Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

[alanjeddy]

Benjamin this is way overblown. Jesus gave HIS flesh as a sacrifice for us. No one would ever down play that or state that it profits nothing. You need to stay in context with what Jesus was saying to a bunch of law-abiding Jews. That’s the problem with trying to interpreting scripture in today’s language. To a Jew at this time it was clear they were thinking Jesus was teaching them to literally eat HIS flesh and blood to have eternal life. A command they knew they couldn’t keep because GOD strictly forbid it. Jesus corrects them and states the spirit gives life not the flesh.

When Jesus spoke about the flesh is of no avail He wasn’t talking about His own flesh. He was talking about the corruptability of the body that will end up in the grave. It is the spirit that gives life. the soul is the source of all holiness that really matters. Our soul gets us into heaven or hell. Jesus isn’t talking about His own flesh. Even the gnostics believed in the corruptibility of the body as the source of all sin. Scott Hahn taught me this and he was a Protestant before coming home to the church.

 

[mfbukowski]

Man would I love to get this man on stage in a debate on the mirales of Jesus. especially John 6.

Yeah, right. You pick the stage and I will pick the audience and we will see who wins or loses. The problem here is that you don’t care about the truth, just winning a stupid debate. You are just stage struck.

 

[mfbukowski]

that is man-made doctrine that is not even older then 500 hundred years.

I suggest you take medical treatments that are more than 500 years old, since the world has not advanced.

 

[mfbukowski]

Ok … I had my rant so we are even … if you want we can reset and go over this again … if not then just decline.

Proving is not the point of this exercise … Scripture cannot prove anything … it is not like science where proof is the measuring stick.

Now … your first statement could be true … that is why we are here but you must understand how Catholics interpret Scripture. The whole of the Bible is used so any chapter and verse can be used to support a position. You do this when reading a novel … what happened in Chapter 1 may or may not tell you something about Chapter 24. It is the reader’s obligation to make this connection … and the author depends on it to make his story coherent.

Maybe it would have been a lot easier if the title of the book we are discussing would have been … “A Short History on the Salvation of Man” by God. Well it sort of is like that in a sense.

What we seek is the intent of the author … remember who the author really is, that is important … so to try to understand intent you can use other tools such as what type of audience does the author write to … the timeframe of the incident. You can look at the characters involved … is the behavior consistent. Inconsistency in behavior can be used to help us decipher if the behavior is believable or not.

There is not an instruction manual for us to decipher the Bible so it would be unfair not to hear differing opinions but in the end you will choose which one for you seems most plausible.

You say there are other interpretations that make better sense … well using some of items I mentioned earlier … present them … supported by Chapter verse etc. so we can go back and read your supporting documentation … I will do the same but it may take a bit as the family is beginning to come down with the flu and with it all the associated unpleasantries.

I will agree though that if John 6 was all that was available for us to understand what we believe as Catholics … I do no think it would be enough … so using John 6 as a basis what other Scriptural support is availalble for us to make intelligent interpretations of the author’s intent.

I will tell you my intent upfront … I do not do this to convince you … but to present a case that the Catholic belief in the Eucharist is supported in Scripture and reasonable. I do not do this for your benefit per se but for others who may not join the discussion but read what is going on.

I will make one other stipulation … the name calling will have to cease … and each will make a diligent effort to understand the other … if you cannot do this then going forward is pointless and I will not. If you do agree then I agree to abide by my restrictions.

So do you agree?

If you are not referencing the first 200 posts on this thread, I am presuming you haven’t read them. I have answered all these quesitons. Prove to me that you have read them by discussing what I have already posted, if you want a reply.

 

[mfbukowski]

Let’s face it you have been soundly exposed as a very weak interpreter of John 6. You have been shown by me and others, That Jesus is speaking about His real flesh, the language used to express eating, the Greek word that even you can now understand, the reaction of the Jewish audience leaving Him, You never have proven that Jesus is talking metaphorically. Do it , I have given you compelling arguments that corroberate Jesus’ real Presence in the Eucharist. You haven’t done the same. You can’t you don’t have the oratory or debating skills. I would love to get you one on one. You would be exposed as you already have been.

