E
Eireann
Guest
My fore-bearers ? I’m with the Church on this one, they certainly aren’t my fore-bearers.
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
Oops, I’m sorry, I got one quote-level off. I meant his forebearers.My fore-bearers ? I’m with the Church on this one, they certainly aren’t my fore-bearers.
E
Eireann
Guest
you had me worried there for a minute.
G
guanophore
Guest
Do I understand you correctly that you do not believe Jesus consecrated His flesh at the Last Supper? Or that He was speaking of His consecrated flesh in John 6? Do you believe the Lord’s Supper is nothing but a “rememberance and meditation”?
Do you give any consideration to what the first Christians believed?
D
DLC
Guest
Where in the bible does it say that Holy communion is salvic?
G
guanophore
Guest
After Jesus talks to the crowd about eating his flesh, and drinking His blood, they went away. He turned to his disciples and asked them, will you also go away? Peter responds “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”. This was revealed to Peter by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, in chap 17, Jesus affirms that Peters confession was not possible by the wisdom of men, but by the grace given through the Holy Spirit. They are two examples of the same thing - understanding through divine revelation - not reason. Was the previous poster was saying that Protestants don’t understand the meaning of Jesus’ words because the revelation has not come? I don’t think the Real Presence in the Eucharist can be apprehended by reason, or debate. I think it is a matter of revelation.
Do the beliefs of the early Fathers have any impact on your belief?
B
Born2win
Guest
Consider this verse: “Pro 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle of the LORD”.
Does this really mean that the spirit of a man is an actual candle? Of course not… it’s a metaphor.
If I say my wife is a beautiful rose… again, that’s a metaphor.
The same way, Jesus used food as a metaphor to illustrate a person partaking of His righteousness. He also used water as a metaphor for the same purpose when speaking to the woman at the well.
V
VociMike
Guest
Hey, we get it. Christ sometimes spoke in metaphors. But it obviously doesn’t follow that He only spoke in metahpors. No Catholic, no Protestant would argue that. So the fact that Christ sometimes spoke in metaphors is no argument against the Eucharist.
So when He said “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” He didn’t give His literal flesh for the life of the world, but only His teachings? His actual death on the cross didn’t give life to the world?
B
Born2win
Guest
Yes, His actual death on the cross DID give life to the world… but it wasn’t a loaf of bread.
That is no different than me saying that the vows my wife and I made at our marriage is a literal vlasic pickle.
That makes no sense at all.
** BA**
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Of course it wasn’t a loaf of bread. I wouldn’t call IT either.
Well, let’s have a look at what he said in John 6, shall we? Exactly one year before the Last Supper, right before the Passover, Jesus said: “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” (John 6:53-56).
Well, if he was just using a metaphor, he wasn’t a very good teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him understood that He meant things literally. They said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” When Jesus said He is a “door” or a “vine,” no one asked him “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was very clear from the context of what Jesus said in those passages that He was using metaphors. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. Here, look at John 6:41, and 6:52.
“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.””…and then… “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?””
Yeah, they understood him literally, they just couldn’t handle it. He didn’t tell them it was just a metaphor like he should have if they weren’t getting it. Instead, he goes on to make the same point several more times in even stronger terms. After verse 53, Jesus stops using the normal Greek word for “eat”; he switches from using phago (which just means “eat”, and can sometimes have a symbolic meaning). He starts using trogo, which is a very vivid word meaning “munch” or “gnaw”, and which is never anything but literal in the Greek Bible and other Greek literature.
Some Protestants will use this excuse, Yeah, well in verse 63 Jesus says “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”. It’s a spiritual message he’s getting across.
C’mon, there’s nowhere in Scripture where “spirit” is used to mean “symbolic”. I mean, John 4:24 says God is spirit - you don’t think God is just a symbol do you?
And if you do a study on the word Jesus uses for “flesh” here, you’ll find that there’s nowhere in the Gospels where it is used symbolically either.
