# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

PC: Perhaps your confusion stems from your lack of understanding of the nature of grace or the sacraments.

SOC: Perhaps.

PC: Are you aware that the Catholic Church teaches that we partake of the body and blood of Christ, as he told us to in John 6, in order to gain the Lord’s Immortality?

SOC: Yes, i’m quite aware of this. I’ve learned much from two discussion threads on the topic of the Eucharist. There were more than 1,800 posts, if i recall correctly, and much of the discussion focused on what the meaning of Christ’s words were in the sixth chapter of John’s gospel.

PC: And which interpretation of the early Church Father fits Jesus’ words in John 6?

SOC: I’m not sure.

PC: Isn’t it true that the Church Father was speaking of drinking the blood of Jesus to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh? Why wouldn’t your answer be that “He said he was drinking the blood of Jesus. He says nothing about Symbolism.” This is consistent with what Jesus said in John 6, which caused most of his disciples to leave and it’s consistent with the entire list of ECF’s I gave you, covering the first 10 generations of Christians."

SOC: Well, i’m not so sure Jesus was speaking literally. It seems to me that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone is a metaphor that was used extensively in the Old Testament–a metaphor that would have been readily recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience. To threaten to drink someone’s blood or devour his flesh was symbolic of threatening to kill him. In John, chapter 6, Jesus might have been saying this: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life.

PC: Well, we can return to John 6, in a moment. But first, let me ask you this: How could you allow a statement of Trust of an ECF over trust in Jesus? It is nothing of the sort!

PP: Objection! Leading the witness.

JUDGE: Sustained.

PC: Let me restate. Socrates, is it possible that this is NOT about a Catholic Saint knowing more about salvation than the Son of God?

SOC: Yes, that’s possible.

PC: Then, it’s also possible this is about a Catholic Saint explaining what he heard from his predecessors about what the Son of God said. Isn’t it?

SOC: Yes.

PC: And now that you are paying closer attention to the Church Father’s words, do you recognize that he is explaining the real presence in the Same way that Jesus did in John 6 and that his explanation of the real presence is explained in the same way by the next 10 generations of Christian Fathers and in fact is the same explanation given by the Catholic Church today?

SOC: That’s possible, but a possibility does not always a reality make. I know it’s possible, i just don’t know it’s actual.

PC: Are not the Protestants who deny the Real presence doing the same thing that the dissenting disciples did in John 6, turning your back on Christ because you couldn’t accept his teachings the way he meant them to be understood?

SOC: That’s possible, but it’s also possible that Catholics who disagree with them are making this mistake, instead. It’s because the meaning of Christ’s words are ambiguous, i think–at least, no one has been able to show me they are not. And several Catholics even agree with me, although they say the Church Fathers will reveal the truth to me. But that’s just it, don’t you see? This Church Father’s words are just as unclear as Christ’s! They are no help to me, but perhaps the words of another might be.

PC: Socrates, are you aware that on the day of your death, you will need to answer to your actions before the Lord. When he asks you, “Why did you not believe me when I said, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’? (John 6: 53-55).”

PP: Your Honor, I object to this! The defense is badgering the witness!

JUDGE: Sustained. Counselor, one more outburst like that in my courtroom and I’ll put you in contempt! Save your hell fire and damnation preaching for the soap box outside. In here, you will keep your dogmatic threats to your self! Am I clear?

PC: Very clear, your honor. Again, my apologies. Socrates, on the day of judgment (which not just you but every one will face, Catholic and Protestant, alike) what will you say? Will you say, “Lord, you were ambiguous?” What would be your response if he told you, “No, It was clear to all those whose hearts were open to the truth. The truth was held by the Church I founded and they shared that with you, did they not? Why didn’t you listen to them?” (I’m speaking hypothetically, of course, and not making any “dogmatic threats”.)

