- Status
S
Scott36
Guest
Amen Sister!
I retract my earlier comments about Jesus’ lack of clarity…I see now how very clear Jesus was in John 6 now that I have a clear understanding of John 6:63 from my participation on this thread.
I second the opinion that this thread has been very useful and a testament to Catholic teaching of the the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
I retract my earlier comments about Jesus’ lack of clarity…I see now how very clear Jesus was in John 6 now that I have a clear understanding of John 6:63 from my participation on this thread.
I second the opinion that this thread has been very useful and a testament to Catholic teaching of the the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
No arguement here from me.
How much clearer would you want Him to be?
Jesus was very clear. What do you call saying over and over again, in fact 7 times, that we are to eat His flesh and that if we don’t we have no life in us? I think Jesus was very clear.
Jesus did indeed speak clearly. It is God who gives us the grace to understand and interpret it correctly. Those “very intelligent” people just haven’t been graced that’s all.
The whole bible could be misinterpreted but God graced the Church to interpret the bible correctly and that is why we have the Magisterium. I am glad and very grateful that God has put me on Peter’s boat. I never want to jump off his boat 'cause if I do, I don’t stand a chance on those tens of thousands of little rafts floating out there. They are not equipped with what I need to stay afloat or alive. Peter’s boat is equipped with Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
I wouldn’t call it judgemental. I would call it helping them to understand. I pray for all of them so that one day God will remove the scales from their eyes. I have a brother and a sister on one of those little rafts trying to stay afloat. So all I try to do is to help them to see, that’s all. I can’t have them “see” I can only help. It is God that converts through the Holy Spirit. I pray for all of them (including zerinus) and so does my daughter.
Well Scott, God was not speaking figuratively and I know you know that. He was very clear on this matter so there was no need for further clarification as He did in John 4:31-34 when His disciples thought He was talking about food. Jesus was talking about doing the will of His father. Since His disciples thought He was talking about food and not doing the will of His father he had to clarify. There was no need for clarification in John 6 because those people knew exactly what Jesus was talking about and they were not about to accept that they had to eat His flesh. So Jesus let them walk, John 6:66
Z
zerinus
Guest
By the Lord Himself:
D&C 1:
29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—
zerinus
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
By the Lord Himself hummmmmmmm!
how do you know for sure that this is from the Lord? and when was this declared? because the muslims claim to have a prophet after Jesus too.
C
ctlw83
Guest
I just want to point out that many of the Church fathers in the early centuries wrote and taught that the Real Presence of the Lord was in the Eucharist.
I know this has already been brought up but, these were the people who set the foundation for EVERY Christian religion today. Despite the multiple breaks off of the Church starting with Luther and Calvin, these individuals such as St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, all spoke on the Real Presence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.
I don’t see how you can regard the teachings of these individuals as meaningless when they, along with Peter, Paul and the other Apostles all taught the same thing. Through Acts, Corinthians and other Epistles, they taught on the real presence.
To say that it is all symbolic and that people simply died for a symbol of Christ doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke around AD 110 on the real presence, only just 77 years after Christ’s death. This is before the cannon of the Bible was even decided upon!
Again, I just have a hard time accepting that Saints, Bishops and Martyrs throughout the history of the Church would teach this and that there would be no truth in it.
I know this has already been brought up but, these were the people who set the foundation for EVERY Christian religion today. Despite the multiple breaks off of the Church starting with Luther and Calvin, these individuals such as St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, all spoke on the Real Presence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.
I don’t see how you can regard the teachings of these individuals as meaningless when they, along with Peter, Paul and the other Apostles all taught the same thing. Through Acts, Corinthians and other Epistles, they taught on the real presence.
To say that it is all symbolic and that people simply died for a symbol of Christ doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke around AD 110 on the real presence, only just 77 years after Christ’s death. This is before the cannon of the Bible was even decided upon!
Again, I just have a hard time accepting that Saints, Bishops and Martyrs throughout the history of the Church would teach this and that there would be no truth in it.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
according to protesters of the CC the truth was not seen until martin luther and calvin were borne. all the early christians and apostles were all wrong until then. the CC is all wrong about the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures. the CC has been wrong for 2000 years and she still does not get it that the protestants have the infallible interpretation of the Bible. the early cristians died in their faith, died believing in the wrong thing. what a shame!
Pray for holy priests.
Z
zerinus
Guest
You are now asking a more fundamental question of how do we know a piece of revelation is true? I can turn that question round to you and you how do you know that Jesus was the Son of God? How do you know He was born of a virgin? How do you know that the account of His life given in the Bible is true? How do you know that it was not fabricated by His disciples, as the Jews claimed? How do you know that He was not an imposter as the Jews said He was? There are really no independent evidence for any of these thing outside of the New Testament, so how do you know they are true? We know that the Book of Mormon, and the other revelations of the Church are true in the same way. The Holy Spirit witnesses to us that they are true. We have faith to believe that they are true.
zerinus
C
ctlw83
Guest
I find it hard to believe that the Protestants claim they have the infallible bible, when the cannon of the Bible itself was determined by the Catholic Church in the 300’s.
