P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Sorry, the Colors got mixed up. Subsititue Mr. Green for Mr. Yellow.
The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?
- Status
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Sorry, the Colors got mixed up. Substitute Mr. Green for Mr. Yellow.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Howdy. If this question has already been asked, then I missed it because I am just popping in here.
The argument for trans. is that in Matt 26:26 when Jesus said “This is my body” he meant it is literally his body. However in John 6 Jesus said he is the bread. So why don’t catholics use the same rules for interpreting John 6 regarding him being the bread as they use to interpret 26:26? What I mean is if in matt when He says “this is my body” he meant it was literally his flesh right then and there, then shouldn’t John 6 when he said “the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven” and “I am that bread of life.” mean that his flesh right then and there is literally bread?
And when he says “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Why not cook him up right there and eat him? I mean you are all saying that we need to take these passages literally. If he meant his flesh is literally to be eaten then why not take him to mean his literal body as he stood there and made the statement? Surely he was not advocating that folks kill him right there and eat him.
Also the argument from Matt 26:26 seems to contradict the catholic teaching that one can take the flesh and blood just by partaking of one element. For example, if you eat of the bread then you get both flesh and blood, or if you drink of the wine then you get both flesh and blood. This seems inconsistent with the arguement that the bread is literally his flesh, and the wine is literally his blood. If the bread was literally his flesh, then it was only his flesh. If the wine Was literally his blood then it is only his blood. So how is it that the catholic church can say that the bread is both the flesh and the blood.
And the wine is both the flesh and the blood. If we are going to take matt 26 literally then we need to take it exactly as he said. He did not hold up the bread and say, ‘This is my flesh and blood’.
Seems the rules for interpretation are arbritrary.
Jeff
The argument for trans. is that in Matt 26:26 when Jesus said “This is my body” he meant it is literally his body. However in John 6 Jesus said he is the bread. So why don’t catholics use the same rules for interpreting John 6 regarding him being the bread as they use to interpret 26:26? What I mean is if in matt when He says “this is my body” he meant it was literally his flesh right then and there, then shouldn’t John 6 when he said “the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven” and “I am that bread of life.” mean that his flesh right then and there is literally bread?
And when he says “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Why not cook him up right there and eat him? I mean you are all saying that we need to take these passages literally. If he meant his flesh is literally to be eaten then why not take him to mean his literal body as he stood there and made the statement? Surely he was not advocating that folks kill him right there and eat him.
Also the argument from Matt 26:26 seems to contradict the catholic teaching that one can take the flesh and blood just by partaking of one element. For example, if you eat of the bread then you get both flesh and blood, or if you drink of the wine then you get both flesh and blood. This seems inconsistent with the arguement that the bread is literally his flesh, and the wine is literally his blood. If the bread was literally his flesh, then it was only his flesh. If the wine Was literally his blood then it is only his blood. So how is it that the catholic church can say that the bread is both the flesh and the blood.
And the wine is both the flesh and the blood. If we are going to take matt 26 literally then we need to take it exactly as he said. He did not hold up the bread and say, ‘This is my flesh and blood’.
Seems the rules for interpretation are arbritrary.
Jeff
J
jphilapy
Guest
I wanted to confirm this by showing that scripture clearly teaches this:
What does it mean to eat of the flesh of Jesus?
Jesus says:
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
What is the meat he is talking about here? He tells us in:
*Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. *
So doing the will of God is what Jesus means by the meat. When he tells us his flesh is meat, he means that we are to do the will of God. What is the will of God that we are to do? He tells us here:
*Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? *
*Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. *
So the work of God is that we believe on Jesus. What happens if we believe on Jesus? We have everlasting life.
*Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. *
And John Confirms here that to eat of his flesh is the same as believeing on him:
*Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. *
Also John tells us that if we eat of Jesus’s flesh then he will dwell in us:
*Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. *
*Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. *
And Paul says that Jesus dwells in us by faith:
Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
And then John says:
*1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. *
And Paul says again:
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Then John says:
*1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. *
Seems pretty clear to me that when Jesus says to eat of his flesh, he means to believe in Him.