SOC: Well, i suppose i’d say, “You promised, Lord, that the truth would set me free. You also promised me that if i sought the truth, i would find it. The truth i found was is that your words were unclear. I admit i don’t see how coming to the knowledge of the truth that your words lack clarity could set me free. But i never gave up hope. I never doubted the truth of your words. I never doubted you, only my ability to know what you really meant. If you believe i deserve hell for my ignorance, i accept your judgment. How could i argue with you? Only, i’m sure you understand that this ignorance is not what i wanted, nor was it something i was complacent to have. I did my best, through prayer, dialog, and seeking the truth, to cure my condition. This uncertainty is a disease, but i never stopped looking for the cure.”

PC: At some point, you need to take a stand, Soc.

SOC: Yes, but i want to stand on what i know is the truth, not on what might be a lie. I want to know where i stand.

---

Let me know if you have any further questions for me, or if i should leave the witness stand.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Its fine to put me in the role of defense attorney, but I was actually putting myself in your shoes as the defendent. No need to ask questions, like I was a contestant in Divine jeopardy. I simply needed to state the facts. He says to DRINK THE BLOOD of the Lord. How can you understand this as anything other than to accept the real presence as a reality?

If it’s OK with you, i’d rather have you on my side as my counselor. Among Protestants, i felt as though i was put on trial for doubting what they believe is the clear truth. I’m here hoping you, and other thoughtful Catholics, will come to my defense.

 

[paul_c]

PC: And which interpretation of the early Church Father fits Jesus’ words in John 6?

SOC: I’m not sure.

PC: Isn’t it true that the Church Father was speaking of drinking the blood of Jesus to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh? Why wouldn’t your answer be that “He said he was drinking the blood of Jesus. He says nothing about Symbolism.” This is consistent with what Jesus said in John 6, which caused most of his disciples to leave and it’s consistent with the entire list of ECF’s I gave you, covering the first 10 generations of Christians."

SOC: Well, i’m not so sure Jesus was speaking literally. It seems to me that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone is a metaphor that was used extensively in the Old Testament–a metaphor that would have been readily recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience. To threaten to drink someone’s blood or devour his flesh was symbolic of threatening to kill him. In John, chapter 6, Jesus might have been saying this: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life.

PC: Well, we can return to John 6, in a moment. But first, let me ask you this: How could you allow a statement of Trust of an ECF over trust in Jesus? It is nothing of the sort!

PP: Objection! Leading the witness.

JUDGE: Sustained.

PC: Let me restate. Socrates, is it possible that this is NOT about a Catholic Saint knowing more about salvation than the Son of God?

SOC: Yes, that’s possible.

PC: Then, it’s also possible this is about a Catholic Saint explaining what he heard from his predecessors about what the Son of God said. Isn’t it?

SOC: Yes.

PC: And now that you are paying closer attention to the Church Father’s words, do you recognize that he is explaining the real presence in the Same way that Jesus did in John 6 and that his explanation of the real presence is explained in the same way by the next 10 generations of Christian Fathers and in fact is the same explanation given by the Catholic Church today?

SOC: That’s possible, but a possibility does not always a reality make. I know it’s possible, i just don’t know it’s actual.

PC: Are not the Protestants who deny the Real presence doing the same thing that the dissenting disciples did in John 6, turning your back on Christ because you couldn’t accept his teachings the way he meant them to be understood?

SOC: That’s possible, but it’s also possible that Catholics who disagree with them are making this mistake, instead. It’s because the meaning of Christ’s words are ambiguous, i think–at least, no one has been able to show me they are not. And several Catholics even agree with me, although they say the Church Fathers will reveal the truth to me. But that’s just it, don’t you see? This Church Father’s words are just as unclear as Christ’s! They are no help to me, but perhaps the words of another might be.

PC: Socrates, are you aware that on the day of your death, you will need to answer to your actions before the Lord. When he asks you, “Why did you not believe me when I said, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’? (John 6: 53-55).”

PP: Your Honor, I object to this! The defense is badgering the witness!

JUDGE: Sustained. Counselor, one more outburst like that in my courtroom and I’ll put you in contempt! Save your hell fire and damnation preaching for the soap box outside. In here, you will keep your dogmatic threats to your self! Am I clear?

