Was not 2Corinthians 5:16 Paul's ideal opportunity to teach transubstantiation?

[Nicea325]

Nicea325,

As you also would accept the OT and the NT ,as historically accurate:

It escapes me how you can claim my position isn’t rooted in history.

John 6:47-51
“Verily,verily,I say unto you,He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

                 "I am that bread of life."



                 " Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,and are dead.
                   This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,that a man may eat 
                    thereof,and never die."

                   "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"

                  Did Jesus then, give his "flesh" up for us :on the sufferings of his cross ?
                    
                     What did Peter know of the sufferings of ; or the cross itself  ,here ,when he,
                      with the others, heard  the  above words?(Does anyone claim that in John 6
                      Peter thought ,he meant literal flesh( in the bread) by the cross of Christ?)




                       (Verse 68)


                         "Then Simon Peter answered him,Lord to whom shall we go?thou hast the 
                      words of eternal life."


                        None whatsoever ,I would claim ( just like at the "supper").

                        As Peter says of Jesus ( verse 68) that" thou hast the words" that is "of 
                         eternal life"
                        For me ,this is in accordance with Jesus' own explanation :

                         (Verse 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"

First of all, your interpretation of verse 63 is false. Why would Jesus in previous verses state to EAT His flesh and later say the flesh avail or profits nothing? Did Jesus change his mine? NEWS FLASH! Jesus is not talking about His own flesh.

And it escapes me even more how you have failed to provide one writing outside the NT supporting your position is rooted in history?

If you truly believe it is rooted in history, I am more amazed how you utterly have failed to present one single shred of evidence. You mean not ONE orthodox Christian in the early church taught the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic?

Again…do you ever PLAN to give one historical source OUTSIDE the Bible?

The more you dance around my challenge,the more it proves the CC and the early church NEVER taught the Real Presence was novel or heretical. Prove me wrong and the early church.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

If Peter thought that Christ was speaking of literal flesh; he would not have made the proclaimination that Jesus WAS [IS] the Christ.

Here is Haydocks commentary on the verse:

"Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. — The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing."

Hi Patrick,

My question( to Catholics ) in regards to what Peter believed ,was in way of discerning how Catholics interpreted ,what is evidently,clear to me :that the disciples ,before Jesus was risen from the dead,had no understanding or belief in the suffering pathway of “the Christ,the Son of the living God”.

In the quotes above this subject is not in the least entered into;but is seen to be set in the context of an understanding of Christ as crucified.
**[1]“For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing,he would never have taken flesh for us,nor died in the flesh for us”

This understanding was not present in John 6 or in the supper; nor in (or by) Peter’s declaration : “Thou art the Christ”

It is true your articles deal adequately in regards to the misunderstanding of some ,in respect to a cannibalistic view.
But for me ,Peter and the other disciples were not totally clear of this in their thinking,
Why else would Jesus say to the twelve(John 6:67)

“Then Jesus said to the twelve,Will ye also go away?”

They must at the very least ,been seen,by Jesus ,with an incredulous gasp,( at his words) and by this question from Jesus, been forced out of this false understanding of his words; and to a distancing themselves from those ( others) which held to it.

Knowing that Jesus ( in John 6) talked substantially ,in regards to eternal and everlasting life( as he had previously): Peter ,and the others ,resort to a much more safe place of standing:
(Verse68 ) “Then Simon Peter answered him ,Lord ,to whom shall we go?thou hast the words of eternal life”**

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11910103]Hi Patrick,

My question( to Catholics ) in regards to what Peter believed ,was in way of discerning how Catholics interpreted ,what is evidently,clear to me :that the disciples ,before Jesus was risen from the dead,had no understanding or belief in the suffering pathway of “the Christ,the Son of the living God”.

