Protestant Explanation of John 6

[myfavoritmartin]

Amen! That is what we are trying to get the author of what I posted in the OP (Myfavoritmartin) to see.

Save your breath Randy! I’m only here on behalf of protestants considering catholicism, I no longer swallow the bones of the sacramental fish, I eat the meat and spit out the bones…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

{Total sidebar here, but good to note: Jesus says in John 6:29: “This is the work of God: have faith in the One whom he sent.” (ironic that Jesus describes “faith” as a “work”, no?)}

Ridiculous! Our works and the work of God are different, BTW scriptures themselves tell us what “faith” is.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). It is synonymous with trust.** It is a divine gift **(Rom. 12:3)

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Save your breath Randy! I’m only here on behalf of protestants considering catholicism, I no longer swallow the bones of the sacramental fish, I eat the meat and spit out the bones…

Just like the believers at the end of John chapter 6?

 

[SD_Catholic]

Originally Posted by myfavoritmartin
Save your breath Randy! I’m only here on behalf of protestants considering catholicism, I no longer swallow the bones of the sacramental fish, I eat the meat and spit out the bones…

You mean… you nibble on the crumbs while we eat from the loaf:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Save your breath Randy! I’m only here on behalf of protestants considering catholicism, I no longer swallow the bones of the sacramental fish, I eat the meat and spit out the bones…

So, if God is leading these folks to consider the Catholic Church, do you find yourself opposing God?

BTW, there is one other thing I’ve been meaning to ask you:

If your team owner carries you accross [sic] the top of the water, how come you’re all wet?

Have a nice day.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, if God is leading these folks to consider the Catholic Church, do you find yourself opposing God?

BTW, there is one other thing I’ve been meaning to ask you:

If your team owner carries you accross [sic] the top of the water, how come you’re all wet?

Have a nice day.

Sadly I don’t believe it is God…

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sadly I don’t believe it is God…

Seriously, what is holding you back from believing that Christ is present in the Euchurist?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sadly I don’t believe it is God…

Yes, I know. And since I am a convert, you are, in effect, calling me a liar. Interesting, eh?

Oh, and you’re welcome.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Seriously, what is holding you back from believing that Christ is present in the Euchurist?

the truth!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Yes, I know. And since I am a convert, you are, in effect, calling me a liar. Interesting, eh?

Oh, and you’re welcome.

I would never call you a liar, though I would say you’ve tended to follow faith and reason, instead of spirit and truth.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee-

The kingdom of God was inaugurated on the cross when he atoned for our sins. This must be true otherwise Jesus was a liar because he said he wouldn’t drink of the fruit of the vine UNTIL, etc, etc, but then he went ahead and drank while nailed to the cross. Why?

Follow this all the way through…

He refused the wine mixed with myrrh offered to him before the crucifixion which would have dulled his pain. Then, the scriptures say:

“28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”

It was on the cross (and not up in Heaven) that he drank the “fourth cup” of the Passover. Only then did he say, “It is finished.” What was finished? The Passover meal begun the night before when he abruptly concluded the meal without drinking the fourth and final cup of the seder.

The Passover? A hyssop branch? What is all this about? The Eucharist!

Dean, Atemi, Kaycee, et al, all of this imagery ties back into the instructions given to the Israelites at the Passover in Exodus. Why? Because Jesus is the Lamb of God prefigured by the sacrificing of the lambs in Egypt and the blood put on the doorposts.

BUT

What else did God command the Israelites?

THEY HAD TO EAT THE LAMB!

The Old Testament prefigures the New which finds its perfect fulfillment in Jesus, who is both priest and victim.

We must eat the Lamb just as the Israelites did.

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

UNLESS!

It appears they buried Him in the tomb, instead of eating Him.

 

[kaycee]

First answer this question: Luke and Matthew record this event differently:Notice the difference? Who’s correct? What is the significance of the difference?

clearly a commemoration. The blood is figurative, the reality is called fruit of the vine. “**which will be shed”, **clearly shows it cannot be His blood yet.

