Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[broski234]

I believe NDFan is correct and that his understanding is faithful to God’s Word. He of course is part of an enormous ‘cloud of witnesses’ living and departed. But notice that if you want to go literally, Jesus only said that the bread and wine He was holding in his hands THAT NIGHT was his body and blood. Then he said to perform a ceremony of ‘remembrance’. But He never stated that in those remembrance ceremonies there would be more than bread and wine. Show us that He said otherwise.

Well, look at 1 Corinthians 10:14-17. This was after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven. Here Paul is says, “Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is iti not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Here is talking about partaking in the Eucharist. Of partaking in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul says, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself.”

How can you profane the body and blood of Jesus if it does not become Jesus? If it is just a symbol, this verse wouldn’t make a bit of sense. I don’t think it can be anymore clear. May the scales be removed from your eyes!

 

[catholic_daddy]

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.

God says in Exodus 12:24 “You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendents.” Jesus in Luke 22:19, “Do this in memory of me.”

Reading John 6 standalone does not work … reading John 6 with the Last Supper accounts doesn’t work … but reading John 6, the Last Supper accounts and understanding the Passover … ties this together making the case for Jesus meaning what He said about the eating of His body much more understandable for we can see in the Jewish context of sacrifice.

I love that and I agree 100%. (I had not thought about the link to walking on water and the Exodus. Beautiful.) The Passover pointed to the time when the blood of our Lamb would, when applied by faith to the doorposts of our heart, save us from eternal death! I just don’t see that implying that the bread and wine now become His body and blood. They don’t need to, for it was faith in His death for me that reconciled me to God. Thanks.

 

[ncgolf]

I love that and I agree 100%. (I had not thought about the link to walking on water and the Exodus. Beautiful.) The Passover pointed to the time when the blood of our Lamb would, when applied by faith to the doorposts of our heart, save us from eternal death! I just don’t see that implying that the bread and wine now become His body and blood. They don’t need to, for it was faith in His death for me that reconciled me to God. Thanks.

You are missing the point … look at the requirement at eating of the lamb … not only did you have to post the blood … you had to eat … eat … eat. No eating … no saving.

 

[ncgolf]

I love that and I agree 100%. (I had not thought about the link to walking on water and the Exodus. Beautiful.) The Passover pointed to the time when the blood of our Lamb would, when applied by faith to the doorposts of our heart, save us from eternal death! I just don’t see that implying that the bread and wine now become His body and blood. They don’t need to, for it was faith in His death for me that reconciled me to God. Thanks.

Now for the tough part … the OT Passover was the “symbolic” meal … it symoblizes the bondage breaking … the sacrifice of Christ … the real deal. Tell me what bonds were broken by Christ’s sacrifice?

That was the “true” sacrifice … one where the requirement of eating still held … remember the audience. The did not eat symbolic lambs in the OT … they ate real lambs with real meat and real blood.

Why any different with Jesus’s sacrifice?

If that does not ring any bells to this current discussion … knock twice … I will hear it.

 

[catholic_daddy]

You are missing the point … look at the requirement at eating of the lamb … not only did you have to post the blood … you had to eat … eat … eat. No eating … no saving.

Yes, but read Hebrews. That was the shadow. Christ is the substance. When Peter spoke in Acts 2 or Paul answered on what we must do to be saved, it was ‘Repent, believe and be baptized!’. He they didn’t say “…and EAT!” We eat now by repenting and believing, and we observe the Lord’s Supper “In remembrance of Me”

 

[ncgolf]

Yes, but read Hebrews. That was the shadow. Christ is the substance. When Peter spoke in Acts 2 or Paul answered on what we must do to be saved, it was ‘Repent, believe and be baptized!’. He they didn’t say “…and EAT!” We eat now by believing, and we observe the Lord’s Supper “In remembrance of Me”

It does not contradict. How is this not belief in Christ … we do believe in repentance … it is a Catholic sacrament … we believe in baptizing … it is a Catholic sacrament.

I do not see any conflict for we use Christ’s own words to believe … He does not lead anyone astray.

 

[catholic_daddy]

It does not contradict. How is this not belief in Christ … we do believe in repentance … it is a Catholic sacrament … we believe in baptizing … it is a Catholic sacrament.

I do not see any conflict for we use Christ’s own words to believe … He does not lead anyone astray.

I agree that whenever we eat the bread and drink the cup, we exercise faith. But I am also sayng, 1) That neither the NT texts nor the link to Passover demand an interpretation that includes Transustantiation. And 2) that it is repentance and faith that reconciles us to God, not the Eucharist

 

[ncgolf]

1. That neither the NT texts nor the link to Passover demand an interpretation that includes Transustantiation.

Before I answer what is meant by demand?

 

[catholic_daddy]

Before I answer what is meant by demand?

