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

[brkn1]

It is through the Holy Spirit and God that transubstansiation takes place. Even the Apostles celebrated this.

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire blah…blah …blah(Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and blah…blah…blah(First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Paul Confirms This

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

So you get your interpetation of the real presence from who and where?

What is their authority? and who gave them such authority/

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.

I noticed that you used (1 Cor. 10) to explain the word “participation” or “communion” as meaning the same thing as “literally eating” Christ.
Maybe you should not have skipped over Paul’s earlier statement in that chapter, which clearly explains how we “eat” of the Lord.
( 1Cor. 10:3-4) " And did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat;"
" And did all drink the same SPIRITUAL drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Paul’s use of the word SPIRITUAL should give pause to anyone assuming that the same spiritual application does not apply to the bread and wine. Don’t forget that the water and rock was, at times, literal water and a literal rock, as the bread and wine are also literal elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Your Chapter 11 verses and point about the literal body and blood falls apart again, when you go back to (1 Cor. 11:24-25).

24." And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me."
25. “After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of Me.”

The RCC translates “do” as meaning “offer in sacrifice”.
The RCC dismisses the word “REMEMBRANCE” by making the elements the “actual” or literal body and blood of Christ, which requires no “remembrance”, since you do not have to remember what is the literal actual thing before you. It makes no sense that Jesus would use “remembrance”, if “actual” would have been a better word to use.

As to where I get my interpretation?.. Why, it is from the Word of God as the Holy Spirit guides me to understand it. I give God the glory!

As to whose authority?..Why, God has all authority in matters of interpreting His Word. If something does not line up to God’s Word in Scripture, it has no authority and it is not from God. It is God alone that I trust. If you choose others to follow, it is to your peril to do so. No man can override or change God’s Word in the least, to fit their interpretation of the rule of Scripture.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Re: Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr ~ Do you know who it is that you are ignoring? Do you know anything about them?

And is it really that you can ignore “anything they say that doesn’t line up with Scripture” or is it actually that you can ignore “anything they say that doesn’t line up with your interpretation and understanding of Scripture”?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

I noticed that you used (1 Cor. 10) to explain the word “participation” or “communion” as meaning the same thing as “literally eating” Christ.
Maybe you should not have skipped over Paul’s earlier statement in that chapter, which clearly explains how we “eat” of the Lord.
( 1Cor. 10:3-4) " And did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat;"
" And did all drink the same SPIRITUAL drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Paul’s use of the word SPIRITUAL should give pause to anyone assuming that the same spiritual application does not apply to the bread and wine. Don’t forget that the water and rock was, at times, literal water and a literal rock, as the bread and wine are also literal elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Your Chapter 11 verses and point about the literal body and blood falls apart again, when you go back to (1 Cor. 11:24-25).

24." And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me."
25. “After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of Me.”

The RCC translates “do” as meaning “offer in sacrifice”.
The RCC dismisses the word “REMEMBRANCE” by making the elements the “actual” or literal body and blood of Christ, which requires no “remembrance”, since you do not have to remember what is the literal actual thing before you. It makes no sense that Jesus would use “remembrance”, if “actual” would have been a better word to use.

As to where I get my interpretation?.. Why, it is from the Word of God as the Holy Spirit guides me to understand it. I give God the glory!

As to whose authority?..Why, God has all authority in matters of interpreting His Word. If something does not line up to God’s Word in Scripture, it has no authority and it is not from God. It is God alone that I trust. If you choose others to follow, it is to your peril to do so. No man can override or change God’s Word in the least, to fit their interpretation of the rule of Scripture.

The Old Testament prophecizes the New Testament and the New fulfills the Old.

Wasn’t there a rock that followed the Israelites and gave them water in the desert in the time of Moses?

Also, did you see my post in this thread listing scriptures showing other verses referencing eating and drinking where the interpretations meant assault?

In reference to your interpretation of the Bible, can you please tell me how so many people can interpret the Bible in different ways and all say they are guided by the Holy Spirit? I mean, there must be thousands of protestant churches with slightly different interpretations. How is your “private” interpretation correct over everyone else?

Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Re: Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr ~ Do you know who it is that you are ignoring? Do you know anything about them?

And is it really that you can ignore “anything they say that doesn’t line up with Scripture” or is it actually that you can ignore “anything they say that doesn’t line up with your interpretation and understanding of Scripture”?

Man’s interpretation of Scripture does not interest me nearly as much as simply reading God’s Word. Even if I agree with what someone teaches, it does not hold the authority of truth that only comes out of Scripture. God’s Word is not that difficult to understand. There are parts that are difficult, but that is what makes the Bible such a wonderful and inexhaustible source of study. The simple Gospel is not hard to understand at all, unless we allow someone “wise” to complicate it, which many do. It seems that the more learned and “wise” men are prone to mess up what God’s Wisdom already puts forth clearly.
It always makes me wonder when people say that God’s Word is difficult to understand.

 

[brkn1]

The Old Testament prophecizes the New Testament and the New fulfills the Old.

Wasn’t there a rock that followed the Israelites and gave them water in the desert in the time of Moses?

Also, did you see my post in this thread listing scriptures showing other verses referencing eating and drinking where the interpretations meant assault?

In reference to your interpretation of the Bible, can you please tell me how so many people can interpret the Bible in different ways and all say they are guided by the Holy Spirit? I mean, there must be thousands of protestant churches with slightly different interpretations. How is your “private” interpretation correct over everyone else?

Prodigal Son1

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Are you not a man? I asked more than offered the reference of the Rock that follows the Israelites. See below and explain how your interpretation supercedes all other interpretations please.

In reference to your interpretation of the Bible, can you please tell me how so many people can interpret the Bible in different ways and all say they are guided by the Holy Spirit? I mean, there must be thousands of protestant churches with slightly different interpretations. How is your “private” interpretation correct over everyone else?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Man’s interpretation of Scripture does not interest me nearly as much as simply reading God’s Word. Even if I agree with what someone teaches, it does not hold the authority of truth that only comes out of Scripture. God’s Word is not that difficult to understand. There are parts that are difficult, but that is what makes the Bible such a wonderful and inexhaustible source of study. The simple Gospel is not hard to understand at all, unless we allow someone “wise” to complicate it, which many do. It seems that the more learned and “wise” men are prone to mess up what God’s Wisdom already puts forth clearly.
It always makes me wonder when people say that God’s Word is difficult to understand.

Isn’t your “understanding” of scripture “man’s interpretation”? Isn’t anyone’s?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Please show me where it states in the Bible that all you need is the Bible? I feel confident I can show you a dozen or more that includes traditions.

I noticed that you used (1 Cor. 10) to explain the word “participation” or “communion” as meaning the same thing as “literally eating” Christ.
Maybe you should not have skipped over Paul’s earlier statement in that chapter, which clearly explains how we “eat” of the Lord.
( 1Cor. 10:3-4) " And did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat;"
" And did all drink the same SPIRITUAL drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Paul’s use of the word SPIRITUAL should give pause to anyone assuming that the same spiritual application does not apply to the bread and wine. Don’t forget that the water and rock was, at times, literal water and a literal rock, as the bread and wine are also literal elements of the Lord’s Supper.

I can see how someone, without any guidance, could see it that way. Can’t you see what we’re saying, that it’s real food and drink for our spirit, therefore spiritual food and spiritual drink?

Your Chapter 11 verses and point about the literal body and blood falls apart again, when you go back to (1 Cor. 11:24-25).

24." And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me."
25. “After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of Me.”

The RCC translates “do” as meaning “offer in sacrifice”.

We don’t offer in sacrifice. We share in the one and only sacrifice.

The RCC dismisses the word “REMEMBRANCE” by making the elements the “actual” or literal body and blood of Christ, which requires no “remembrance”, since you do not have to remember what is the literal actual thing before you. It makes no sense that Jesus would use “remembrance”, if “actual” would have been a better word to use.