In the quotes above this subject is not in the least entered into;but is seen to be set in the context of an understanding of Christ as crucified.
**[1]“For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing,he would never have taken flesh for us,nor died in the flesh for us”

This understanding was not present in John 6 or in the supper; nor in (or by) Peter’s declaration : “Thou art the Christ”

It is true your articles deal adequately in regards to the misunderstanding of some ,in respect to a cannibalistic view.
But for me ,Peter and the other disciples were not totally clear of this in their thinking,
Why else would Jesus say to the twelve(John 6:67)

“Then Jesus said to the twelve,Will ye also go away?”

They must at the very least ,been seen,by Jesus ,with an incredulous gasp,( at his words) and by this question from Jesus, been forced out of this false understanding of his words; and to a distancing themselves from those ( others) which held to it.

Knowing that Jesus ( in John 6) talked substantially ,in regards to eternal and everlasting life( as he had previously): Peter ,and the others ,resort to a much more safe place of standing:
(Verse68 ) “Then Simon Peter answered him ,Lord ,to whom shall we go?thou hast the words of eternal life”**

Hi Bernard, that was my dads name

Look at Mt. 16: 15-16 and take not that God can as demonistrated here give INFUSED knowledge.

You’re point on V67 is a good one. BUT is may just as well been to PERMIT as an wxample; a Profession of Faith. Also done in Mt. 16:15-16. God knew before he spoke what was going to be said and done.

John 6: 36-40
“But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. [38] Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. [40] And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day”

[43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

Which is precise discription of what HAPPENS in catholic holy Communion:thumbsup:

READ 1 Cor. 11: 23-30 as support of John 6

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

First of all, your interpretation of verse 63 is false. Why would Jesus in previous verses state to EAT His flesh and later say the flesh avail or profits nothing? Did Jesus change his mine? NEWS FLASH! Jesus is not talking about His own flesh. /QUOTE]

Except when the context dictates ; and differing meanings or instruction are being brought forth ,that is, in the single,use of the word “flesh”

For example Romans 9:5 " Whose are the fathers ,and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,who is over all,God be blessed for ever.Amen"

Altogether, different from the use of “flesh” seen in Romans8:12&13 ,

“Therefore ,brethren,we are debtors ,not to the flesh,to live after the flesh.”

“For if ye live after the flesh ,ye shall die:but if ye through the Spirit do mortifying the deeds of the body,ye shall live” ( KJV)

Would you agree?

Seems to me Nicea325, that if you are indeed equating the the use of the word “flesh” in John 6:63, with for example ,verse 53, it is you ,who would have a problem ,that is ,in reconciling both together.

for verse 63 " the flesh profiteth nothing" would make verse 53,

“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man…ye have no life in you”

of no profit to you!

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hi Bernard, that was my dads name

Look at Mt. 16: 15-16 and take not that God can as demonistrated here give INFUSED knowledge.

Hi Patrick,

It is true that in Matthew 16:15-16,in response to Peter’s words,it was declared ,“for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,but my father which is in heaven” therefore this knowledge was “revealed” to him ( or if you like: “INFUSED”)

But the evidence that Peter’s words were true and the fact that where he got this knowledge from ,are verified by the Holy Ghost ( by the same scripture)

Where for instance do we see this KNOWLEDGE ,testified of ;or recorded ( by scripture) of Peter ( and the 11) in John 6:51 ?

" the bread that I will give is my flesh,which I will give for the life of the world"

I would say that this is not clearly verified by scripture until after the resurrection ,where this Knowledge ,is at last ,both certain and evident .

1Peter 4:1
“FORASMUCH then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,arm yourselves likewise with the same mind”

If you are implying that Peter and the others some how still possessed this knowledge in John 6 ; or at the supper,then where do we ( the reader) witness its presence,as verified by both the words( and actions) of the apostles and the verification of the same: recorded in scripture?

For me anyway,that this knowledge was nevertheless still “INFUSED” ,as you say,then it must have needs been telepathically done,and even then,since that they still do not reveal its presence,by their actions,they themselves were unaware of its being there: so to what purpose was it infused in the first place?