If this is true, why are you wasting your time debating me?

If you don’t read what I have written, I won’t answer. Besides you are dishonest and keep harrasing me with PM’s. Go away.

 

[mfbukowski]

MFBUKOWSKI you must remember we are Cathloic it said what it said we do not change the bible.please tell us what is your interpretation of verses 1-cor 27-29 and what you think it is sayingand why

I can’t even look it up with this information. I require a CHAPTER AND A VERSE.

 

[mfbukowski]

Oh my word, The human mind can not comprehend the miracles that Jesus performed.

Then what are you using to debate them?

Why bother? Do you want to be rational about this or just say “it’s a mystery” and stop the non-existent debate?

If you want to use your mind, then bread is bread. If you want to use faith, then bread can be anything you want it to be. But then don’t try to debate it with people who do not believe as you do.

There is nothing here to debate. Bread is bread. You believe on faith that it is not. Fine. Your source is the bible which can be interpreted many ways, which you do not acknowledge.

There are many things we all take on faith. I believe the Book of Mormon is true scripture. I cannot prove this rationally. I can show evidences, but it cannot be proven rationally any more than the real presence can be proven rationally.

The mere fact that including most protestants, the majority of Christianity does not believe in the real presence. I suppose to you they are not bible believers. The reality is, they are rational people who have read the bible and gotten DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS THAN YOU HAVE.

Believe what you will. Good luck to you. But don’t say you can debate this “rationally” because you can’t. If you still think this is a rational issue, show me scientific evidence that a consecrated host is flesh and blood. You can’t. It is not a rational issue.

Millions agree with me, and for some reason, you pick me as a surrogate for your own problem with the eucharist – or what ever. I don’t know why I get picked as a surrogate for the millions who do not bleieve as you do. It is not a rational issue and is not debatable.

Now really, go away before I have to complain about harassment.

 

[NDfan]

John 6 can only be interpreted with the real Presence of our Lord. The greek word used is trogo= to chew or gnaw on flesh. See my post to bukowski on this thread. Protestants often try to refute the Catholic belief in Christ’s real Presence by talking about the later verse in John 6, The flesh is of no avail, it is the spirit that gives us life. Jesus is not talking about His own flesh that He will give to us in the Eucharist, He is talking about the flesh of humankind that will rot in the grave or how so many people today are led by the treasures on earth. It is really the spirit or soul that is called to holllliness fed by the flesh of our Lord. (trogo=one meaning flesh) Jesus is not mitigating or trivializing His own flesh.

I don’t need to see your post to bukowski. Augustine refutes John 6 as being an allusion to literally eating Christ’s flesh. Furthermore Christ is not speaking of our flesh that rots. This is a terrible exegetical interpretation of these verses. The Jews are stuck on eating literal flesh and blood and can’t see the Messiah would never ask them to do that. Jesus’ use of the word trogo was to stress HIS earlier comment about coming to HIM and never going hungry and believing in HIM and never being thirsty. Not cutting HIS arm off and eating it. Yet you somehow want to imply that HE changes the purpose of this sermon which is centered on forgetting about eating literal bread that doesn’t give life like the manna their ancestors ate and still died, and eating or trogo as scripture states the flesh that gives eternal life. How does Jesus give us HIS flesh that provides eternal life?? By offering it up at the cross for payment of our sins. We remember that sacrifice by eating the bread Jesus later equates with HIS body and drinking from the cup which represents the new covenant in HIS blood. How do we receive eternal life as promised by Christ? By believing in HIM or eating HIM? That question is answered over and over again in scripture and is summed up well in John 3:16. Then repeated again a multitude of times elsewhere. Believe Believe Believe. Not Eat Eat Eat.

 

[NDfan]

By ncgolf:

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.

In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.

This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”

Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.

