M
Mickey
Guest
Detest what you must.
- Status
T
TamaraS
Guest
This is simply not true. When the Jews said how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Obviously, they knew he meant it literally. But Jesus gets even more literal in his responses- read verses 53-56 in John 6 again. How much more literal and how many ways does he spell it out?
You really THINK that Jesus would intentionally confuse? Only Satan does that. He doesn’t WANT any of us to go away. He loves us all and wants us ALL united to him. That other level of intimacy that they had with him was when he rewarded them all during the Last Supper in the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist. And he loves all of us the same, so it is available for all of us (not just the Apostles) here and now to be so intimately united with him too.
Actually John 6 lends even more depth to this Last Supper that was described in the other Gospels. When you put them all together, they make a complete story.
Once again, you really should read Scott Hahn’s book “The Lamb’s Supper” or some other book on this subject. The Bible is VERY Eucharistic, when you understand it the way that Catholics do.
M
Mickey
Guest
Fred, that is unfortunate.
Better yet, I’ll echo Jesus’ words:
**“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”. **
The Sacrament of Holy Orders is another thread. Start it if you wish.
M
Mickey
Guest
The early Christians were often accused unjustly by their pagan counterparts of many absurd crimes based upon misunderstandings that these pagans had about Christian beliefs and practices. Among the accusations raised against Christians were that they practiced incest (a misunderstanding about the love that Christian “brothers” and “sisters” were supposed to have for one another) and that they were cannibals (because they consumed the body and blood of Christ).
T
TamaraS
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Jesus spoke these words:
I am the bread of life.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.
The disciples were scandalized and walked away. Jesus asked the twelve: “Do you also wish to go away?”
Peter answers:“Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life”.
I’m not understanding your dilemma Fred?
E
Eden
Guest
Sonia, the first Christians all knew that that Christ is present in the Transubstantiated Eucharist. This was a teaching directly from Christ. This is why pagans accused early Christians of being cannibals. They did not understand that the Eucharist contains the risen Christ. The pagans did also not understand that Christ is God.ok i’ve been lurking on here long enough. i’ve got the hang of things on here, which is why i’ll probably not post again.
Fredricks-you can talk till you’re blue in the face and they still won’t understand it.
the only things that happens with these type of threads, are that someone will ask a question to a pretestant- they’ll answer and the op will STILL say the same thing over and over.
why would you keep on doing that.???
sonia
I believe Calvin was the first Protestant to present the Eucharist as symbol. Why do you want to hold beliefs that were created by a man during the Reformation 1500 after Christ told us at the Last Supper “this IS my Body, this IS my blood”?
E
Eden
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
But in the case of the Body and Blood, they know he was not speaking metaphorically. That is why they say this is a hard saying. More importantly, he does not correct their understanding, He emphasizes what He had already said.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.
In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood.
But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence.
Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”
Daniel Marsh:
www.scripturecatholic.com
When He did speak metaphorically, the disciples knew it. They did not ask, “Are you really made of wood?” or “Are you really a vine?” because they knew it was metaphor just as we do.
But in the case of the Body and Blood, they know he was not speaking metaphorically. That is why they say this is a hard saying. More importantly, he does not correct their understanding, He emphasizes what He had already said.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.
In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom.
Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood.
But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence.
Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”
Daniel Marsh:
I don’t recall that he said, “Ouch” on the cross either Daniel. You have a very weak argument here.
www.scripturecatholic.com
L
Lischou
Guest
I don’t think I could have said it better, Daniel.
Dittos Eden! Lisa
B
b_justb
Guest
I guess I look at this very simply:
What did the Christian Community believe about this issue in the beginning?
They believed the Wine and Bread were Jesus’ literal flesh and blood as bore out in many, many, many writings by Christian Bishops and apologists.
When did this symbolism thing come about?
During the (so-called) Reformation by Zwingli. Both Luther and Calvin disagreed with him.
Where will I stand?
With the original Church.
What did the Christian Community believe about this issue in the beginning?
They believed the Wine and Bread were Jesus’ literal flesh and blood as bore out in many, many, many writings by Christian Bishops and apologists.
When did this symbolism thing come about?
During the (so-called) Reformation by Zwingli. Both Luther and Calvin disagreed with him.
Where will I stand?
With the original Church.
C
ChristsSoldier
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Fredricks:
P.s.–Your profile says that your birthday is Jan 1, 1999. Either you are a highly intelligent seven year old, or that is a misprint.
C
ChristsSoldier
Guest
Misprint indeed.
