T
- Status
C
Cinette
Guest
:tsktsk::tsktsk::nope::nope::nope:
*6 times, count them 6 times:
. 51…"Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh*.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
whoever eats me will live because of me.
C
Cinette
Guest
*How many times have you been told to read your posts before pressing the submit button!!
:extrahappy:*
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Cinette,
OK. 6. Thanks.
When I wrote this post, I was actually thinking that JerryZ was reinforcing the fact that Christ said we must He His Flesh if we are to have eternal life. The number of times this was said got by me.
God bless
OK. 6. Thanks.
When I wrote this post, I was actually thinking that JerryZ was reinforcing the fact that Christ said we must He His Flesh if we are to have eternal life. The number of times this was said got by me.
God bless
*How many times have you been told to read your posts before pressing the submit button!!
J
JerryZ
Guest
Uhm Yes actually I was referring to Jesus speaking, I am sure “flesh” and “blood” are metioned far more many times in the Bible but He, in a few sentences repeated it 5 times telling them that they indeed had to eat His flesh and drink His blood.Hi, Cinette,
OK. 6. Thanks.
When I wrote this post, I was actually thinking that JerryZ was reinforcing the fact that Christ said we must He His Flesh if we are to have eternal life. The number of times this was said got by me.
God bless
If He was speaking in figurative once the people around Him said they did not understand you would have thought He would have made every attempt to clarify the matter.
The fact that he says over and over the same indicates to us that He is being VERY Literal here and is not mincing words.
Laudetur Iesus Christus!
C
Cinette
Guest
*Jesus repeated himself 6 (six) times! I forgot to underline Jn:57 (the last) but it is still 6.
:yup:*
J
JerryZ
Guest
Well I am nitpicking the actual word “flesh”
T
tqualey
Guest
It may be that those who have been challenging Transubstantiation have fled the field … an now we are looking at each other? 
Maybe it is time to move on.
God bless
Maybe it is time to move on.
God bless
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The soul is invisible and Protestants don’t have any problem believing in it.
Why is it hard for them not to believe in substance which is invisible, too?
Sometimes I wonder if some who started the Protestant Reformation didn’t really have a problem with transubstantiation but knew that they had to disavow it and the priesthood so they wouldn’t have to be under the Pope’s authority?
Did they really not believe it or did they come to that conclusion–like Luther did–after they CHOSE to believe in justification by faith alone?
P.S. I’m a Catholic convert. I really was invincibly ignorant about such things–when I first learned the catholic teaching about the Eucharist it made complete sense to me…I remember one time when I was a Protestant teenager that I confessed my sins to God with as much contrition as I could possibly muster and took communion at a Methodist Church trying to believe that I was really eating Jesus’ body and drinking His blood!
Now of course I didn’t receive Jesus’ body and blood in that Protestant service but I did experience a profound spiritual communion with Jesus. I remember that after receiving on that day that my ordinary temptations that the devil could always beat me with–I was able to avoid them as I felt the power of Jesus.
Many many years later when I came into the Catholic Church I realized that Jesus way back then was working on my soul and bringing me to the truth.
The greatest thing that ever happens in my life now is receiving the Eucharist!
One of the problems I have is being frustrated that many of my ex Protestant bretheren can’t see the truth of the Eucharist like I do.
I know that the reason I DO believe in the Eucharist is because of God’s grace–it’s not anything that I do.
I don’t have a problem with Protestants who really DON’T know the truth of the Catholic faith–there are many that are indeed invincibly ignorant.
What bothers me are the ones who SEEM to recognize the truth of the eucharist but CHOOSE not to believe it!
I guess whether anyone accepts the truth of the Eucharist or not is dependent on God’s grace and His time is not our time…maybe there are some such people who deny the Eucharist for years and then finally grasp it and join Christ’s Catholic Church!
For any Protestants out there who do not understand or will not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on the eucharist know that I’m praying for you–what I desire for everyone is that they get as close as they can to Jesus and there is no better way to be close to Jesus than the eucharist where He enters you body, blood, Soul, and Divinity!
And for all you Catholics out there never cease to share with our Protestant brothers and sisters how close you feel to Jesus through the Eucharist–that would be a great way to evangelize them from part of the truth to the fullness of truth!
Why is it hard for them not to believe in substance which is invisible, too?
Sometimes I wonder if some who started the Protestant Reformation didn’t really have a problem with transubstantiation but knew that they had to disavow it and the priesthood so they wouldn’t have to be under the Pope’s authority?
