Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[Dorothy]

Alfie wrote:

<<Exactly, and the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine are symbolic and not literal.>>

This is your belief. If you have prayerfully and carefully come to this decision I won’t argue with that.

<< Jesus wasn’t even dead when he made his statements about his blood and flesh.>>

Nothing is impossible to God.

<< I suppose that Jesus ate his own flesh and drank his own blood at the last supper.>>

No. He gave it to the apostles.

<< There is no word Eucharist mentioned in the Bible.>>

That doesn’t mean the Real Presence doesn’t exist. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[mercygate]

Alfie:

\There is no word Eucharist mentioned in the Bible.

Get a grip. The word in Greek means “thanks” – as in “sacrifice of thanksgiving.”

The phrase, “when he [Jesus] had given thanks” appears 5 times in the New Testament, each occurrence from the lips of Jesus:

Mt. 26:27, Mk. 14:23, Lk. 22:17&19 – All at the last supper: “When he had given thanks” – “euxapistnsas.”

The phrase appears also in John 6 (!) before the multiplication of the loaves – a key passage by which Catholics understand the Eucharist.

We find it again in the Eucharistic prayer of 1Cor. 11.

 

[Doreen]

Sorry to delay on replying to your questions with this (#136) post, Kay Cee. I will now do so.

First you asked how I think I can interpret the Word and be sure of the interpretation…I replied:

Doreen:

I’ve been through that on some post or another…

1. check with the WORD through prayer
2. pray for discernment/wisdom
3. wait for confirmation --from the Word or another believer or circumstances that reveal themselves
4. the conviction of the heart which is a promise of the Spirit and is always to be considered

KAY CEE quotes in dark slate blue:
But if somebody else employs this same method and comes up with a different answer than yours, how can the two of you determine which one is the right answer?

Funny you should ask this…would you believe that within my current church that seldom happens? We DO discuss things when there is a question, and really the only way I can check things is in my heart…and as I have listed above. I know that seems like a weak answer to you, but the Lord hasn’t failed me yet.

Example: I used to take this passage directly and literally:
**Psalm 37:4 “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” **

During a Bible study, a friend shared with me that the word “give” when translated directly actually means “show” or “reveal”……well this hit me like a brick! I was actually thrilled to have this clarified for me because, prior to this, I didn’t really like the verse, because it seemed like it could easily be mistaken to mean we’d get all kinds of material things. Which I thought was just silly. And, believe it or not, the cry of my heart when I heard this was to know and be in God’s will…

So to have this correction was like getting a precious jewel from my friend! And it was also like the Lord was speaking through her to give me clarity. A gift from the Lord—new discernment and confirmation of His wonderful promises to us…that if I delight in Him, He will show me …plant in me…HIS right desires! Amazing!

Now what can possibly be wrong about that kind of interpretative exercise? Should we not search out His precepts as He commands many times in the OT?

Continued on next post:

 

[Doreen]

You further questioned whether a “normal Joe” should study the Word, and I said:

This is where our human fallibility can be a deficit…but it is also the way the LORD can insist that we keep our hearts and minds devoted to Him. We wander, stray, believe lies…we pay in our circumstances…“He disciplines those that He loves.”

You asked:

This doesn’t answer the question. How can you know the “voice” you hear is telling you the truth?

“MY sheep know my voice.” That’s about as simple as it is. After you have read His word you start to hear His voice. After you have committed to following Him in all things, He starts to GIVE you the desires of your heart.

Sure, some people have gone off the deep end with what they believed was God…I have my Christian brothers and sisters to keep me in check. That answer, again, probably doesn’t satisfy you, but I can tell you, friend…the LORD’s Word satisfies me.

If what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth, then you can be sure they are deceivers.

And how do you know what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth? If you say “If it doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s false,” how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? If they tell you they employed the method you outlined above, aren’t you just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”? And aren’t they just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”?

Yep! Sounds a lot like this, “we have the fullness of Christ because we have the Eucharist, and you don’t” kind of talk, doesn’t it?

John 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”
You can say that he is speaking to the “chosen apostles”…except that in the same paragraph he says, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and SHOW MYSELF to him.”…and read on and see how He describes the need to remain in Him.

And how does Jesus go about showing Himself to us?

Ohhhhh, if you have to ask that question, it tells me you haven’t really had a personal experience with the Lord.

