said or taught the following himself;

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mar 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The book of Hebrews really, in my opinion, addresses your references to the old covenant the best.

Heb 10:29 and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

Heb 8:6 As it is, he has been given a ministry as far superior as is the covenant of which he is the mediator, which is founded on better promises.
Heb 8:7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no room for a second one to replace it.
Heb 8:8 And in fact God does find fault with them; he says: Look, the days are coming, the Lord declares, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah,
Heb 8:9 but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors, the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, which covenant of mine they broke, and I too abandoned them, the Lord declares.
Heb 8:10 No, this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel, when those days have come, the Lord declares: In their minds I shall plant my laws writing them on their hearts. Then I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 There will be no further need for each to teach his neighbour, and each his brother, saying ‘Learn to know the Lord!’ No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest,
Heb 8:12 since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sins to mind.
Heb 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, he implies that the first one is old. And anything old and ageing is ready to disappear.

I hate to be redundant, but I bet there are more.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.

Oh, by the way, what was your thoughts on the canon and the timeline presented of when the Bible was actually put together by the early Church fathers? I am very interested in knowing since you feel it’s ok to disregard anything from any of the early Church fathers and I did alot of research to produce that information for you.

It seems you might have overlooked it. It’s post #120.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Since you have changed the subject to the old law, I will respond accordingly.

I know the under the old covenant laws, all blood had to be drained from meat. There is a process to remove blood from meat to make it “kosher”.

Wasn’t the law also quite clear, as you put it, about Jews sitting and eating with sinners and tax collectors?

We all know it upset the Pharisees when our Lord did this.

The Pharisees held fast to the old covenant standards of holiness that required all citizens of Israel to separate themselves from all things unclean including keeping the company with the likes of Gentiles. Jesus served as an example of the new covenant.

At Passover, the Jews were instructed to make a sacrifice of an unblemished lamb and to sprinkle the blood on their doorposts. That in itself was not enough to save their firstborn, they had to eat the sacrifice.

Jesus’ sacrifice was part of the new covenant, with all people and not just the Israelites.

Jesus said or taught the following himself;

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mar 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The book of Hebrews really, in my opinion, addresses your references to the old covenant the best.

Heb 10:29 and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

Heb 8:6 As it is, he has been given a ministry as far superior as is the covenant of which he is the mediator, which is founded on better promises.
Heb 8:7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no room for a second one to replace it.
Heb 8:8 And in fact God does find fault with them; he says: Look, the days are coming, the Lord declares, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah,
Heb 8:9 but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors, the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, which covenant of mine they broke, and I too abandoned them, the Lord declares.
Heb 8:10 No, this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel, when those days have come, the Lord declares: In their minds I shall plant my laws writing them on their hearts. Then I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 There will be no further need for each to teach his neighbour, and each his brother, saying ‘Learn to know the Lord!’ No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest,
Heb 8:12 since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sins to mind.
Heb 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, he implies that the first one is old. And anything old and ageing is ready to disappear.

I hate to be redundant, but I bet there are more.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

.

I should be very interested in where God’s law is specified in Scripture that prevented Jesus from sitting and eating with tax collectors and sinners. That law would have kept everyone from eating with each other, since all are sinners.

A serious problem, with your other argument about no drinking blood, is that Jesus was still under the Old Testament law at the time that He spoke to those who mistakenly took His words about drinking blood literally in (John 6:53-55).
All of the New Testament verses that you so carefully presented were invalid at the time Jesus spoke. The Old Testament law had not yet “disappeared”, as you suggested.
That would mean that Jesus was telling the Jews to violate the very law that He came to fulfill, if He was telling them to literally drink His blood. Jesus had to be speaking spiritually, as He later said about His words in verse 63.

The (Hebrews 8:7-12) verses you quoted have not come to past yet. If you carefully read what is said in those verses, you will find that there would be no need for any preaching, or interpretation of Scripture, or even your Magisterium. Everyone would know all truth and it would already be written in their hearts (spiritually, not literally, of course).

