SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linda_Marie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adrift said:
Those who were listening to Jesus did not read the chapter. The explanation that you seem to think is there is not presented to them. Jesus according to you allowed them to walk away with a misunderstanding. That doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Well no of course they did not read the chapter. They were there when He was saying it. But it’s not according to me if someone believes in faith through prayerful discernment of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that He did present the explanation. In any case how many times would you propose Jesus should have kept explaining it if He had already done so?
 
I would like to throw a question out here…

If you wanted to convey to a group of people(Orthodox Jews to be precise) that they must actually eat your flesh and drink your blood what word(s) would you use? (in the English language that is)

Dios te Bendiga amigos
:blessyou:

labarrios
 
CMatt25 said:
Unless someone is of the belief that Jesus had already corrected/explained it in His discourse and those that walked away still were not understanding. So He had no choice but to finally let them walk if they still weren’t getting it.
Click to expand...
He never explained it. He let all of them believe that He was speaking literally. The first person to think it was meant metaphorically wasn’t born until some time in the late 1500s AD. - even the early Protestants believed in a form of Real Presence. The purely symbolic view doesn’t appear until the rise of the Baptist Church in the early 1600s.
 
CMatt25 said:
Well no of course they did not read the chapter. They were there when He was saying it. But it’s not according to me if someone believes in faith through prayerful discernment of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that He did present the explanation. In any case how many times would you propose Jesus should have kept explaining it if He had already done so?
Click to expand...
Hey Matt,

I have been thinking about this all day. I don’t have the time right now to discuss this as I would like but I do wish to go more into depth with you.

For right now, could you explain the sentence I have underlined. It has totally confused me:confused:

As to your question, it is part of the discussion that I wish to have with you. There is more to these versus than we are addressing. The quicky answer that I know will not be satsfactory is Jesus didn’t explain it until the Last Supper. I know we disagree on this but I do wish to pursue it further with you without going over old territory. As kind of a preview, I want to go more into the Spirit and Flesh aspect of Christ discourse.

Matt I also want to thank you for such a thought provoking discussion.
Do you think we should start a new thread?
 
PRmerger said:
It’s these Church leaders that gave you the Bible, so how independent can they be from God?
Click to expand...
The same folks that decided which books would be in the Bible also decided that we should interpret John 6:53 the way you interpret it?
 
PRmerger said:
It’s just a question of semantics. In the end, we are only saved when we die. Either God says to us, “Welcome, good and faithful servant!” or “Depart from me!”

However, salvation is also a continuum. We were saved, we are being saved, and we hope to be saved.

I am already saved: (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8)
I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12)
and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15).
Click to expand...
Fantastic, PR! We agree on three of the major tenets of the Christian faith.
The bridge between us is half built already!
 
adrift said:
Jesus established 7
Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation

Penance
Sacrament of the Sick

Holy Orders
Matrimony
Click to expand...
Do you have any Scriptural basis for these? (You don’t really have to answer—we’re off topic.)
 
CMatt25, I like your statement in blue at the bottom of your comments. 👍
 
jmcrae said:
He never explained it. He let all of them believe that He was speaking literally. The first person to think it was meant metaphorically wasn’t born until some time in the late 1500s AD. - even the early Protestants believed in a form of Real Presence. The purely symbolic view doesn’t appear until the rise of the Baptist Church in the early 1600s.
Click to expand...
Honestly I wasn’t around in the late 1500s let alone 2000 yrs ago to know for certain that there was not any such person before then.
 
adrift said:
Hey Matt,
I have been thinking about this all day. . . .

Matt I also want to thank you for such a thought provoking discussion.
Do you think we should start a new thread?
Click to expand...
I’m obviously not Matt, but I would just like to say that I think it’s good that you are willing to think about this, Adrift. Have you also asked God to reveal to you what Jesus meant?

I know from experience that one does not have to participate in the Catholic Eucharist to become a Christian because Jesus has been living in me, a Protestant, for about 28 years now. He has changed my life in countless ways—from the inside out! If you will become personally acquainted with 10 typical Protestants, and look for evidence that Jesus is in them, you will most likely discover that Jesus lives in Protestants as well.