Dear friend, let me give another example: I have a friend who has not spoken to her mother for almost two years. My friend (a young Christian) is frustrated because her mother will do things that really hurt her and then act like nothing ever happened… Last week, I could not get this friend out of my mind. And on Friday morning, I was thinking about her, and then picked up a daily devotional and the day’s reading was about honoring our mothers. I called the friend, with the intent to tell her to call her mom. She was gone for two days, so on Sunday, I saw her after the service…pulled her aside and said, “I hope I don’t upset you by saying this, but…” (I took her by the shoulders, looked her in the eyes and said) “…you need to call your mother.” She immediately broke down in tears and said, “It is so amazing that you are saying this right now, because in the middle of worship, I was thinking of her, and I just broke down about it. Thank you for the confirmation…I’ve been feeling tugged a lot this past week.”

**He speaks through dearly devoted friends.
He speaks through His Word.
He speaks through circumstances.
He’s in every detail. **

If we be like clay in His hands, we cannot but help to feel Him molding us into the very creatures He wishes us to be.

I hope I’ve answered all your questions. My replies are likely not adequate in your perspective, but I only speak of what I know to be real and true, mighty, amazing and yep…difficult to explain.

D.

 

[Huguenot]

Doreen:

Good Morning, Sister!

I have been reading an old book by a Catholic about the arguments for the Catholic (universal) church written in the 1860’s! It is fascinating to realize that these same arguments continue today. And what the man in the book says is much the same as what the folks on here are saying.

I grew up Catholic (by the way, my last name is French and I have always regretted not taking up the language!–ancestors came to US via Canada…not sure where before that, on the paternal side. The maternal side is Dutch.

Having gone through early adulthood and made an incredible mess of my life, then later finding Christ outside of the Catholic church, I am seeking to understand why, if it truly is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, I didn’t truly come to know Christ IN that church.

I have a busy day today…taking my daughter to a birthday party. So gotta run. I am enjoying meeting so many folks on here, and I am learning a lot…I LOVE having the perspective of a French Protestant.

God Bless You!
D.

You know what ? It means Catholics haven’t changed …and we probably haven’t either !!!
We have something in common : I am also of Dutch descent ( paternal side ), isn’t that great ???
I hope your daughter will enjoy the birthday party …

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

As we have been carrying on this dialogue, and I have been fumbling to find an accurate but simple way to make this clear, it occurred to me that we need another hyphen:

re (again) present (in the present). Christ is always is God’s eternal “now.” We are taken into that “present” when we be come present to the eternal sacrifice.

I must be too dumb to understand the distinction : it isn’t clear either …

 

[Dorothy]

Hi Doreen,

<<He speaks through dearly devoted friends.
He speaks through His Word.
He speaks through circumstances.
He’s in every detail.

If we be like clay in His hands, we cannot but help to feel Him molding us into the very creatures He wishes us to be.>>

I certainly don’t deny that we hear the Lord’s voice clearly when we are submitted to His Divine Will and desire what He desires.

Thank you for the example you gave of your friend, encouraging her to call her mom.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

KAY CEE quotes in dark slate blue:
But if somebody else employs this same method and comes up with a different answer than yours, how can the two of you determine which one is the right answer?

Funny you should ask this…would you believe that within my current church that seldom happens? We DO discuss things when there is a question, and really the only way I can check things is in my heart…and as I have listed above. I know that seems like a weak answer to you, but the Lord hasn’t failed me yet.

This sidesteps the question. Suppose you employ your method and come up with the answer that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Suppose I employ your method and come up with the answer that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Now what?

You asked:

This doesn’t answer the question. How can you know the “voice” you hear is telling you the truth?

“MY sheep know my voice.” That’s about as simple as it is. After you have read His word you start to hear His voice. After you have committed to following Him in all things, He starts to GIVE you the desires of your heart.

Well, then I can only conclude that either people are hearing other voices besides Christ’s as well, or that Christ is leading them into conflicting truths. How else can I explain that you hear Christ telling you the Eucharist is only a symbol while at the same time He is telling others He is truly present there?

Sure, some people have gone off the deep end with what they believed was God…I have my Christian brothers and sisters to keep me in check. That answer, again, probably doesn’t satisfy you, but I can tell you, friend…the LORD’s Word satisfies me.

How do you know your Christian brothers and sisters have it right? If by “the Lord’s Word,” you mean the Bible, how do you know you’ve interpreted it correctly?

And how do you know what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth? If you say “If it doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s false,” how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? If they tell you they employed the method you outlined above, aren’t you just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”? And aren’t they just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”?

