Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by joe370

Hey Araninski

I certainly respect your choice to embrace the symbolic interpretation of Jesus’ words. Do you believe that Jesus left us with a way to know definitively, whether I am wrong or you are wrong? One of us is absolutely wrong and I know that Jesus did not entrust you or me with the authority to settle the matter once and for all. Or, did Jesus simply leave us with no way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding this very important teaching?

Well, you would be wrong to think that. Jesus’ words in John 6 are spirit and they are life as taught by the CC

I would hope that you didn’t think it was evil. I have been to many different churches (denominations) - and the CC worships like no other. They really and truly believe that they eat Jesus’ Body, which is medicine for the soul. If you are right then Christians, since the first century, have been guilty of Eucharistic idolatry. Phew, that sure is a lot of people… I just can conceive of the notion that God would allow His church to derail right from the word go, or ever for that matter. Surely God could and would sustain truth in the church He founded circa AD 33 in Jerusalem on that fateful day - Pentecost until the end of time - yes, no, maybe???

Hey joe, how are you doing?

I recommend you read my reply above. I re-explained my believe, into a more understandable explanation , I think I didn’t express myself clearly in the first post. As for if you are wrong or I am wrong. Does it really matter? At the end I am seeing the fruits of Christ in my life, I am living a holy life, I am a saint, thanks to Jesus after all, He called me for holiness and here I am, thanks God. And of course, I am preaching His Good News, what else could I want? I do follow this teaching but I view it on a different way. It is important to follow it, after all He commanded us to do it, not following it would be a mistake. As for what really happens, I got my view and works for me. Its like trying to explain God, can you explain Him perfectly without being wrong? No , but if you believe in Him is not that, what is important? I do what He commands. He works through me, what can I say, I am happy .

Now I agree, His words are indeed Spirit and Life, that is what all of this is about, and that’s what my view ( that I can’t seem to explain very well ) is all about. You can read my response above too, just as I said to Erose.

I didn’t said it was evil. I said "Nonetheless, I don’t believe transubstantiation it is evil or whatever, but I think there should be more worship time on Mass, and that people should stand up when saying the Psalms, at least. " I meant, the Eucharist as Catholics celebrate it is not evil, but I think Catholics should have more worship time (more time, besides the Eucharist, to sing for God, etc) . I didn’t say idolatry. Or that you are wrong to believe it, no God forbid! You are doing what God told us to do. Your views may not be exactly like mine, but at the end both views look toward the same objective.

And don’t worry if a time comes when the Catholic Church (God forbid) starts to teaching something wrong or is teaching wrong (depending on what you believe), if Catholics really believe on God, His Spirit will constantly renew the Catholic Church, helping it and restoring it. This applies to all of the true believers. The same applies to the Church as a whole, we disagree on what the Church really is , but I think you got my point. God knows we aren’t perfect, if we derail, He remains faithful, and will help us, for a reason we got the Comforter, He will guide us in all truth, if we truly believe, God willing.

The love of Yahweh!

 

[joe370]

Hey Araninski…

Hey joe, how are you doing?

I recommend you read my reply above. I re-explained my believe, into a more understandable explanation , I think I didn’t express myself clearly in the first post. As for if you are wrong or I am wrong. Does it really matter?

I am doing well; hope you are to my friend. Araninski, it seemed to matter to Jesus. He let his disciples just walk away, and it looks like he would have let the apostles walk away as well. If the words spoken by Jesus in John 6 lead to everlasting life, as John 6 tells us, then why would Jesus just let his disciples walk away due to the shocking nature of His words? Wouldn’t Jesus say something like: guys, it doesn’t really matter how you interpret my words; no need to walk away from me?

At the end I am seeing the fruits of Christ in my life, I am living a holy life, I am a saint, thanks to Jesus after all, He called me for holiness and here I am, thanks God.

Agreed.

And of course, I am preaching His Good News, what else could I want?

That’s cool. What I wanted, as a former non-Catholic, was the truth regarding: *"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. *

This teaching seems pretty important for the simple fact that Jesus said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,** you have no life in you. **

If I am wrong about my interpretation then I am guilty of eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, which means that I am drinking judgment upon myself. As a former protestant, it occurred to me that I was the one not recognizing the body of the Lord when eating the bread, but, that’s just my opinion. Different strokes for different folks.