You forget one crucial detail here. The passover had already passed. John doesn’t say the passover is near. The Passover was at hand and Jesus asked how they would feed everyone. This is followed by the great miracle of feeding the 5 thousand. After this miracle the Jews sought out Jesus again seeking free food. Jesus says don’t labor for food that perishes but for food that gives eternal life. The Jews ask what they need to do to be doing the work of GOD. Jesus immediately states that the work of GOD is to believe in whom HE sent. The Jews saw Christ and all HIS miracles yet still didn’t believe. Even after seeing the miracle of the 5 thousand they didn’t believe. The key verse here is the question the Jews ask of Jesus regarding the work HE does so that they will believe. Jesus responds by saying you have seen yet still do not believe. Verse 40 flat out tells us that the will of the Father is to believe and have eternal life.

Jesus calls HIMSELF the bread of life and equates eating HIM with believing in HIM. That’s why in verse 35 Jesus states whoever comes to ME will never go hungry and whoever believes in ME will never thirst. The Jews want a sign so they know Christ is the Messiah and HE responds by saying HE is giving HIS flesh. A foreshadowing of the crucifixion. Not literally eating flesh.

 

[mfbukowski]

By broski234:

The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner. By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain. So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures. My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter? Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?

So, what was the author of John 6 trying to tell us? Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when He said to eat His body and drink His blood? Well, let’s look at the evidence. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then please tell me what He meant by saying one must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. A symbolic interpretation of these passages, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Can you listen to yourself ?

Literally cats and dogs means animals falling from the sky.

Literally eating flesh and blood is cannibalism.

You don’t eat flesh and blood literally.

Why can’t you see that?

And most ironic of all is that most of those you say who take the bible “literally” do not believe it is literally flesh and blood either.

You catholics (small “c”) are the only ones who mix this up this way.

 

[alanjeddy]

Yeah, right. You pick the stage and I will pick the audience and we will see who wins or loses. The problem here is that you don’t care about the truth, just winning a stupid debate. You are just stage struck.

You can’t handle the truth because you left it. You’re faith is shallow and measured by the stictures of your human logic. The incomprehensibility of the mysteries of God does not exist for you. How egocentric of you to pretend that you have the mental capacity to fathom the mystery that is God.

 

[NDfan]

When Jesus spoke about the flesh is of no avail He wasn’t talking about His own flesh. He was talking about the corruptability of the body that will end up in the grave. It is the spirit that gives life. the soul is the source of all holiness that really matters. Our soul gets us into heaven or hell. Jesus isn’t talking about His own flesh. Even the gnostics believed in the corruptibility of the body as the source of all sin. Scott Hahn taught me this and he was a Protestant before coming home to the church.

So because Scott Hahn taught you this and he was a protestant that makes it true?? NOT.

The gnostics believed that all material things were evil in this world. That’s why they didn’t believe Jesus was a human being. They would never accept the divine Christ would take on the evil corrupt body of a human being. That’s actually why Ignatius statement of the gnostics not partaking in communion makes sense only as a symbolic teaching. The gnostics would not partake in communion because they would not accept that a piece of bread and cup of wine, corrupt evil things of this life, as representing the body and blood of Jesus. Had Ignatius said no you are not really eating bread and wine don’t let your senses deceive you, you are eating the body and blood of Christ through consecration, the gnostics would have responded by saying that’s right, just as your senses were deceiving you into thinking Christ as a human died on the cross. This fits perfectly with their theology and is believed to be the starting point of transubstantiation.

 

[mfbukowski]

You can’t handle the truth because you left it. You’re faith is shallow and measured by the stictures of your human logic. The incomprehensibility of the mysteries of God does not exist for you. How egocentric of you to pretend that you have the mental capacity for such lofty goals.

Good. Then we agree. My mind is incapable of answering your brillance, so leave me alone in my ignorance. I am but a gnat- compared to your greatness, so why contend with me?

Leave me alone. Really. I mean it. I will answer you no more. Period.

 

[alanjeddy]

So because Scott Hahn taught you this and he was a protestant that makes it true?? NOT.