Yep! Sounds a lot like this, “we have the fullness of Christ because we have the Eucharist, and you don’t” kind of talk, doesn’t it?

The subject here is *Biblical interpretation *concerning the Eucharist. And you did not answer the question.

And how does Jesus go about showing Himself to us?

Ohhhhh, if you have to ask that question, it tells me you haven’t really had a personal experience with the Lord.

You have no idea how personal my relationship with Christ is. Who are you to judge that? And if you’ve employed your method and come up with the answer that I “haven’t really had a personal experience with the Lord,” I can tell you right now that your method flat out does not work!

Also, somehow you missed that what I was doing here is asking *you *how *you think *Jesus shows Himself to us, not requesting an explanation for a process I do not understand myself. It was a simple question, but you misinterpreted it. See how easy it is to misinterpret something?

Jesus is the Truth. He cannot lie. Yet different Christians have different “truths.” How can this be if He is showing Himself to all of us in the same way?

Doreen, you still have not answered the question. If we all have John 6, how can different Christians come up with different interpretations?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Originally Posted by Kay Cee

This is not the point.

The point is whether or not what the Catholic Church teaches is true. Not how well it is accepted, or how easily it is known.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a geometry teacher is teaching the Pythagorean theorem. Some students understand it; some don’t. Does the fact that some students do not understand the theorem make it untrue? Or could it be that the teacher didn’t teach it well? Or could it be that some students had not yet reached a level of understanding so that they could grasp it?

That isn’t a very good analogy. The Bible says that the Gospel message is so simple that even a little child can understand it. Catholism turns the Bible message of salvation into a great big complicated ordeal. It is like the IRS overly complicated.

First of all, no analogy is perfect. Analogies are used to make a point. My point was that truth is truth, whether it is well taught or not, whether it is understood or not. It is the same with God’s truths. They are true whether or not they are well taught, whether or not they are understood.

Where does the Bible say that the Gospel is so simple even a little child can understand it? Chapter and verse, please.

In Acts 8, the eunuch needed someone to help him understand scripture. Why did he need this if even a little child can understand it?

 

[Mickey]

Alfie:

Exactly, and the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine are symbolic and not literal.

This was not a widely held belief until the time of Zwingli. So are you saying that Christians had it all wrong for almost sixteen hundred years? What makes you confident that your revisionist interpretation is the correct interpretation?

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

I don’t …( if it means real presence )…

Yeah, we know.

 

[MommyofFive]

I’ve been lurking here for a bit and was inspired to post something that may help the original poster. I have no intention to enter into some of the arguments here that have appeared to become downright mean (but then again, I’m no debater, so it’s all arguing to me! ). But, I did want to add something that I came across the other day.

I have been reading a book called Nuts and Bolts by Tim Staples. He has a really good explanation regarding the Eucharist and the arguement of taking Christ literally or metaphorically in John 6:

“Say, for the sake of arguement, that Christ intened His words in John 6 to be understood metaphorically. Even if this were granted, the anti-Catholic argument still falls apart. Here’s why: The phrases ‘eat flesh’ and ‘drink blood’ did indeed have a symbolic meaning in the Hebrew language and culture of our Lord’s time. You can demonstrate this by quoting passages such as Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6, 16. In each case, we find ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’ used as metaphors to mean ‘to persecute,’ ‘to do violence to,’ ‘to assult,’ or ‘to murder.’ Now, if Christ were speaking metaphorically, the Jews would have understood him to be making an absurd statement: ‘Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.’ Besides being an absurd understnading of these words, there is one further problem with the ‘metaphorical’ view: Jesus would have been encouraging–exhorting!–His hearers to commit violent mortal sins. If it were immoral, in any sense, for Christ to promise to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, then he could not have commanded us to even symbolically eat and drink His body and blood. Even symbolically performing an immoral act is of its very nature immoral.” (pg.36-37)

He goes on for an entire chapter on many other arguments stemming from the above arguement…it’s a pretty interesting read. It helped me, as a convert, to read this: it opened my eyes and heart even wider to the love of the Church and Christ for me. The Eucharist is an amazing thing…

 

[Doreen]

MommyofFive:

I’ve been lurking here for a bit and was inspired to post something that may help the original poster. I have no intention to enter into some of the arguments here that have appeared to become downright mean (but then again, I’m no debater, so it’s all arguing to me! ). But, I did want to add something that I came across the other day.

