scripture question

[adrift]

I know that, that is what is commonly supposed, but it is not stated in the scripture. But it does seem that only the ones who believed that bread was changed into flesh left him. Christians always follow the worst example, because they do not know what was important. If people actually knew what was important in what Jesus said, they would be living lives performing the miracles that he said would be performed by those who believe him.

It is clearly stated in Scripture. “This is” is quite a clear statement. No everyone found it a hard saying. There were those who left Him and there were those who when asked by Jesus if they would also leave counter with to whom should we go.

The eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, are the incorporation of what he said as gospel. He said that he was the true bread that came down from heaven. The problem is that most people receive his words like water on a ducks back. Because you have not believed that he came down from heaven, sent by our father in heaven, you have not been sent…

There is no eating of bread for it is no longer bread but Jesus’ Body and there is no drinking of wine for it has changed into Jesus’ Blood. What do you mean by incorporation? How is that compatible with This is my Body This is my Blood?

 

[geometer]

There is no eating of bread for it is no longer bread but Jesus’ Body and there is no drinking of wine for it has changed into Jesus’ Blood.

After he goes on about eating his flesh, he ends by saying “eat this bread”: and the whole thing began with him saying “I am the bread that came down from heaven”. He was asked what he meant. He said the flesh availeth nothing, and his words were spiritual, the spirit of life.

After they drank from the cup he refers to it as wine.

---

Tradition has ignored these elements of scripture. The tradition does not have to change for me. Do what you like. But please don’t dodge everything that I have pointed to and point me to “this is” as an explanation for traditional belief.

 

[wmscott]

After he goes on about eating his flesh, he ends by saying “eat this bread”: and the whole thing began with him saying “I am the bread that came down from heaven”. He was asked what he meant. He said the flesh availeth nothing, and his words were spiritual, the spirit of life.

After they drank from the cup he refers to it as wine.

---

Tradition has ignored these elements of scripture. The tradition does not have to change for me. Do what you like. But please don’t dodge everything that I have pointed to and point me to “this is” as an explanation for traditional belief.

This is where you are confused, there is manmade tradition, which I agree can ignored elements of scripture, and then there is Sacred Tradition, which never, never contradicts Sacred Scripture.
The following is taken from the library here at Catholic.com.
Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic Sacred Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show. There is the relationship between Tradition and Scripture; hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.

 

[grandfather]

Actually, the bible uses the term “apostle” with respect to a number of men outside of the original group of 12. In Phil 2:25 a fellow by the name of “Epaphroditus” is included in the group. Paul, Timothy and Barnabas are better known examples and then of course there is James the brother of Jesus (as opposed to the two disciples also named James).

 

[wmscott]

Radical;5435986:

The Bible uses the word brother to mean thousands of people who are unrelated to one another. Jesus called twelve men who are known as His apostles, the twelve. It names them. The notion that Paul would not be referring to one of the James among the original twelve is absurd. The authority of these twelve was greater than other followers for a reason. They were with Jesus and learned directly from him and were commissioned directly by Him. Paul was also commissioned directly by Jesus. If in trying to establish his authority as equal to the apostles it makes no sense at all that he would try to prove that he should be given the credence of some nondescript group of followers. Clearly he was saying he should be recognized as having the same authority to teach, as the twelve.

Right, and here is the heart of the issue. What Christ does do in scripture is give authority to the twelve apostles to teach in His name. He gathered those men to Himself and taught them in particular. Whatever they teach He stands behind. They speak for Him. You do not know what He told them. Whatever it was we have to learn from them. He gave them private lessons. We can be sure that they conveyed His teaching to others as they were authorized, ordained to do. The Bible did not ordain them. Jesus did. The Bible does not guarantee their teaching. Jesus does.

Their faith did not fail. Thomas went off to India and established a Church that was separated by distance and time for generations and their doctrines are the same as the rest of the Church.

Jesus sent them to teach all nations. For a millenium and a half their teaching, doctrine, belief on the Eucharist was universally held. It is a matter of history not theology or scriptural interpretation.