Peace,
Jeff
Y
YAQUBOS
Guest
Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:
But God wrote all what He wants us to believe. So you can explain one thing He said by another thing He said also.
What the Church Fathers taught is not the Word of God, but an EXPLANATION of the Word of God. Read them, and you will see how they are explaining Scripture by Scripture.
By the way: are you not the friend of God??? Didn’t you meet Him yet? If you did, then you are like the friend of Mr. Red…
In Love,
Yaqubos†
Psalm45:9:
It seems that Mr. Red wrote just this sentence.
But God wrote all what He wants us to believe. So you can explain one thing He said by another thing He said also.
What the Church Fathers taught is not the Word of God, but an EXPLANATION of the Word of God. Read them, and you will see how they are explaining Scripture by Scripture.
By the way: are you not the friend of God??? Didn’t you meet Him yet? If you did, then you are like the friend of Mr. Red…
In Love,
Yaqubos†
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Merry Christmas!
YAQUBOS:
What YAQUBOS’ bible says: So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And Philip answered, “scripture interprets scripture, is the sole rule of faith, and does not need an interpreter.” The Eunuch then replied, “Does scripture say that?” Then the Deacon said, “Yes, just look at Acts 17:11.” Then the Ethiopian Eunuch looked confused and said, “What is Acts 17:11?”
YAQUBOS:
- What the Catholic Bible says: ‘So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him… And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.’ (Acts 8:30-31, 34-35)
What YAQUBOS’ bible says: So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And Philip answered, “scripture interprets scripture, is the sole rule of faith, and does not need an interpreter.” The Eunuch then replied, “Does scripture say that?” Then the Deacon said, “Yes, just look at Acts 17:11.” Then the Ethiopian Eunuch looked confused and said, “What is Acts 17:11?”
- How do you know what is scripture and what is not? There is no list in the Bible.
That goes to what the Apostles preached to the world before there was a written gospel too.
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
(continuing solely by his grace!)
YAQUBOS:
‘The Letter of Barnabas
“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
Clement of Rome
“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
Polycarp of Smyrna
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).’
http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
They quoted the deuterocanonicals to explain the protocanonicals. (The Deuterocanonicals are scripture in the Catholic and Orthodox churches) They also quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Protoevangelion of James. St. James quoted from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch in his epistle. St. Paul quoted the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and in Titus. So to say the Fathers used scripture to explain scripture is an understatement, the canon was still up in the air back then.
(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "
Sirach was considered scripture by some Rabbis in the second century, showing that there was no official canon at the time of Chirst. The Ethiopian Jews still use the larger LXX canon today. (Even in 2005 Judaism cannot agree on what is scripture.)
YAQUBOS:
OK, here goes:
‘The Letter of Barnabas
“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
Clement of Rome
“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
Polycarp of Smyrna
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).’
http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
They quoted the deuterocanonicals to explain the protocanonicals. (The Deuterocanonicals are scripture in the Catholic and Orthodox churches) They also quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Protoevangelion of James. St. James quoted from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch in his epistle. St. Paul quoted the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and in Titus. So to say the Fathers used scripture to explain scripture is an understatement, the canon was still up in the air back then.
(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "
Sirach was considered scripture by some Rabbis in the second century, showing that there was no official canon at the time of Chirst. The Ethiopian Jews still use the larger LXX canon today. (Even in 2005 Judaism cannot agree on what is scripture.)
Yes, but I didn’t know him when he walked the Earth, but Mr. Green did and through his testimony, that he told to Mr. Purple, I know that Mr. Red existed and what he said. Mr. Blue, Yellow, and Orange all know that Mr. Red existed through his writing, but they are all interpreting it differently.