Again, I can see how someone, without guidance, would see it that way. Can’t you see that we receive communion as per our Lord’s instuctions in remembrance of Him? How often do you receive communion? The reason I ask, is the fact that according to scriptures you provide, our Lord says, “as oft as ye drink it”.

As to where I get my interpretation?.. Why, it is from the Word of God as the Holy Spirit guides me to understand it. I give God the glory!

You say you don’t trust man’s interpretation. Aren’t you a man?

As to whose authority?..Why, God has all authority in matters of interpreting His Word. If something does not line up to God’s Word in Scripture, it has no authority and it is not from God. It is God alone that I trust. If you choose others to follow, it is to your peril to do so. No man can override or change God’s Word in the least, to fit their interpretation of the rule of Scripture.

If everyone claims God’s authority in their interpretation of the Bible, which one is right? There are thousands of different protestant churchs with slightly different interpretations, please show us how your church is the right interpretation? Otherwise, if all are right you have confusion. Surely, you don’t suggest our God is a God of confusion?

Prodigal Son1

 

[Zenas]

I would pose this question to brkn1: Read Malachi 1:11 and tell me what it can possibly mean other than a prophesy of the coming sacrifice of the Eucharist. Interestingly, I have been through two or three studies in the Baptist church on the book of Malachi and no one has ever paused at this verse to comment on it.

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

 

[miketowe]

"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.

Ufamtobie

 

[miketowe]

in this text you have to think like Jesus not mortal man.Jesus said plainly that the bread is his body and that the wine is his blood.To think otherwise would be canabalism.

 

[brkn1]

I would pose this question to brkn1: Read Malachi 1:11 and tell me what it can possibly mean other than a prophesy of the coming sacrifice of the Eucharist. Interestingly, I have been through two or three studies in the Baptist church on the book of Malachi and no one has ever paused at this verse to comment on it.

(Malachi 1:11) “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and A PURE OFFERING for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”

This verse is speaking about the time of “a pure offering”, which is the one and only Perfect, Pure, and Final redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

Jesus was the Perfect and Pure High Priest, Who offered Himself as the Perfect and Pure Sacrifice to the Father for our sins.
This is in fulfillment of all the previous imperfect and temporary offerings, with all the carnal ordinances, done by those imperfect priests that came before Jesus Christ.
The only One, Who could offer such a perfect and pure offering, was the God Man and High Priest, Jesus Christ.

There can be no such further offerings or sacrifices today, since anyone, but Jesus, would be an imperfect priest.
Another problem would be that the Perfect and Pure Offering had to include the shedding of blood (death) of the sacrificed Offering.
Jesus died only once (Heb.7:27), and He rose in glory to never die again.
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 8:1), “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25)

 

[brkn1]

Isn’t your “understanding” of scripture “man’s interpretation”? Isn’t anyone’s?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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’re right, the early Church fathers are not inerrant, even though you have to take into consideration of how the earliest Christians lived. They were taught by either the Apostles or others that were taught by the Apostles. These people were willing to be put to death for so called crimes such as “cannibalism”. Seemingly, they felt strongly that the Body and Blood of Christ were not only real, but worth dieing for. How do you think their interpretation is less important than yours?

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.

Since you request scripture only, can I safely assume you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, God breathed (inspired) word of God?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

You’re right, the early Church fathers are not inerrant, even though you have to take into consideration of how the earliest Christians lived. They were taught by either the Apostles or others that were taught by the Apostles. These people were willing to be put to death for so called crimes such as “cannibalism”. Seemingly, they felt strongly that the Body and Blood of Christ were not only real, but worth dieing for. How do you think their interpretation is less important than yours?

Since you request scripture only, can I safely assume you believe the Bible to be the inerrant, God breathed (inspired) word of God?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

My interpretation, or any other person’s interpretation, is not what is important. The truth of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is what matters today. There must be no error in our coming to Jesus Christ as our Saviour and we must truly believe that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All other matters are secondary to that requirement.
The Holy Spirit will indwell all that have been brought by God to that understanding and true saving belief in Who Jesus Christ is.

