M
- Status
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
are you off your meds i will not get confussed. eat with a doaror way
“I am the way.” “I am the door.” Figurative language, we’ll agree. He said He was the door, but He never said the door was Him. He never put His hand on a door and said, “this is me.”
However, He did do so with the bread and wine in that upper room on Maundy Thursday. He took it and broke it and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat, this is my body”.
I may not convince you, but it is obviously a different kind of language.
Jon
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I don’t know how you can say this.
These are some more quotes from the same sources, and this time **I have added emphasis **so perhaps you can see these quotes through my eyes.
We do this in remembrance of him. Nothing less, nothing more. It appears that you are “understanding carnally”
S
SyCarl
Guest
I really don’t know what you are getting at. Reread the quotes I gave. None of them supports a literal reading of John 6. Augustine did not read it literally, whatever else he might have believed.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
The operative word here is SOME. Not me. Besides I am not protestant.
P
pete_29
Guest
That’s why I said some, but can anyone tell me why this is.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I am the gate. Am am am
No difference linguistically. But see above. Augustine says it is a figure and to be taken spiritually, not carnally.
Ever heard of a=b? If a=b then b=a. The only difference is first person vs third person.
V
VociMike
Guest
But we are not literally sheep. Nor are we literally branches. Nor do we literally have springs of water welling up inside of us.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I do not doubt that Catholic tradition supports your view. That is clearly evident.
I believe that the sacrament (eucharist to you) is the body and blood of Christ. Symbolically.
Is Jesus the light of the world? Of course he is. But he is not in my room when I turn the light on.
If I turn the light on, and pray, he could be. Not because the light is on, but because I am praying.
Is he the bread of life? When we partake of the sacrament we are in him physically in the sense that the church is his body and we are in the membership of the church. Is he in us? We take the bread into our bodies, and he abides spiritually in us. So he is within us and without us. But the bread is not his flesh, it is bread. But his presence symbolically in this act gives us life, so he is the bread of life.
Is he a sheperd? He takes care of me as if I am one of his lambs but this is a metaphor. Even while alive, I think he probably never nursed a real lamb. He was a carpenter as far as we know.
But I suppose we will never convince eachother, so I don’t know if there is much point in repeating the question. But if anyone wants to know why we believe that the real presence isn’t real in the same way you think it is, that is the answer. I think the case is a good one, but obviously our beliefs are still unchanged
N
NDfan
Guest
Jon yes it is a different kind of language. Study the passover and the seder meal and you will see how this is implied by Christ. During the seder meal the Jews eat unlevened bread to symbolically represent the body of the lambs slain during the exodus. Prior to the destruction of the temple the jews would eat the meat of the lamb. After their meal they drink a cup of wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lambs. This is the 3rd cup of wine taken after the seder meal and is called the cup of redemption.
Clearly Christ is instituting the new covenant in which HE is the final sacrificial Lamb represented in the elements of the bread and wine in the seder. The reason Christ used the bread is because he knew the temple would be destroyed and would therefore provide no place to sacrifice a lamb. Today since the jews do not eat the sacrificial lamb they use a shank bone called the zeroah to symbolize the lamb on the seder plate, but eat the bread to symbolize the body of the lamb in place of the meat. It is all symbolic.
Once one understands completely the jewish customs the words of Christ become more understandable.
E
emarc
Guest
TO THE UNBELIEVERS OF JOHN 6; a monastic priest in lanciano, italy during the 700 a.d. doubted whether the Body of Our Lord was truly present in the consecrated Host. he celebrated Mass and when he said the words of consecration, he saw the host turn into Flesh and the wine turn into Blood. everything was visible to those in attendance. the Flesh is still intact and the Blood is divided into five unequal parts which together have the exact same weight as each one does separately. the miracle was the object of several official acknowledgements on the part of ecclesiastical authorities between 1574 and 1886, not to mention most recently in 1971, when it was subjected to a scientific examination carried out by doctors linoli and bertelli in sienna,italy w/c concluded: "The Flesh is true human flesh (formed by muscular tissue from the heart); the Blood is true blood(belonging to the same blood type, AB, as the flesh) the component substances are those of human tissues, normal and fresh. the conservation of the Flesh and the Blood, left in their natural state for 12th centuries, and exposed to the influence of atmospheric and biological elements, remains an extraordinary phenomenon (the Linoli Report). visitors can still witness the Body and Blood at st. francis church after more than 1200 years of existence. there are many more miracles of hosts turning into his Body and Blood, but for the unbelievers, no proof is enough, as their eyes are permanently veiled.