He also says in scripture that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and He would be with them until the end of time. He made promises, guarantees, that the things believed by His Church would be true until the end of time. That means the things the Church believed in the year 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 are true. So if someone comes along in the year 1500 and teaches something that is novel and that contradicts the consistent beliefs of His Church based on a personal interpretation of scripture that novel doctrine must be false, or Christ’s promises and scripture itself are false. The novel doctrine claimed to be supported by scripture, contradicts scripture if it contradicts what was always universally held.

No one has the authority to start his own church based on his private interpretation of scripture. People attempt to do this all the time and we have many different groups holding unique beliefs. This is confusion. God Jesus is not the author of confusion. Scripture does not give anyone this authority. Jesus founded His Church. He gave authority to men as recorded in scripture. He did not found His Church on scripture. He did not tell us that we would receive our faith from scriptue, but scripture tells us we would receive it from those He sent, apostles. Scripture says He appointed men and authorized them to teach in His name. You refuse to hear them, because your authority in faith is scripture, not those He sent. So if scripture does not say how we are supposed to eat the Bread Come Down From Heaven, you say this is not knowable. But the Apostles and the Early Church teach us. They learned from Him. You won’t believe it. You refuse to believe them.

Jesus said that those who believe in Him would do greater things than He did, talking about His miracles. He gave no explanation of how. That is irrelevent.

Right!

Right!

Not so. The great majority of Christians in the world are Catholic (over a billion) and Orthodox (about 400 million). They believe in the original doctrines. Lutherans believe something very close and claim they believe in the Real Presence. Anglicans and Episcopalians also believe in it. The idea that the elements of the Eucharist are merely symbolic are new notions not held by the first Protestant reformers.

Great job:thumbsup:

 

[geometer]

[Jesus said that those who believe in Him would do greater things than He did, talking about His miracles. He gave no explanation of how. That is irrelevent.

Performing miracles was what he taught, it was his work, and that was his teaching. He taught his disciples and they did perform miracles. That was the earliest church. He intended a system of discipleship.
[/quote]

 

[grandfather]

Performing miracles was what he taught, it was his work, and that was his teaching. He taught his disciples and they did perform miracles. That was the earliest church. He intended a system of discipleship.

No it was not the early Church. It is the Church throughout all ages. Nothing has changed. Some are teachers, preachers, others prophesy, heal and work miracles, etc. There is one body and many parts. Saint Padre Pio probably was involved in more miracles than Jesus performed. He lived mostly in the 20th century. Every century of Church history has seen supernatural powers manifested in the Church done in God’s name. The idea that the age of miracles is over comes from those whose groups have no miracles.

The faith is handed on, passed on, from generation to generation by Christians. In that sense it is taught to followers (disciples), those who follow Him. It is taught by followers to followers. Lately the term has been turned into a verb, as I am discipling Joe. What does that mean? Joe is my disciple. Good grief! Who ordained these people, gave them authority to teach and make others their followers? They are self ordained. They claim they teach the Bible. The Bible ordains no one. It records the ordination of those chosen by Jesus to bring His gospel to the world. They made disciples and we know who they were, Mark, Luke, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and we know what they taught. It is recorded and passed down from generation to generation.

 

[Radical]

The notion that Paul would not be referring to one of the James among the original twelve is absurd.

Why? B/c it doesn’t fit with your agenda?

The authority of these twelve was greater than other followers for a reason.

Their authority doesn’t seem to have been greater than Paul’s…yet he wasn’t one of the 12. James is mentioned as a brother of Jesus in Matt 13:35 and Mk 6:3 in a context that must mean “of the same parent(s)”. Then, when Paul mentions James, the brother of our Lord, he would be referring to that well known sibling of Jesus. It is absurd to suggest that Paul meant one of the two Jameses of the 12 (since an actual brother named James was known) .

They were with Jesus and learned directly from him and were commissioned directly by Him. Paul was also commissioned directly by Jesus.

…and James would have been related to him by blood…an extremely significant connection (unless you want to dismiss Mary’s connection as well).

If in trying to establish his authority as equal to the apostles it makes no sense at all that he would try to prove that he should be given the credence of some nondescript group of followers.

Nondescript? The apostle in question is named. His blood relationship to the Lord is given. That is anything but nondescript. He would have been respected b/c of that relationship.

Clearly he was saying he should be recognized as having the same authority to teach, as the twelve.