PC: Very clear, your honor. Again, my apologies. Socrates, on the day of judgment (which not just you but every one will face, Catholic and Protestant, alike) what will you say? Will you say, “Lord, you were ambiguous?” What would be your response if he told you, “No, It was clear to all those whose hearts were open to the truth. The truth was held by the Church I founded and they shared that with you, did they not? Why didn’t you listen to them?” (I’m speaking hypothetically, of course, and not making any “dogmatic threats”.)

SOC: Well, i suppose i’d say, “You promised, Lord, that the truth would set me free. You also promised me that if i sought the truth, i would find it. The truth i found was is that your words were unclear. I admit i don’t see how coming to the knowledge of the truth that your words lack clarity could set me free. But i never gave up hope. I never doubted the truth of your words. I never doubted you, only my ability to know what you really meant. If you believe i deserve hell for my ignorance, i accept your judgment. How could i argue with you? Only, i’m sure you understand that this ignorance is not what i wanted, nor was it something i was complacent to have. I did my best, through prayer, dialog, and seeking the truth, to cure my condition. This uncertainty is a disease, but i never stopped looking for the cure.”

PC: At some point, you need to take a stand, Soc.

SOC: Yes, but i want to stand on what i know is the truth, not on what might be a lie. I want to know where i stand.

---

Let me know if you have any further questions for me, or if i should leave the witness stand.

SOC, You have Christ in John 6 and the last supper testimonials saying that this the eucharist is the Lord’s true Body. You have the Apostles and then 10 generations of the ECFs saying that the eucharist has the real presence of the Lord. You have 2000 years of Catholic Teaching saying the same thing. You even have the first Protestant reformers, Martin Luther in particular, agreeing that the Eucharist has the real presence of the Lord. In fact, I ask you what is the genesis of the belief that the Eucharist is merely an empty symbol? Who was the innovator that first made this claim and what was his authority?

After all, the disciples of Jesus didn’t think he was talking metaphorically. Otherwise, why would they have abandonned him? They didn’t abandon him, after all, when he said he was the vine and we were the branches, which was truly a metaphor St. Paul clearly didn’t think it was a metaphor because eating bread would not cause you spiritual or physical harm, like he says will happen if you anworthily partake of the eucharist. And if the eucharist was only a metaphor, then all it is is bread, right?

 

[paul_c]

If it’s OK with you, i’d rather have you on my side as my counselor. Among Protestants, i felt as though i was put on trial for doubting what they believe is the clear truth. I’m here hoping you, and other thoughtful Catholics, will come to my defense.

Well forgive me if I don’t have the same affinity for creating a courtroom drama as you do. I’m giving you the information, format it as you will.

And by the way, you don’t need to answer to the Protestants or the Catholics. Don’t be so worried about what others think. You need only answer to the Lord because he is and will be your judge. If you need help with your Protestant friends not understanding the truth, send them to this forum. We will be glad to engage them as well.

 

[fhansen]

But it was not that way with the Jewish believers, FH. The rabbis prior to Jesus’ time created the first, free public school system, and all Jewish boys were required to attend until they reached the age where they themselves chose to follow a rabbi, or take on the family business. This public school system was firmly established by the time Jesus arrived on the scene. As evidence of this, we have the gospel, epistles and Revelation written by John, a common fisherman. Peter, also a fisherman, wrote his epistles. It was not a fluke that they were literate, it was the norm.

But outside the Jewish communities, there were many who might have been illiterate, and by some estimates 50% were slaves within the realm of the Roman Empire. However, the Old Testament Scriptures were routinely read allowed to the congregations, as were the letters written by Paul and the others. And there is no doubt that there was much discussion, either before or after Mass, for the Greeks and Romans had a great love of dialog (something like what we are having now). The less intelligent in the congregations would no doubt benefit from crowding around and listening to these discussions. Though some of them might be illiterate, they would certainly not be uneducated.

I’m speaking of the first few hundred years of the church, of course. Things would have no doubt been different in the Middle Ages, after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

I don’t know-some of this is speculation (everyone has an idea what the first few hundred years of the Church was like but the best resource we have for researching this are the ECFs)-and women were virtually wholly illiterate as a group in biblical times.

