Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[ncgolf]

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.”

Still no contradiction … this is the admission that all the OT sacrifices were for naught … they did not remit sin. If those other had remitted since there would be no need for more. Jesus is the sacrifice that can accomplish this.

Heb 1:10 describes the pre-figurement of the one sacrifice.

An interesting part of your quote is 10 … “the sacrifce of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” It is a one time event … but not once and for all … as it is over but one time for all of mankind. This does not contradict Catholic theology of the celebration of the Eucharist as re-presentation of the one sacrifice, for we know the sacrifice is ever present and eternal for the lamb is indeed even seen in Rev 5:6 " a Lamb that seemed to have been slain."

Hebrews, in general, is a pep up talk for the early Jewish Christians … evoking all the great Jewish heroes … kind of keep the faith guys.

A great prayer in 13:20 as a sidenote.

Tell me then what is unsaid?

 

[broski234]

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.

First, you ask questions wanting Catholics to prove their point and when they do, you reply back saying this is the last time? This tells me that you really don’t care what Catholics have to say or in learning what we believe. Second, the Jews took him literally and you have proven nothing by what you just said. You didn’t answer my questions or even dealt with the scripture verses that I cited for you. I know plenty of protestants ranging from baptist, methodist, episcopalian, presbyterian, lutheran, etc who have converted to Catholicism. So I can name just as many people as you who came to the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, everyone of these people speaks of the heresy and errors of protestantism. Anyway, this was irrelevant for you to bring up. Yes, there are many Catholics who don’t know their faith, but that has no baring on the Catholic Faith. Would you say that Jesus was a bad teacher because Peter denied him 3x’s and ran away; Judas betrayed him, his disciples left him and no longer followed him when they found a certain teaching too hard to accept (Eucharist). Would you call Jesus a bad teacher? I seriously doubt you would. By your theology, you would?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

“My flesh is REAL food, My blood is REAL drink”.

What else do you want people?

 

[catholic_daddy]

First, you ask questions wanting Catholics to prove their point and when they do, you reply back saying this is the last time? This tells me that you really don’t care what Catholics have to say or in learning what we believe. Second, the Jews took him literally and you have proven nothing by what you just said. You didn’t answer my questions or even dealt with the scripture verses that I cited for you. I know plenty of protestants ranging from baptist, methodist, episcopalian, presbyterian, lutheran, etc who have converted to Catholicism. So I can name just as many people as you who came to the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, everyone of these people speaks of the heresy and errors of protestantism. Anyway, this was irrelevant for you to bring up. Yes, there are many Catholics who don’t know their faith, but that has no baring on the Catholic Faith. Would you say that Jesus was a bad teacher because Peter denied him 3x’s and ran away; Judas betrayed him, his disciples left him and no longer followed him when they found a certain teaching too hard to accept (Eucharist). Would you call Jesus a bad teacher? I seriously doubt you would. By your theology, you would?

I think Jesus is the ultimate teacher. I just believe He has taught me and millions of others differently on this. I pray you’ll think about ALL that I said. God Bless.

 

[Stephen168]

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!

This is my favorite verse to enforce the teaching of Christ in John 6:47-59.

Luke 24:30-31 is fun, too

Thanks

 

[broski234]

This is my favorite verse to enforce the teaching of Christ in John 6:47-59.

Luke 24:30-31 is fun, too

Thanks

I agree:thumbsup:

 

[ncgolf]

This is my favorite verse to enforce the teaching of Christ in John 6:47-59.

Luke 24:30-31 is fun, too

Thanks

The road to Emmaus account has a few other items worth mentioning … after Jesus revealed himself after the breaking of bread … they said in 32 "were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us on the way… ". I believe this does show Jesus does not tie the Eucharist to the ability to burn with desire for the Lord. Though Jesus had not revealed himself they were gung ho again … just discussing Scripture with another brought the burning.

What did the presence of Jesus do then for them … it turned them around … immediately … they set out at once … meaning they walked back to Jerusaleum at night since Scripture puts the time of day at early evening. It can change us immediately and make us go places we would have not dared previously … walking in the country at night in those times was dangerous.

