M
maryj
Guest
I don’t for one minute believe that you do not love our Lord, your profession is not null and void, you are God’s child!!
Here’s an awesome read…Scott Hahn, the fourth cup. webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm
- Status
Here’s an awesome read…Scott Hahn, the fourth cup. webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Spockrates,
As I am trying to point out - it is not your Protestant apologetic of John 6 that I am challenging - it is the ability to put aside preconceived arguments and simply read what is there and demonstrate that with a very short summary. Personally, I do not think most Protestants can do this.
I am here for you, as I think every practicing Catholic poster, in the sense of helping you to come out of, “…the closet…”. Additionally, I am also here to read your summary and discuss it with you.
God bless
As I am trying to point out - it is not your Protestant apologetic of John 6 that I am challenging - it is the ability to put aside preconceived arguments and simply read what is there and demonstrate that with a very short summary. Personally, I do not think most Protestants can do this.
I am here for you, as I think every practicing Catholic poster, in the sense of helping you to come out of, “…the closet…”. Additionally, I am also here to read your summary and discuss it with you.
God bless
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Transubstantiation is the only thing happening everywhere and all the time. All of creation is always and forever being transformed into the body of Christ. It’s just that simple.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, MollyMac,
I do not think there really is room for this type of cynical response. There are many on this thread - in addition to Jim1130 - right now - that would like all who do not believe in the Real Presence to actually address what it is that they do not believe and clearly address this matter. As a new member to a Catholic listserve, I think it would be good to analyze just why you have chosen to join this thread. The assumption I made is that you were interested learing about John 6. If this isn’t the case, then what is it you want to accomplish.
Most Protestants dismiss the Real Presence - claiming that this literal understanding is not what Christ intended. But, believe me - these Protestant doubters were not the first to be recorded as rejecting the concept of Christ literally giving us His Flesh to eat - to the best of my knowledge, you can find the first recorded rejection of this in John 6:60-61. Please note, this was Christ’s teaching and one rejected by many of those who were following Christ at this time.
Whether you want to participate in actually learninng more is strictly up to you - no one is here to force you. There are many Protestant sites that share your view and I am sure they would benefit from what you want to offer. Simply re-stating what those, who used to believe in the Real Presence but aposticized, claimed is not going to get anywhere. And then why bother?
Hey, if you do not like what was presented - try this is you wish. Drop preconceived notions and just read John 6 in one sitting - and then, write a 100-word summary of what you read. You can pick any Bible you wish (maybe an onl-ine version would be helpful) and let’s see what you come up with. Here is a copy if you wish to use it: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6
God bless
I do not think there really is room for this type of cynical response. There are many on this thread - in addition to Jim1130 - right now - that would like all who do not believe in the Real Presence to actually address what it is that they do not believe and clearly address this matter. As a new member to a Catholic listserve, I think it would be good to analyze just why you have chosen to join this thread. The assumption I made is that you were interested learing about John 6. If this isn’t the case, then what is it you want to accomplish.
Most Protestants dismiss the Real Presence - claiming that this literal understanding is not what Christ intended. But, believe me - these Protestant doubters were not the first to be recorded as rejecting the concept of Christ literally giving us His Flesh to eat - to the best of my knowledge, you can find the first recorded rejection of this in John 6:60-61. Please note, this was Christ’s teaching and one rejected by many of those who were following Christ at this time.
Whether you want to participate in actually learninng more is strictly up to you - no one is here to force you. There are many Protestant sites that share your view and I am sure they would benefit from what you want to offer. Simply re-stating what those, who used to believe in the Real Presence but aposticized, claimed is not going to get anywhere. And then why bother?
Hey, if you do not like what was presented - try this is you wish. Drop preconceived notions and just read John 6 in one sitting - and then, write a 100-word summary of what you read. You can pick any Bible you wish (maybe an onl-ine version would be helpful) and let’s see what you come up with. Here is a copy if you wish to use it: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6
God bless
Oh, I’m sorry headmaster Jim1130. I did not realize there was a grade or deadline on the assignment.
C
Cinette
Guest
Your posts 292 and 293 are carefully crafted and deserve attention. I am making a copy of these and will read and meditate on your comments during Adoration on Friday. Thank you.
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
John 9,41 matches John 15,22, as Jesus Christ often repeated for preciser understanding. No, Jesus certainly doesn’t give anyone a “reason” to reject Him. Satan does and he’s good in inventing such reasons many stubborn believe to be true. Jesus though holds some doubters eyes and ears (similar to - though for another reason Luk 24,16: “But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him”), so they do not talk and think badmouth about God’s truth and so sink even deeper into their already deep fault.
As to Protestants not culpable for a sin they fail to see; that’s a different thing, and a circumstance very much different to people who never knew the Gospel because they refused to. Protestants and other denominations do not refuse the Bible at all. They know, but they doubt the righteousness of Jesus’ inauguration of St. Peter and Jesus one and only founded Church; the Catholic one.
I would however NEVER dare to name this a sin, as we are not to judge. It’s none of my matters or biz, but a problem between God and these Evangelicals. I refuse to mix up in it. So, not being asked by an Evangelical Christian, I resist to comment. Even more so, since they are our brethren in Christ and Jesus warned us of judging our next. Mt 7,5-7.