*27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
*

I do follow this teaching but I view it on a different way. It is important to follow it, after all He commanded us to do it, not following it would be a mistake. As for what really happens, I got my view and works for me. Its like trying to explain God, can you explain Him perfectly without being wrong? No , but if you believe in Him is not that, what is important? I do what He commands. He works through me, what can I say, I am happy .

That’s cool. Even if we can’t agree, it’s still fun to discuss. I am happy for your happiness my friend.

 

[joe370]

Araninski, let’s forget about what the CC teaches or any other church for that matter, and just examine scripture. I’m just spit-balling for the fun of it; Jesus said:

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, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. [2]

In the above seven verses there are eight explicit references to eating the flesh of Our Lord Jesus, made by Him to the crowd. Their response is first incredulity (which is perfectly understandable) and then outright disgust. Why are they disgusted? I cannot find any other passage in the entire Bible where there is so much repetition on a single point??? Here is the word Jesus uses:

Favgomai (transliterated as phago)

Definition

1.to eat

2.to eat (consume) a thing

a.to take food, eat a meal

b.metaph. to devour, consume

Even if they interpreted Jesus’ words metaphorically they still would have thought he was off his rocker for the simple reason that metaphorically eating flesh meant to hate, revile and kill, to them, and therefore Jesus would have been asking them to revile and kill him. Below we see the same word used:

In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Would anyone claim that phago in any of these uses is not a literal eating as opposed to a metaphorical consumption??? I don’t think so. So why think that Jesus is using the same word, in metaphor, in the same set of passages?

Once I observed how Jesus responded to their objections (below) - I had to ask myself, is the following response, (by Jesus) - of someone who intends a metaphorical meaning of his words?

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.

To me the answer is - heck no. The word for “eat” in the above passages is not phago. Jesus takes it up a notch by using the word trogo. Here is what the same KJV Interlinear Bible Lexicon says about trogo and its different meanings:

Trwvgw (transliterated as trogo)

Phonetic Spelling - tro'-go

Parts of Speech - Verb

Definition

1.to gnaw, crunch, chew

a.of animals feeding

b.of men

2.to eat

The first thing that I noticed regarding the above definitions is that none of these definitions are metaphorical. They are instead literal renderings. The primary definition is to crunch or chew, which is about as literal as you can get, so why would Jesus employ the use of a word that would steer us further away from the metaphorical? From the actions of the Jews after Jesus spoke the words in John 6:54-58, I had to ask myself: what was the intended meaning, and to me, after a great deal of soul searching, it was clearly the primary definition. For if it was otherwise, the reactions of the crowd would not make sense, logically speaking, you know what I mean?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

What occurred to me as a former non-Catholic was the following, and of course my former Pastor did not agree with me but he didn’t show me where I was in the wrong, even though I was hoping, at the time, that he would. What are your thoughts?

*** The Jews understood Jesus to be speaking literally.

 His disciples understood him to be speaking literally.

 Despite their incredulity, Jesus keeps emphasizing it without ever telling them that he was speaking figuratively. If a non-literal meaning was intended, it would be illogical to keep re-emphasizing it with greater force throughout the discourse, as Jesus did.

 The change in verbs from phago (which generally means to eat literally) is later replaced with trogo which is a much more explicit verb (denoting a gnawing or crunching) would only make sense if it was emphasizing a literal meaning. Otherwise, Jesus, the greatest teacher this world has ever and will ever know really blew it big time here in explaining Himself clearly and unambiguously.

 His followers left him and he never corrected their misunderstanding. That does not seem like something Jesus would do. Up to that point Jesus considered them his disciples, so why just let them walk away over a missunderstanding??? Once I answered this question honestly, I concluded that it must not have been a misunderstanding except in terms of HOW Jesus would give them His flesh to eat as "food indeed."

Finally, the Apostles themselves understood Jesus to be speaking literally. The text makes it clear that they were dumbfounded.