I find the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It has a depth that no other book can compare to in the least. Only the Genius of God could have authored such Words.
There is a quality about the Bible that makes it easy for a serious student to later recognize other written works of men as not having the same quality.

The Bible, itself, is not necessary for salvation. The simple gospel of Jesus Christ spoken to or revealed in some way to a person made “thirsty” by the Holy Spirit for God, will do the job of bringing that person into God’s church. The thief on the cross is a good example of such salvation.

My interpretation should not be trusted any more than another man’s interpretation. As a fallible human, I make mistakes and am wrong at times. The Bible is the best rule or measure to confirm the Truth of God. To put our trust in what others say, is a form of laziness and an insult to God, to Whom all of our trust must fully and ultimately be placed in. It is God Who we must believe in to be saved; no other.

May our Lord’s Spirit lead us into all Truth.

brkn1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
brkn1

How can you be sure? I mean, the Bible cannot come outside itself to establish it’s own authority.

So, what makes you so sure these writings are the true Word of God?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[c659smith]

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.

I noticed that you used (1 Cor. 10) to explain the word “participation” or “communion” as meaning the same thing as “literally eating” Christ.
Maybe you should not have skipped over Paul’s earlier statement in that chapter, which clearly explains how we “eat” of the Lord.
( 1Cor. 10:3-4) " And did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat;"
" And did all drink the same SPIRITUAL drink: for they drank of that SPIRITUAL Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Paul’s use of the word SPIRITUAL should give pause to anyone assuming that the same spiritual application does not apply to the bread and wine. Don’t forget that the water and rock was, at times, literal water and a literal rock, as the bread and wine are also literal elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Your Chapter 11 verses and point about the literal body and blood falls apart again, when you go back to (1 Cor. 11:24-25).

24." And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me."
25. “After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of Me.”

The RCC translates “do” as meaning “offer in sacrifice”.
The RCC dismisses the word “REMEMBRANCE” by making the elements the “actual” or literal body and blood of Christ, which requires no “remembrance”, since you do not have to remember what is the literal actual thing before you. It makes no sense that Jesus would use “remembrance”, if “actual” would have been a better word to use.

As to where I get my interpretation?.. Why, it is from the Word of God as the Holy Spirit guides me to understand it. I give God the glory!

As to whose authority?..Why, God has all authority in matters of interpreting His Word. If something does not line up to God’s Word in Scripture, it has no authority and it is not from God. It is God alone that I trust. If you choose others to follow, it is to your peril to do so. No man can override or change God’s Word in the least, to fit their interpretation of the rule of Scripture.

God gave this authority to the Apostles and their successors or did you just pass over that section?

Unfortunately you are all over the bible to attempt to fit your translation.

You ignore John, Luke, Matthew, and Peter.

You Ignore the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr. who were given their leadership and instructions by the Apostles.

You want to take a reading from Paul and how he concludes the real Body and Blood in this letter with Paul first explaining this is first spiritual. Which Jesus also is in the Eucharist but Paul ends with it being the Real Presence.

I do not believe you have been to a Catholic Mass as “Do this in Remembrance of Me” is exactly what is prayed over the Bread and Wine during the cannon.

You remove sections of the bible to suit your own purpose. For the Bible was completed by the Church of Christ, The Catholic Church from the old to the new testament. For by doing so it is the Protestants that have over-ridden to fit their translation and rule of scripture.

It was Luther who attempted to add the words faith alone together in the bible to suit his own self defined theocracy.

What makes the Church infallible is that you can have bad and misguided men in the church that Christ was building such as when Christ had the original 12 apostles and Judas Iscariot being one.
For the Church itself was built infallible by Christ as He is God and God makes no errors and it’s His Church.

But you cannot have a Church being created by evil and mis-guided men.

Your authority comes from no Bishop, Pope, or successor but ones who departed the Church responsible for Murder, destruction, and greed. Man began these Churches not Jesus Christ. they left the Church of Christ.

Who is responsible for interpetation of the Bible in the protestant sects.

No one and this is why they keep dividing amongst themselves over 30,000 times (denominations)

I believe a house dividing amongst itself is scriptural.

