The key word in that statement is cometh. That would indicate that he is speaking spiritually and not physically, that if you come to Him and believe in Him spiritually, you will not hunger or thirst and will be satisfied.Joh 6:35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
But Jesus was physical yet it was not apparent to the eyes. To the eyes He was simply a man but through faith and knowledge of Him beyond the physical sense He was known as God. The change is actual in the Eucharist.Well as far as physical things go, anything Jesus did was obvious, why should the eucharist be any different?. Like when he turned water into wine, it didn’t look like water and taste like water yet claim to be wine, it actually did become wine.
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.The key word in that statement is cometh. That would indicate that he is speaking spiritually and not physically, that if you come to Him and believe in Him spiritually, you will not hunger or thirst and will be satisfied.
But what about the flesh not profiting anything? If that’s true, why would eating anything in the physical change this?Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
See this link.True but at least there, you couldn’t deny it had happened, whereas with the eucharist you could since you don’t actually see flesh and blood.
Is Jesus a liar when He tells us that we must eat His body and drink His blood?But what about the flesh not profiting anything? If that’s true, why would eating anything in the physical change this?
Is this a response to me about the incarnation? Yes it could be denied. Many of the Jews rejected Him based on His claim to be God. In John8 He uses the title which God uses in Exodus4 in the burning bush. God says to Moses, ‘I AM WHO AM.’ The statement I AM came to be associated as Gods name. In John8 Jesus says, ‘before Abraham was I AM.’ This was a claim to be God. The Jews rejected Him here. They wanted to kill Him when they heard Him say this.True but at least there, you couldn’t deny it had happened, whereas with the eucharist you could since you don’t actually see flesh and blood.
Here also:Is this a response to me about the incarnation? Yes it could be denied. Many of the Jews rejected Him based on His claim to be God. In John8 He uses the title which God uses in Exodus4 in the burning bush. God says to Moses, ‘I AM WHO AM.’ The statement I AM came to be associated as Gods name. In John8 Jesus says, ‘before Abraham was I AM.’ This was a claim to be God. The Jews rejected Him here. They wanted to kill Him when they heard Him say this.
They fell down when He said “I am” because He is God.Joh 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth and said to them: Whom seek ye?
Joh 18:5 They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.
Joh 18:6 As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward and fell to the ground.
And yet another Protestant picking and choosing what to believe as he sees fit. Never mind 2000 years of brilliant minds, the Desert Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, mystics and saints… I’m sure he understands things better than St. Augustine.I don’t think that’s what it means when Christ says this.
Don’t feel to bad for him, though:Again I think I know what the Church teaches (or claims to teach), having been a Catholic 6 years just about before leaving it.
Look, everyone… The devil has chosen to play games with us here. Don’t waste your time contesting his heresy. Let him be anathema.I’m perfectly satisfied with the choice I have made, and I plan to stick to it.
It is an act of charity for correct him.And yet another Protestant picking and choosing what to believe as he sees fit. Never mind 2000 years of brilliant minds, the Desert Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, mystics and saints… I’m sure he understands things better than St. Augustine.
But then again,
Don’t feel to bad for him, though:
Look, everyone… The devil has chosen to play games with us here. Don’t waste your time contesting his heresy. Let him be anathema.
No I meant the miracles he performed (like water to wine).Is this a response to me about the incarnation? Yes it could be denied. Many of the Jews rejected Him based on His claim to be God. In John8 He uses the title which God uses in Exodus4 in the burning bush. God says to Moses, ‘I AM WHO AM.’ The statement I AM came to be associated as Gods name. In John8 Jesus says, ‘before Abraham was I AM.’ This was a claim to be God. The Jews rejected Him here. They wanted to kill Him when they heard Him say this.
Mar 8:11 And the Pharisees came forth and began to question with him, asking him a sign from heaven, tempting him.No I meant the miracles he performed (like water to wine).
Nope. We do not sacrifice Christ again in the Mass. In the Mass, what is eternally present to God becomes present to us in time.Exactly my point, by claiming that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood, then you are re-sacrificing him then.
Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.Nope. We do not sacrifice Christ again in the Mass. In the Mass, what is eternally present to God becomes present to us in time.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as the Sacrifice on the Cross.What do you mean?
See again you are proving my point. If Christ’s sacrifice was indeed once and for all, then why is a “sacrifice” of the mass needed? It’s not.
.