---

 

[joe370]

False dichotomy

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[joe370]

Hey flyonthewall…

Certainly the repetition and solemnity (Amen amen translated as “verily verily” in verse 53) and the principle of repetition in general (over seven and arguably nine times between verses 48 and 58) - demands a literal interpretation of John 6 or else no part of the Bible does.

For example:

Althes in verse 55 means “actual” which supports a literal rendering of John 6 and not a figurative or symbolic one. “My flesh is actual food indeed and my blood is actual drink indeed” is hardly the statement of someone making a parabolic statement unless they are a bad teacher and Jesus was the best of teachers.

Phago (in verses 49-53) - is almost always used literally which lends further evidence to taking Jesus at His word when he refers to eating his flesh in these verses.

Trogo, which Jesus employs to really bring his point home, in verses 54, 56, 57, ane 58 means “to gnaw or chew” which, to me, refutes a figurative or symbolic rendering of John 6 and places a heavy emphasis on a literal interpretation. Also, it is not a verb used in a figurative sense anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, why should it be applied that way here???

Let’s assume for the moment that the grumblers and the apostles all believed that Jesus was speaking in metaphor. In line with the OT figurative usages of “eat my flesh” - the following speak of assaulting or reviling someone:

Deut 28:53ff; 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18- 20; 49:26; Ezek 5:10ff; Bar 2:3; Micah 3:1-4

If “eating my flesh” is figurative in John 6, the meaning would be to “assault” or to “revile” Jesus in order to gain eternal life. That is how the term is used in Revelation and the list of other OT references above. This meaning would claim that to gain eternal life we must repudiate Jesus. Such a view makes no sense to me.

Your thoughts my friend.

 

[tester]

Historically there is absolutely no proof that I have come across that can be justified that shows there was a significant heresy before the protestant revolt that denied the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. None. One or two people here and there doesn’t count. The Apostles didn’t teach it nor did their disciples after them.

staying focused> the OP claimed “nowhere” not " One or two people here and there "

1. A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries

Tester in post #5 said " premise in choice #2 is flawed."

Guanophore said in post #9,* "I think that # 2 is not entirely accurate. clearly there were people who denied the Real Presence in the early days. They were called “heretics”.*

joe370 said in post #10
*"How is it flawed?

If the following is inaccurate please prove it and I will admit that I was wrong:"*

In a thread where the meanings of words are being discussed: does joe370 still stand by his use of the word “nowhere” ?

or will joe370 admit he was wrong?

**Ratramnus **(died circa 868) was a Frankish theological controversialist of the second half of the ninth century.

He was a monk of the Benedictine abbey of Corbie near Amiens; beyond this fact very little is known about him. He is best known for his treatise on the Eucharist (De corpore et sanguine Domini liber),** in which he contradicted the doctrine of transubstantiation**, taught in a similar work by his contemporary from the same monastery Radbertus Paschasius. Ratramnus sought to reconcile science and religion, whereas Radbertus emphasized the miraculous. However the two agreed that Christ was present in the eucharist, Radbertus by miracle and reality and Ratramnus by faith and symbolism. Ratramnus’s views failed to find acceptance; their author was soon forgotten, and, when** the book was condemned as heresy** at the synod of Vercelli in 1050, it was described as having been written by Johannes Scotus Erigena at the command of Charlemagne. During the Reformation, there was a revival of interest in the book; it was published in 1532 and immediately translated. It was** especially influential in England**, where Thomas Cranmer** claimed to have been finally convinced against transubstantion by Ratramnus.** -wiki

 

[joe370]

Hey tester, I apologize for overlooking this…

staying focused> the OP claimed “nowhere” not " One or two people here and there "

Tester in post #5 said " premise in choice #2 is flawed."

Guanophore said in post #9,* "I think that # 2 is not entirely accurate. clearly there were people who denied the Real Presence in the early days. They were called “heretics”.*

joe370 said in post #10
*"How is it flawed?

If the following is inaccurate please prove it and I will admit that I was wrong:"*

In a thread where the meanings of words are being discussed: does joe370 still stand by his use of the word “nowhere” ?

or will joe370 admit he was wrong?