 

[brkn1]

brkn1,

(First, I apologize if the OP objects to the following presentation. I wish to include it as it seems the authority of the Bible has come into question because of personal interpretations.)

Since you haven’t addressed my earlier post referencing the early Church fathers and the canon of the Bible, I wish to explain our position.

The first canon took place in the year 360AD. This was the first decision as to what letters/books were the inspired word of God.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

You can read this directly from the source by visiting this link.

The main point I am trying to demostrate to you is the fact that the list of letters/books in the Bible were not decided until over 3 centuries after the death of Christ, and well after the death of all the original apostles. This also, demostrates the authority of the early Church fathers to make this decision. The very Bible that you read was compiled under the authority of the early Church fathers. This means they had through their interpretations, they decided on which books would be in the Bible.

With this knowledge, why would you reject specific writings from those early Church fathers or from early Church fathers from a much earlier time? Some of the early Church fathers who lived with and learned from apostles.

So far we have provided documentation, through research which was other than our own personal interpretations, and a response would be very much appreciated.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

I have read the information you presented here and it seems to be asking why I reject the seven books that are not included in the Bible I use.

The only answer I can give is that I find the KJV bible to be very satisfactory and complete.
I have read a few of the other books you have in your bible and they seemed to be more of a history book than God’s Word. I have not studied those books enough to seriously discuss the subject.
Instead of discussing this right now, I prefer to stick to the original subject.

 

[ibkc]

A serious problem, with your other argument about no drinking blood, is that Jesus was still under the Old Testament law at the time that He spoke to those who mistakenly took His words about drinking blood literally in (John 6:53-55).
All of the New Testament verses that you so carefully presented were invalid at the time Jesus spoke. The Old Testament law had not yet “disappeared”, as you suggested.

Jesus IS God. The Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment He spoke.

The argument you seem to be making here is that Jesus was simply any other man and therefore He had no authority to teach something other than the old laws. That isn’t the basis of Christianity.

That would mean that Jesus was telling the Jews to violate the very law that He came to fulfill, if He was telling them to literally drink His blood.

I think maybe you’re starting to get the point, even if you won’t accept it. Jesus gave his followers a very hard teaching which was very difficult for them to accept. Most of them left him. A few did not. That process is still going on, as the title of this thread so succinctly states.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have read the information you presented here and it seems to be asking why I reject the seven books that are not included in the Bible I use.

Instead of discussing this right now, I prefer to stick to the original subject.

Hello brkn1,

You still don’t answer the question and seem to be either confused or avoiding the point. It was not why you reject the seven books, it was why you rejected any teachings of the early Church fathers who put the letters and books of the Bible together.

In this thread, someone used the early Church fathers to give an example of what the early Church fathers said about the body and blood. You rejected those and said you could ignore them as they were not in scriptures and their interpretations were only that of men.

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.

In an attempt to give validity to the early Church fathers and their opinions, I brought up that the Holy Spirit had to have guided them with some of the early Church fathers deciding on which letters and books would be included in the whole Bible.

Then in the post you replied too, I provided a history of the canon of the Bible and thought I had addressed the issue clearly as stated below.

The main point I am trying to demostrate to you is the fact that the list of letters/books in the Bible were not decided until over 3 centuries after the death of Christ, and well after the death of all the original apostles. This also, demostrates the authority of the early Church fathers to make this decision. The very Bible that you read was compiled under the authority of the early Church fathers. This means they had through their interpretations, they decided on which books would be in the Bible.

With this knowledge, why would you reject specific writings from those early Church fathers or from early Church fathers from a much earlier time? Some of the early Church fathers who lived with and learned from apostles.

Please tell us, how do you perceive the letters and books of the Bible coming together to make the complete Bible. To be specific, I am providing a small list of questions below.

Please tell us, when you think the Bible was put together?