The Catholic Church is the same Church weither in San Francisco, New York, Rome, Iraq, Germany, Haiti, Africa, etc… I know what is being said and done in any language and in any country in the Mass or the reading of scripture on any day, week, month, or year.
That my friend is called unity.

God Bless

 

[whitenight21]

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.

Latin translation:
Et accepto pane gratias egit et fregit et dedit eis dicens hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

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.

Drink ye all of this… This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says Mark 14:23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice; any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and at the same time, bid the apostles do so; in these words, Luke 22:19, Do this for a commemoration of me.

Blood of the new testament… As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc. [Hebrews 9:20]; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc."

Praised be to JESUS, ever present in the HOLY EUCHARIST!

 

[brkn1]

How can you be sure? I mean, the Bible cannot come outside itself to establish it’s own authority.

So, what makes you so sure these writings are the true Word of God?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

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.

 

[ufamtobie]

Look at the context of (John 6).
Jesus had recently fed the five thousand. This was a great sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
The people then wanted to take Jesus by force and make Him king. v.15
Jesus tells them, “…Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”
The people were looking to get their bellies filled. Salvation was not on their mind in seeking the Lord.
Jesus pointed to Himself as the “meat” that “endureth unto everlasting life”.
The people still wanted to fill their bellies when they demanded a sign from Jesus such as the mana or bread from heaven.
Jesus then gave them the parable about being the “true bread from heaven”; and He further explained that they must “eat” Him and “drink” His blood. This parable is similar to the other time when the people demanded a sign and Jesus told them that he would give them no sign, but the sign of Jonah. Jesus is not going to talk straight to people who are not true seekers of Him as the Messiah. It was prophesied that He would speak this way to confuse such false seekers.

One of the more important explaining verses that everyone seems to overlook is (John 6:57):
57." As the living Father hath sent Me, and I LIVE by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall LIVE by me."
Jesus does not literally “eat” the Father who is a Spirit in order to LIVE, just as we do not literally “eat” Jesus in order to LIVE.
Jesus confirms this idea in v. 63 : " It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE."

If Jesus were telling the people to literally eat Him, as they mistakenly thought, then they would have been correct to leave Jesus, since the law forbids such cannibalism and drinking of blood. Jesus would never go against the law that he came to fulfill.
Jesus gave His flesh ONE time to redeem all that the Father had given Him. Those given to Jesus would believe as Peter said in verses 68-69
“…Thou hast the words of eternal LIFE.”
" And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (That is the simple gospel.)

As Jesus said earlier, “…, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” (John 6:29)

To be blessed by God’s Grace, so that we can truly believe in the Lord Jesus as our Christ, is to always be spiritually eating of Him, as He is in us by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is how we are saved. Jesus is the gift of LIFE, or the gift of the Bread of Life, which is the “work of God” (Grace).

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.”

It’s only obviously that these Jews knew exactly what Jesus Meant and that is truely to eat and drink his body and blood. And so they left, these Jews thought exactly what you Brkn, think.

Brkn, I know you are scared, I would be to if I were in your shoes you must pray to the Father, for the Grace to believe in Our Lords Words to eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood.
John 6: 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; I will raise him up on the last day.

Brkn, does this Bible verse sound like your way of thinking:
(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. "

We Catholics take it VERY SERIOUSLY and through the GRACE of GOD we find it VERY EASY for Our Lord Spoke it.

Brkn, you take it very lightly thats why you find "This Sort of talk is HARD to ENDURE!

Brkn, Let’s assume you are right, and all of us Catholics since the begining of Christianity is wrong what would Jesus Say to all us Catholics? …Jesus would say I did not mean it literally, but thanks for believing that I have the power do such a thing.

Brkn, Now lets say you are wrong and wrong you are what would Jesus tell YOU? The Answer is in:*** (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.***

Yes, if i were you I would get down on my knees and pray to the Father for the Grace of truely believing in the BODY and BLOOD OR BE LIKE THEM JEWS WHO LEFT JESUS ITS YOUR CHOICE YOUR FREE WILL.

UFAMTOBIE