Did they really not believe it or did they come to that conclusion–like Luther did–after they CHOSE to believe in justification by faith alone?
P.S. I’m a Catholic convert. I really was invincibly ignorant about such things–when I first learned the catholic teaching about the Eucharist it made complete sense to me…I remember one time when I was a Protestant teenager that I confessed my sins to God with as much contrition as I could possibly muster and took communion at a Methodist Church trying to believe that I was really eating Jesus’ body and drinking His blood!
Now of course I didn’t receive Jesus’ body and blood in that Protestant service but I did experience a profound spiritual communion with Jesus. I remember that after receiving on that day that my ordinary temptations that the devil could always beat me with–I was able to avoid them as I felt the power of Jesus.
Many many years later when I came into the Catholic Church I realized that Jesus way back then was working on my soul and bringing me to the truth.
The greatest thing that ever happens in my life now is receiving the Eucharist!
One of the problems I have is being frustrated that many of my ex Protestant bretheren can’t see the truth of the Eucharist like I do.
I know that the reason I DO believe in the Eucharist is because of God’s grace–it’s not anything that I do.
I don’t have a problem with Protestants who really DON’T know the truth of the Catholic faith–there are many that are indeed invincibly ignorant.
What bothers me are the ones who SEEM to recognize the truth of the eucharist but CHOOSE not to believe it!
I guess whether anyone accepts the truth of the Eucharist or not is dependent on God’s grace and His time is not our time…maybe there are some such people who deny the Eucharist for years and then finally grasp it and join Christ’s Catholic Church!
For any Protestants out there who do not understand or will not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on the eucharist know that I’m praying for you–what I desire for everyone is that they get as close as they can to Jesus and there is no better way to be close to Jesus than the eucharist where He enters you body, blood, Soul, and Divinity!
And for all you Catholics out there never cease to share with our Protestant brothers and sisters how close you feel to Jesus through the Eucharist–that would be a great way to evangelize them from part of the truth to the fullness of truth!
F
fred_conty
Guest
Just an observation.
Jesus said many things that we must do to enter his kingdom.
Nichodemous was told that baptism is required.
Then faith in Jesus is required.
And forgiveness of neighbor is required.
Purity from sin is required.
The Eucharist is required.
It looks as tho so many in the world are looking for just ONE thing to hang all their hopes on to satisfy the requirement to enter the kingdom.
But we must do some, and not neglect the others.
It is a total package. One which directs one to stand spotless before, and one with, the Lord.
Just a thought.
Jesus said many things that we must do to enter his kingdom.
Nichodemous was told that baptism is required.
Then faith in Jesus is required.
And forgiveness of neighbor is required.
Purity from sin is required.
The Eucharist is required.
It looks as tho so many in the world are looking for just ONE thing to hang all their hopes on to satisfy the requirement to enter the kingdom.
But we must do some, and not neglect the others.
It is a total package. One which directs one to stand spotless before, and one with, the Lord.
Just a thought.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Jerry-Jet,
Thank you for sharing some of your personal experiences on your Journey Home
Your thoughts are very similar to mine on the tremendous hatred those in revolt had for the Pope. Now, channce are had there been a saintly Pope like JPII this revolt in the 16th Century would never have happened. But, that was not the challenge that God gave to those men and women back then. About 200 years before Luther was hamering his 95 Thesis to the church door - the Popes were even more outrageous!! There was more then one of them at the same time!! But God rose up a real Reformer - St. Catherine of Sienna - and she did not betray her calling and fall into revolt. Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm
In the scheme of events - we all have a role to play as we follow Christ and minister to our neighbors. And, we can not shrink from the responsibilities He gives us. Had Luther payed more attention to this great and holy woman - he would have had a role model to honestly follow… and today, he might be called St. Martin Luther for actually reforming - and not trashing - the Church founded by Christ on very weak Peter who would soon become a mighty rock.
God bless
Thank you for sharing some of your personal experiences on your Journey Home
Your thoughts are very similar to mine on the tremendous hatred those in revolt had for the Pope. Now, channce are had there been a saintly Pope like JPII this revolt in the 16th Century would never have happened. But, that was not the challenge that God gave to those men and women back then. About 200 years before Luther was hamering his 95 Thesis to the church door - the Popes were even more outrageous!! There was more then one of them at the same time!! But God rose up a real Reformer - St. Catherine of Sienna - and she did not betray her calling and fall into revolt. Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm
In the scheme of events - we all have a role to play as we follow Christ and minister to our neighbors. And, we can not shrink from the responsibilities He gives us. Had Luther payed more attention to this great and holy woman - he would have had a role model to honestly follow… and today, he might be called St. Martin Luther for actually reforming - and not trashing - the Church founded by Christ on very weak Peter who would soon become a mighty rock.