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Hello, Jeff… We can see where you’re coming from regarding John 6. Just so you know where some of us are coming from, allow me to requote from my own post #33 (I guess that’s legal):
Kurt G.:
They didn’t say "We’re staying with you, Jesus, because we know you were only speaking symbolically to get their attention!)
It was more like “We don’t really know exactly how you’re going to offer everyone your flesh to eat… but we’ve seen you do some amazing things, Jesus… We’ve got to stick around because we believe in you.”
How in the world was Jesus going to pull this off? But a Passover later, on the night of the last supper, their questions were answered…
Several times in Scripture, when Jesus is being misunderstood, He clears up the misunderstanding. You even reference one of these in your post, Jeff. (with the Samaritan woman at the well).
He had several chances in John 6 to clear up the “misunderstanding”. But Jesus just kept on hammering it home literally.
I can surely see why many of us want to see John 6 as symbolic and not literal… I just think we have to fool ourselves to interpret it any way except literal.
The Catholic interpretation even gives a new dimension to His miracle of the loaves and fishes, at the beginning of John 6.
I think this miracle is intimately related to the last part of John 6.
Thanks for bringing this thread back… I just love this subject…
God Bless Us All!
Kurt G.:
From Peter’s response at the end of John 6, I would suspect that the apostles were really puzzled.
They didn’t say "We’re staying with you, Jesus, because we know you were only speaking symbolically to get their attention!)
It was more like “We don’t really know exactly how you’re going to offer everyone your flesh to eat… but we’ve seen you do some amazing things, Jesus… We’ve got to stick around because we believe in you.”
How in the world was Jesus going to pull this off? But a Passover later, on the night of the last supper, their questions were answered…
Several times in Scripture, when Jesus is being misunderstood, He clears up the misunderstanding. You even reference one of these in your post, Jeff. (with the Samaritan woman at the well).
He had several chances in John 6 to clear up the “misunderstanding”. But Jesus just kept on hammering it home literally.
I can surely see why many of us want to see John 6 as symbolic and not literal… I just think we have to fool ourselves to interpret it any way except literal.
The Catholic interpretation even gives a new dimension to His miracle of the loaves and fishes, at the beginning of John 6.
I think this miracle is intimately related to the last part of John 6.
Thanks for bringing this thread back… I just love this subject…
God Bless Us All!
Y
YAQUBOS
Guest
Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:
This is what happens with human philosophy.
In Love,
Yaqubos†
Psalm45:9:
This is what happens with human philosophy.In Love,
Yaqubos†
Y
YAQUBOS
Guest
Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:
This shows how your understanding of “Scripture explains Scripture” is totally wrong. This is not what I say. You are giving a wrong witnessing, and that’s a sin.
Psalm45:9:
There is a clear spiritual “list” in the Scripture. If you just understand what “Word of God” means, you will see that “list”. My friend, what is the Word of God?
Psalm45:9:
N.B.: When I asked a question about the Eucharist, people began to tell me that I am out of topic… While Psalm45:9 is talking about a wholly other topic, and no one is telling him anything…
In Love,
Yaqubos†
Psalm45:9:
This shows how your understanding of “Scripture explains Scripture” is totally wrong. This is not what I say. You are giving a wrong witnessing, and that’s a sin.Psalm45:9:
Who told you this? Satan?
There is a clear spiritual “list” in the Scripture. If you just understand what “Word of God” means, you will see that “list”. My friend, what is the Word of God?
Psalm45:9:
What did they preach before was a written New Testament?
N.B.: When I asked a question about the Eucharist, people began to tell me that I am out of topic… While Psalm45:9 is talking about a wholly other topic, and no one is telling him anything…
In Love,
Yaqubos†
Y
YAQUBOS
Guest
Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:
Psalm45:9:
Yaqubos†
Psalm45:9:
You talk about canon and quoting Scripture, as if you are talking about a human book… My friend, do you know why the Scripture is not called “the Word of Man”???