Thanks.
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
I’m obviously not Matt, but I would just like to say that I think it’s good that you are willing to think about this, Adrift. Have you also asked God to reveal to you what Jesus meant?

I know from experience that one does not have to participate in the Catholic Eucharist to become a Christian because Jesus has been living in me, a Protestant, for about 28 years now. He has changed my life in countless ways—from the inside out! If you will become personally acquainted with 10 typical Protestants, and look for evidence that Jesus is in them, you will most likely discover that Jesus lives in Protestants as well.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I have never doubted that 😉
 
labarrios said:
I would like to throw a question out here…

If you wanted to convey to a group of people . . . that they must actually eat your flesh and drink your blood what word(s) would you use? (in the English language that is)

Dios te Bendiga amigos
:blessyou:

labarrios
Click to expand...
I would use the words Jesus used or similar words.
But if Jesus was speaking symbolically, your point is mute.

Do you think Jesus was advocating cannibalism? I don’t think so. So even you believe Jesus was speaking somewhat symbolically. It’s just a question of degree.

The people of the world think we’re nuts because they cannot—unless they repent—experience what we are. They cannot see (spiritually speaking) what we see. I think that’s at least part of why they walked away.

I don’t think we can solve this issue by speculating about why they walked away. In the final analysis, we can’t read their minds so we will never know for sure unless the Bible specifically tells us why they walked away.

Goodnight. I’m rambling.
Love to all.
 
CMatt25 said:
Honestly I wasn’t around in the late 1500s let alone 2000 yrs ago to know for certain that there was not any such person before then.
Click to expand...
You weren’t around 2000 years ago to see Jesus rise from the dead, right? Yet I presume that as a Christian you believe this and proclaim it? You have as much info on that as you have about the Real Presence…🤷
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
The same folks that decided which books would be in the Bible also decided that we should interpret John 6:53 the way you interpret it?
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s been the constant teaching of the Church since before even a single word of the NT was ever put to paper (or papyrus as the case may be).
 
adrift said:
Hey Matt,

I have been thinking about this all day. I don’t have the time right now to discuss this as I would like but I do wish to go more into depth with you.

For right now, could you explain the sentence I have underlined. It has totally confused me:confused:

As to your question, it is part of the discussion that I wish to have with you. There is more to these versus than we are addressing. The quicky answer that I know will not be satsfactory is Jesus didn’t explain it until the Last Supper. I know we disagree on this but I do wish to pursue it further with you without going over old territory. As kind of a preview, I want to go more into the Spirit and Flesh aspect of Christ discourse.

Matt I also want to thank you for such a thought provoking discussion.
Do you think we should start a new thread?
Click to expand...
I haven’t even said anything about me. I was just trying to explain to PR why something might make sense to another believer because she said it didn’t make sense if it was metaphorical, for the disciples who left to have said it was a hard saying. So I was just trying to explain one belief or interpretation in a manner that a Protestant once in the non Catholic forum explained it to me. I know there are different interpretations on the spirit and flesh aspects of Christ’s discourse than the one I presented.

As far as my statement, you said “Jesus according to you (meaning me) allowed them to walk away with a misunderstanding”. According to my explanation as to what some might believe. But I did not pronounce it. If someone has studied Scripture as the Bereans did with their Scripture, and in prayer they have discerned in faith that eating His flesh was not literal, that’s their belief and faith. It’s not according to me in either case. I’m neither the teaching authority of the Catholic Church nor am I the Holy Spirit guiding them in their belief. 🙂
 
I would use the words Jesus used or similar words.
But if Jesus was speaking symbolically, your point is mute
Click to expand...
.

It is not a mute point If I believe both. He was speaking literally and symbolically. I would also add that I came to this belief through a lot of prayer and effort in trying to understand my Catechism. Now factually… he did change from using a common word for “eating”, which can be taken symbolically, to a more physical word for “eating”, which one would take literally.
Eats (Jn 6:54)
Trogo (Gk.): A verb meaning “chew” or “gnaw”. It is used five times in the fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John, the verb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus’ teaching, which up until Jn 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: He demands we express our faith by eating, in the real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I posted this before but possibly it was looked over.

Dios te Bendiga
labarrios:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top