I was born in 1899!
Be Blessed,
CS
I was born in 1899!
Be Blessed,
CS
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
P.s.–Your profile says that your birthday is Jan 1, 1999. Either you are a highly intelligent seven year old, or that is a misprint.
[/quote]
M
Mickey
Guest
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_29_132.gifMisprint indeed.
I was born in 1899!
Be Blessed,
CS
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Misprint indeed.
I was born in 1899!
CS
F
Fredricks
Guest
Tamara
You did respond on the other thread. Protestants will sometimes get 10 responses. Granted yours are high quality and so let me try to respond. I will also briefly hit on what Christs solider said as well about Corinthian. You do not have to but cut some slack, it is impossible to respond to everyone, we are greatly outnumbered. Now put away the violins, we are not trying to get sympathy but it truly is overwhelming.
Jesus does not only address it in verse 63, he does in verse 35 as well.
Jhn 6:35 *And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. *
How can this be literal? It is talking about eternal life.
Some other clarifications as well.
Jesus did not always act as some people think he should have on this board.
Examples
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
In John 2:19 he calls his body a Temple and the Jews misunderstand. Does he clarify? No.
Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
** Jhn 2:20** Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Christs solider
You do not celebrate it the way they did. It was supposed to be people eating together at the same time. Bread and wine, not a priest consecrating a host etc etc
“Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come”
Paul was upset that people were treating this like a true meal, instead of the religious act it is.
As far as Pauls comment, people who accept it as symbolically are still careful to partake in an unworthy manner.
You did respond on the other thread. Protestants will sometimes get 10 responses. Granted yours are high quality and so let me try to respond. I will also briefly hit on what Christs solider said as well about Corinthian. You do not have to but cut some slack, it is impossible to respond to everyone, we are greatly outnumbered. Now put away the violins, we are not trying to get sympathy but it truly is overwhelming.
Jesus does not only address it in verse 63, he does in verse 35 as well.
Jhn 6:35 *And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. *
How can this be literal? It is talking about eternal life.
Some other clarifications as well.
Jesus did not always act as some people think he should have on this board.
Examples
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
In John 2:19 he calls his body a Temple and the Jews misunderstand. Does he clarify? No.
Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
** Jhn 2:20** Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Christs solider
You do not celebrate it the way they did. It was supposed to be people eating together at the same time. Bread and wine, not a priest consecrating a host etc etc
“Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come”
Paul was upset that people were treating this like a true meal, instead of the religious act it is.
As far as Pauls comment, people who accept it as symbolically are still careful to partake in an unworthy manner.
M
Mickey
Guest
Some Christians claim that Jesus in chapter 6 of John’s Gospel was speaking figuratively since He commonly spoke in parables while preaching to the crowds. However, this does not appear to be the case here; His audience took Him literally and became angry. No where in the Gospels do the crowds become angry when Christ taught in parables. After John 6:60, Jesus was no longer speaking to the crowds but speaking privately with His disciples (Mark 4:34-- he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything). Still, they understood Him as before and many left Him. This reaction would be quite inappropriate if Christ were merely speaking in parables.
**NIHIL OBSTAT:
Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L.
Censor Librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D.
Bishop of Lincoln**
**NIHIL OBSTAT:
Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L.
Censor Librorum
IMPRIMATUR:
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D.
Bishop of Lincoln**
M
Mickey
Guest
[Fundamentalists] say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
**(CA)
**
**
**
C
ChristsSoldier
Guest
Be Blessed,
First, thank you Fred. Thank you for your time and tone. It must be daunting to be here and I respect that.
I often think if we all started treads on what we all believed in common, we would never repeat threads and hardly run out of things to say - but that wouldn’t be as fun or destructive!
Second (different thread), Christ WAS the NEW temple that housed the God of the Jew’s. It WAS raised in 3 days. Just like Mary was the Arch of the New covenant. (again, different thread)
I think the consecration was done today as was then. I agree that we do not ‘literally’ all eat at the same time today (although think the Coptic’s still do), but this is more a question of logistics today. Of course, there is also the concern of one not believing or not consuming the Host and taking it elsewhere (different thread - but understanding what we believe I’m sure you can understand this point).
I also agree that it is not a typical meal. Paul was (as often found) frustrated with several things. Some of which he did not list, most of which he intended to address in person, but I do not see where Paul calls it symbol. Nor do I see where he implies it. Apart from your already well thought out research, can you point this out to me in 1Cor 23?
Peace,
CS
- Status