J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
In John 6:56 Jesus says
Where else in scripture does it reference eating ones flesh or drinking ones blood as a figure of speech, and what is its figurative meaning.
- Status
A
ajk19
Guest
The idea of the Real Presence, is a tradition of man plain and simple.
A
ajk19
Guest
Would this do?
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
Suffice it to say, this would prove the spiritualness of what Jesus said, it is his Word that gives life.
L
lak611
Guest
He is the Word. The Word is not just what He said.
A
ajk19
Guest
Yes but again, it is through His Word that life is gained, as we can learn from it a great many things about life.
L
lak611
Guest
A
ajk19
Guest
No but there is enough there to suffice. Remember the Bible says to not add or take away from it (something which the Catholic Church breaches with it’s traditions apart from scripture).
R
Rolltide
Guest
So, the interpretation of men personally hand-picked and trained by the Apostles mean nothing?
It’s clear that belief in the Real Presence dates to at LEAST the time around the death of John. The historical evidence is overwhelming. So, that leaves only two possibilities:- That Jesus is to be taken literally, as most people in history have done, including people trained by the Apostles
- That the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit they received at Pentecost, were the worst teachers in the history of mankind, creating followers that spread heresy everywhere they went. In fact, they were so bad, that the Roman government itself believed that Catholics were practicing cannibalism. If the Real Presence was false, then the Apostles failed in their mission within 60 years of the death of Jesus. That gives me very little faith in Christianity, if true…
A
ajk19
Guest
Sorry to say, but the Catholic Church was and is wrong. God never started a physical Church, but rather the Church he created exists wherever there is a believer in Him and follows his commands. That’s his true Church, His people.
E
edward_george
Guest
Wrong…the book of Revelation says not to add to nor take away from it. That quotation occurs at the end of the book of Revelation, and as the canon of Scripture had not been compiled (by the Catholic Church, I might add) at the time of its writing, the quotation cannot be taken to mean that it refers to the whole Bible. In fact, the qualifier “prophetic” is used in front of the word “book” in the passage you refer to, and since the whole of the Bible is not a prophetic book (the Gospels are not prophetic in their entirety, neither are the Epistles of Paul, nor are the other Epistles for that matter).
Just for reference, here’s the quote, from the King James Version for good measure.
-ACEGC
E
edward_george
Guest
But wouldn’t the body of his people be a physical Church? There’s no way that he started a merely spiritual church. Besides, the Church is referred to in Scripture as the Body of Christ–not a spirit. There is only one Body of Christ.
Also, we have Scriptural passages of Christ saying that he’s building a Church–Matthew 16:18, for example:
So if Christ didn’t build a church, then what did he do? Are you again calling him a liar?
-ACEGC
A
ajk19
Guest
Nice try, but have you not forgotten…
Deut. 12:4, 6, “You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you,” Verse 6, “Keep therefore and do them for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations.”
and…
Deut. 12:32, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; you shall not add thereto, nor take away from it.”
Deut. 12:4, 6, “You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you,” Verse 6, “Keep therefore and do them for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations.”
and…
Deut. 12:32, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; you shall not add thereto, nor take away from it.”
W
WitnessToHope
Guest
When you say the Bible says to not add or take away, I’m afraid you’re revealing a flawed understanding of how the Bible was compiled. My assumption is that you are referring to Revelation 22:18 - 19 which reads “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.”
When that was written the Bible as we know it did not exist. That verse was referring to the book of Revelation only. That being the case, I have to respectfully ask you why I or anyone else reading your argument against the Real Presence would find you to be a credible and knowledgable person on the subject if you don’t have even a basic understanding of how Scriptures came to be. I’m not meaning to be harsh but I would really encourage you to give some prayerful thought to all the previous postings. Are you really asking us to follow the teachings of a former altar boy who was Catholic for 6 years over Jesus Christ and the Early Church Fathers?
By the way, St. Paul said we are to honor and hold sacred our traditions. Was he lying too?
You are in my prayers!
Witness To Hope
E
edward_george
Guest
Okay, so why do you not heed to his commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
-ACEGC
You forget that “Church” means “assembly.” There is no “assembly” where there is only “a” believer. You are pulling a definition out of thin air, and you are therefore imposing your own authority, of which you have none. Christ told his followers to “take it to the church” and treat those who don’t listen to it as gentiles and tax collectors. Whether you think of a local or universal church, it is physical, real, and visible.
You already got the part about the Resurrection wrong. Clearly, you attack without having fully read the Bible, picking out only bits and pieces. What credibility do you have left?
A
ajk19
Guest
Because it was not literal that’s why, as I’ve already explained.
L
lak611
Guest
If these verses in Deuteronomy refer to the entire Bible, then no other books could be part of the Bible besides the Torah. That was the belief of the Samaritans. Are you now suggesting that all of the books of the Old Testament besides the first 5 and the entire New Testament are not part of the Bible?
Clearly, you haven’t studied the Greek of John 6 either.
S
SPH1
Guest
You have already seen your glaring error in that Christ was obviously not talking about HIS FLESH not profiting anything, for the WORD clearly states that Christ’s flesh was given for the world.
Now your error focuses on alleged re-sacrificing … a completely different argument.
The Mass is not another sacrifice, it is the same sacrifice. As if the Cross stands through time and space.
Same with the Last Supper. We do not partake of many suppers sitting at many tables. Just one table/supper extending through time and space.
Like many non-Catholics, you prefer to simply read about the Last Supper/Sacrifice instead of being there.
News Flash! Christ didn’t say to simply READ about the Last Supper/Sacrifice.
A final point: At the very least, Christ intended one to treat the Bread & Wine AS IF THEY WERE His Body and Blood. So in practice, there should be no difference between the Real Presence view and symbolic only view (not held by all of Protestantism btw), in how one treats the Eucharist.
R
Rolltide
Guest
So if you’re rejecting the Real Presence, how did the Apostles fail in their teaching? How did ALL of the leaders of Christianity just ONE GENERATION after the Apostles get it wrong? How would the Romans have come up with such a rumor (about cannibalism) if not from misunderstanding the Real Presence? If you are correct, Christians, from around 100 AD onward, were practicing a lie, that wasn’t corrected for at least 1400 years!
It is absolutely the truth that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now I need to know how to interpret it. Who am I going to regard more highly, your interpretation, or the interpretation of those that knew the Apostles and were trained by them. They are ALL in agreement. You are the dissenting voice. Why should I choose you?
- Status