In Catholicism the OT and NT are read at every Mass and preached on. And not everyone is interested in or capable of lively discussions on the meaning of scripture or deep theological issues-they just expect and need to be instructed in the faith.

 

[utunumsint]

But it was not that way with the Jewish believers, FH. The rabbis prior to Jesus’ time created the first, free public school system, and all Jewish boys were required to attend until they reached the age where they themselves chose to follow a rabbi, or take on the family business. This public school system was firmly established by the time Jesus arrived on the scene. As evidence of this, we have the gospel, epistles and Revelation written by John, a common fisherman. Peter, also a fisherman, wrote his epistles. It was not a fluke that they were literate, it was the norm.

But outside the Jewish communities, there were many who might have been illiterate, and by some estimates 50% were slaves within the realm of the Roman Empire. However, the Old Testament Scriptures were routinely read allowed to the congregations, as were the letters written by Paul and the others. And there is no doubt that there was much discussion, either before or after Mass, for the Greeks and Romans had a great love of dialog (something like what we are having now). The less intelligent in the congregations would no doubt benefit from crowding around and listening to these discussions. Though some of them might be illiterate, they would certainly not be uneducated.

I’m speaking of the first few hundred years of the church, of course. Things would have no doubt been different in the Middle Ages, after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Acts
4:13: Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

John
7:15: And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

These are a few quotes that contradict what you’ve said above. In 1st Peter acknowledges the help of Silvanus in the writing of his epistle.

5:12: By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

You have to also understand that the Jews in the days of Christ lived in crushing poverty. The Roman taxation was brutal. People had no weath, and therefor very little time of luxury to learn their letters.

In fact, there is a certain snobbery among the intellectual elite who made up the pharisee that is evident in the Gospel of John when the blind man presumes to lecture them on the goodness of Jesus. This was very likely a common sentiment.

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

I never had quite this thought on verse 17 before, but, is it logical that the “loaf” can be just bread and still be the “one” loaf shared by all the faitful? Doesn’t this imply rather strongly that it must be “something” more than just a loaf of bread in order for this “one loaf” to be shared by all?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

SOC: Yes, but i want to stand on what i know is the truth, not on what might be a lie. I want to know where i stand.

SOC,

While you are pretending:

How about instead of being a doubtful protestant trying to “prove” that what the Catholic Church teaches is true before you will accept it, you pretend you are a faithful Catholic trying to prove that what the Catholic Church teaches is false before you will reject it.

I think you will find that the judge is forced to dismiss the case.

Chuck

 

[PJM]

=joe370;5823744]

Hey Soc, just a few quick questions before I head out, that might help us resolve the Immaculate conception matter:

Do you believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church built by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, into all truth? If so, where would one go to find this church built by God, in the world today?

Do you believe that the church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and Savior, 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, cannot fall prey to Satan’s endless devices used to attempt to defeat Jesus’ established church?

Do you believe that the church built by Jesus 2000 years ago cannot fail to propagate through every century, until Jesus’ return, all that Jesus taught, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, regardless of the devils masquerading as holy men in Jesus’ established church, no doubt through every century, in different parts of the world.

These were the questions that eventually brought me back to the church built by Jesus, once I answered them with absolute honesty, removing the shackles of denial, irrationality and impracticality. I know you have to respond to many people here at this thread, so if you get a chance could you answer these questions for me with just one or two sentences.

Thanks friend…

Joe, THANKS for such a great Catholic responce:thumbsup:

Clear, concise, logical, and chairitable

Very well done friend!

May God Bless you and our friend “Soc”!

Pat

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

I could get that this agreement means you at present see serious inconsistencies the other side of the fence. Could I ?

Yes, when you say this:
… The potential infinite fissiparousness of this attitude is controlled by the very existence of smart guys who act as teachers, while teaching precisely that the Church does not need teachers. .
i agree that those who teach their is no need for teachers should walk their talk and keep their mouths shut!



I’ve met some teachers who believed this, but most Evangelicals teachers do not.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Your conclusion could be shared by many a catholic.