He was saying that he should have the same authority as the “reputed pillars” named Peter, John and James the brother of Christ. If Paul could attain that status starting from outside the 12, then James the actual brother of Jesus could also rise to that status (if he was called to the office of apostle…and clearly he was so called).

What Christ does do in scripture is give authority to the twelve apostles to teach in His name. He gathered those men to Himself and taught them in particular…The Bible does not guarantee their teaching. Jesus does.

I agree that the apostles did not err in their teaching…the error of the RP developed later (IMHO).

Thomas went off to India and established a Church that was separated by distance and time for generations and their doctrines are the same as the rest of the Church.

How was it separated when trade routes connected India to the Middle-East and to Europe? Trade and missionary efforts ensured a continued connection.

For a millenium and a half their teaching, doctrine, belief on the Eucharist was universally held. It is a matter of history not theology or scriptural interpretation.

Your history is faulty. It would seem that a RP view began to dominate some time around 300 AD, but even then there were exceptions. J T O’Connor, author of “The Hidden Manna”, a RC and a fellow that believes that Augustine held to a real presence acknowledges that van der Meer, the author of a renowned work on Augustine, concluded that with respect to Augustine: “It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.” It just wasn’t universal in the first centuries…and probably wasn’t ever universal, given that even now (when doubters can easily leave to another Church) just more than half of US RCs believe in a RP.

He also says in scripture that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and He would be with them until the end of time.

that much you got right

He made promises, guarantees, that the things believed by His Church would be true until the end of time.

These exact words seem to be missing from scripture

That means the things the Church believed in the year 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 are true.

well at least the core beliefs (as described by Tertullian and Irenaeus) were true

So if someone comes along in the year 1500 and teaches something that is novel and that contradicts the consistent beliefs of His Church based on a personal interpretation of scripture that novel doctrine must be false, or Christ’s promises and scripture itself are false.

Same for the novelty of the RP introduced quite a bit earlier than 1500.

Jesus founded His Church. He gave authority to men as recorded in scripture. He did not found His Church on scripture. He did not tell us that we would receive our faith from scriptue, but scripture tells us we would receive it from those He sent, apostles.

yep…and what we have left from the apostles today is the Scriptures…error has crept into RC tradition

Not so. The great majority of Christians in the world are Catholic (over a billion) and Orthodox (about 400 million). They believe in the original doctrines.

Most believe what they are told that they must believe…but not nearly all. More than 40% of US RCs believe the bread is merely a symbol. The % for Orthodox and Lutherans would likely be higher. At that rate, most Christians do not believe in a RP.

The idea that the elements of the Eucharist are merely symbolic are new notions not held by the first Protestant reformers.

Please note that one can believe that the elements of the Eucharist are symbols and still believe that the Lord’s Supper achieves a sacramental benefit. Tertullian, Origen Clement of Alexandria would seem to fall into that group…and so your claim of a new notion ain’t that accurate. Further, if only about 57% of US RCs believe in a RP despite the hierarchy’s command to do so, what percentage has believed in the RP throughout history?

 

[grandfather]

Why? B/c it doesn’t fit with your agenda?
?

The purpose of dialogue I think, is to try to come to assent. There are times when we should realize when words are futile to achieve that purpose or success, when agreement will not be found through words. People will argue that black is white and no proofs will satisfy. Debate for the sake of debate is senseless and we have come to that point where discussion serves no purpose.

 

[Radical]

The purpose of dialogue I think, is to try to come to assent.

It would be nice to come to an assent, but I get the feeling that the agreement you seek is one that concludes that my position is an absurdity and that all that the CC teaches is true…and if that is your goal, then you are right when you say that “There are times when we should realize when words are futile to achieve that purpose or success, when agreement will not be found through words.” Take care.

 

[Soutane]

Christ said it.I believe it.There is NO ambiguity.Do you not think that He was unaware of possible misinterpretation?He used the term verily or “truthfully” TWICE.He allowed some disciples to leave Him PRECISELY because they understood the meaning YET DID NOT BELIEVE,just like most of modern day Protestantism(some Lutherans(like JonNC) and Anglicans excepted).

