J
- Status
C
corvidae
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
If you take this in context of this chapter, Jesus is making a comparison between Himself and Moses. Just as they believed in Moses to lead them He was now asking them to trust Him in the same way. In fact He makes even greater claims than Moses. This was a very difficult for the Jews who had followed him all there lives and who was the great law giver.
About believing Him and following Him. That if they do follow Him, He will provide for them just as Moses did.
.
Even though the same word may be used, we know that in John 6 it would not make sense to believe He was speaking in a literal sense.
On the surface that may be true but on closer study of John 6 that is not the case
A lone Raven
My point is that in John 6 you will not find any mention to the eurachrist. Where do you see transubnation happening in John 6?
S
santaro75
Guest
because he said that unless you chew the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life within you. This is foreshadowing communion in the church. The actual transubstantiation is not present in john 6.
The actual transubstantiation is in luke 22:19 and in other gospels and letters.
where else can you chew on his flesh and drink his blood?
In the backdrop of the old testament the theology works very well. in the backdrop of human thinking it falls apart.
I think it would help your argument if you could site somewhere else in the bible where chewing on flesh and drinking blood is a metaphor for what you believe john 6 is about.
J
justasking4
Guest
N
Nebuchadnezzar
Guest
My point is that in John 6 you will not find any mention to the eurachrist. Where do you see transubnation happening in John 6?
Well, in verse 51 he says the bread he will give for the life of the world is his flesh. Then during the last supper he takes the bread gives thanks and says take this all of you and eat it, this IS my body which will be broken for you…Kind of sounds like one might be referencing the other.
Well, in verse 51 he says the bread he will give for the life of the world is his flesh. Then during the last supper he takes the bread gives thanks and says take this all of you and eat it, this IS my body which will be broken for you…Kind of sounds like one might be referencing the other.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
V
VociMike
Guest
Indeed, Catholicism doesn’t teach that Christ literally is or becomes bread. It does teach that what was bread and wine literally becomes Christ.
J
justasking4
Guest
Since the bread and wine are literally Christ it would follow then for the following:
1- The bread and wine is God in literally thousands of places
2- Christ has more than 2 natures. Not only does He have the nature of God and man but now it is also the nature of bread. That would be 3 natures.
These are just some of the problems if we take the catholic view. There are other problems that could be mentioned.
J
justasking4
Guest
Originally Posted by AlegreFe How 'bout this one, “symbolically, symbolically, I say to you, I never meant you should actually eat me. You could still live without me, even without this bread, after all this bread does not really give life. I just called it the ‘bread of life’ but meant it only in a ‘symbolic’ way, so please come back… don’t walk away, come back!!”
If He meant it in the way i understand you here, then we should be seeing Jesus inviting them right then to eat literally of His flesh there. That would be canabalism and i don’t think you mean that do you?
If not literally, then what are left with? Symbolically?
If He meant it in the way i understand you here, then we should be seeing Jesus inviting them right then to eat literally of His flesh there. That would be canabalism and i don’t think you mean that do you?
If not literally, then what are left with? Symbolically?
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
I think Protestants believe in the baptism verse differently. they see water as referring to a mothers water (example being “her water broke”) rather than baptismal water.
I don’t agree with them though.
I don’t agree with them though.
J
jmcrae
Guest
John shows us how this works at the start of his Chapter 6, where Jesus causes the one lunch of bread and fish to be simultaneously eaten by 5,000 different families at the same time, with 12 baskets of left-overs.
No, he has the appearance and accidents of bread, but the bread itself with its bread nature has already been exchanged to Heaven - Jesus precisely displaces the bread with His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, alive and entire.
S
santaro75
Guest
V
VociMike
Guest
And this is a problem for omnipotent, omnipresent God because? Is God not present everywhere, everywhen? If Christ can distribute loaves and fishes, can He not distribute Himself?
Again you misunderstand. Jesus was and is truly man, but He does not become truly bread, as I have already pointed out. There is no bread which is Christ. There is Christ in the appearance of bread. Different things entirely.