God bless.
God bless.
C
caudy
Guest
Well said. There will always be people who have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. Jesus could appear in front of them holding a piece of bread and say “Truly, Truly this IS my body” and they would say he is only speaking figuratively.TO THE UNBELIEVERS OF JOHN 6; a monastic priest in lanciano, italy during the 700 a.d. doubted whether the Body of Our Lord was truly present in the consecrated Host. he celebrated Mass and when he said the words of consecration, he saw the host turn into Flesh and the wine turn into Blood. everything was visible to those in attendance. the Flesh is still intact and the Blood is divided into five unequal parts which together have the exact same weight as each one does separately. the miracle was the object of several official acknowledgements on the part of ecclesiastical authorities between 1574 and 1886, not to mention most recently in 1971, when it was subjected to a scientific examination carried out by doctors linoli and bertelli in sienna,italy w/c concluded: "The Flesh is true human flesh (formed by muscular tissue from the heart); the Blood is true blood(belonging to the same blood type, AB, as the flesh) the component substances are those of human tissues, normal and fresh. the conservation of the Flesh and the Blood, left in their natural state for 12th centuries, and exposed to the influence of atmospheric and biological elements, remains an extraordinary phenomenon (the Linoli Report). visitors can still witness the Body and Blood at st. francis church after more than 1200 years of existence. there are many more miracles of hosts turning into his Body and Blood, but for the unbelievers, no proof is enough, as their eyes are permanently veiled.
God bless.
Unlike some of the other posts I believe John 6 does a great job of showing that we must literally consume the flesh and blood of Christ. Why else would the disbelievers say “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” If Jesus was speaking figuratively he would have corrected them and explained himself. “No don’t go away! I was just speaking figuratively, this bread isn’t really my flesh!”.
Please note that the words “Amen, Amen” when used prior to something are indicating emphasis on what words are being said next to be taken seriously. Basically “Pay attention this is important!” That’s why the more accurate Greek to English translation in the RSV-CE uses the words “Truly, Truly”.
John 6:53-57
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who **eats my flesh and drinks my blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 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.
I don’t see an argument for symbolic flesh and neither did the apostles or early fathers of the Church.
B
believers
Guest
It’s figurative. Just like in Hebews 6:5
geuomai
- to taste, to try the flavour of
- to taste
a) i.e. perceive the flavour of, partake of, enjoy
b) to feel, make trial of, experience - to take food, eat, to take nourishment, eat
Hbr 6:5 And have tasted (geuomai) the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
M
mfbukowski
Guest
(emphasis added)
So I am confused. Is the eucharist symbolic or actually the body and blood of Christ? What are you saying?
N
nbtb1348
Guest
You’re right on. And the real question, with all due respect, is how many Roman Catholics have eaten the flesh of Jesus and drunk his blood in the deepest sense–the level which is far more important than the Eucharist-------he life-changing appropriation of his death on the cross through a faith transaction that brings forgiveness, justification, yes, salvation–the new birth. THAT IS THE ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION. You can take mass every day and NEVER have been saved. How many truly understand what happened on the cross. Protestant churches have MANY, MANY people who haven’t seen and haven’t been saved, and Catholic churches, I believe, may have far more of a problem with that. How ironic that many argue over real presence but have not experienced real salvation. THAT is the issue of issues, make no mistake about it.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Hmmm. What if I told you he appeared and told me it was symbolic. Would you believe me? Why should I believe you? Do you believe in visions? What about Joseph Smith’s vision?
He did that. He said that his words were spiritual and that the “flesh profiteth nothing”. Didn’t you see the Augustine quote above about this? That is what he says.
Augustine disagrees with you. I think I’ll go with him.
Depends on who you read.
C
caudy
Guest
Well the Church disagrees with you. I think I’ll go with them.
- Status