Psalm45:9:
Jesus told us that the Spirit will teach us everything.
- Do you believe that the SAME Spirit who taught the Fathers is teaching you today?
- Do you believe that the Spirit is a PERSON, not a power? I mean, do you believe that He can teach you now, as He taught the Fathers?
- Do you know that, in order to understand God, we don’t need to know God in flesh, but spiritually?
Yaqubos†
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Kurt,
Kurt G.:
In short we don’t know what they were thinking. We can’t argue from silence here.
Kurt G.:
Now did he explain to his apostles what he meant by “eat of my flesh”? They may have put two and two together, and remembered what he said from his statement in chapter 4 when he said “My meat is to do the will of the Father”.
In addition to that it is safe to say that Jesus did actually explain himself.
He stated in John 6 that we have eternal life by believing on him. And then again he said we have eternal life if we eat of his flesh. See John does this in his gospel and in 1 John. He states the same thing in different ways. For example John says that we are to abide in Christ referring living by the Spirit. And then he refers to living by the Spirit again when he says we are to live in the light.
So Jesus did explain himself.
Also the idea that we are to eat of His words is a constant thought in the bible. For example:
*Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. *
*Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. *
*Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. *
*Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. *
*Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Psa 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. *
*Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! *
*Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. *
*Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. *
It is quite possible that Peter and the other disciples new what Jesus meant by revelation. Just as Peter new that Jesus was the Christ by revelation.
Kurt G.:
Peace,
Jeff
Kurt G.:
They also didn’t say “We don’t really know exactly how you’re going to offer everyone your flesh to eat… but we’ve seen you do some amazing things, Jesus… We’ve got to stick around because we believe in you.”.
In short we don’t know what they were thinking. We can’t argue from silence here.
Kurt G.:
Jesus didn’t explain everything he spoke figuratively. For example: Mat 13:10-16. I think it is safe to say that Jesus motive for not explaining his expression “eat my flesh” are the same as why he did not explain his parables.
Now did he explain to his apostles what he meant by “eat of my flesh”? They may have put two and two together, and remembered what he said from his statement in chapter 4 when he said “My meat is to do the will of the Father”.
In addition to that it is safe to say that Jesus did actually explain himself.
He stated in John 6 that we have eternal life by believing on him. And then again he said we have eternal life if we eat of his flesh. See John does this in his gospel and in 1 John. He states the same thing in different ways. For example John says that we are to abide in Christ referring living by the Spirit. And then he refers to living by the Spirit again when he says we are to live in the light.
So Jesus did explain himself.
Also the idea that we are to eat of His words is a constant thought in the bible. For example:
*Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. *
*Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. *
*Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. *
*Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. *
*Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Psa 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. *
*Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! *
*Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. *
*Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. *
It is quite possible that Peter and the other disciples new what Jesus meant by revelation. Just as Peter new that Jesus was the Christ by revelation.
Kurt G.:
Because if you interpret it literally in one part then you have to take it to it’s completetion. Did Jesus mean we were to eat his body as it stood there?
Peace,
Jeff
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Kurt,
Kurt G.:
In short we don’t know what they were thinking. We can’t argue from silence here.
Kurt G.:
Now did he explain to his apostles what he meant by “eat of my flesh”? They may have put two and two together, and remembered what he said from his statement in chapter 4 when he said “My meat is to do the will of the Father”.
In addition to that it is safe to say that Jesus did actually explain himself.
He stated in John 6 that we have eternal life by believing on him. And then again he said we have eternal life if we eat of his flesh. See John does this in his gospel and in 1 John. He states the same thing in different ways. For example John says that we are to abide in Christ refers to living by the Spirit. And then he refers to living by the Spirit again when he says we are to live in the light.
So Jesus did explain himself.