Appearing as a thing does not mean taking on the nature of a thing. When the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Christ’s baptism, do you say that the Holy Spirit took on the nature of doves?
Of course you don’t. So why do you apply different logic to the Eucharist? The Catholic position, by contrast, is completely consistent.
A
AlegreFe
Guest
He meant literally. Read all of John 6 and you will see that Jesus said, "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" And he mentions that He is bread 7 times in John 6. So when they were asking “how can He give us His flesh to eat” that is what He said. And then He goes on to say that His flesh is not dead but is Alive in Spirit. But we still have His Flesh Subtantially and Spiritually because He said that His Flesh is Real Food and His Blood is Real Drink.AlegreFe:
If He meant it in the way i understand you here, then we should be seeing Jesus inviting them right then to eat literally of His flesh there. That would be canabalism and i don’t think you mean that do you?
If not literally, then what are left with? Symbolically?
Jesus let them walk because He knew that they knew what Jesus was talking about and that was literally because His flesh was going to be substantial for us to eat.
The greek word that was used acutally means to chew or to munch. Jesus would not have used those words if He didn’t mean to eat His Flesh in a real subtantial way.
Jesus told us that He was going to be with us until the end of time and He keeps His promises. He is here substantially with us and you can see Him in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church and in every Monstrance during Adoration.
R
rbarcia
Guest
This is your interpretation of my posts. I guess, your definition of a trouble maker is someone not agreeing with you.
Again, if I do not come to your conclusion, then I am wrong. I guess once you get to a point that you cannot debate, this is a good escape.
I am glad I can help you in your scholarly journey.
God Bless
**
1 Corinthians 3:18-23
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”
**
R
rbarcia
Guest
Jesus let them walk because they wanted to see another miracle, and were concerned about filling their stomach with more food, rather than being spiritually full with Christ. The bread of life that was right in front of them.
**
John 6
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”[d]
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
**
He was speaking about Himself, standing right in front of them, and they did not believe, they just wanted some more food.
That is why Jesus let them leave, not because they did not understand anything about Communion. They were so hungry, that all they understood was that Jesus was telling them to eat Him, instead of understanding that Jesus wanted them to believe in the one the Father had sent.
M
Mickey
Guest
Gimme a break!
C
corvidae
Guest
I think the one part of John 6 that shows the Eucharist more than any other is simply one line. “For My flesh is real food, and My Blood is real drink”
If Jesus were talking symbolically, wouldn’t this make Jesus a liar. And if Jesus were a liar, how could He be God?
Please explain in light of that line how Jesus could be speaking symbolically.
A lone Raven
If Jesus were talking symbolically, wouldn’t this make Jesus a liar. And if Jesus were a liar, how could He be God?
Please explain in light of that line how Jesus could be speaking symbolically.
A lone Raven
A
AlegreFe
Guest
You do this most of the time… you put up verses but then you don’t put them all up. I suggested to read all of John 6. But now I say at least read from verse 35 to 71.
Let me put up some of those verses for you… you know, the ones that you seemed to have forgotten to post (accidentally on purpose?).
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves,
saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to
eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, "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;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats me will
live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from
heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he
who eats this bread will live for ever." Jn 6:52-58
But you know, I can put up all the verses in the world and you still refuse to see. So I’ll stop here as you seem to just ignore the verses that I put up for you to read.
By the way, who told you all this stuff about what that “bread” really is in your eyes? And are you sure that those who told you were actually sent by God to do so? Can you actually trace your pastors and/or ministers back to Peter and the Apostles as they taught because God sent them?
15 And how can people preach unless
they are sent? As it is written, “How
beautiful are the feet of those who bring
(the) good news!” Rom 10:15
================================
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah
the prophet and said, “Do you understand
what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone
instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in
and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31
Jesus did not leave us empty handed or orphans. He left His Church here to instruct us. The Holy Catholic Church is the Guardian of the Truth!
- Status