Of course there were probably dissenters outside the sphere of the CC for the first 11 centuries, that rejected the teachings of the CC regarding the Eucharist, just as there were dissenters that rejected things like theotokos and the trinity.

I will admit that I am wrong if you can show me that the CC leadership for the first 1100 years, did not believe what the CC believes today regarding the Eucharist. Actually, if you can do that, I will have to reconsider my allegiance to the CC, for they would be guilty of teaching something Jesus never intended.

**Ratramnus **

(died circa 868) was a Frankish theological controversialist of the second half of the ninth century.

As I am sure you know, Ratramnus said:

" We are taught by the Saviour, as well as by Saint Paul the apostle, that that bread and that wine which are placed on the altar are placed there as a figure or a memorial of the Lord’s death, so that what was done in the past may be recalled to memory in the present.** Let it not therefore be thought that, since we say this, in the mystery of the sacrament either the Lord’s body or his blood is not taken by the faithful when faith receives what the eye does not see but what it believes**

; for it is spiritual food, spiritually feeding the soul, and bestowing a life of eternal satisfaction.

“…under cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine Christ’s spiritual body and spiritual blood** do exist.”**

He is not supporting the same doctrine as that which would later be taught by Zwingli. The signs, for him, not only represent, but also convey Christ’s spiritual body and blood.

Tester, like I said, if you can show me that the CC, at any time. believed what Urich Zwingli believed, I will have to re-think everything.

 

[tester]

Of course there were probably dissenters outside the sphere of the CC for the first 11 centuries, that rejected the teachings of the CC regarding the Eucharist, just as there were dissenters that rejected things like theotokos and the trinity.

I will admit that I am wrong if you can show me that the CC leadership for the first 1100 years, did not believe what the CC believes today regarding the Eucharist. Actually, if you can do that, I will have to reconsider my allegiance to the CC, for they would be guilty of teaching something Jesus never intended.

the statement above seems different than the OP of :

1. A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them – (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus’ literal words in the Gospels.

If that is what you meant , please note that neither I nor Guanophore read it that way.

In a thread that centers on the figurative or literal meaning of words, we all need to be as clear as possible.

would you please consider reposting your assertions ?

 

[Araninski]

Joe, according to your understanding if one gets saved (whoever it is , whether protestant, catholic, evangelical, Jw.) Then he/she has eternal life, meaning that he/she ate and drank from Jesus body and blood, right? Even though that person didn’t necessarily believe in transubstantiation.

Now as I have explained to you I literally believe that what Jesus said is literal ( ) . Just that I literally believe that His body and blood are literally spiritual food, and that literally we eat them, not in a physical way, but through spirit, literally . I view it as literal but not literal physical (earthly, bodily) but literally spiritual, I believe that through our spirit we literally eat of Jesus body and blood which is spiritual food and drink according to what I believe.

If I have the fruits of Christ, I believe, this is sufficient evidence, that I have life in me, and that I will have eternal life. Because a lifeless tree can’t give fruits, literally. I appreciate the information you gave me about the translation. IMO the view is the explanation of how we, actually get life and eternal life through Christ. You are not guilty, if you honestly believe that is the way in which things get to happen, the important thing is that you are getting life and eternal life.

Listen Jesus said :"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. "

He didn’t said “unless you understand how you come to eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life.” Unless you don’t eat and drink, not unless you don’t understand how this mystery happens. If I see a guy living according to God’s way, and preaching the Gospel of our Lord, and worshiping Him,perfect in all virtue, living a holy life, this is indeed evidence that this person is eating and drinking from His(Jesus’s) body and blood, and therefore has life and eternal life. Maybe that person doesn’t understand how it happens, but he is eating and drinking from Jesus blood and body, and you can’t deny it, you’ve got evidence. Only trees with life can give fruits, a lifeless tree can’t give fruits.

I hope you got my point.

Yahweh bless.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Why? Just why?

 

[Araninski]

One more thing.

I don’t understand God completely, but does that stop me from believing and having faith in Him, and living according to His ways and doing what He told me to do? Think of this. The end is the same. I don’t understand Him fully, but I still believe in Him, everything else will just explain about, not make it. If my memory doesn’t fail me Catholics regard the Eucharist as a Sacred Mystery, God is a Sacred Mystery too. I admit I can’t understand fully the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, I just know it is good for me and that I am indeed eating and drinking it, because I see the fruits of the Messiah.