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11913786]Hi Patrick,

It is true that in Matthew 16:15-16,in response to Peter’s words,it was declared ,“for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,but my father which is in heaven” therefore this knowledge was “revealed” to him ( or if you like: “INFUSED”)

But the evidence that Peter’s words were true and the fact that where he got this knowledge from ,are verified by the Holy Ghost ( by the same scripture)

Where for instance do we see this KNOWLEDGE ,testified of ;or recorded ( by scripture) of Peter ( and the 11) in John 6:51 ?

" the bread that I will give is my flesh,which I will give for the life of the world"

I would say that this is not clearly verified by scripture until after the resurrection ,where this Knowledge ,is at last ,both certain and evident .

1Peter 4:1
“FORASMUCH then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,arm yourselves likewise with the same mind”

If you are implying that Peter and the others some how still possessed this knowledge in John 6 ; or at the supper,then where do we ( the reader) witness its presence,as verified by both the words( and actions) of the apostles and the verification of the same: recorded in scripture?

For me anyway,that this knowledge was nevertheless still “INFUSED” ,as you say,then it must have needs been telepathically done,and even then,since that they still do not reveal its presence,by their actions,they themselves were unaware of its being there: so to what purpose was it infused in the first place?

My dear friend in Christ,

You would be Prudent to read post #80 of this string

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

If Peter thought that Christ was speaking of literal flesh; he would not have made the proclaimination that Jesus WAS [IS] the Christ.

Hi Patrick,
Whilst it is true that Peter and the others ,recognised the promised Christ; and because of the mighty works ,given of him ,of the Father,which were performed before their very eyes: they also knew him to be “the Son of God”.

John 6:69 “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,the Son of the living God”

But I think you would agree that this belief they express( verse 69) falls short of that revelation they were later on to receive :after the resurrection , when Christ had shown himself and his salvation to them.

Would you agree ,that in their confession ,the men seen in John 6:14&15,show a similar understanding with their affirmation to "that prophet " ( who they sought to make King) that is ,after witnessing the miracle ; and twelve baskets left over ?

" Then those men,when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did,said,This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force,to make him a king,he departed again into a mountain alone"

Then of course,their view ( or Horizon) of " that prophet" ,also fell short : in respect they sought an earthly king and Kingdom,from the God of Israel.

Therefore what would you then make of Peter ,and the ten , who even after the resurrection (but before been given,the promise,Spirit) ,are seen with this limited view( of the kingdom)
Acts 1:16:

“When they therefore were come together,they asked of him,saying,Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

For me ,if they held only to an earthly reign( of Christ) in Acts 1, then also ,of necessity in John 6.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Why should St. Paul, when they already knew what they were doing the first time around?

See 1 Cor 10:15-16, and 11:27-30.

I see no reason to believe an absence of anything around or at the passage you’ve cited is any cause for concern. Tertullian also expounded prophecy and doctrine without mentioning the Real Presence, yet he is considered a Father of the Church.

Who knows? Perhaps Paul had other things on his mind? Also keep in mind, the sacraments exist while we wait for Heaven. I think it reasonable to believe we will no longer need them after the Last Day. But the Sacraments make God present in time and space, in a way people in time and space can appreciate.

Do not forget, you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11916448]Hi Patrick,
Whilst it is true that Peter and the others ,recognised the promised Christ; and because of the mighty works ,given of him ,of the Father,which were performed before their very eyes: they also knew him to be “the Son of God”.

John 6:69 “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,the Son of the living God”

But I think you would agree that this belief they express( verse 69) falls short of that revelation they were later on to receive :after the resurrection , when Christ had shown himself and his salvation to them.

Would you agree ,that in their confession ,the men seen in John 6:14&15,show a similar understanding with their affirmation to "that prophet " ( who they sought to make King) that is ,after witnessing the miracle ; and twelve baskets left over ?

