Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mannyfit75 said:
They are. You can’t pick and choice beliefs that has been handed down to us from the Apostles, whom received it from Jesus. Those who deny the truth are technically speaking the “anti-christ.” I would prefer heretic than anti-christ…

Frankly, the new Protestant members who have come here has disappointed me deeply. If you have not noticed there have been new members like Old Scholar, Pwflr, and others who come here to polterize Catholics and spread lies about the Catholic Church.

I have lost my patience and charity and I could no longer tolerant your people. They sicken me to the bone and their hearts are misguided and distorted. I have recently proclaim myself as Anti-Protestant. I don’t believe in their erroneous brand of theology which is a new doctrine invited by Martin Luther.

Until the day, your Protestant brothers stop coming here and actually try to understand and not preach lies about the Catholic Church, then perhaps I can return to my normal self.

As far as I’m concern, Protestants are the servants of the devil and are heretics.
Click to expand...
Then let there be WAR!!!
Just joking…
 
To get back to the OP’s question, I think we were all pre-figured in those who left Messiah.

What we don’t know is if any of them ever returned to Him…hmmm… Peter, himself, blew it and denied the Messiah at a most critical time, but was later restored.

Just what is it that separates “us” from “them” in the OP’s passage of Scripture? Certainly it has nothing to do with our own merit.

“There, but for the Grace of G-d, go I…”

shalom
 
I think we should be careful.

Saying someone is Christ-like is a powerful and great compliment.
To call someone anti-Christ is also powerful and shouldn’t be directed at anyone today especially a group following Christ.

I think in John 6:66 he is refering to the people there on that day only. The number 666, especially from John might get people excited but also i am under the impression that the bible chapters and verses were a very late addition to the bible.

Would be grateful if someone could give me the details of when and how the bible verses and chapters were added. Thanks.
 
abucs:

Numbers weren’t added to the Scriptures until about the 15th century. Since I’m not sure which sources you’d prefer (RC/non-RC, etc.), I’ll not cite them here at this time.

There are many resources available online and otherwise that can answer your question. Some bibles even have a history of the text, etc. at the beginning of the book.

Hope that helps.

shalom
 
allischalmers said:
Manny
Do you know it is a sin to tell an untruth ?
Click to expand...
Allischalmers, Manny has not told an untruth. Indeed it is a truth that protestants do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Catholic believers have this as their central belief. We do not think that the Eucharist is on a symbol, we believe it is really Jesus.
As far as I understand the protestant believers believe in sola scrittura, that is only scripture. So there is a difference in the intimacy which Manny was speaking about.
Grace Angel.
 
abucs said:
Would be grateful if someone could give me the details of when and how the bible verses and chapters were added. Thanks.
Click to expand...
15TH Century sounds about right. I understand that it was an English Monk who took the time to accomplish the feat.

It proved to be both good and bad. Scripture is a seamless garment from creation onward. Dividing it up into chapters and verses enabled the practice of quoting out of context. Before that, you had to read Scripture as was intended - seamlessly.

Anyway, a prayer on all sides for Christian unity would be a proper penance for any sins here.

Christ’s peace.
 
Bengal,
These were two of your funnier posts. Yes, you guys are the anti-Christ. I do not like saying too loudly, or the political mechinations of the Freemasons that rule the world along with the Military/Idustrial/Banking industry controlled by the Jews and Communists will silence me…oh no, I’ve said too much 😉
 
I do not fully agree. I will say that there is something in this verse that prefigures all of us. “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” (JN 6:60). Most people have trouble understanding and some leave because of it.

As for those who say that Catholics misread John 6, how do you know? We’ve beleived this way for a while, how do you know that you aren’t misreading it?
 
ralphinal said:
I do not fully agree. I will say that there is something in this verse that prefigures all of us. “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” (JN 6:60). Most people have trouble understanding and some leave because of it.

As for those who say that Catholics misread John 6, how do you know? We’ve beleived this way for a while, how do you know that you aren’t misreading it?
Click to expand...
I think we need to keep reading this chapter because John clearly writes just a few versus later that Jesus says the following:

60(CK) When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus,(CL) knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see(CM) the Son of Man(CN) ascending to(CO) where he was before? 63(CP) It is the Spirit who gives life;(CQ) the flesh is no help at all.(CR)

If the flesh is no help at all then why would we assume his actual flesh is in the bread. I don’t subscribe to the fact that Jesus literal flesh and blood is in the bread and wine. I believe in the spiritual presence of his body and blood. Why because this to me is the ultimate act of our faith. Or if you prefer to say obedience to faith then that is fine to. But you have to have the faith first. Any non-christians who see us partaking in the Lord’s supper probably think we’re absolutely crazy. And it was true that in the early days of the church christians were accused of cannabilism because of the way we spoke of the bread and wine. If Jesus real presence is of the flesh or spirit I don’t think it really matters. It’s more important to participate than not.