Please tell us, how you accept those men’s interpretations, of which was and wasn’t inspired scriptures, that brought the letters and books together to form the complete Bible?

If you accept those men’s decision of which was and was not inspired scripture, how can you reject their reasoning for their selections?

I know you say again, that you prefer to discuss the original subject, but this applies as I’ve stated before. If you fail to recognize the authority of the early Church fathers and their interpretations of the letters and books of the Bible it appears you take away some authority in the Bible. Those Holy Spirit guided men that made the decision, of what was inspired and what was not to make their selection, also provided writings with their interpretations of the body and the blood. It seems, to reject their writings is to reject their decision of why they selected what they did to make a complete Bible. Their writings, in our opinions, are explanations of why they selected the letters and books that make the Bible up.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I should be very interested in where God’s law is specified in Scripture that prevented Jesus from sitting and eating with tax collectors and sinners. That law would have kept everyone from eating with each other, since all are sinners.

Mark 2:15 -16
15] And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
[16] And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

There are other examples. To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge that Jews were not permitted to sit and eat with Gentiles. The scribes and Pharisees did not see themselves as sinners, because they followed the old law. They questioned how the Lord could eat with publicans and sinners if He were a holy man.

Here is another example of our Lord “putting away” the old laws.

Mark 2:23 - 28
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The scribes and Pharisees also questioned our Lord for performing miracles on the Sabbath because of old laws. It seems he was instituting new laws with his explanations as well as his actions.

Mark 3:1 - 2
[1] And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

A serious problem, with your other argument about no drinking blood, is that Jesus was still under the Old Testament law at the time that He spoke to those who mistakenly took His words about drinking blood literally in (John 6:53-55).
All of the New Testament verses that you so carefully presented were invalid at the time Jesus spoke. The Old Testament law had not yet “disappeared”, as you suggested.
That would mean that Jesus was telling the Jews to violate the very law that He came to fulfill, if He was telling them to literally drink His blood. Jesus had to be speaking spiritually, as He later said about His words in verse 63.

The (Hebrews 8:7-12) verses you quoted have not come to past yet. If you carefully read what is said in those verses, you will find that there would be no need for any preaching, or interpretation of Scripture, or even your Magisterium. Everyone would know all truth and it would already be written in their hearts (spiritually, not literally, of course).

Respectfully, I disagree. The Lord was the new covenant as I have explained above your quote and as ibkc is also pointing out below.

Jesus IS God. The Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment He spoke.

The argument you seem to be making here is that Jesus was simply any other man and therefore He had no authority to teach something other than the old laws. That isn’t the basis of Christianity.

As you can see a connection with this issue we’re discussing, I kindly ask that you respond to my previous post as it is connected to the topic being discussed.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First, let me say, I sincerely appreciate the sharing of our faiths as different as they may seem to be. This discussion has put me to the test, to read more scriptures, do more research and reflect much on the word of the Lord.

A serious problem, with your other argument about no drinking blood, is that Jesus was still under the Old Testament law at the time that He spoke to those who mistakenly took His words about drinking blood literally in (John 6:53-55).
All of the New Testament verses that you so carefully presented were invalid at the time Jesus spoke. The Old Testament law had not yet “disappeared”, as you suggested.

To explain our belief that Christ was the new covenant, thoughts of the following scriptures came to mind.

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mar 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Christ was offering up His blood, which was of the new testament. His blood was of the new testament, means He was the new testament and was offering up His blood from that source.

That would mean that Jesus was telling the Jews to violate the very law that He came to fulfill, if He was telling them to literally drink His blood. Jesus had to be speaking spiritually, as He later said about His words in verse 63.

When Christ blessed the bread and wine and said this is my body and this is my blood, do you think they actually ate and drank it then? We believe they did and were instructed to continuing doing so as evident in the scriptures below.