" Then those men,when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did,said,This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force,to make him a king,he departed again into a mountain alone"

Then of course,their view ( or Horizon) of " that prophet" ,also fell short : in respect they sought an earthly king and Kingdom,from the God of Israel.

Therefore what would you then make of Peter ,and the ten , who even after the resurrection (but before been given,the promise,Spirit) ,are seen with this limited view( of the kingdom)
Acts 1:16:

“When they therefore were come together,they asked of him,saying,Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

For me ,if they held only to an earthly reign( of Christ) in Acts 1, then also ,of necessity in John 6.

My friend Bernard,

I’m very impressed with your post. THANK YOU.

As you may know the FORUM restricts space for each post, so please look for a PM message from me. I don’t wish to have to greatly reduce your comments in order to reply to them on the same post.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Why should St. Paul, when they already knew what they were doing the first time around?

See 1 Cor 10:15-16, and 11:27-30.

I see no reason to believe an absence of anything around or at the passage you’ve cited is any cause for concern.

Greetings TarkanAttila,
1Cor 11:30-34 “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you,and many sleep.”

“For if we would judge ourselves we should not be judged.”
“But when we are judged,we are chastened of the Lord,that we should not be condemned with the world”

“Wherefore,my brethren,when ye come together to eat,tarry one for another.”

“And if any man hunger,let him eat at home;that ye come not together unto condemnation.And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

Far from knowing " what they were doing the first time around", these Corinthian believers,were guilty of the most disgraceful behaviour( at the “supper”) in respect to one another ; never mind :before their Lord and Christ ;even ,he ,who had said :

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name,there am I in the midst of them”

Those things ( in regards to the “supper”) which Paul first delivered ,unto them:

Cor11:23 “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,”

Had,In my opinion, all but disappeared,and only the shadow remained.

By the time we get to Paul’s second letter,these abuses of the Lord’s supper ; together with those other inconsistencies ,in regards Paul’s original teachings :all had mostly been dealt with by the repentant believers there.
In respect to his first letter to the Corinthian( believers) :

2Cor7:11"ye sorrowed after a godly sort,what carefulness it wrought in you,yea,what clearing of yourselves,yea,what indignation,yea what fear,yea what vehement desire,yea,what zeal,
Yea,what revenge ! "

So not without considerable effort ,on the Part of Paul,was that which they already knew,(“first time round”) re-established ,by that same apostle,who first gave it to them.

Therefore,as Catholics believe it was originally a teaching of Paul ,( in respect to RP) if he had re -established,the Corinthians ( in regards to the Lord’s supper) believers ,again to a belief in the “real presence” in the bread ( and cup) : that is Christ in the “flesh” ( through the bread) ,then why confuse them all over again; and that in this same ,second letter to them,where he so commends them for their submission to his instruction in the first letter?

2Cor5:16 “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Philippians 2:16
“Holding forth the word of life”

When with his disciples, he sat at the table ,on the night he was betrayed,

“And as they were eating ,Jesus took the bread,and blessed it,and brake it”(Matt 26:26)

no one would deny at this very moment ,that his physical body ,was yet still to be broken :by his sufferings on the cross.

Likewise when he put the cup to his mouth to drink of it,that which he would afterwards, pray to his father ,also,yet remained to be fulfilled in actual fact : at the cross.

“He went away again the second time,and prayed,saying,O my Father,if this cup may not pass away from me ,except I drink it ,thy will be done”( Matthew 26:42)

So at this table we have the" Passover lamb" still to see its fulfilment ( by Christ’s death) in the offering up of the “lamb of God”

The bread was still to be broken at Golgotha.
And I would say ,the wine was still ,yet to flow ,from the saviours pierced side.“For this is my blood of the new testament”(Matt26:28)

His disciples new nothing in fact,I believe,of his death( and resurrection) thus portrayed,either in the lamb ( supper) ,or the bread and wine they were then partaking of.