The difficulty Protestants have with the Eucharist is that material matter is employed.Just like the water of Baptism.Just like the spit and mud Christ used to cure the blind man.Just like the loaves and fishes Christ used to feed the multitudes.Just like the Body and Blood that Christ sacraficed during His Passion and on the Cross.God made US material.He made CHRIST material.
For some reason physicalty or the material world for many Protestants is anathema.I think it has something to do with the heretical teachings of Calvin.

 

[jpaul1953]

Hi Grandfather, you must have done a much better job of it on those other occasions.

Actually, the bible uses the term “apostle” with respect to a number of men outside of the original group of 12. In Phil 2:25 a fellow by the name of “Epaphroditus” is included in the group. Paul, Timothy and Barnabas are better known examples and then of course there is James the brother of Jesus (as opposed to the two disciples also named James).
No, it tells us that neither of the two disciples named James (from the original twelve) had parents named Mary or Joseph. By telling us the names of Jesus’s parents, the Bible tells us that the parents of Jesus’s brother James were named Mary and Joseph.
agreed. That is why Paul bothers to specify that the James in Jerusalem is the brother of the Lord, so that we don’t think he was talking about one of the two guys named James in the original 12.
Even if the James of Galatians was one of the original 12, then all you would have done is to have shown that “brother” doesn’t always mean biological brother…which is something we should already know. (That Epaphroditus felow is also called Paul’s brother) It doesn’t mean that in Matt 12 “brothers” didn’t mean biological brothers, b/c that is still the most likely meaning given the context.

agreed

actually a great deal has changed…In John 6 Christ gives no explanation as to how he will give people his flesh to eat. Since then, over the course of a number of centuries, the Catholics have provided an explanation as to how this eating can take place w/o involving anything approaching cannibalism. In John 6 the Jews were confused and offended by Jesus’s words. Now, most Christians just don’t believe the Catholic claim that the bread has been changed into Jesus’s body when they can observe that no change has occured.

Dear Grandfather,

According to Scripture, Matt 16:15-20 Jesus told Simon that Jesus was passing the torch to Simon, thereby beginning apostolic succession since Simon, now Peter, most likely did what Jesus did by stating to his underlings that when Peter dies to replace him with a new bishop of Rome.

Jesus never said anything that I know of to replace the 12 Apostles. Jesus said paraphrasing- - Did I not choose you 12?

He did choose His own replacement to lead His Church. He did choose the 12-Apostles. He gave Peter the authority to make the future decisions. I do not know of any instance where Peter said he would begin replacing the Apostles as each died.

I don’t know if this helps you, but I hope it does.

Have a good day

jpaul1953

 

[grandfather]

Dear Grandfather,

According to Scripture, Matt 16:15-20 Jesus told Simon that Jesus was passing the torch to Simon, thereby beginning apostolic succession since Simon, now Peter, most likely did what Jesus did by stating to his underlings that when Peter dies to replace him with a new bishop of Rome.

Jesus never said anything that I know of to replace the 12 Apostles. Jesus said paraphrasing- - Did I not choose you 12?

He did choose His own replacement to lead His Church. He did choose the 12-Apostles. He gave Peter the authority to make the future decisions. I do not know of any instance where Peter said he would begin replacing the Apostles as each died.

I don’t know if this helps you, but I hope it does.

Have a good day

jpaul1953

We have the apostles replacing themselves initially by drawing straws according to scripture. We see in the very earliest writings of the Church an ordained ministry and succession and the critical importance early Christians placed on receiving the faith from bishops as guardians and teachers of the truths of faith. Those who came before ordained those who came after as bishops, priests and deacons. The way Christians new their faith was true was by being held together in a unity of faith. There were always disputes that needed settling. Paul and John forwas them and some began even while John was alive. The method of settling them was through the authority of the Church hierarchy, her bishops and the bishop of Rome. This preserved unity in faith as commanded by Christ. Orthodox and Catholics believe the bishops are the successors of the apostles. They function in the same role. Some go astray. Even one of the twelve handpicked by Jesus was a betrayer. It is the faith of Peter that will not fail us. The devil wants to destroy him, but Jesus will not let that happen. THere are sinful popes, but their teaching is protected.

 

[Radical]

Christ said it.I believe it.There is NO ambiguity.Do you not think that He was unaware of possible misinterpretation?

he made no effort to answer their question as to “how” this would be given…Jesus knew that they were confused and offended and didn’t offer a further explanation or make an effort to win them back. John makes it clear (by stressing it thrice) that they left b/c they weren’t drawn to Jesus by the Father and that they were not true believers in Christ.