Yours
Bruno
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Spockrates,
The entire issue hinges on the difference between vincible and invincible ignorance. Those who do not know and do not know that they do not know - do not have the requirements to commit a sin. Those who do not know, but refuse to find out and reject efforts to aid them have entered into the area of willful ignorance - and this is sinful.
God will judge all by the lights that they have and how they worked with the Grace God has given them.
God bless
The entire issue hinges on the difference between vincible and invincible ignorance. Those who do not know and do not know that they do not know - do not have the requirements to commit a sin. Those who do not know, but refuse to find out and reject efforts to aid them have entered into the area of willful ignorance - and this is sinful.
God will judge all by the lights that they have and how they worked with the Grace God has given them.
God bless
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Molly, if you believe in Christ, you must believe what He says and follow His commands. I believe in electricity, but if I don’t flip the light switch, it won’t work, and I won’t have light.
Probably a dreadful analogy, but it came to me this morning so I’ll share it without over-analysing to find a better one.
P
Porknpie
Guest
“Super natural” bread is a common translation of the Greek. Good book below by Brandt Pitre.
scalambra.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/give-us-this-day-our-supernatural-bread/
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, MollyMac,
I think you have misread the text because you did not go far enough into it.
Christ did say He is the Bread come down from Heaven. OK. Then He goes on to tell us that unless we eat His Flesh we have no life in us. Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6
This is an area where most Protestants simply dismiss Christ’s words. The probable reason for this is that they are told His clearly spoken words mean just the opposite of what He said. I would like to invite you to simply read John 6 in one sitting and write down a summary that does not exceed 100 words. If you are as ‘unsure’ as you claim to be - this may be a good way to get a surer foudation. Give it a try.
God bless
I think you have misread the text because you did not go far enough into it.
Christ did say He is the Bread come down from Heaven. OK. Then He goes on to tell us that unless we eat His Flesh we have no life in us. Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6
This is an area where most Protestants simply dismiss Christ’s words. The probable reason for this is that they are told His clearly spoken words mean just the opposite of what He said. I would like to invite you to simply read John 6 in one sitting and write down a summary that does not exceed 100 words. If you are as ‘unsure’ as you claim to be - this may be a good way to get a surer foudation. Give it a try.
God bless
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Thanks.
I
inkaneer
Guest
The idea that Christ was speaking figuratively comes from Christs words when He said, “My words are spirit.” The idea is that ‘spirit’ is equal to ‘figurative’ as the opposite of ‘literal’. My that idea falls apart when one considers that when Jesus spoke of the OT manna the Jews knew exactly what He was saying. They knew this story from their childhood. They knew that Jesus was speaking literally of a material food. Jesus then switches to the NT manna which He says is His flesh. The Jews recoiled at this idea. Obviously they were still understanding Jesus to be speaking literally about something material.
Now Jesus knew that they [as well as his disciples] did not "get it’. They did not understand what he was saying because they were still thinking of a literal material food. As a teacher Jesus owes them an explanation and He gives them one. He corrects their understanding by saying, “My words are Spirit and life.” Notice He does not say His words were not literal. He only corrects their thinking on the material aspect. He is speaking of a literal and spiritual food not the literal and material food ofthe OT. The NT manna would be a perfection of the OT manna because those who ate the NT manna would receive spiritual life while those who ate the OT material manna still died. If Jesus were not speaking literally of the NT manna then He owed the people an explanation. But He gave none. He stood and watched His disciples leave Him and made no effort to stop them. Peter’s words indicate that he too did not understand but he had come too far and seen too much to not believe. It was a moment of faith for Peter that was lost on Judas and the disciples who left…
C
Cinette
Guest
Your explanation is good - this is not difficult to grasp yet some people keep saying that Jesus was speaking figuratively because otherwise they would have to admit they are wrong.
S
spockrates
Guest
I think Jesus summarized it best in just 12 words: “For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” (John 6:55).Hi, Spockrates,
As I am trying to point out - it is not your Protestant apologetic of John 6 that I am challenging - it is the ability to put aside preconceived arguments and simply read what is there and demonstrate that with a very short summary. Personally, I do not think most Protestants can do this.
I am here for you, as I think every practicing Catholic poster, in the sense of helping you to come out of, “…the closet…”. Additionally, I am also here to read your summary and discuss it with you.
God bless
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, but I think many Protestants who say Catholics practice a kind of cannibalism do not realize that they believe Jesus used cannibalism as a metaphor. For some believe the words, “eat my flesh” mean, “believe in me.”
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, and that is one thing that impresses me about Catholicism. Having worshipped with both Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, I’ve found that most of them do not consider Catholics to be Christians. The Catholic view of Bapyists and Evangelicals often seems more merciful–more like Christ, I think.
T
tqualey
Guest
C
Cinette
Guest
*So the Disciples turned their backs on a methphor?! No - they turned their back because they understood very well that Jesus was speaking literally! There would have been no need to turn their backs if it were a mere metaphor. *
P
Porknpie
Guest
And I would add that the early church fathers believed in the Eucharist as well, having been taught by the disciples and their descendants. This was part of the gospel that they went out and preached as directed by our Lord.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
- Status