Only the saviour,still in the integrity of his ( whole body) knew the significance and reality of this memorial ,which only afterwards,were they to do:

1Corinthians 11:25 “in remembrance of me” (KJV)

For me if remembered : then only when all those symbols seen and partaken of ,on that tremendous night ,were consummated in the sacrifice at Golgotha.

How could it be remembered ( at the supper) on that night ,when memory was yet future(save for the saviours foreknowledge) and was not then existent there and then : in the minds of his disciples?

Rev 2:11

“He that hath an ear,let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11928646]Philippians 2:16
“Holding forth the word of life”

When with his disciples, he sat at the table ,on the night he was betrayed,

“And as they were eating ,Jesus took the bread,and blessed it,and brake it”(Matt 26:26)

no one would deny at this very moment ,that his physical body ,was yet still to be broken :by his sufferings on the cross.

Likewise when he put the cup to his mouth to drink of it,that which he would afterwards, pray to his father ,also,yet remained to be fulfilled in actual fact : at the cross.

“He went away again the second time,and prayed,saying,O my Father,if this cup may not pass away from me ,except I drink it ,thy will be done”( Matthew 26:42)

So at this table we have the" Passover lamb" still to see its fulfilment ( by Christ’s death) in the offering up of the “lamb of God”

The bread was still to be broken at Golgotha.
And I would say ,the wine was still ,yet to flow ,from the saviours pierced side.“For this is my blood of the new testament”(Matt26:28)

His disciples new nothing in fact,I believe,of his death( and resurrection) thus portrayed,either in the lamb ( supper) ,or the bread and wine they were then partaking of.

Only the saviour,still in the integrity of his ( whole body) knew the significance and reality of this memorial ,which only afterwards,were they to do:

1Corinthians 11:25 “in remembrance of me” (KJV)

For me if remembered : then only when all those symbols seen and partaken of ,on that tremendous night ,were consummated in the sacrifice at Golgotha.

How could it be remembered ( at the supper) on that night ,when memory was yet future(save for the saviours foreknowledge) and was not then existent there and then : in the minds of his disciples?

Rev 2:11

“He that hath an ear,let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”

So MY FRIEND,

Your position is that GOD COULDN"T DO what He intended to do

Let us not forget that “time” is a HUMAN invetion. FOR GOD; everthing is in the “NOW”

GOD COULD HAVE SAID “WILL BE” RATHER THAN “IS”. Those words were in His vocabulary too.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

So MY FRIEND,

Your position is that GOD COULDN"T DO what He intended to do

Let us not forget that “time” is a HUMAN invetion. FOR GOD; everthing is in the “NOW”

GOD COULD HAVE SAID “WILL BE” RATHER THAN “IS”. Those words were in His vocabulary too.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Dear Patrick,
The eternal Son of God ,did ,and has done ,that which he came for ,and even before time itself was so created ,(as you know) has accomplished that which he afore intended so to do.
When ,after his resurrection ,the (eternal) Son of God ,ascended into the heavens above:a new day ( or creation) had begun.
When he returns again ( for his own) this “day” will have come to an end".

Of a truth ,after the resurrection ,that which Psalm 113,I believe, foretold beforehand,had come to pass .
Verse 3&4. “From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the Lord’s name is to be praised”

Until then in the natural created order we still have laws pertaining to this life:
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day” ( Genesis 1:19)

But even today,for those basking beneath the tremendous light of the ascended Christ,the new day( without end) has begun.

“The Lord is high above all nations,and his glory above all heavens”( verse 4)

God is eternal ,but the eternal Son of God ,humbled himself ,and was found in fashion like a man; also under the law of Moses,as well as under every other natural ,God ordained( as well as,laws from God appointed earthly powers) law : you should not claim that he subverted these laws ,to fit in with your own “understanding”!