It is about credentials that we could go in more detail. I understand that you do not consider the “I have the Holy Spirit, you have the Holy Spirit” a sound approach to the legitimacy of Christian authority.

I’d say to those that tell me it is a sound approach that if what they say is true, then the problem must lie not with the Holy Spirit’s inability to communicate, but with our inability to listen. The disagreement among Protestants–and indeed, the disagreement among many a Church Father–must be due to (1) an imperfect ability to hear the will of God with the soul’s ear; or perhaps (2) God choosing to speak to some, but not to others; or (3) God choosing to speak part–but not all–of the truth to some, and part–but not all–of the truth to others.

Which of the three do you think is the case?

From what has been said here on the limits of the explicative power of the written word, we can probably see that such a structurally simple sentence like “I will be with you“, in the context of the Great Commission, can lead us to ask what means here “you“ , addressed to the Apostles, and what “to be with“.

It is my impression that protestantisms have come to implicitly read these words as conveying, more or less, a message like this:

“ Your successors will eventually fall into heresy. All of them. “( some would add at this point, “ but outside your successors there will always remain a scattered forgotten few faithful to my word“). And the time comes, when the Spirit shall call many, who, saving a large part of my sheep from your successors, shall restore the original Church, and all the teachings handed down by you to your immediate successors“.

I do not want to build a strawman here. I ask you Soc whether this reading attributed to protestantisms contains essential misunderstandings.

If by successors, you mean merely those priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and Popes of the Catholic Church, then yes, i believe many Protestants–Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially, teach this. If by successors, you mean all Christians everywhere, then no. The only group that apparently believes such is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For Mormons, there was a Restoration of the Church. For Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and others, there was a Reformation of the Church. The remnant of faithful believers never ceased to be, so the true Church never ceased to be, even after the authorities of the Catholic Church abandoned the truth for a lie. Protestants reformed, rather than restored the Church, they say.

If, and only if, it doesn’t, can we consider it as plausible, even the most plausible, explanation of the original sentence ?

I cannot see credentials of legitimate Christian authority in protestant pastors, teachers, preachers.
I mean, outside subjective claims.
Isn’t apostolic succession, for all the questions and objections we can for sure raise about it, at least a serious proposal of an objective mark of legitimacy ?

Reformation was built against this very mark.
And proposing IMHO something like the reading I wrote above about the ““I will be with you“.

Evangelicals, for one, would say that they are the true successors of the original Apostles, as they believe what the original apostles have taught. For them, the true Church is not a religious authority, but a body of believers who have a common faith. They say Catholics have fallen into the same sin of the Jewish religious authorities, and Jesus’ criticism of them applies to the authorities of the Catholic Church, as well:Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

(Matthew 15:6)

(Fascinating how so many passages applicable to our discussion are found in Matthew’s gospel. It’s not my favorite, really. I’m much more fond of John’s. I wonder why i’m led back to Matthew again and again during this dialog.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes Soc. It looks we’re back to Apostolic Succession.
We cannot probably know whether a guy is corrupt or not. We can get to know whether this guy acting as a detective is a legitimate policeman or not.

why i should trust the priests, bishops, cardinals, and Pope, who together ARE the Catholic Church.

You trust Jesus and His Apostles. You trust the Apostles, because they were sent by Jesus.
The model which was chosen by the Apostles was selecting successors to which the deposit of the faith and the authority of the Church would be entrusted. The way Jesus had done with them.
We can start examining this statement by going back to the already proposed evidence.

It’s nice to see you have no problem with the catholic teaching about the existence of both ministerial and common priesthood. Many protestant brothers as you know throw the latter against the former.

In Christ
P7

Whether one calls himself a priest, or a pastor-teacher, either name holds much of the same meaning. The difference, i think, is in the understanding of the purpose and importance of the Sacraments.