Also the idea that we are to eat of His words is a constant thought in the bible. notice the reference to the idea in Joh 6:63:
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
*Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. *
*Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. *
*Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. *
*Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. *
*Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. *
*Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. *
*Psa 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. *
*Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! *
*Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. *
*Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. *
It is quite possible that Peter and the other disciples knew what Jesus meant by revelation. Just as Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ by revelation.
Kurt G.:
I mean it seems pretty easy to say you are eating of his flesh, when the bread has no physical evidence of being flesh. But what if you were there, would you really think Jesus meant that you were to eat of his flesh as he stood there?
Peace,
Jeff
Kurt G.:
They also didn’t say “We don’t really know exactly how you’re going to offer everyone your flesh to eat… but we’ve seen you do some amazing things, Jesus… We’ve got to stick around because we believe in you.”.
In short we don’t know what they were thinking. We can’t argue from silence here.
Kurt G.:
Jesus didn’t explain everything he spoke figuratively. For example: Mat 13:10-16. I think it is safe to say that Jesus motive for not explaining his expression “eat my flesh” are the same as why he did not explain his parables.
Now did he explain to his apostles what he meant by “eat of my flesh”? They may have put two and two together, and remembered what he said from his statement in chapter 4 when he said “My meat is to do the will of the Father”.
In addition to that it is safe to say that Jesus did actually explain himself.
He stated in John 6 that we have eternal life by believing on him. And then again he said we have eternal life if we eat of his flesh. See John does this in his gospel and in 1 John. He states the same thing in different ways. For example John says that we are to abide in Christ refers to living by the Spirit. And then he refers to living by the Spirit again when he says we are to live in the light.
So Jesus did explain himself.
Also the idea that we are to eat of His words is a constant thought in the bible. notice the reference to the idea in Joh 6:63:
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
*Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. *
*Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. *
*Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. *
*Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. *
*Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. *
*Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. *
*Psa 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. *
*Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! *
*Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. *
*Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. *
It is quite possible that Peter and the other disciples knew what Jesus meant by revelation. Just as Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ by revelation.
Kurt G.:
Because if you interpret it literally in one part then you have to take it to it’s completetion. Did Jesus mean we were to eat his body as it stood there?
I mean it seems pretty easy to say you are eating of his flesh, when the bread has no physical evidence of being flesh. But what if you were there, would you really think Jesus meant that you were to eat of his flesh as he stood there?
Peace,
Jeff
M
michaelp
Guest
Jeff, I agree with everything you said. It was very reasonable and follows good exegesis. Way to bring out of the text what is already there rather than reading your theology into the the text. Good stuff. It was worth posting twice!
Michael
J
jphilapy
Guest
ooops!!! I didn’t realize it got posted twice. Anyway thanks for your complement
All please read the second copy as it is more complete. Some how the server locked up and as a result it didn’t update the first one, instead made a new copy.Jeff
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
As did Arianism that took scripture passages out of context.Peace be with you!
In Love,
Yaqubos†
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
As you say we conjur up the dead is compleatly wrong and is a sin.
Can Satan drive out Satan?
The please provide me the list of what is scripture within the scriptures.
The teachings that the Catholic church still teaches today.What did they preach before was a written New Testament?
That is because you will not accept the Church’s interpretation of the scripture.
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit? But how do you know which writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Yes, becuase Jesus told his apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The Holy Spirit has chosen bishops to rule the church, as scripture states.
Where does the Bible say the Holy Spirit is a person?
Yes, he taught me to come home! All roads lead to Rome!
Does that mean that everyone in the world believes in Jesus already, before the gospel can reach them?
R
RedDeathsMask
Guest
Everyone is just going to have to agree to disagree. Jesus prayed that we’d be one, and I see that we are not.
I
Ignatius
Guest
No this is incorrect. Read Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, Justin, and all of the other first and second century patristic writers. Many were direct pupils of the Apostles and give witness to those teachings handed down from the Apostles themselves. There are also the Teachings of the Apostles, the Didache and numerous other early writings.
God bless and guide you.
- Status