It is my claim that Jesus himself also was ,in the integrity of his person ( at the supper)showing himself to be a living symbol ,just like the Passover Lamb ,just like the bread ,just like the wine: no salvation at that “time” had in actual reality come to pass.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;11909989:

First of all, your interpretation of verse 63 is false. Why would Jesus in previous verses state to EAT His flesh and later say the flesh avail or profits nothing? Did Jesus change his mine? NEWS FLASH! Jesus is not talking about His own flesh. /QUOTE]

Except when the context dictates ; and differing meanings or instruction are being brought forth ,that is, in the single,use of the word “flesh”

For example Romans 9:5 " Whose are the fathers ,and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,who is over all,God be blessed for ever.Amen"

Altogether, different from the use of “flesh” seen in Romans8:12&13 ,

“Therefore ,brethren,we are debtors ,not to the flesh,to live after the flesh.”

“For if ye live after the flesh ,ye shall die:but if ye through the Spirit do mortifying the deeds of the body,ye shall live” ( KJV)

Would you agree?

Seems to me Nicea325, that if you are indeed equating the the use of the word “flesh” in John 6:63, with for example ,verse 53, it is you ,who would have a problem ,that is ,in reconciling both together.

for verse 63 " the flesh profiteth nothing" would make verse 53,

“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man…ye have no life in you”

of no profit to you!

My friend…do you think that after 2,000 years you are the one who has it got it right? I’ll ask you again…if your position is deeply rooted in history as you so claim;why have you failed to present to me one historical writing clearly stating the Eucharist was always symolic?

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11930385]Dear Patrick,
The eternal Son of God ,did ,and has done ,that which he came for ,and even before time itself was so created ,(as you know) has accomplished that which he afore intended so to do.
When ,after his resurrection ,the (eternal) Son of God ,ascended into the heavens above:a new day ( or creation) had begun.
When he returns again ( for his own) this “day” will have come to an end".

Of a truth ,after the resurrection ,that which Psalm 113,I believe, foretold beforehand,had come to pass .
Verse 3&4. “From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the Lord’s name is to be praised”

Until then in the natural created order we still have laws pertaining to this life:
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day” ( Genesis 1:19)

But even today,for those basking beneath the tremendous light of the ascended Christ,the new day( without end) has begun.

“The Lord is high above all nations,and his glory above all heavens”( verse 4)

God is eternal ,but the eternal Son of God ,humbled himself ,and was found in fashion like a man; also under the law of Moses,as well as under every other natural ,God ordained( as well as,laws from God appointed earthly powers) law : you should not claim that he subverted these laws ,to fit in with your own “understanding”!

It is my claim that Jesus himself also was ,in the integrity of his person ( at the supper)showing himself to be a living symbol ,just like the Passover Lamb ,just like the bread ,just like the wine: no salvation at that “time” had in actual reality come to pass.

Bernard, dear friend,

Your REALLY stuck on this theme.

Salvation happened under the OT Covenants too. [Limbo]; and with the resurrection came their enrty into the Bectific Vision. Didn’t Christ tell the “Good Thief”:: TODAY you shall be with me in Paridiase? "today meaning at the Resurrection]

Time does exist got God; it’s amns invention. For God everything happens in the “Now.”

Christ while “a man” was ALWAYS also God. It was Christ as God that preformed the miracles; and christ the man who died for us.

God Bless you friend,

Patrick

 

[TarkanAttila]

Greetings TarkanAttila,

Greetings. The peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you, and the fellowship of the Father and the Holy Ghost also.

Far from knowing " what they were doing the first time around", these Corinthian believers,were guilty of the most disgraceful behaviour( at the “supper”) in respect to one another ; never mind :before their Lord and Christ

First, perhaps what I meant to say was "they knew what they were doing after the first time around. My apologies for the confusion. Don’t know what came over me.

Second, yes. And so therefore St. Paul had no cause to re-tutor them - we can only hope - the second time 'round, though he might have, if he wished.

By the time we get to Paul’s second letter,these abuses of the Lord’s supper ; together with those other inconsistencies ,in regards Paul’s original teachings :all had mostly been dealt with by the repentant believers there.

I think we agree on this.