Yes, i’m good with returning to Petie and the other pupils in Ms Church’s classroom. I’m prepared to admit that Peter deserved the gold star as much, and maybe even more so, than the other Apostolic students. Now, please help me remember. What were the other three reasons to believe Petie is the head of the class? And which one do you want to consider first?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

SOC, You have Christ in John 6 and the last supper testimonials saying that this the eucharist is the Lord’s true Body. You have the Apostles and then 10 generations of the ECFs saying that the eucharist has the real presence of the Lord. You have 2000 years of Catholic Teaching saying the same thing. You even have the first Protestant reformers, Martin Luther in particular, agreeing that the Eucharist has the real presence of the Lord. In fact, I ask you what is the genesis of the belief that the Eucharist is merely an empty symbol? Who was the innovator that first made this claim and what was his authority?

After all, the disciples of Jesus didn’t think he was talking metaphorically. Otherwise, why would they have abandonned him? They didn’t abandon him, after all, when he said he was the vine and we were the branches, which was truly a metaphor St. Paul clearly didn’t think it was a metaphor because eating bread would not cause you spiritual or physical harm, like he says will happen if you anworthily partake of the eucharist. And if the eucharist was only a metaphor, then all it is is bread, right?

What words of Christ, specifically, do you think most clearly teach the Real Presence is really for real? (Chapter and verse, please.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well forgive me if I don’t have the same affinity for creating a courtroom drama as you do. I’m giving you the information, format it as you will.

And by the way, you don’t need to answer to the Protestants or the Catholics. Don’t be so worried about what others think. You need only answer to the Lord because he is and will be your judge. If you need help with your Protestant friends not understanding the truth, send them to this forum. We will be glad to engage them as well.

Or you can go to them. You will find the kind, if not easy to persuade.

freedomandgrace.com/

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t know-some of this is speculation (everyone has an idea what the first few hundred years of the Church was like but the best resource we have for researching this are the ECFs)-and women were virtually wholly illiterate as a group in biblical times.

In Catholicism the OT and NT are read at every Mass and preached on. And not everyone is interested in or capable of lively discussions on the meaning of scripture or deep theological issues-they just expect and need to be instructed in the faith.

Yes, and i imagine the tradition of reading both the old and new dates back to the book of Acts, for that is what they are recorded as doing then, too. Although, i think there was a lot more discussion and even debate about what the truth is. Evangelicals, perhaps more than most, have kept this tradition of discussing the meaning of Sacred Scripture alive.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

These are a few quotes that contradict what you’ve said above. In 1st Peter acknowledges the help of Silvanus in the writing of his epistle.
Acts
4:13: Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Does ignorant mean illiterate? If it does, then how did illiterate John and Matthew–to name two–write their gospels?

You have to also understand that the Jews in the days of Christ lived in crushing poverty. The Roman taxation was brutal. People had no weath, and therefor very little time of luxury to learn their letters.

In fact, there is a certain snobbery among the intellectual elite who made up the pharisee that is evident in the Gospel of John when the blind man presumes to lecture them on the goodness of Jesus. This was very likely a common sentiment.

God bless,
Ut

Right, adults had little time–although some of them *made *the time. Children, however, did have time to learn to read the Torah. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s consult an expert:The Pharisees, who were the democratic inheritors of the religious ideas of the “Men of the Great Synagogue,” also adopted as their motto the obligation to “raise up many disciples and build a fence around the Torah.” When they finally succeeded, under the leadership of Simeon ben Shetach, in wrestling control of the Sanhedrin from the priestly aristocratic Sadducees about 150 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, they proclaimed to the people that the Torah was the heritage not just of the priestly elite, but also of every single person “in the congregation of Jacob.” Accordingly, they established what amounted to obligatory universal and free religious education for the young in every Jewish community–an event unprecedented in all history and one the was not duplicated anywhere until the introduction of free elementary schools in the United States during the nineteenth century.

Nathan Ausubel, *
The Book of Jewish Knowledge* - An Encyclopedia of Judaism and the Jewish People, Covering All Elements of Jewish Life from Biblical Times to the Present
Crown Publishers, Inc., New York

 

[paul_c]

What words of Christ, specifically, do you think most clearly teach the Real Presence is really for real? (Chapter and verse, please.)

