No problem. Jesus is the “bread of life”. He is what we need for our spiritual nourishment.
Why does it matter if his writings are God breathed–you deny they show us anything about how the early Christians worshiped? You totally missed the point. We’re not discussing dogma here and I think you misunderstand how dogma is arrived at–Heck take a look in Acts and what is referred to as the Council of Jerusalem–they didn’t all agree did they–they had a council and a decision was reached. That’s how it has been working for roughly 2000 years.First, Justin Martyr’s writings are not God-breathed. Second, if you read Justin Martyr’s writings, you’ll find there are things he believed that present day Catholicism doesn’t - and vice versa. This is why using the writings of ECF’s that are not NT Scripture from the FIRST Century doesn’t “support” one particular Christian denomination’s view, because you can easily find disagreements among the ECF’s regarding numerous doctrines, including the PVM, water baptismal salvation, the canon of Scripture - OT & NT, the “real-presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist, etc. That’s why believing in the sufficiency of Scripture for “doctrine, reproof, correction, & training in righteousness” is vital (2 Timothy 3:16). It’s because of the deviation from the sufficiency of Scripture is why the Reformation was needed, & why so many children abandon the faith - Catholics & Protestants alike. Think about it. If the Catholic church didn’t “add” to Scripture and call it “tradition,” the Reformation would have never happened, & “maybe” so many Catholics wouldn’t be leaving the church. Food for thought.
No, the Protestant Reformation has not returned to the beliefs of Christ’s Church, but distorted them, while loosing essentials such as the Holy Mass and many sacraments, and the Magisterium, resulting in the many thousands of sects.
"St. Ignatius of Antioch, ca. A.D. 110
That’s odd…I haven’t seen an “empty church” anywhere. Where did you see one empty at Mass time?
This whole thread is an exaggeration and globalization of local circumstances and by those who have bought into the media’s selective use of statistics to paint the picture of a dying Church.
<sigh!> You too are missing the point. Fine! Metaphor or symbolic, rather than parable - better?
It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus in John 6:35 (which I notice Catholics tend to completely skip over when discussing John 6:53) is clearly speaking metaphorically…unless you want to take the position that literally “coming” to Jesus satisfies literal, physical hunger & that “believing” in Jesus quenches literal, physical thirst? This is the issue so many of you aren’t addressing, but rather creating a Red Herring about my use of the word “parable” instead of “metaphor/allegory/symbolic, etc.” So, let’s focus on the actual issue…can we? (Baby…bathwater.)Because Scripture, including Acts, is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) - the writings of ECF’s are not, including Justin Martyr, which is evident by the fact that there are things he wrote that are not the same as what’s in Scripture, let alone what has been taught later by the Church. Extra-biblical “tradition” that wasn’t eventually written down in Scripture is never referred to as “Inspired” (God-breathed).
Paul considered anything referred to as “Scripture” as “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), such as when he quoted the Gospel of Luke & called it “Scripture” in 1 Timothy, as well as the entire OT. Peter, too, referred to ALL of Paul’s epistles as “Scripture.” And the “traditions” that Paul was referring to “either by oral statement or by letter from us,” if you read the surrounding passages, Paul is referring to the SAME tradition spread EITHER by “oral statement” OR “by letter” - not one “tradition” given “orally” & a different “tradition” by “letter.” The text does not support the latter. In order to understand a verse in the NT correctly, you must read the surrounding passages too, not just “lift” a single verse out of context. That’s called “quote-mining.” So, the number of times extra-scriptural “traditions” in the NT that were not eventually written down that are called “Inspired” or referred to as positive - ZERO!
Where does it state that extra-scriptural “tradition” is Inspired? NOWHERE.
So, when Jesus said “I AM the door,” does that mean a literal, physical door “becomes the body, blood, soul, & divinity of Jesus”? Does this mean “Jesus is not a door; the door IS Jesus - literally?” Remember, that is the meaning of transubstantiation. And “where” does Jesus even state that the bread & wine “transubstantiates” in John 6 anyways? Where in John 6 does it state that communion is even going on? I can’t find it. If not, then why didn’t Peter start “eating” Jesus & “drinking” His literal blood in John 6?
Because “real” doesn’t necessarily mean “physical” - but “genuine” - Jesus was contrasting “literal” physical bread eaten by the Israelites that fell from Heaven that they would have to eat over & over again to not go “literally” hungry, with the “real ‘non-literal’ Bread” from Heaven - Jesus, who “coming” to Him will not “hunger.” Coming to Jesus - not literally “eating” Him - is what satisfies our “spiritual” hunger, just as “believing” in Him - not literally “drinking” Him - is what quenches our “spiritual” thirst (John 6:35).
It’s not hard to understand when you read ALL of what Jesus said (like John 6:35 too), not just “most” of it.
So, do I - in context after reading ALL of the passage, not just “parts” of it.
I’m able to understand them with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Which means “thanksgiving” in Greek, not the communion bread itself.
I understand that it doesn’t “make sense” based on your “opinion.” But it is exegetically sound.