2Cor7:11"ye sorrowed after a godly sort,what carefulness it wrought in you,yea,what clearing of yourselves,yea,what indignation,yea what fear,yea what vehement desire,yea,what zeal,
Yea,what revenge ! "

Why the KJV? Just personal preference? Nothing personal, or doctrinal.

2Cor5:16 “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh”

I’m perplexed; one would think you would have read St. Paul’s letters more closely, and noticed when he speaks of “the flesh” and “the spirit” he does not mean so in the sense of not knowing physical flesh. When Paul says “the flesh”, he does not mean the same thing as Shylock the Jew in “The Merchant of Venice”.

The flesh is the world - the way natural, faithless human beings see things. The Spirit that gives life is the Spirit we receive at Baptism, which God Himself grants us so we may see the world as He sees it. So Our Lord says, after stressing that we eat His Flesh so many times, “the flesh is of no avail; the Spirit gives life, and these words are spirit and life”.

And then they left. Why was that, if He had meant the reasonable symbolism you propose?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard, dear friend,

Your REALLY stuck on this theme.

Salvation happened under the OT Covenants too. [Limbo]; and with the resurrection came their enrty into the Bectific Vision.

God Bless you friend,

Patrick

Greetings Patrick.

Luke 7:28 . “For I say unto you,Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he”

With your appeal for an OT salvation ,( for those disciples sat round the table) is there also an acknowledgement ,that these disciples of Jesus ,sat round the table ,on the night on which he was betrayed ,knew not ,that there and then,before their very eyes:

“Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you?”(Galatians 3:1)

and so they did not no anything, in regards to the NT truth: “Jesus Christ and him crucified”?

Thus ,we see,I believe , the reason for your appeal: that is an OT ( saving) belief.

Would it then be fair to say,that since your own belief and confidence in the bread( and wine) has its foundation at this same “supper” :where first the bread( you say) was seen to be ‘consecrated’ ,then one could argue ,that since this is the very same bread also ,which you trust in for salvation( through the ‘RP’) ,understanding being an unnecessary appendage,ought not your own appeal be said to be :to an OT belief also?

Regarding your point on being “stuck”

It is my opinion ( with all due respect) that it is you who are the one who is stuck.
Stuck that is,for an answer ,and are therefore keen to exit this " theme" .

But since you seem to be the only one who has made a serious attempt at finding a “reasonable” ,purely ,biblical answer. ( in regards to this ‘theme’)
On account of this :I certainly do not fault you.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard, dear friend,
Didn’t Christ tell the “Good Thief”:: TODAY you shall be with me in Paridiase? "today meaning at the Resurrection]

Time does exist got God; it’s amns invention. For God everything happens in the “Now.”

Christ while “a man” was ALWAYS also God. It was Christ as God that preformed the miracles; and christ the man who died for us.

God Bless you friend,

Patrick

Luke 22 :1 " Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is called the Passover"

That the Passover was ordained on a particular day ,for a period of 24hrs( or what ever) was ordained of God .As was the Sabbath .Jesus Christ come in " the flesh",was found to be in subjection ( or under the law to) to such as these.

" Today you shall be with me in paradise"

Here again ,Patrick,I believe ,you are seen to catapult “Christ the man”,as you say,into eternity ,all too soon.
That is before the appointed time for him to die.

The reason I say this, is that in context ,I believe, Jesus was still a very relevant ( I’m sure you would agree) part of that “day”( comprising of a set period) of which he was referring to.

As Jesus would be the first one to depart( from the scene,and the day) his words of comfort where ,I would say,intended to see the “repentant thief” through that agonising time which remained for him.

Which included ,as you know,his legs being broken ,in a torturous ending.

This “thief” knew Jesus as ‘Lord’ ,a saviour: “King of the Jews”.

Yes ,there were others ( at the cross) who knew those truths regarding “the Son of man”,but unlike this thief ,they would have to wait until after the resurrection ,for the truth to be revealed.