I have been reading a book called Nuts and Bolts by Tim Staples. He has a really good explanation regarding the Eucharist and the arguement of taking Christ literally or metaphorically in John 6:

“Say, for the sake of arguement, that Christ intened His words in John 6 to be understood metaphorically. Even if this were granted, the anti-Catholic argument still falls apart. Here’s why: The phrases ‘eat flesh’ and ‘drink blood’ did indeed have a symbolic meaning in the Hebrew language and culture of our Lord’s time. You can demonstrate this by quoting passages such as Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6, 16. In each case, we find ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’ used as metaphors to mean ‘to persecute,’ ‘to do violence to,’ ‘to assult,’ or ‘to murder.’ Now, if Christ were speaking metaphorically, the Jews would have understood him to be making an absurd statement: ‘Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.’ Besides being an absurd understnading of these words, there is one further problem with the ‘metaphorical’ view: Jesus would have been encouraging–exhorting!–His hearers to commit violent mortal sins. If it were immoral, in any sense, for Christ to promise to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, then he could not have commanded us to even symbolically eat and drink His body and blood. Even symbolically performing an immoral act is of its very nature immoral.” (pg.36-37)

He goes on for an entire chapter on many other arguments stemming from the above arguement…it’s a pretty interesting read. It helped me, as a convert, to read this: it opened my eyes and heart even wider to the love of the Church and Christ for me. The Eucharist is an amazing thing…

Welcome, Mother of Five,
I, too, am a mother of five!

I am SO glad you chimed in…

FOLKS, do you SEE what she has just revealed for us???

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO— what did they DO to CHRIST???

If my memory serves me correctly…

HE WAS MURDERED!!! CRUCIFIED… Praise God!

I have been PRAYING for the truth to be revealed here…and this person, inadvertently explains for us all, that YES…the words mean that the ONLY way to LIFE was for Christ to have to be killed.

Obviously, they had no idea that He’d return in three days. But you have totally helped the Protestant argument of the Eucharist with this simple language clarification.

Just shows me again why we all need to go learn Latin and Greek!

Wow. This is beautiful. God is faithful!
Amen,
I’m going to sleep well tonight!
D.

 

[Tonks40]

Doreen:

Welcome, Mother of Five,
I, too, am a mother of five!

I am SO glad you chimed in…

FOLKS, do you SEE what she has just revealed for us???

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO— what did they DO to CHRIST???

If my memory serves me correctly…

HE WAS MURDERED!!! CRUCIFIED… Praise God!

I have been PRAYING for the truth to be revealed here…and this person, inadvertently explains for us all, that YES…the words mean that the ONLY way to LIFE was for Christ to have to be killed.

Obviously, they had no idea that He’d return in three days. But you have totally helped the Protestant argument of the Eucharist with this simple language clarification.

Just shows me again why we all need to go learn Latin and Greek!

Wow. This is beautiful. God is faithful!
Amen,
I’m going to sleep well tonight!
D.

Wait a second…wait a second.

Before we can "eat His flesh and drink His blood, " He had to die first…His death was only to open the Gates of Heaven and a process towards having eternal life. He knew that He was going to die, and he was instructing the Apostles what to do and what we as believers of Christ need to do in order to have eternal life - partake in the rememberance of Him in the Eucharist.

Christ really meant to “eat and drink” in order to have eternal life. No clarification needed, and I know that the Apostles understood that!

(read my bold print in succession and you may understand what I mean)

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

Welcome, Mother of Five,
I, too, am a mother of five!

I am SO glad you chimed in…

FOLKS, do you SEE what she has just revealed for us???

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO— what did they DO to CHRIST???

If my memory serves me correctly…

HE WAS MURDERED!!! CRUCIFIED… Praise God!

I have been PRAYING for the truth to be revealed here…and this person, inadvertently explains for us all, that YES…the words mean that the ONLY way to LIFE was for Christ to have to be killed.

Obviously, they had no idea that He’d return in three days. But you have totally helped the Protestant argument of the Eucharist with this simple language clarification.

Just shows me again why we all need to go learn Latin and Greek!

Wow. This is beautiful. God is faithful!
Amen,
I’m going to sleep well tonight!
D.

Doreen, quite simply, I don’t know what to think here. I am in absolute shock at your ability to misinterpret things.

Did you read all of Tim Staples’ argument? Did you miss it where he says of seeing the Eucharist as a mere symbol, "Besides being an absurd understanding of these words, there is one further problem with the ‘metaphorical’ view: Jesus would have been encouraging–exhorting!–His hearers to commit violent mortal sins."

Now, is that what you really think God does? Encourage people to sin?