1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Mark 2:15 -16
15] And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
[16] And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

There are other examples. To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge that Jews were not permitted to sit and eat with Gentiles. The scribes and Pharisees did not see themselves as sinners, because they followed the old law. They questioned how the Lord could eat with publicans and sinners if He were a holy man.

Here is another example of our Lord “putting away” the old laws.

Mark 2:23 - 28
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The scribes and Pharisees also questioned our Lord for performing miracles on the Sabbath because of old laws. It seems he was instituting new laws with his explanations as well as his actions.

Mark 3:1 - 2
[1] And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

Respectfully, I disagree. The Lord was the new covenant as I have explained above your quote and as ibkc is also pointing out below.

As you can see a connection with this issue we’re discussing, I kindly ask that you respond to my previous post as it is connected to the topic being discussed.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

The “common knowledge” about “laws”, that you referred to, are not God’s laws. Those laws that Jesus constantly “broke” and denounced the Pharisees as hypocrites for insisting on enforcing, are the “laws” brought into the Jewish religion by the Sanhedrin, which corresponds to your Magisterium.
Those laws, not from God, were part of what made God’s laws “to none effect”, as Jesus pointed out.
The Sanhedrin was the group that conspired and succeeded in killing Jesus, which does not speak well for such groups. That might give you an idea why I do not go along with groups formed out of man’s wisdom. The Sanhedrin had its origins in the “wisdom” of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, who was not even a member of Israel.

The law about no drinking of any manner of blood was God’s law. It was in effect at the time when Jesus first mentioned the “drinking” of His blood. Jesus was not overriding any of God’s laws at that time, since He was observing and fulfilling all of God’s laws. The veil of the temple had not been rent from top to bottom yet, so Jesus could not have been telling others to “literally drink” His blood, or He would have been violating God’s law.
Jesus was speaking spiritually as He later said about His words.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The “common knowledge” about “laws”, that you referred to, are not God’s laws. Those laws that Jesus constantly “broke” and denounced the Pharisees as hypocrites for insisting on enforcing, are the “laws” brought into the Jewish religion by the Sanhedrin, which corresponds to your Magisterium.
Those laws, not from God, were part of what made God’s laws “to none effect”, as Jesus pointed out.
The Sanhedrin was the group that conspired and succeeded in killing Jesus, which does not speak well for such groups. That might give you an idea why I do not go along with groups formed out of man’s wisdom. The Sanhedrin had its origins in the “wisdom” of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, who was not even a member of Israel.

The law about no drinking of any manner of blood was God’s law. It was in effect at the time when Jesus first mentioned the “drinking” of His blood. Jesus was not overriding any of God’s laws at that time, since He was observing and fulfilling all of God’s laws. The veil of the temple had not been rent from top to bottom yet, so Jesus could not have been telling others to “literally drink” His blood, or He would have been violating God’s law.
Jesus was speaking spiritually as He later said about His words.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh.”

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That might give you an idea why I do not go along with groups formed out of man’s wisdom.

May I ask what church you belong too? If not a church, what group of Christians do you belong too? I’d really be interested in hearing you explain how and when that church or group was formed without some “man’s” opinion.

Also, I see you avoided to address my thoughts in post 131.

To explain our belief that Christ was the new covenant, thoughts of the following scriptures came to mind.

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mar 14:23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Christ was offering up His blood, which was of the new testament. His blood was of the new testament, means He was the new testament and was offering up His blood from that source.

Last but not least, I know you stated you don’t want to discuss the subject of the early Church fathers because you believe it to be an entirely different subject (See post 129). But I have to say it is, in my opinion, very much a part of this thread’s topic. As I’ve stated in post 129.

Those Holy Spirit guided men that made the decision, of what was inspired and what was not to make their selection, also provided writings with their interpretations of the body and the blood.

You cannot reject our submission of early Church father documents until you respond to those issues I’ve stated in post 129.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[wisdomseeker]

May I ask what church you belong too? If not a church, what group of Christians do you belong too? I’d really be interested in hearing you explain how and when that church or group was formed without some “man’s” opinion.