This believing man however ,would ,without his earthly body ,very soon be with Christ Jesus,
Who without his tabernacle ,would appear to him .

This I believe to be ,with a greater intensity,and glory,than that which was witnessed ( by the three) ,still in his body,at the mount of transfiguration .

“Paradise” indeed!

Kind regards.
Bernard.

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11935390]Greetings Patrick.

Luke 7:28 . “For I say unto you,Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he”

With your appeal for an OT salvation ,( for those disciples sat round the table) is there also an acknowledgement ,that these disciples of Jesus ,sat round the table ,on the night on which he was betrayed ,knew not ,that there and then,before their very eyes:

“Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you?”(Galatians 3:1)

and so they did not no anything, in regards to the NT truth: “Jesus Christ and him crucified”?

Thus ,we see,I believe , the reason for your appeal: that is an OT ( saving) belief.

Would it then be fair to say,that since your own belief and confidence in the bread( and wine) has its foundation at this same “supper” :where first the bread( you say) was seen to be ‘consecrated’ ,then one could argue ,that since this is the very same bread also ,which you trust in for salvation( through the ‘RP’) ,understanding being an unnecessary appendage,ought not your own appeal be said to be :to an OT belief also?

A couple of points mt friend,

I have no doubt that at the Last supper the Apostles [minus Judas E] accepted Christ at His WORDS in FAITH. Did they have a full understanding, likely not. Did they believe: YES!

Mt.26:26-28

[26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.

DOUAY EXPLANTION [26] This is my body: He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.

Lk. 22: 19-21
" And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice,** the new testament in my blood,** which shall be shed for you."

As they clearly express it was NOT thought to be an OT [redo]; BUT rather someting entirely new and Profound.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

A couple of points mt friend,

I have no doubt that at the Last supper the Apostles [minus Judas E] accepted Christ at His WORDS in FAITH. Did they have a full understanding, likely not. Did they believe: YES!

Mt.26:26-28

[26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.

DOUAY EXPLANTION [26] This is my body: He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.

Lk. 22: 19-21
" And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice,** the new testament in my blood,** which shall be shed for you."

As they clearly express it was NOT thought to be an OT [redo]; BUT rather someting entirely new and Profound.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Hi Patrick.

We all believe ,that at the “supper”,the disciples of Jesus ,actually heard all his words( in your quoted texts) .But the question I was asking,was ( and is) what did they understand by,and know( believe) in regards the meaning of those words?

“This is my body”( Matt 26:26). “which is broken for you”(1Cor11:24)

If ,as you ( and your Douay counsel) say that “they clearly express” " something entirely new and profound",where is this profundity evidenced in the disciples minds,or witnessed by their intelligence ?( scriptural or otherwise)

Luke 24:24-27 “And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre ,and found it even so as the woman had said:but him they saw not”

“The he said unto them ,O fools,and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,and to enter into his glory?”

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”

43-46. “And he took it and did eat before them.
And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you,while I was yet with you,that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,and in the prophets,and in the Psalms,concerning me”

“Then opened he their understanding,that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them.Thus it is written,and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,and to rise from the dead the third day”

Patrick ,in his attempt to teach them ( in their understanding ) ,on the night in which he was betrayed ,did Jesus in fact then fail ( to do so) ?
And since you also say he was teaching them a lesson in ‘transubstantiation’ :how could it be without understanding and without the( revealed) knowledge of his death?

With Christ showing forth his death ( in the breaking of the bread": is it not until the (revealed)ministry of Paul an apostle,that on that same night,in which Jesus is seen breaking the bread,Paul shows ( to us) that the bread symbolically represented his broken body?

“Which is broken for you”(1Cor11:24)
“And when he had given thanks,he brake it,and said ,Take eat : this is my body,which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (KJV)

For me ,this clearly is the bread ,consistently seen ,both at the supper and after the resurrection ( through the ministry of Paul) being solely used as a metaphor of Christ’s broken body.