I dare say those 2 disciples never viewed the breaking of bread in the same light again … they knew it’s power and who is truly present when it occurs.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Catholic daddy,
I hope and pray that you are able to realize that you have been led astray! Don’t be scared to realize that. I believe that you are supposed to be here having these conversations! God is tapping you on the shoulder and putting the Truth right in front of your eyes. PLEASE, re-read these last couple of pages of posts. THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL!!! There is SO much scholarship in these last couple of pages from guanophore, ncgolf, and broski234. Man continually re-interprets/re-invents meaning and trys to understand it with their modern day understanding of what something means. This teaching that guanophore, ncgolf and broski234 are so beautifully trying to teach you IS the teaching of the Apostles and was the ONLY belief all the way through the Reformation. What has happened since the Reformation to change historical, Apostolic teachings so much? MAN’s belief that he has the right to self interpret and then teach that feeling/personal interpretation as truth is what happened. What you are believing is the teaching of man. PLEASE, if you can, please open your heart and consider what we are telling you. You are so close, but yet, so far away from the Truth. You are headed in the wrong direction following errant teachings of man that are less than 500 years old. Do you belive that Jesus founded His Church on His Apostles? He did and He has guided Her and protected Her from teaching error just like He said that He would. He is NOT guiding and protecting each and every man outside of her personally interpreting and teaching Scripture to mean what they think it means.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Catholic daddy,
I hope and pray that you are able to realize that you have been led astray! Don’t be scared to realize that. I believe that you are supposed to be here having these conversations! God is tapping you on the shoulder and putting the Truth right in front of your eyes. PLEASE, re-read these last couple of pages of posts. THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL!!! There is SO much scholarship in these last couple of pages from guanophore, ncgolf, and broski234. Man continually re-interprets/re-invents meaning and trys to understand it with their modern day understanding of what something means. This teaching that guanophore, ncgolf and broski234 are so beautifully trying to teach you IS the teaching of the Apostles and was the ONLY belief all the way through the Reformation. What has happened since the Reformation to change historical, Apostolic teachings so much? MAN’s belief that he has the right to self interpret and then teach that feeling/personal interpretation as truth is what happened. What you are believing is the teaching of man. PLEASE, if you can, please open your heart and consider what we are telling you. You are so close, but yet, so far away from the Truth. You are headed in the wrong direction following errant teachings of man that are less than 500 years old. Do you belive that Jesus founded His Church on His Apostles? He did and He has guided Her and protected Her from teaching error just like He said that He would. He is NOT guiding and protecting each and every man outside of her personally interpreting and teaching Scripture to mean what they think it means.

This is a very nice post from you . I also believe guanophore, ncgolf, and broski234 clarified the essense of the Holy Eucharist the best way a Catholic could. (I also learned some things). I am especially thankful of reading guanaophore (The Catholic Soldier) posts who took time to refute the teachings of man that are less then 500 years old in a mature and sensful manner. God Bless you all. Not just the Catholics but also the non-Catholics who are here for a reason

 

[on_fire]

well said my brothers…that should answer all the earthly questions,and now we should hope that the Holy Spirit answers the Spiritual questions some of our non-Catholic brother and sisters have.

 

[broski234]

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.

Extremely serious, really? How serious are you about the Eucharist when you believe it was symbolic? If you take Jesus seriously and literally, as Catholics do, then you would believe His clear words in John 6. You say that Jesus did all that needs to be done in order for anyone to be saved when he died on the cross. Yes, He did, in one sense. He paid the price that only He can pay. However, if our salvation rested solely on Jesus’ finished work on the cross, then everyone ever born would automatically be saved, wouldn’t they? But, there is something else that needs to be done. We need to respond. We need to do something in order to be saved. We need to believe. And we need to do the works God has set aside for us to do. We need to LABOR for the food that leads to eternal life. We need to eat His flesh and drink His blood to gain eternal life. And all of these things, faith and works, are only done by the grace of God. God’s grace saves us through faith. But, if after we have been initially saved, we do not do the works he has set aside for us according to His will, then we can lose that salvation. Our works do not gain us salvation, but if we do not do the works He wants us to do, then we can indeed lose our salvation.