The gnostics believed that all material things were evil in this world. That’s why they didn’t believe Jesus was a human being. They would never accept the divine Christ would take on the evil corrupt body of a human being. That’s actually why Ignatius statement of the gnostics not partaking in communion makes sense only as a symbolic teaching. The gnostics would not partake in communion because they would not accept that a piece of bread and cup of wine, corrupt evil things of this life, as representing the body and blood of Jesus. Had Ignatius said no you are not really eating bread and wine don’t let your senses deceive you, you are eating the body and blood of Christ through consecration, the gnostics would have responded by saying that’s right, just as your senses were deceiving you into thinking Christ as a human died on the cross. This fits perfectly with their theology and is believed to be the starting point of transubstantiation.

Forget the gnostics the point I was making is that Jesus wasn’t talking about His own Flesh when He said the flesh is of no avail.Again as simple as I can put it. the flesh of you and I and all humans rots in the grave. It is the soul, the spirit that is the focus of all holiness. It is the spirit that gives eternal life when nourished by the body and blood of Jesus and all His commandements.

 

[ncgolf]

If you are not referencing the first 200 posts on this thread, I am presuming you haven’t read them. I have answered all these quesitons. Prove to me that you have read them by discussing what I have already posted, if you want a reply.

Here is the total summation of your refuations of the Catholic theology where you use Scripture. There are two. You have none outside of John 6 and I went through the first 200 posts only. You may have rebutted Catholic Scriptual reference but you offered none on your own.

This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.

John 6:63 says " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This proves he was speaking “spiritually” because he plainly says the “flesh profiteth nothing”. What then is the advantage of eating his “flesh” if it “profiteth nothing?” This is especially significant because he is talking about those who misunderstood and left because they thought that he literally wanted them to eat his flesh. What is important is the spirit he is imparting, not the fact that we eat his flesh. It seems very plain to me.

But this is precisely my point. Jesus was condemning those who thought mistakenly that we were to eat his flesh because doing so “profited nothing”. Those who thought it was necessary to eat his flesh left.

Catholics believe it is necessary to eat his flesh.

Transubstantiated flesh, but flesh nevertheless. I am saying this attitude is a misunderstanding of this very scripture. Perhaps my point is now clearer.

It seems that the doctrine of transubstantiation was manufactured to justify a way to eat his flesh without being cannibals. I think that is what Augustine was saying in the segment I quoted earlier.

I agree with John 6 that it is not necessary to eat his flesh, but to remember him and know that he is in us and we are in communion with him.

Many, like jim1130, use Scripture to support the Catholic claim. Many different posters use various other Scriptural references other than John 6 to show the Bible is not inconsistent in this teaching … you offer no such exegesis where one can have an adult dialog … I am talking beyond such quotes as

God gave you a brain for a reason.

Do you trust the brain God gave you or do you abdicate that responsibility to “experts”?

I asked my 6 year old son that once and he said “my brain told me”. I congratulated him.

You need to use your brain.

Those things do not add up to comprehensive Scriptual refutations. I did cherry pick a little but not much but after reading them you must think us stupid since you ask us to use our brains so often … remember you said these not me and wanted me to base further discussion on goop like this.

This from alanjeddy

Let’s face it you have been soundly exposed as a very weak interpreter of John 6.

He is right …

If the others want they can go back and read the transcript themselves … you said nothing … I feel like the idiot for even acknowledging you had something to say.

I have learned much from those who do not believe as Catholics … many have clarified and caused me to delve deeper into the meaning of Scripture … especially Paul but after review of your posts … there is nothing here.

You only offered a very, very superficial look at the rich textures and subtle nuances John writes with.

For the others who continue to respond to this poster … I tip my hat.

 

[Canto]

Jesus said - THIS [bread] is my body

**6:52. **How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Jesus doesn’t explain that it’s a symbold- he says very next verse with a DOULBE Amen that we have to eat his flesh

6:53. Amen, amen I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

In verses **54-56 **he repates body and blood saying that truly his flesh is meat

6:57. he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

EAT

6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Christ came down from heaven and if we eat this bread [his body] we shall live

**6:60 **This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
6:61 Doth this scandalize you?

Yes it does scandalize them

6:62 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before?