Require or imply

 

[broski234]

Yes, but read Hebrews. That was the shadow. Christ is the substance. When Peter spoke in Acts 2 or Paul answered on what we must do to be saved, it was ‘Repent, believe and be baptized!’. He they didn’t say “…and EAT!” We eat now by repenting and believing, and we observe the Lord’s Supper “In remembrance of Me”

You never replied to my post #180. I gave you an answer.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Now for the tough part … the OT Passover was the “symbolic” meal … it symoblizes the bondage breaking … the sacrifice of Christ … the real deal. Tell me what bonds were broken by Christ’s sacrifice?

That was the “true” sacrifice … one where the requirement of eating still held … remember the audience. The did not eat symbolic lambs in the OT … they ate real lambs with real meat and real blood.

Why any different with Jesus’s sacrifice?

If that does not ring any bells to this current discussion … knock twice … I will hear it.

Here is Hebrews 10. He is writing to Jews. Note what he says and doesn’t say:

"1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. *5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ***"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, ******but a body you prepared for me; *6with burnt offerings and sin offerings ******you were not pleased. *7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— ******I have come to do your will, O God.’ “[a] 8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. *11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.”

 

[guanophore]

I believe NDFan is correct and that his understanding is faithful to God’s Word.

I am sorry to hear this, though I can’t say I am surprised.

But notice that if you want to go  literally, Jesus only said that the bread and wine He was holding in his hands THAT NIGHT was his body and blood. Then he said to perform a ceremony of 'remembrance'. But He never stated that in those remembrance ceremonies there would be more than bread and wine. Show us that He said otherwise.

I don’t think it is possible to grasp the import of the institution of the Eucharist without an understanding of the amanesis.

The Jewish tradition shared by Jesus and the Apostles had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “…a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.

If you think about the Passover, you will realize that the ritual surrounding it is very strict, and is intended for the rememberance to be participative, and brings those doing it into that which it commemorates. Each year they gathered according to the tradition, using certain prayers, assigned roles, and having prepared the spotless male lamb. They ate the lamb, and became present under the covered lintels. All this is a prefigurment of Eucharist, where we, through amanesis, become present at the foot of the cross. As often as we do this, He makes it real.

 

[guanophore]

I love that and I agree 100%. (I had not thought about the link to walking on water and the Exodus. Beautiful.) The Passover pointed to the time when the blood of our Lamb would, when applied by faith to the doorposts of our heart, save us from eternal death! I just don’t see that implying that the bread and wine now become His body and blood. They don’t need to, for it was faith in His death for me that reconciled me to God. Thanks.

With all due respect, whatever Jesus says we “need” then that is what we follow. If you do not “need” to follow His commandment, for whatever reason you can muster, then that is between you and God. He gave us this commandment, and therefore, like all of His commandments, we believe we need it. I don’t see how you can read the passage in corinthians and not see this.

Yes, but read Hebrews. That was the shadow. Christ is the substance. When Peter spoke in Acts 2 or Paul answered on what we must do to be saved, it was ‘Repent, believe and be baptized!’. He they didn’t say “…and EAT!”

That is because the unbaptized were not permitted to join the Lord’s Table. They were asked to leave, until baptized.
This practice is still followed today by all those who belong to Apostolic Churches.

We eat now by repenting and believing, and we observe the Lord’s Supper “In remembrance of Me”

No. Although, repenting and believing, as Peter said, is a good place to start.

I agree that whenever we eat the bread and drink the cup, we exercise faith. But I am also sayng, 1) That neither the NT texts nor the link to Passover demand an interpretation that includes Transustantiation.

Well, we read them differently.

And 2) that it is repentance and faith that reconciles us to God, not the Eucharist

This is true that participating in Eucharist without repentance and faith in God is a grave moral peril.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Well, look at 1 Corinthians 10:14-17. This was after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven. Here Paul is says, “Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is iti not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Here is talking about partaking in the Eucharist. Of partaking in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul says, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself.”

How can you profane the body and blood of Jesus if it does not become Jesus? If it is just a symbol, this verse wouldn’t make a bit of sense. I don’t think it can be anymore clear. May the scales be removed from your eyes!

Thanks for sharing. I think one of the most compelling reasons for understanding the bread and wine to only be symbolic of the body and blood is this: Jesus often spoke in symbol AND, when He said “This is my body,” it was obvious to them that it was symbol since HIS BODY WAS INTACT and in full view of them! He said “…broken for you” and HIS BODY HADN’T BEEN BROKEN YET! So they knew he was speaking in symbol. That COULDN’T have been His body. You could say that anything is possible with God, but the clear sense of the event was that it was exactly what they saw: bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. This is why (and this is key) he then says simply do this in remembrance of Me, rather than more.

 

[broski234]

Thanks for sharing. I think one of the most compelling reasons for understanding the bread and wine to only be symbolic of the body and blood is this: Jesus often spoke in symbol AND, when He said “This is my body,” it was obvious to them that it was symbol since HIS BODY WAS INTACT and in full view of them! He said “…broken for you” and HIS BODY HADN’T BEEN BROKEN YET! So they knew he was speaking in symbol. That COULDN’T have been His body. You could say that anything is possible with God, but the clear sense of the event was that it was exactly what they saw: bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. This is why (and this is key) he then says simply do this in remembrance of Me, rather than more.