If Catholics got it wrong or Protestants got it wrong I don’t think that matters either. Our intentions should always be to feed off Jesus as much as possible. I think Protestants try to do this although with some of the really watered down versions today who knows. I personally think we should take communion everyday of the week. I certainly don’t agree with once a month but Jesus didn’t apply a specific time-frame. He just said as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup.

One thing I always hated in many Catholic Churches I attended was the inability to receive the wine. We received the bread but only the Priest drank the wine.
 
inchrist101 said:
I think we need to keep reading this chapter because John clearly writes just a few versus later that Jesus says the following:

60(CK) When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus,(CL) knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see(CM) the Son of Man(CN) ascending to(CO) where he was before? 63(CP) It is the Spirit who gives life;(CQ) the flesh is no help at all.(CR)

If the flesh is no help at all then why would we assume his actual flesh is in the bread. I don’t subscribe to the fact that Jesus literal flesh and blood is in the bread and wine. I believe in the spiritual presence of his body and blood. Why because this to me is the ultimate act of our faith. Or if you prefer to say obedience to faith then that is fine to. But you have to have the faith first. Any non-christians who see us partaking in the Lord’s supper probably think we’re absolutely crazy. And it was true that in the early days of the church christians were accused of cannabilism because of the way we spoke of the bread and wine. If Jesus real presence is of the flesh or spirit I don’t think it really matters. It’s more important to participate than not.

If Catholics got it wrong or Protestants got it wrong I don’t think that matters either. Our intentions should always be to feed off Jesus as much as possible. I think Protestants try to do this although with some of the really watered down versions today who knows. I personally think we should take communion everyday of the week. I certainly don’t agree with once a month but Jesus didn’t apply a specific time-frame. He just said as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup.

One thing I always hated in many Catholic Churches I attended was the inability to receive the wine. We received the bread but only the Priest drank the wine.
Click to expand...
Let me go backwards on this one. The Precious Blood issue bothered me as a kid until I learned the reason. At one point, there was a heresy forming that said that without the Blood being consumed, one could not recieve the “Whole” Jesus. This is understandable, but what happens if the Blood runs out before the line is done? (Forgive my Catholic nature, I have trouble calling Consecrated Wine just Wine). The Church clarified that there is no dividing Jesus, he is all there in either species. This allows someone who is alergic to bread to be able to take Blood alone, and it allows someone who refuses the Cup to recieve Body alone. Only the priest MUST recieve both species. That did not fix the problem, so Rome allowed the CUp to be optional (it may have been withheld for a while, I can’t remember). Most Churches now have both distributed.

Back to the Flesh/Spirit talk. Why did he allow them to leave if he was being figurative? Why let them walk away? Was it a test that most failed? Further, if the flesh is useless, why was it an acceptable sacrifice to God on the Cross? Jesus’s spirit did not die.

I do not disagree that it is important to “Feed off of Jesus,” either spiritually or figuratively. I also agree that the more infrequent, the less you are “remembering HIm” in the manor that he perscribed.
 
I think as well we need to remember that Jesus blessed the bread.
Also in the Acts and letters of the NT when it speaks of the daily rememberence of the lords supper it also speaks of the bread being blessed.

And what does ‘being blessed’ mean ?

Surely a blessing from a priest whether OT or NT is supposed to envoke the presence of God.

So if you are a super minimalist on the lords supper, a blessing of the bread, which we were told to do by Jesus, would have to involve envoking the presence of God in some way.

So from even a super minimalist position, it becomes how much of a presence is involved in the blessing, rather than presence or no presence.

And if Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood then it appears to be, at the very least, a very important blessing.

Agreed ?

Respect.
 
abucs said:
I think as well we need to remember that Jesus blessed the bread.
Also in the Acts and letters of the NT when it speaks of the daily rememberence of the lords supper it also speaks of the bread being blessed.

And what does ‘being blessed’ mean ?

Surely a blessing from a priest whether OT or NT is supposed to envoke the presence of God.

So if you are a super minimalist on the lords supper, a blessing of the bread, which we were told to do by Jesus, would have to involve envoking the presence of God in some way.

So from even a super minimalist position, it becomes how much of a presence is involved in the blessing, rather than presence or no presence.

And if Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood then it appears to be, at the very least, a very important blessing.

Agreed ?

Respect.
Click to expand...
There is logic here. It may or may not be completely accurate, but there is logic none the less
 
I am glad that I was not called the “antiChrist” before I converted to the Catholic Church because I certainly would have been turned off and things might have been different for me. I don’t think non Catholics are anything but sincere…sincerely wrong but mostly sincere. IMO anti Christ is an overused term and if you live a Christ centered life you don’t need to worry about it anyway.🙂
 
abucs said:
I think as well we need to remember that Jesus blessed the bread.
Also in the Acts and letters of the NT when it speaks of the daily rememberence of the lords supper it also speaks of the bread being blessed.