Christ insinuateth that faithless men shall not believe his presence in the Blessed Sacrament, because he is ascended.

6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, be spirit and life.

Initially, Jesus is speaking literally of His flesh and blood. This is what we now call the Eucharist. His use of flesh and blood in the last portion is moving to the familiar analogy between flesh (earthly things) and spirit (heavenly things). He is simply stating that His (literal) flesh and blood are of spirit (of heaven) while flesh (all earthly things) are of no use. He is simply telling us that His flesh and blood are spiritual food. Real food!

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.

Hebrews 10:19-20 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

THE flesh not MY Flesh - [from Douay Rheims] For if his flesh were not profitable, all these things were vain. Therefore CHRIST denieth not his own flesh to be profitable, but that their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh, and of the manner of eating the same, was unprofitable. Which is plain by the sentence following, where he warneth them, that his words be spirit and life, of high Mystical meaning, and not vulgarly and grossly to be taken, as they took them. And it is the use of the Scripture to call mans natural sense, reason, and carnal resisting or not reaching supernatural truths, flesh or blood, as, Flesh and blood revealed not this to thee etc. Matt. 16.

This carnality then of theirs, stood in two points specially: first, that they imagined that he would kill himself, and cut and mangle his flesh into parts, and so give them raw or roast to be eaten among them. Which could not be meant, saith St. Augustine: for that had contained a heinous and barbarous fact, and therefore they might and should have been assured, that he would command no such thing: but some other sweet sense to be of his hard, mystical, or figurative words, and to be fulfilled in a Sacrament, mystery, and a marvelous divine sort, otherwise then they could comprehend.

Secondly, they did err touching his flesh, in that they took it to be the flesh of a mere man, and of a dead man also, when it should come to be eaten: of which kind of flesh Christ here pronounceth, that it profiteth nothing. Whereupon St. Cyril saith, This body is not of Peter or Paul or any other like, but of Christ JESUS who is life itself: and therefore the Body giveth life, the very fullness of the Divinity dwelling in it. And the holy Council of Ephesus in the 31 Anathemas expounded also by the said St. Cyril: The Eucharist is not the body of any common person (for the flesh of a common man could not quicken) but of the WORD itself. But the Heretic Nestorius dissolveth the virtue of this Mystery, holding mans flesh is only to be in the Eucharist. Thus there, and St. Ignatius cited of Theodorete, and many other Fathers have the like: whereby we may see that it cometh of the Divinity and Spirit (without which Christ’s flesh cannot be) that in the Sacrament giveth life.

6:66 Because of this many of his disciples went bacl and now they walked not with him

6:67 ESUS therefore said to the Twelve, What, will you also depart?
6:68 Simon Peter therefore answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:69 And we believe and have known that thou art Christ the Son of God.

Christ is speaking literally

 

[Bill_Pick]

I can’t even look it up with this information. I require a CHAPTER AND A VERSE.

BUKOWSKI DO YOU READ WHAT IS POSTED TO YOU the chapter and verse is right in front of you 1 Cor 11-27-29 or did I miss something well have a good night and we can get it one the next day…can I ask you a question is Mfbukowski just your name here, I know a lot of people that names end in SKI. any way good night and I will try to get back to you about limso in the next few days,say good nite

 

[Canto]

John 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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.

Christ’s flesh on the cross that he gave for the life of the world - was it his actual flesh or just a symbol?

If the answer is his actual flesh how can one say that the bread i.e. the Eucharist is just a symbol?

55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Christ says it himslef - his flesh really is meat

he did not say my flesh is indeed a symbol

The Jews found the saying hard - how harder will it be for them to believe when they see His body ascend into heaven - points out Christ, noting that they are viewing things in a carnal sense (flesh not Christ’s flesh which profits everything) instead of a heavenly sense. The words he spoke were of Spirit and life.