Besides, this is the only place in the Bible where followers of Jesus abandon Him for theological reasons. In verse 60 they say, “this is a hard teaching, who can listen to it”. And then in John 6 verse 66 it says “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” I’ve always thought it was interesting that the only verse in the Bible that is 6:66 is where people reject Jesus because of his teaching about the Eucharist
Yeah, I know that. Funny though, isn’t it? Anyway, here we have people leaving Jesus because of this hard teaching. Some people think this was the biggest crowd Jesus ever preached to, which would make this his single biggest public relations blunder. He could have cleared everything up and stopped everyone from leaving just by saying “No, no, listen guys, that was just a symbol, I don’t really mean my literal body and blood”. But he doesn’t do that. Instead, he says to his disciples, “Do you also wish to go away?”. And they don’t because they know he has the words of eternal life. Here, read Mark 4:34.
((continue))
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
“he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
Yeah, and if he had some mysterious symbolic meaning here, he didn’t explain it to his disciples, which is another reason to think he was being literal. Besides, there’s other places in the Gospels where Jesus just repeats a true but unpopular teaching like this, like in Matthew chapter 9 where he talks about his power to forgive sins, and people don’t believe him, and he insists on it, and John chapter 8, where he talks about his eternal existence, people don’t believe him, and he goes on to say “Before Abraham was born, I am!”. This passage about the Eucharist is just like those ones. Plus there’s heaps of places where he says something, the disciples get it wrong, and Jesus explains it to them. But he doesn’t do that here, because they took him literally and they got it right.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
Yeah, and if he had some mysterious symbolic meaning here, he didn’t explain it to his disciples, which is another reason to think he was being literal. Besides, there’s other places in the Gospels where Jesus just repeats a true but unpopular teaching like this, like in Matthew chapter 9 where he talks about his power to forgive sins, and people don’t believe him, and he insists on it, and John chapter 8, where he talks about his eternal existence, people don’t believe him, and he goes on to say “Before Abraham was born, I am!”. This passage about the Eucharist is just like those ones. Plus there’s heaps of places where he says something, the disciples get it wrong, and Jesus explains it to them. But he doesn’t do that here, because they took him literally and they got it right.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
K
KennC
Guest
Neither does speaking light into existance or speaking life back into a dead man, nor does walking on water or passing through locked doors.
… without Christs death and resurrection nothing He had set into motion and put into place would have meant much … much like if He had decided to have taken over Herods Palace and warred against the Romans with a mighty army.
V
VociMike
Guest
It makes perfect sense. “Bread” is a metaphor, but only a metahpor for food. But the thing identified as bread, His flesh, is not a metaphor, as even you admit. So Christ is saying that He will give us for food the very same flesh that He gave on the cross for the life of the world. And since He later instituted the Eucharist using bread, bread-which-becomes-Christ, “bread” is in one sense not even a metaphor when understood as that-which-was-bread-and-has-become-Christ.
The text is as clear as any text in the bible. The thing we must eat, the “bread”, is the very same flesh that He will give for the life of the world. It is not possible for language to be more clear. But it is still a hard saying, which is why many walked away then, and many continue to walk away today.
And does your wife know you view your vows to her like a pickle?
O
Odell
Guest
But yet people walked away after seeing Jesus walk on water after the multipiliction of the loaves and fishes because a symbolic meaning.
COME ON
do you now anyone just one person who has walked away from the Christian faith because they had to symbolicly eat his flesh and drink his blood? Its just some bread and grape juice.
didnt think so.
did people have a problem when Jesus said he was a door?
did they walk away? No because they knew he was speaking in metaphor.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who has to be eating
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Good Job Everyone.
I think it is save to say that this topic was a win for Truth.
Since God is for us, who can be against us!
I think it is save to say that this topic was a win for Truth.
Since God is for us, who can be against us!
G
guanophore
Guest
Why? Do you get a warning? I am afraid this will happen to me.
G
guanophore
Guest
Ok, Born2win, if he was speaking metaphorically about his righteousness, then I don’t understand this passage:
Matt 26:26-29
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Do you read this “take, eat, this is my righteousness” and again “take, drink of it, this is my rightousness”?
And if so, why do non-catholics fail to do this?
- Status