Also, I see you avoided to address my thoughts in post 131.

Last but not least, I know you stated you don’t want to discuss the subject of the early Church fathers because you believe it to be an entirely different subject (See post 129). But I have to say it is, in my opinion, very much a part of this thread’s topic. As I’ve stated in post 129.

You cannot reject our submission of early Church father documents until you respond to those issues I’ve stated in post 129.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

I honestly would like to hear from those who claim that the CC does not follow what the early christians taught. i would like for them to point out to me what the early christians taught.

and tell me who were those early christians.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I honestly would like to hear from those who claim that the CC does not follow what the early christians taught. i would like for them to point out to me what the early christians taught.

and tell me who were those early christians.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

He has stated, since they are not in scriptures he can ignore what they say. He considers their interpretations to be “man’s” interpretation. That’s why I had to ask about the authority of the Bible since those men decided which scriptures, through letters and individual books, would be included in the Bible we all read today.

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.

Man’s interpretation of Scripture does not interest me nearly as much as simply reading God’s Word.

He has argued that it is a change of subject. Since those men, based on their interpretations, selected the contents of the Bible, I think it is very much a part of the subject of this thread to see what those men had to say about the body and blood of our Lord.

So far, he’s the only one to object to me making that arguement.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[wisdomseeker]

He has stated, since they are not in scriptures he can ignore what they say. He considers their interpretations to be “man’s” interpretation. That’s why I had to ask about the authority of the Bible since those men decided which scriptures, through letters and individual books, would be included in the Bible we all read today.

He has argued that it is a change of subject. Since those men, based on their interpretations, selected the contents of the Bible, I think it is very much a part of the subject of this thread to see what those men had to say about the body and blood of our Lord.

So far, he’s the only one to object to me making that arguement.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

they cannot accept the early christian witnesses to the faith because it is the only way they can hold on to their teachings without any one to contradict them. by simply ignoring what was taught in the beginning.

besided in their minds they are the ones who can interpret SS not the early christians. ironically they say interpretation of man, yet they are also man subject to false interpretation. it is a sad, sad situation.

my friend is a prebiteryan and she always told how ML was a Augustian monk and yet when i quoted St Augustine teachings she replied she doesnt believe what he taught.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ******

 

[AlegreFe]

"MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST" Sunday Mass -May 25, 2008-

The Jews at that time had the same beliefs as many Protestants do today for scripture says in:
(John 6: 52) At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can he give us his flesh to eat."

The Quarrel still continues here today in this forum how sad.
Do you Protestants see the same beliefs as do the Jews above?

(John 6: 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU, if you do not eat the FLESH of the Son of Man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.

If you don’t take Our Lords words literally and eat and drink believing that it is his flesh and it is his blood how can you be saved. Don’t be like those Jews above who left him, you still have a chance ask Jesus to give you the Grace to believe. Or do you want to leave like the Jews above.

(John 6: 60-61)After hearing his words, MANY of his disciples remarked, :This sort of talk is HARD TO ENDURE! How can anyone take it SERIOUSLY. Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in PROTEST at what HE HAD SAID. "Does this SHAKE YOUR FAITH? he asked them.

Does it shake your faith.

Yes this is so true. My protestant brother called me a cannibal.

Here is the definition of cannibal according to the secular dictionary;

can·ni·bal kánnib’l ] (plural can·ni·bals)
noun
Definition:

1. eater of human flesh: somebody who eats human flesh
2. animal that eats its own species: an animal that eats the flesh of other animals of the same species
   Even though Jesus is man He is also Divine. We are human but are not Divine. Jesus said that flesh was of no avail. I think He meant our human flesh because we are not Divine and only His Divine flesh in the Spirit would give us life. Of course He also meant our own human understanding without faith would be no good. We would have to have the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit in order to believe the words of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The law is very clear about NO drinking ANY manner of blood.