 

[alanjeddy]

I don’t need to see your post to bukowski. Augustine refutes John 6 as being an allusion to literally eating Christ’s flesh. Furthermore Christ is not speaking of our flesh that rots. This is a terrible exegetical interpretation of these verses. The Jews are stuck on eating literal flesh and blood and can’t see the Messiah would never ask them to do that. Jesus’ use of the word trogo was to stress HIS earlier comment about coming to HIM and never going hungry and believing in HIM and never being thirsty. Not cutting HIS arm off and eating it. Yet you somehow want to imply that HE changes the purpose of this sermon which is centered on forgetting about eating literal bread that doesn’t give life like the manna their ancestors ate and still died, and eating or trogo as scripture states the flesh that gives eternal life. How does Jesus give us HIS flesh that provides eternal life?? By offering it up at the cross for payment of our sins. We remember that sacrifice by eating the bread Jesus later equates with HIS body and drinking from the cup which represents the new covenant in HIS blood. How do we receive eternal life as promised by Christ? By believing in HIM or eating HIM? That question is answered over and over again in scripture and is summed up well in John 3:16. Then repeated again a multitude of times elsewhere. Believe Believe Believe. Not Eat Eat Eat.

WEAK WEAK WEAK HAVE YOU SEEN OR EVEN STUDIED THE COUNTLESS EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES IN WHICH THE HOST HAS TURNED INTO REAL HUMAN FLESH. SOME CASES HAPPENED CENTURIES AGO.
iT HAS REMAINED VIABLE AND ALIVE.

John 6 is a powerful, compelling, testament from Christ that He is talking about His real presence:

1. His audience left Him during His Bread of Life Discourse WHY did they do this if He were speaking symbolically??? THEY WERE SCANDALISED! If Jesus were talking symbolically they WOULDN’T HAVE LEFT HIM. The evidence is so overwhelming in favor of His real presence.
2. Jesus then asked His own apostles, "Are you going to leave me too?
3. The Greek word used in John 6 whenever Jesus talks about eating His flesh is TROGO TROGO TROGO= to EAT EAT EAT FLESH FLESH FLESH. It has no other meaning. It is not a word that one can use to express any kind of symbolic or metaphoric presence when one is talking about the consumption of bread or anything else for that matter. The biblical writers knew Jesus was talking about His real body and used a very specific Greek verb that must, by its very nature be interpreted as eating nothing else but FLESH FLESH FLESH.

 

[alanjeddy]

Then what are you using to debate them?

Why bother? Do you want to be rational about this or just say “it’s a mystery” and stop the non-existent debate?

If you want to use your mind, then bread is bread. If you want to use faith, then bread can be anything you want it to be. But then don’t try to debate it with people who do not believe as you do.

There is nothing here to debate. Bread is bread. You believe on faith that it is not. Fine. Your source is the bible which can be interpreted many ways, which you do not acknowledge.

There are many things we all take on faith. I believe the Book of Mormon is true scripture. I cannot prove this rationally. I can show evidences, but it cannot be proven rationally any more than the real presence can be proven rationally.

The mere fact that including most protestants, the majority of Christianity does not believe in the real presence. I suppose to you they are not bible believers. The reality is, they are rational people who have read the bible and gotten DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS THAN YOU HAVE.

Believe what you will. Good luck to you. But don’t say you can debate this “rationally” because you can’t. If you still think this is a rational issue, show me scientific evidence that a consecrated host is flesh and blood. You can’t. It is not a rational issue.

Millions agree with me, and for some reason, you pick me as a surrogate for your own problem with the eucharist – or what ever. I don’t know why I get picked as a surrogate for the millions who do not bleieve as you do. It is not a rational issue and is not debatable.

Now really, go away before I have to complain about harassment.

You are like the spoiled little boy who can’t get his way so he complains to anyone who will listen. It is you who should go away and preach your heretical uuorthodoxy somewhere else. You can’t handle the truth.