Mommyof Five’s argument is that the “symbolic only” understanding of the Eucharist **makes no sense **when you look at the original Greek!

BTW, you still have not answered my questions.

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

Welcome, Mother of Five,
I, too, am a mother of five!

I am SO glad you chimed in…

FOLKS, do you SEE what she has just revealed for us???

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO— what did they DO to CHRIST???

If my memory serves me correctly…

HE WAS MURDERED!!! CRUCIFIED… Praise God!

I have been PRAYING for the truth to be revealed here…and this person, inadvertently explains for us all, that YES…the words mean that the ONLY way to LIFE was for Christ to have to be killed.

Obviously, they had no idea that He’d return in three days. But you have totally helped the Protestant argument of the Eucharist with this simple language clarification.

Just shows me again why we all need to go learn Latin and Greek!

Wow. This is beautiful. God is faithful!
Amen,
I’m going to sleep well tonight!
D.

Doreen, m’Luv.

Take a deep breath. You have turned the whole point on its head and stated exactly the opposite of what MommyofFive was attempting to illustrate in that quote from Tim Staples.

Of course, when you come to think of it, that is what the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist has been doing for the past 500 years. It still seems not to trouble you that the doctrine of the Real Absence of Christ in the Eucharist was unknown among Christians for the 1500 years of the Church.

 

[MommyofFive]

Thank you Mercygate and Kay Cee: it really bothered me to see Doreen’s reply to my post…I was quite taken aback that you, Doreen, seem to have totally misread the quote from Tim Staples! :ehh:

My post was to show that Christ was to be taken literally, NOT symbolically regarding the eating of His body and the drinking of His blood.

On the contrary, I don’t feel my post totally supported the Protestant arguement…it showed totally the opposite: that Christ INTENDED the literal interpretation of His words to prevail. There was no parable here…just complete and literal truth. :bible1:

Maybe, I didn’t include enough of the excerpt from Mr. Staples’s chapter of his book to completely show the truths about the Eucharist. If that is the case, I apolgize. As a friendly prod, please accept my advice to check his book out…it may help to clear any confusion you may have regarding this subject. As a former Protestant (product of gospel-music parents on top of that), this book, among others, has really helped me to understand the truths about my Christian Catholic faith and how beautiful and fulfilling my faith truly is!!!

 

[Doreen]

I wrote a reply to ya all earlier today, but for some reason it didn’t get posted???

Anyway, I began by saying that I hope nobody took my sarcasm and “Helll0000” personally. I was exclaiming (to myself) as when a lightbulb goes off…that this was a beautiful help to me in comprehending what Christ was saying…I saw it as a direct answer to prayer.

I’m sorry Dorothy if you see it as misinterpretation…allow me to explain:

I know that it is hard for you to understand this, because you are committed to the teachings of the church. So to even consider what I am about to say would be like considering that the RCC has it wrong, and I know that’s a real leap for you… but here’s the deal:

Christ has to tell the truth, right? That’s what many of you have said, and “Truly, truly, verily, verily,” we agree on that.

SO—Christ was not “telling them to sin”…he was prophesying that they WILL do all those things to Him and it is necessary for eternal life.

Read it again yourself, and consider what you would have thought if you were an apostle. You’d hear him say all these things to the angry mob…the grumbling Jews, who doubted Him greatly:

‘Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.’

Isn’t this exactly what they* had* done?

Now obviously, Christ had known who would turn against Him and He also knew that the only way to eternal life was through His death on the cross. So this makes TOTAL sense that He would say it like this. Sure, it would definitely have confused most of them, but notice what He says to those who didn’t leave Him:

“Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before! (notice there’s no question mark…it really wasn’t a question) … The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:61-63)
and notice right after this it says, “For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.”

If you were one of the apostles, and this man with such grace, confidence, not to mention miraculous abilities, came along and asked you to follow Him…and you had listened to Him for days and days and you were literally touched to the core by how dramatically different this man was than anyone you’d ever met…and you are standing there when he’s telling the crowds (many who have been doubting and grumbling) that they must kill him to have eternal life, what would you do at that point?

You know this man has been called a prophet, right? They either guessed he was speaking figuratively, as he often had, or they knew he was prophesying. But either way, they had seen His loving, compassionate ways. They trusted Him to know what He was doing by this time. They probably didn’t fully comprehend what was about to happen. But they believed He was who He says He was.