God bless
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
just a thought, never tell a jehova witness that the soul is invisible, u will be asking for trouble.
Z
zacj12
Guest
Hi, can somone pls help me figure why John does not even mention the eucharist in the last supper if he implied transubstantiation in John 6 ? Surely John more than anyone else would have known the importance of mentioning this if Jesus’ words were to be taken literally. This is a strong protestant argument I’ve seen on some sites and it has me disturbed.
God bless
God bless
C
chid
Guest
To understand the real presence of Chris in the Eucharist you must read and follow from the old testament. Many people do not know, or have even heard of the “Bread of the Presence”, that was in the Tabernacle of the Exodus Jews. Look it up. God gave the Jews, in the exodus, manna from heaven, this is of course is a type of Christ. The old testament types are never as good, or as fullfilled and their new testament counterparts. God was teaching us on how to survive on this bread. Then there is the multiplication of the bread and fish to the 3000 and the 5000 followers of Christ. God was teaching us, simply, that that this food would never run out. This was the precursor to Christ in the Eucharist. Christ our spiritual food, His body and blood, not in the carnal sense, but the spiritual reality. I hope that you do not doubt that God could do that. This Christ in the Eucharist would be with us until the end of time.This is my simple explanation and I know that most Non Catholics and even Catholics look only to the new testament, becuase the old testament is hard to understand. But anyone willing to seek after the truth and not after only their own denominational indoctrinations, may find that truth.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Most assuredly there is room for debate on how Jn operates, but many things work together to suggest that John has the Last Supper and breaking of bread/Lord’s Supper of the NT Church in mind when understanding the events of Jn 6 in the Spirit and recounting them in his gospel and he therefore considers the discourse in Jn 6 to be sufficient.
(a) John was at the Last Supper.
(b) He never recounts Jesus’ Eucharistic words at the Last Supper as Paul and the Synoptics do.
(c) The vocabulary that consistently runs through vv 51-58 (eat, food, drink, flesh, blood, bread) is redolent of the Last Supper and the breaking of bread.
(d) 6:51 in which Jesus says “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" is virtually identical in import to Jesus words at the Last Supper, especially in Lk 22:19 where he said over the bread "This is my body, which will be given for you.” Given this import regarding his saving death, does it really matter when Jesus said them?
(e) The events of Jn 6 took place when the feast of “Passover was near.” (v 4) See also 13:1 for Last Supper and 19:14 for His Passion.
(f) The pattern in Jn 6:35-58 fits the pattern of Lk 24:13-35–the word of Jesus/God (24;13-27), transition (vv 28-29), the breaking of bread and encountering Jesus (30-35).
(g) The institution of the New Covenant is not anywhere near as big a theme in Jn as the in Synoptics and Paul.
(h) There is an enormous amount of other material found in the Synoptics that is not found in Jn.
Exorcisms, for example, are not found in Jn. Does that mean we can conclude that Jesus performed none?
• Infancy Narratives
• John baptizing of Jesus
• Temptation in the Desert
• List of “Twelve Apostles”
• Parables . . . [John has “figures of speech” 10:6; cf. 15:1-8; 16:25, 29]
• Exorcisms
• Transfiguration
• 3 Passion Predictions
(i) There is an enormous amount of material found in Jn and not in the Synoptics.
Does this mean the Bread of Life discourse or the raising of Lazarus, for example, never happened?
• Prologue (1:1-18)
• Wedding Feast of Cana (2:1-12)
• Dialogue with Nicodemus (2:23—3:21)
• Samaritan Woman at the Well (4:1-42)
• Healing of a Sick Man at Pool of Bethesda (5:1-18)
• Bread of Life Discourse (6:22-65)
• Woman caught in Adultery (7:53—8:11)
• Giving Sight to a Man Born Blind (9:1-41)
• Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)
• Washing of the Disciples’ Feet (13:1-20)
• Last Supper Discourses (13:31—16:33)
• Great Prayer of Jesus (17:1-26)
• Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Galilee (21:1-25)
I believe that there is a certain cumulative force to this evidence taken as a whole.
- Status