He used the term verily or “truthfully” TWICE.

and he used that term on other occasions involving figurative speech

He allowed some disciples to leave Him PRECISELY because they understood the meaning …

They couldn’t have understood the “meaning” that the CC declares for Christ. The CC thinks Christ was talking about eating transubstantiated bread (now body) and that whole conept had not been invented or described by anyone at that time. They ask “how” can he give us his flesh to eat…and Jesus does not give an explanation of transubstantiation. They walked away w/o rejecting the CC understanding of a RP b/c that understanding was never presented.

…YET DID NOT BELIEVE,just like most of modern day Protestantism(some Lutherans(like JonNC) and Anglicans excepted).

what those ancient Jews didn’t believe was that Jesus was the Christ

The difficulty Protestants have with the Eucharist is that material matter is employed.

You have it exactly backwards. Material consists of atoms joined into molecules. The problem that I have with the CC idea is that they want to claim a real bodily presence. A body is a material thing, yet no fleshy material (atoms and molecules of muscle etc.) is involved. To claim a real bodily presence, a real body should be present.

Just like the water of Baptism.Just like the spit and mud Christ used to cure the blind man.Just like the loaves and fishes Christ used to feed the multitudes.Just like the Body and Blood that Christ sacraficed during His Passion and on the Cross.God made US material.He made CHRIST material.
For some reason physicalty or the material world for many Protestants is anathema.

You are confusing Protestants with gnostics. All Protestants that I know would take God at his word when he declared that what he created was good…If you want to find an example of a moral physical act being treated as an immoral physical act, look to the CC. Sexual realtions between a husband and a wife is a good thing, yet some how the venerators of Mary would be offended by the idea of Mary having sex with Joseph. That physical act would somehow impugn Mary’s purity, yet such an act between a husband and wife is declared to be a good thing…a blessing from God.

 

[adrift]

After he goes on about eating his flesh, he ends by saying “eat this bread”: and the whole thing began with him saying “I am the bread that came down from heaven”. He was asked what he meant. He said the flesh availeth nothing, and his words were spiritual, the spirit of life.

After they drank from the cup he refers to it as wine.

The chapter 6 must be taken as a whole not parsed out.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

How much clearer can He be and they understood exactly what He meant because

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him.

He never said, even privately as He did other places, that He meant anything different than how they understood Him. It was a hard saying that they would eat His Body and Drink His blood. He was quited clear if they did not they would not have life in them.

Take a look at each Gospel.
Not one says that Jesus drank but that He gave it to the apostles to drink.

Luke is the best to understand

Luke

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;

for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

In Luke the I shall not drink of the fruit of the fine comes BEFORE He gives them His Body and Blood. He is not referring to what He gave changed but what He consumed in the normal course of the meal. So your belief that He refers to the Blood as wine is not true.

 

[fbl9]

You have it exactly backwards. Material consists of atoms joined into molecules. The problem that I have with the CC idea is that they want to claim a real bodily presence. A body is a material thing, yet no fleshy material (atoms and molecules of muscle etc.) is involved. To claim a real bodily presence, a real body should be present.

You are confusing Protestants with gnostics. All Protestants that I know would take God at his word when he declared that what he created was good…If you want to find an example of a moral physical act being treated as an immoral physical act, look to the CC. Sexual realtions between a husband and a wife is a good thing, yet some how the venerators of Mary would be offended by the idea of Mary having sex with Joseph. That physical act would somehow impugn Mary’s purity, yet such an act between a husband and wife is declared to be a good thing…a blessing from God.

Fine then…if you bothered you would find that there are many instances where the host actually became flesh,but you wouldn’t bvelieve it even if it happened before your own eyes because they are glued shut.

All else fails come up with another false accusation…There is not one shred of proof that you will find to prove this lie true… The Church has never taught that for Joseph to have had marital relations with Mary would be immoral…You are so lost in your own self rightousness that you would put sin where no sin had ever lain before.The children that would have been born would have been born with original sin,for Christ’s redemptive work on the cross had yet to take place.