(Leviticus 7:26-27), (Leviticus 17:10-14), (Genesis 9:4), (Deut. 12:23)

I bet there are more.

It changes scripture if it is.

This law is fulfilled in Jesus christ, because for one he is not dead but alive, so to revert his true presence teaching to the law of cannibolism does not apply, for Jesus lives, and if he lives, so does his body and blood.

I see here, two things that are touched on, what is of the flesh (old covenant) and those things pertaining to the Spirit (new covenant). Now Jesus was both, God incarnate, both flesh and Spirit.

Consider the old covenant passover; a lamb, blood, being poured from the lamb, from the first born death, and “the rememberance” from the freedom from bondage. The new covenant of Jesus, commands us also to do in “Rememberance” just like the first one, only this one is the true passover from death of the old covenant into the new covenant that gives eternal life…which consists of a Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, a lambs blood, to cleanse us and deliver us from the old covenant that requiered a death, either, by man who could not keep the covenant, or God. God provides the sacrifice “himself” in order to remove those that are held to the old covenant of the flesh.

That is why Jesus states, to come out of the old covenant that convicts you, you must eat the lamb of God, and drink his blood in order to be freed from the old (flesh) covenant. That is why many of his disciples left him and went to their former way of living , which was the old covenant of the flesh. Then Jesus concludes after they leave, it is the Spirit (new covenant) that gives life, the flesh( old covenant is of no avail) and in scripture; is close to disappearing.

The misunderstanding here is what is of the flesh is flesh, and what is of the Spirit is life eternal. If you are of the flesh, the old covenant convicts you and keeps you in the flesh, and from understanding the great mystical body and blood of Jesus Christ. If you are of the Spirit, Jesus reveals himself to you in his mystical body and blood, in the Eucharist, that gives eternal life. For" faith is the realization of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". To be in the Spirit is to have faith and knowledge of the mysteries of God that are never exhausted by ones knowledge, but grows and grows… If you are of the flesh, your faith is carnal knowledge, you are only moved by what you see, and the only sign God gives you is the one of Jonah, who was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, and then beached. This is Jesus crucified a stumbling block for the wise.

peace be with you

 

[anthony022071]

[brkn1]

Our faith in Jesus and what He did to redeem us that is what saves us from our sins and gives us eternal life.
Jesus gave his flesh and shed His blood to redeem us.
We eat and drink of His body and blood when we come to Him in true faith.

That’s not what he said. He said “take and eat”,“take and drink”.

Jesus even said that those who have not actually seen and believed are more blessed by such true spiritual faith.
Many want to have a literal understanding of eating and drinking of Jesus, which is forbidden in many verses in the OT law.

The Jewish law does not forbid eating and drinking Jesus.
But the scriptures do mention the priest Melchizedek,who brought out bread and wine to Abram. And the letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

(John 6:63) has Jesus saying, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profitteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Jesus is clearly telling them that He was not talking about His literal body by the above verse.

Jesus was not talking about eating his body in that verse. He
was referring to the question he had just asked,about the Son of Man in heaven.

Jesus’ literal body was going to be sacrificed once on Calvary to redeem those who would come to Jesus and believe in Him and thereby receive eternal life.
It is the spirit that gives life.

The Spirit gave life to the body of Jesus after he had been dead.
He is still true God and true man in heaven. If he was only spirit and not sprit and body,then he would be only God and not both
God and man. He would not be the Son of Man.

Jesus earlier had told the Samaritan woman that “…the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”
The words of the Lord Jesus are spirit and they are life. Our faith in Jesus must be based on the spiritual “eating and drinking” of Jesus as we remember that He bore the bitter cup of shedding His blood for our sins as He sacrificed His flesh to save us.

Then what is the significance of Jesus handing his disciples the bread and wine and telling them to eat and drink? How is it possible to do these physical acts in memory of him through faith alone?