I suggest before you continue your line of questioning, you first answer these questions. To be honest, I challenge you to answer them.

Certainly, The Lord says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, its pretty simple.

 

[HailMary]

I would never call you a liar, though I would say you’ve tended to follow faith and reason, instead of spirit and truth.

instead? I don’t think so sir. Its all of the above. Our faith in God and His Church leads us to worshiping in Spirit and Truth, not just whatever has a warm-fuzzy.

 

[kaycee]

Yes, I know. And since I am a convert, you are, in effect, calling me a liar. Interesting, eh?

Oh, and you’re welcome.

Thats a hit below th belt! :tsktsk:

I just think you are mistaken, that in no way says your lying

 

[DJim]

It appears they buried Him in the tomb, instead of eating Him.

Hmmm–the same God can make Himself become flesh by His own power, yet can’t make bread become Himself by the same power?

The same God who tells us that’s what He’s going to do–He’s not really doing it?

Hmmmm. Everything else He states as fact seems to come true–like that whole “Creation” thing–that was brilliant! What a shame that His Divine Voice was no longer that effective at the Last Supper, eh? (this is an irony alert…)

DJim

 

[Randy_Carson]

It appears they buried Him in the tomb, instead of eating Him.

No kidding!

So, obviously, cannibalism is out!

Therefore, would it be safe to say that “the flesh profits you nothing” when you try to understand what really happens during transubstantiation? :yup:

Would it also be possible that you might actually believe it if you actually understood it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thats a hit below th belt! :tsktsk:

I just think you are mistaken, that in no way says your lying

Okay.

My apologies.

However, if I say that God led me into the Catholic Church when I converted, and Myfavoritmartin says, God didn’t lead you…that’s pretty serious stuff.

That said, I see your point. He is not accusing me of being deceitful…he’s only suggesting that I’m deceived.

I feel better now.

 

[mtr01]

clearly a commemoration. The blood is figurative, the reality is called fruit of the vine. “**which will be shed”, **clearly shows it cannot be His blood yet.

You failed to address any of my questions, please try again

Certainly, The Lord says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, its pretty simple.

If it’s so simple please tell me why, after Our Lord’s miracle at Cana, the wine wasn’t simply referred to as wine.

 

[DJim]

clearly a commemoration. The blood is figurative, the reality is called fruit of the vine. “**which will be shed”, **clearly shows it cannot be His blood yet.

Certainly, The Lord says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, its pretty simple.

Are you saying blood is not blood unless and until it is shed?

Actually, it is the “fruit of the vine” that is figurative, Kaycee.

Unless you want to accuse Jesus of being a literal vine…

Jesus, the true vine, represents His blood figuratively as the “fruit” of the vine–it still looks like wine, anyway. It’s okay for Him to call the consecrated wine the “fruit of the vine.”

DJim

 

[Church_Militant]

So, if God is leading these folks to consider the Catholic Church, do you find yourself opposing God?

BTW, there is one other thing I’ve been meaning to ask you:

If your team owner carries you accross [sic] the top of the water, how come you’re all wet?

Have a nice day.

Sadly I don’t believe it is God…

Yes, I know. And since I am a convert, you are, in effect, calling me a liar. Interesting, eh?

Oh, and you’re welcome.

I would never call you a liar, though I would say you’ve tended to follow faith and reason, instead of spirit and truth.

Thats a hit below th belt! :tsktsk:

I just think you are mistaken, that in no way says your lying

Okay.

My apologies.

However, if I say that God led me into the Catholic Church when I converted, and Myfavoritmartin says, God didn’t lead you…that’s pretty serious stuff.

That said, I see your point. He is not accusing me of being deceitful…he’s only suggesting that I’m deceived.

I feel better now.

A perfect example of miscommunication.

However, my question is, where is the evidence of this deception, since we can and have provided scripture upon which these beliefs are based and proved that the earliest historical verifiable writings of the early church show that they also shared the same interpretations. Read the following excerpt from the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

…It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with(15) them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

That being the case, why is it that until the reformation this doctrine was not challenged. I explore all the relevant passages of scripture on this topic here.