 

[Radical]

Fine then…if you bothered you would find that there are many instances where the host actually became flesh,but you wouldn’t bvelieve it even if it happened before your own eyes because they are glued shut.

All it would take is for me to see it once…but, here is the rub. What do you mean by “many instances where the host actually became flesh”? Kinda implies that in the other instances it hasn’t actually become flesh…which of course is what I would say happens. Further, was it consumed when it was “actually flesh”? And if so, wouldn’t that be cannibalism?..b/c all the RCs I’ve talked with claim that their Eucharist would never involve the sinful act of cannibalism. This is what I find so frustrating in discussing the RP…words often don’t retain their normal meaning and the details (of what actually happens) change from one fellow to the next.

All else fails come up with another false accusation…There is not one shred of proof that you will find to prove this lie true… The Church has never taught that for Joseph to have had marital relations with Mary would be immoral…You are so lost in your own self rightousness …

From the Mary: Ever Virgin page here at Catholic Answers:

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

 

[jpaul1953]

I love the roll of the eyes on an irrelevant statement Jesus also said I am the door. Was HE a literal door?? No HE was speaking figuratively. But Jesus is literally the only way to GOD and Jesus also spoke the truth and is the only way to eternal life. Not sure why that’s such a problem.

Well this is such a poor example. You’re mixing apples and oranges. Are you really implying that Jesus is turning HIMSELF into these elements as well. Of course not but that’s how ridiculous your argument is. It’s no different than someone being lost in the woods and someone else walks up and says I’m your way out of here. Are they turning themselves into something?? No they are implying that they know the way out. This is what Jesus means by saying I am the way. HE knows the way out of this life and to eternal life. HE’s not announcing HE"s becoming something. Same for HIS supper. HE’s not announcing bread and wine become HIM. HE’s saying they are HIM meaning they represent HIM. So from now on when you partake in this meal you proclaim my death. Not from now on when you partake in this meal you eat me.

Speaking figuratively doesn’t negate a purpose.

ND Fan,

What bothers me most is that people like yourself will not even consider common ground that was acceptable for the first 1500+ years including the original protesters.

Where do you get your authority. I have yet to see your username or any reference in the Bible that says Simon Kephas (Peter) and you are given the authority by Jesus with regards to binding and loosing. Tell me where. Because if you show me where than I will believe your interpretations of any and all passages (which will ultimately be identical to St Peter’s)

Us Catholics are only defending the original position of the Church from early A.D., giving the respect to the proper order of things passed on by Jesus and set-up by St Peter.

Don’t waste your time and effort to try to prove to devout Catholics this hogwash “playing on words” that you choose to take. You have no truth in you. You only exist in denial of the truth because your ego is more important than the truth and your disbelief in the Church.

The Church followed the first fathers, who followed the Apostles, who followed Jesus. This is where we get our interpretations from. I believe that any logical( key word) thinking person would consider our legitamacy over your outright denial of the truth being given you.

You might think I’m being harsh, but you’re not going anywhere with your storyline here. We are trying to help you find the truth that you refuse to accept, but instead you get on this thread looking for converts.

As is said around my neck of the woods: “forgetaboutit” Your growing storyline is not going anywhere on this thread. You keep adding to your story to make it fit all the info you are receiving from this thread.

We pray that God can get through to you.

jpaul1953

 

[geometer]

The chapter 6 must be taken as a whole not parsed out.

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

No you have parsed out what he had said. He said more beyond what you quoted. You delete those words that Jesus spoke, for what reason??? You quoted verse 51, but the text goes on.

How much clearer can He be and they understood exactly what He meant because

He never said, even privately as He did other places, that He meant anything different than how they understood Him.

His private words are right there in the text. John 6 Verses 60-71

He made an explanation…

 

[Soutane]

Fine then…if you bothered you would find that there are many instances where the host actually became flesh,but you wouldn’t bvelieve it even if it happened before your own eyes because they are glued shut.

All else fails come up with another false accusation…There is not one shred of proof that you will find to prove this lie true… The Church has never taught that for Joseph to have had marital relations with Mary would be immoral…You are so lost in your own self rightousness that you would put sin where no sin had ever lain before.The children that would have been born would have been born with original sin,for Christ’s redemptive work on the cross had yet to take place.