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? Continued…

 

[broski234]

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.

Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?

And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?

Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?

And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, Catholic Daddy, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.

 

[Benadam]

If all Jesus left us on earth are symbols then it follows that symbolism could be a fundamental structure in the unity within the Person Jesus.

Isn’t that how Jeus makes all things new? Jesus who in Himself unites earth and heaven has united the earth we all experience to heaven. Hypostatic union of earth and heaven in Him. Eternally alive matter actually entered into the fabric of fallen living matter.
Eternal flesh is eternal. If the flesh witnessed on earth no longer was on earth in the ways proper to it then it’s claim to be eternal life are void and null. No way to distinguish it as the work of God Not because there isn’t a symbol of the reality but because there is no sign of it’s reality…

 

[catholic_daddy]

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.

Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?

And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?

Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?

And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, Catholic Daddy, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.

Thanks for staying with me on this. First, I understand that most Catholics would rather shoot their mother than admit that the Eucharist may be symbolic. So this will be my last post on the subject.
Second, what Christ did on the cross is to me the focal point of all history. I was saved when I trusted in Him and that act. I have personally led many people to faith in Christ and thus eternal life by sharing with them what happened there. So I take it extremely seriously. I know in the deepest sense what He meant when He said we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I consumed Him and his life-giving sacrifice the day I was saved. I am looking forward to an eternity of thanking him for that incredible gift.
Third, regardless of whether it was literal or figurative, the disciples and any other listeners would have great difficulty with his statement in John 6. Why? Because they thought he came to be an earthly king and conquer the Romans who ruled over them! They had no idea He was going to DIE for their sins!
Lastly, this issue is minor compared to the more critical issue–I don’t know you, so don’t take this personally–Have you ever eaten his flesh and drunk his blood? Yeh, I know…but I have a friend who went to Mass every DAY since he was young, a very devout and studied Catholic, but when he was in his late thirties he realized he had never been saved, never experienced the new birth, never trusted in Christ ALONE for his salvation. Then he repented and believed and his life took off like a meteor! He ended up feeling he had not been taught correctly in the RCC. Yeh, I know about Scott and the others. Don’t worry about them. They won’t get to answer for you on that Day.
I’m done now. God Bless you richly.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for staying with me on this. First, I understand that most Catholics would rather shoot their mother than admit that the Eucharist may be symbolic. So this will be my last post on the subject.

That is kinda crass.

We cannot “admit” to such a heresy. It would contradict the teaching we have received from the Apostles, and therefore, constitutes “a different gospel”.

Second, what Christ did on the cross is to me the focal point of all history. I was saved when I trusted in Him and that act. I have personally led many people to faith in Christ and thus eternal life by sharing with them what happened there. So I take it extremely seriously. I know in the deepest sense what He meant when He said we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I consumed Him and his life-giving sacrifice the day I was saved. I am looking forward to an eternity of thanking him for that incredible gift.

God bless your faith. What brings you here? Do you think we need to be led to faith in Christ?

Third, regardless of whether it was literal or figurative, the disciples and any other listeners would have great difficulty with his statement in John 6. Why?

He was more and more emphatic. He added on words like “munch, gnaw, grind with the teeth”. Jews would be scandalized about the suggestion of drinking blood.

Because they thought he came to be an earthly king and conquer the Romans who ruled over them! They had no idea He was going to DIE for their sins!

That is true, but unrelated to the Bread of Life Sermon.

Lastly, this issue is minor compared to the more critical issue–I don’t know you, so don’t take this personally–Have you ever eaten his flesh and drunk his blood? Yeh, I know…but I have a friend who went to Mass every DAY since he was young, a very devout and studied Catholic, but when he was in his late thirties he realized he had never been saved, never experienced the new birth, never trusted in Christ ALONE for his salvation. Then he repented and believed and his life took off like a meteor! He ended up feeling he had not been taught correctly in the RCC.

Yes. This has happened to a lot of us.

Yeh, I know about Scott and the others. Don’t worry about them. They won’t get to answer for you on that Day.

So, are you evangelizing Catholics so we will be ready on that Day?

I’m done now. God Bless you richly.

Actually, it seems like you were done before you came here. As far as I can tell, you never did have any Catholic questions.

 

[catholic_daddy]

That is kinda crass.

We cannot “admit” to such a heresy. It would contradict the teaching we have received from the Apostles, and therefore, constitutes “a different gospel”.

God bless your faith. What brings you here? Do you think we need to be led to faith in Christ?

He was more and more emphatic. He added on words like “munch, gnaw, grind with the teeth”. Jews would be scandalized about the suggestion of drinking blood.

That is true, but unrelated to the Bread of Life Sermon.

Yes. This has happened to a lot of us.

So, are you evangelizing Catholics so we will be ready on that Day?

Actually, it seems like you were done before you came here. As far as I can tell, you never did have any Catholic questions.

Darn! I thought this was the site where Catholics were LOOKING for answers!