And what does ‘being blessed’ mean ?

Surely a blessing from a priest whether OT or NT is supposed to envoke the presence of God.

So if you are a super minimalist on the lords supper, a blessing of the bread, which we were told to do by Jesus, would have to involve envoking the presence of God in some way.

So from even a super minimalist position, it becomes how much of a presence is involved in the blessing, rather than presence or no presence.

And if Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood then it appears to be, at the very least, a very important blessing.

Agreed ?

Respect.
Click to expand...
Er… you lost me… could you please refer me to some of the references in the NT letters where daily observance of the L-rd’s Supper is encouraged/implemented?

Also, regarding the blessings over the bread, it my understanding that the blessing over the bread was the same traditional blessing for Passover used over the centuries… “Blessed are You, L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe, Who has brought forth bread from the earth”.

The blessings over the bread (and wine) were traditionally said by the leader of the seder - not necessarily a rabbi or priest. There is nothing specific in the blessing over the bread during the seder that invokes G-d’s Presence.

I’m curious to know at what point all the Jewish blessings and observances were changed over to something else (ie., another blessing.) I’m also interested in finding out why they would need to be changed given that the observance was to be an ever-lasting ordinance (esp. for the Jews).

This ties in to the OP because it would appear to some that Jesus (speaking to Jews) is asking them to literally eat flesh and especially drink blood when it was expressly forbidden in the levitical code. Why wouldn’t they be repulsed at that?

It is apparent that those who left Him, did not understand His meaning. But the question is: just what was His meaning?
 
ralphinal said:
I do not fully agree. I will say that there is something in this verse that prefigures all of us. “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” (JN 6:60). Most people have trouble understanding and some leave because of it.

As for those who say that Catholics misread John 6, how do you know? We’ve beleived this way for a while, how do you know that you aren’t misreading it?
Click to expand...
The argument that struck home with me was the fact that Christ did not stop those who walked away and He did not further illuminate " no I don’t mean my real blood and flesh " or something concilliatory as Christ knew how abhorant the flesh and blood thing was for Jews. This was pointed out to me at the same time that I was being told by what I thought was the Holy Spirit that I had been wrong about Holy Communion. Just a thought.
 
pismopal said:
The argument that struck home with me was the fact that Christ did not stop those who walked away and He did not further illuminate " no I don’t mean my real blood and flesh " or something concilliatory as Christ knew how abhorant the flesh and blood thing was for Jews. This was pointed out to me at the same time that I was being told by what I thought was the Holy Spirit that I had been wrong about Holy Communion. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Some really good discussion here wow. I always wondered the same thing. I wanted Jesus to say no wait let me clarify. Or at least tell them the same thing he told the apostles just a few verses later. But I think he let them walk away because you have to trust Jesus 100% and obviously they didn’t. Remember Jesus knows what’s in our hearts and minds and maybe they weren’t ready to accept him. Remember just after Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ Jesus says get behind me satan. This was because Peter questioned Jesus need to die. Jesus states if you are not with me you are against me or something like that. At that very moment Peter could have walked away. Would Jesus have chased him down. Probably not. He would have viewed Peter as being against him. Roll it back to that moment when everyone walked away. Jesus may have been thinking but not saying if you’re not with me you’re against me.

I think the other thing we have to consider here is that we are linking this part of Jesus teaching with the last supper. Maybe they aren’t linked after all. Jesus constantly tells us he is the bread of life no doubt. But maybe the last supper was more symbolic than anything. Just a thought.
 
Paidon,

from my limited knowledge, when we bless a man or a marriage or a house or water etc, we ask for God to be present and from a Catholic point of view a Catholic priest is the one that does the blessing. I bow to your knowledge if it was a different understanding at the time we are speaking of.

I’m sorry i don’t know the answers to your questions about when blessings may have changed.

Verses showing use of breaking of bread in NT :

Acts 3:46 “Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart”. New Catholic Translation. (what else 😃 )

1 Corinthians 10:16-18
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ?”

Acts 2:42
“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread …”

1 Corinthians 11:26-30
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”
 
There are two possibilities as to why he let them walk. Well, at least to me there are two.

First, it was a test of their faith. He had known what they were thinking/saying the whole time. They did not trust him, he let them walk.

Second, they understood what he was saying and he meant it. They did not understand HOW. They took him literally. The how was to be answered at the last supper.

Now, to me the choice is the second one, but not just because I am Catholic. Read the last part. Jesus asked if the 12 were going to leave too. Peter answered “Where shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Jesus knew fully that they did not understand as well, yet he made NO ATTEMPT to clear it up. He let them continue to wonder how they would eat his flesh and drink his blood. He could have told the 12 that he was speaking only figuratively, after those who had no faith left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top