Also, if the Protestant cannon is so infallible, why is it that there is no unified Protestant church? Especially on things such as Baptism, whether it is regenerative, non-regenerative, for infants or for adults etc. Also, there are thousands of Protestant church’s, all claiming that their teaching is the correct, infallible one because of the authority of the Holy Spirit and their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Not to mention Luther himself ADDED the word “alone” into Paul’s writings when the Greek texts showed no such thing! How is THAT infallible? He also cut out the Apocrapha, because it contained things about praying for the dead in Maccabees, which implies the idea of Purgatory, which Luther didn’t accept. Luther and Calvin also claimed each other were both heretics and excommunicated themselves from each other’s churches.
So, infallible and correct!? I’m not so sure. If the founders of the Protestant churches couldn’t agree on many teachings, what makes what they so infallible?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Do you believe on the OT?. existed before the NT. you dont find the OT being fullfilled in the NT? do you know that the apostles all died for knowing who Jesus was?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
that is what they believe.
H
HashemEchad
Guest
Jesus was a Jew, and he was raised as a religious Jew.
Therefore, he no doubt knew full well the very strong and very ancient command in the Torah that Jews are not to partake of ANY manner of blood, and no manner of human flesh.
That alone tells me he never meant to be taken literally, but most likely, figuratively.
Therefore, he no doubt knew full well the very strong and very ancient command in the Torah that Jews are not to partake of ANY manner of blood, and no manner of human flesh.
That alone tells me he never meant to be taken literally, but most likely, figuratively.
Stephen168
New member
Ok, so your case is simply:
Jesus spoke in hyperbole
John 6:53-57 is hyperbole
Therefore no transubstantiation
correct?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Did jews sacrifice animals, ate the flesh and sprinkled the blood all over the altar? and did not Jesus stablished a new covenant with the jews and gentiles? a clean sacrifice in form of bread and wine? which He says it is His body and blood? who are we to say different. did not jews stop sacrificing animals after that? dont you find this quite miraculous? who are we to claim to know the mind of the Almighty or to say Jesus wouldnt do that when did.
H
HashemEchad
Guest
In the Torah, which is part of what Christians call the “Old” Testament, God clearly commands Jews NOT to eat any manner of blood.
Jews are also forbidden from taking part in the eating of HUMAN flesh, which was what pagan polytheists did. ANIMAL flesh was permitted, as long it was from a kosher (ritually clean) animal.
Surely, if Jesus were truly a religious Jew, he could never tell other Jews to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It would violate the Law, which Christians claim Jesus did not violate, but “fulfilled”.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
sorry but this explanation of yours is weak. who was Jesus to you? did He come to do the will of man of the will of God? we can try to fit Jesus into our understand of things but it will not work. Jesus had a mission and He acomplished it. how do you explain that the Son of the Almighty God died in a cross like He was nobody? what about the Sabbath that according to jewish law was broken by Jesus? and many other things that Jesus did that upset the jews like being called the Son of God? and so forth…
T
Tonks40
Guest
Christ understood Jewish law. He was a devout Jew. He is the Sacrifice given to God to atone our sins, just as the Jews did during the Exodus. When we say He is the Paschal Lamb, He is the offering given to God, and to complete the the work He did on the Cross, we partake of His Flesh and His Blood, just like the priests did in the tent in the desert with partaking of the flesh of the animals given for sacrifice to God, and God alone.
No violation of the Law…rather it’s the fuller fulfillment of the Law.
Z
zerinus
Guest
It is not a question of what I believe. It is a question of how do you determine the truth of something claiming to be a revelation from God. You ask, “Do I believe in the OT?” In answer I turn that question back to you again: How do you know that the OT is a revelation from God? How do you know that it is not a book of fables, as many people believe it is? How do you know that the miracles of Moses, or Joshua, or Elijah, or Elisha, or Daniel, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah ever happened? How do you know they are not fairy tales? The answer is that you don’t. You have no way of empirically and independently determining that they ever happened. You accept in faith that they did. The same is true for us about the miracles of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. We accept in faith that they are true, because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to us that they are true.
zerinus
C
ctlw83
Guest
Oh, sorry, I thought you were arguing FOR that case, not simply explaining…my bad…
C
ctlw83
Guest
Actually, there have been many scientific and archaeological expeditions and discoveries that have indicated that many Old Testament stories are true. This including the recent scientific discoveries that the genetic information in mitochondria in all human cells pointing to us coming from a common mother, such as Eve. I have not heard of any such proofs for Joseph Smith, although, I haven’t researched any either so, I am not well-versed in that side of things…
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes, but with a slight amendment:
Jesus [often] spoke in hyperbole
John 6:53-57 is [obviously] hyperbole
Therefore no transubstantiation
zerinus
- Status