John 6: 48-68
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Matthew 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many

Luke 22:19-20

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

1Corinthians 11: 23-30

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying

Notice how 5 different New testament Authors all understood Christ as saying the same words. This is my Body, this is my Blood…

 

[paul_c]

Or you can go to them. You will find the kind, if not easy to persuade.

freedomandgrace.com/

I’d just as soon address those who are actually looking for Catholic answers to their questions, at least at this point.

 

[joe370]

Hey Soc, this ties in with my post - 572. I enjoyed readying post 580 – the cross examination, and I agree with you when you said:

“Well, i suppose i’d say: “You promised, Lord, that the truth would set me free. You also promised me that if i sought the truth, i would find it. The truth i found was is that your words were unclear. I admit i don’t see how coming to the knowledge of the truth that your words lack clarity could set me free. But i never gave up hope. I never doubted the truth of your words. I never doubted you, only my ability to know what you really meant. If you believe i deserve hell for my ignorance, i accept your judgment. How could i argue with you? Only, i’m sure you understand that this ignorance is not what i wanted, nor was it something i was complacent to have. I did my best, through prayer, dialog, and seeking the truth, to cure my condition. This uncertainty is a disease, but i never stopped looking for the cure.”

You said: *“I never doubted you (Jesus), only my ability to know what you really meant,” *and I thought those words were brimming with honesty, integrity and humility. No one should ever take action in a cause unless they truly believe in the cause, especially when it comes to eternal life. The following was the reason you gave (just as you did in that other enjoyable thread you started, that went the distance) - for not embracing the eastern orthodox/catholic interpretation of John, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Corinthians:

“Well, i’m not so sure Jesus was speaking literally. It seems to me that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone is a metaphor that was used extensively in the Old Testament–a metaphor that would have been readily recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience. To threaten to drink someone’s blood or devour his flesh was symbolic of threatening to kill him. In John, chapter 6, Jesus might have been saying this: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life.”

Actually I did respond to this supposition of yours in that other enjoyable thread but unfortunately you didn’t get the chance to respond, so I”ll dig my heels in once more and hopefully you can share your thoughts.

For the first 300 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For 1500 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For the next 500 plus years of Christianity, to the present, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist, including all of the reformers that spearheaded the protestant reformation and the myriad churches that were spawned from said reformation, which should have, ideally, simply supplanted the catholic church with just one reformed church, built by man as opposed to God, instead of giving way to the sad and hopeless fracture we see in the protestant churches today, which by the way I still consider, as does the C.C., a part of Jesus’ mystical Body to which He is the head and savior, just not in the fullness of faith. Now, if *“Jesus might have been saying: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life,” then Jesus the Christ Who is God and the Holy Spirit, Who is God, guiding Jesus’ established church “until the end of time," *not only failed miserably to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, but is actually guilty/responsible for steering Jesus’ established church into Eucharistic idolatry for the past 2000 years, if in fact the bread and wine are no more than mere bead and wine, once blessed. Based on your exclusive theoretical interpretation: over the span of 2000 years, not one Christian grasped the meaning of:

• “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”?

“My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink…” *

Soc, how do you reconcile this?

Look forward to hearing from you my friend, regarding this post and post 572, when you get the chance of course!

As always, God bless…

 

[joe370]

Soc, I was perusing the thread and was curious about your post - 590. I’ll keep it short because I don’t want to detract your attention from my preceding posts. You said:

“*The remnant of faithful believers never ceased to be, so the true Church never ceased to be, even after the authorities of the Catholic Church abandoned the truth for a lie. Protestants reformed, rather than restored the Church, they say.”
*

Regarding this remnant of faithful believers that never ceased to be:

1. Where can I find this church spanning the centuries, from the 1st to the 16th century, and what name did this church go by?
2. When did the catholic church abandoned the truth for a lie, and what are these lies, and by who’s authority are you speaking?
3. Could you please direct me to the man-made church that is responsible for reforming the church built by God? Absolutely so sarcasm intended; I speak from the heart. These are questions I could never answer!

Again, look forward to hearing from You; Peace brother…