You have no trouble believing they’d not think eating His flesh and drinking His blood was absurd…but that He was telling them exactly what it was that their depraved minds would lead them into doing to Him…that is absurd? Think about that for a minute…before reacting. And remember…He was speaking to a crowd of grumbling Jews, who were doubting His every word at this point…sure His apostles were there, too, but He wasn’t directing this to them all directly (though He knew one of them would betray Him.)

it showed totally the opposite: that Christ INTENDED the literal interpretation of His words to prevail. There was no parable here…just complete and literal truth.

I am in total agreement with you Mof5…

He tells the truth. He was telling it like it was.
**
He came to die that we might have life.**

Kay Cee–I answered your questions from the first of those two posts. I realized after going to bed last night that I forgot to go back and reply to the second one.

I hope you’ll take some time to prayerfully do the reading I suggested. Jeremiah and Revelation…great books for a comparison study. Both prophetic.

I’ll go review your second post now. (By the way, I DID answer the other questions from the first post…did you see my reply? It was posted sometime yesterday.)

And MommyofFive, I sure don’t “mean to be mean” in any of my posts. I may be naive, but I am not taking offense with any of the other’s comments on here, either. I assume folks are going to be passionate about their faith. I’d expect nothing less.


D.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

Okay, let me get this straight. You’re saying that when Jesus says in John 6:53, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” it actually means “Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.”

Let’s apply that concept to some verses from the rest of the passage and see how well it fits.

In verse 51, Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Now, using your interpretation, it means, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever persecutes and assaults Me and does violence to Me and kills Me will live forever.”

Verse 56 says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Using your interpretation, it means, “Whoever persecutes and assaults Me, whoever does violence to Me and kills Me remains in Me and I in him.”

Verse 58 says, “Whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Using your interpretation, it means, “Whoever persecutes and assaults Me, whoever does violence to Me and kills Me will live forever.”

I just can’t imagine this is what Jesus meant.

 

[MommyofFive]

Doreen:

And MommyofFive, I sure don’t “mean to be mean” in any of my posts. I may be naive, but I am not taking offense with any of the other’s comments on here, either. I assume folks are going to be passionate about their faith. I’d expect nothing less.

I certainly hope, Doreen, that you don’t think I was being “mean” in my post or in my reply. I didn’t take offense with your post…I was just confused as to how you got out of the Tim Staples quote what you did. I re-read my posts and can’t find anywhere where I was “mean” in any sense of the word, but if someone took it as if I was…well, then I’m sorry and I hope I didn’t offend anyone.

I’m going to think some more on your opinions though. I have been re-reading your comments and am really trying to see where you are coming from (that’s the beauty of debate, right? ). As a former Protestant, I’m sure that I can see somewhere where you are coming from (I haven’t been Catholic that long), but I just haven’t been able to see it yet.

It’s nice to see how passionate you are with your faith, though.

Right now, however, I think KayCee’s post perfectly portrayed the confusion that I am feeling with your reaction as well:
Kay Cee:

Okay, let me get this straight. You’re saying that when Jesus says in John 6:53, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” it actually means “Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.” Let’s apply that concept to some verses from the rest of the passage and see how well it fits.

In verse 51, Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Now, using your interpretation, it means, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever persecutes and assaults Me and does violence to Me and kills Me will live forever.”

Verse 56 says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Using your interpretation, it means, “Whoever persecutes and assaults Me, whoever does violence to Me and kills Me remains in Me and I in him.”

Verse 58 says, “Whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Using your interpretation, it means, “Whoever persecutes and assaults Me, whoever does violence to Me and kills Me will live forever.”

This confuses me:

Doreen:

Read it again yourself, and consider what you would have thought if you were an apostle. You’d hear him say all these things to the angry mob…the grumbling Jews, who doubted Him greatly: Quote:
‘Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.’
Isn’t this exactly what they had done?

No, I don’t think so: those who killed Jesus did not have life within them. Your interpretation that I’m getting is that Jesus said to them that they MUST kill him in order to have life with him. I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible where Jesus TOLD people to kill him. He knew they would, yes, I agree. But, He didn’t tell them to do it.

John 6:52-58 → “The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life becuase of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’”

I know we all agree that God is capable of amazing things that we can’t even imagine could happen. Do you doubt the ability of God to say and mean that the Eucharist IS his flesh and the wine IS his blood? What happened to all those people for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago? Surely Jesus didn’t withhold His intentions for the Eucharist for 1500 years for it to suddenly come to light when the Protestant churches formed? Not trying to be argumentative…just offering another angle, k?