Have you considered that you may be spreading false teaching to the ones you say you’ve “lead to Christ”? In other words, are you infalliable? Can you be wrong in your interpretation of John 6? Is it possible? By who’s authority do you claim to know the truth on the Eucharist? On any scripture for that matter?

 

[MelanieAnne]

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

It very well can be a site where Catholics are looking for answers.

But you’re not a Catholic and you don’t seem to be seeking any answers, so what draws you here?

Also, in reading your previous comment ~

neither the NT texts nor the link to Passover demand an interpretation that includes Transustantiation [sic]

Protestants often make a big fuss over Transubstantiation and Catholic & Orthodox belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. (Many non-Catholics believe “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” are the same thing, but technically they’re not.) The phrase of yours quoted above is a rather mild rejection of the concept, considering the various ones we have seen on this forum. However, if you look at Christianity from the beginning, Protestants do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. Just as an example, in this thread alone, there have been a number of arguments citing various phrases in the Bible.

But what about this ~

1. 
   *]Our understanding of the Eucharist was taught by the Apostles and those that followed them BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. Nobody had to argue about this or that text because the Bible had not been compiled.
   *]It is absolutely true that a person cannot fully appreciate and understand the Last Supper and the Eucharist without having a fundamental understanding of the Passover, including a detailed understanding of the ritual and the traditions of Passover. I have yet to meet a Protestant who has that understanding, but perhaps there are a few. What’s your understanding of it?
   *]Since the Bible wasn’t fully compiled for generations after the foundation of the church, the fuss that the Protestants raise about it now ~ nearly 2000 years after the fact ~ would have been something people at the time would have considered odd. The people of the time were well aware of the nature of the Eucharist. Many books of the NT were written to refute heresies that were growing up at the time. Concerns about what the Eucharist represented wasn’t one of them.
   *]1500 years down the road, the Protestants pop up, discard several books from the Bible and start circulating changes to a theology that had remained, at least on this subject, intact since the time of Christ. Where did their authority come from to alter something that had been taught to the Apostles by Jesus Himself?
   *]Now, using Biblical texts (from a Bible originally compiled by CATHOLICS) but ignoring (or perhaps having no knowledge of) all the history and traditions of Christianity back to the time of Christ, we have Protestants coming here and telling us what the Bible means. Catholics compiled the Bible and have preserved the history and traditions for nearly 2000 years but here comes “catholic ?] daddy” to tell us what it means. Doesn’t that strike you as at least a wee bit arrogant and prideful?
   *]In the end, however, what is the fuss about really? That you need to be right and find someone else wrong? Is that your idea of a Christian value? Catholics believe what they believe because this was what Jesus taught. You could believe it for the same reason, and none of your other theology would be diminished in the process. To argue about this is silly, and I submit it is un-Christian, to fight just for the sake of fighting and finding fault.
   *]And yes, I know, you could say that Catholics could change their beliefs to match yours instead. Sorry, we were here first. Your Christian church, whatever it is, has its origins in Catholicism, you just have to reach far enough back into history to find it. We were here first, we teach what Jesus Himself taught, so we get to pick.
   *]I pick what Jesus taught over “I prayed about it and this is what I decided” EVERY TIME.

 

[on_fire]

AMEN!!!

 

[guanophore]

This is a very nice post from you . I also believe guanophore, ncgolf, and broski234 clarified the essense of the Holy Eucharist the best way a Catholic could. (I also learned some things). I am especially thankful of reading guanaophore (The Catholic Soldier) posts who took time to refute the teachings of man that are less then 500 years old in a mature and sensful manner. God Bless you all. Not just the Catholics but also the non-Catholics who are here for a reason

I thank both of you for your kind words. May we all come to “know” Him in the breaking of the bread!