 

[ERose]

I am going to be honest, my believe is very hard, for me to explain. I said the Eucharist is symbolic, because symbolizes, what is really taking place. Like I said, I believe His body and blood are spiritual food and drink, then the wine and the bread are symbolizing this, which actually really take place in Communion. I drink from His blood and from His body in a spiritual way, and no, the Spirit is not symbolic, the Spirit is very real . If you can’t understand it, I don’t blame you, as long as you celebrate and do what the Lord told us to do, I am happy, that you are doing what He commanded, after all He is our Lord.

When we as Catholics say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are saying that the bread and wine becomes our Lord Jesus. Body, blood, soul & divinity. Yes we believe that the Eucharist is our spiritual food and drink. But it is our spiritual food and drink because Jesus mandated that he would be so. This falls back to the teachings of sacrifices in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, sacrificial laws, for the sacrifice to be edifying it must be consumed by those offering the sacrifice and of course the priests as well. If it isn’t consumed then the sacrifice becomes unedifying. The interesting point is the blood. In the OT the blood was not to be consumed because the blood is the life of the animal. But Jesus gives us His blood, His life. That is the major difference between Jesus’ sacrifice and the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood life will not be found in you.

I was talking about the worship, I don’t see much worship time. Every song and psalm lasts like 1 min at best. As for readings, yeah man, we cover up all of the Bible, all of the year, at least in Pentecostal services. I think you shouldn’t say that Evangelicalism is a denomination, but an “identification”. Saying “Evangelical” means that you are conservative as the Bible tells you must, and that you are very much interested in evangelism, that is preaching the Gospel for the saving of souls, you see this as a need. A Catholic can be an evangelical, to put an example.

Yahweh bless you!

That is what I am talking about. For at least an hour Catholics are in prayer together, sharing in the Word of God, singing psalms, and other songs. I have never been to an Evangelical or Pentecostal Church where there was more true worship.

For your information, the term “Evangelical” is used for a variety of Christian denominations that are not part of the true Protestant denominations. These include Baptists, Church of Christ, Church of God, and most of the socalled non-denomination groups. Most pentecostal denominations can be called Evangelical because they for the most share common beliefs except for the Charismatic gifts.

 

[ERose]

One more thing.

I don’t understand God completely, but does that stop me from believing and having faith in Him, and living according to His ways and doing what He told me to do? Think of this. The end is the same. I don’t understand Him fully, but I still believe in Him, everything else will just explain about, not make it. If my memory doesn’t fail me Catholics regard the Eucharist as a Sacred Mystery, God is a Sacred Mystery too. I admit I can’t understand fully the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, I just know it is good for me and that I am indeed eating and drinking it, because I see the fruits of the Messiah.

None of us fully understand God completely. And with what you know it sounds like you are doing the right thing. But one thing we must strive to do throughout our lives is learn more about Christ and His Father and study the teachings that have been handed down to us. It should be all of our goals to know more about of Savior and we do that by learning and understanding the Way of life that he has called us to live. The Sacraments He left us. The Church He calls us to be one with. “Let them be one as You and I are One”.

You should be here on this forum to learn. To learn the truth. To see the truth. Socrates the great Greek philosopher believed that one learns the truth by argumentation. Someone proposes an argument, it gets beat around until it is either proven to be true or not. That is what Apologetics is.

The fact is that in your church you must believe that the Lord’s Supper as you celebrate it is the symbolic body and blood of Christ. For it can be none other than that. To consecrate the Eucharist requires someone who has been given that Charisma from the Apostles themselves through Apostolic Succession, which is what we call the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Not everyone can consecrate the Eucharist and there is no one in your church that possesses that power. So I understand why your church believes what it believes.

God Bless.

 

[joe370]

Hey tester, you said:

the statement above seems different than the OP of :

Quote:
2) A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them – (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus’ literal words in the Gospels.
If that is what you meant , please note that neither I nor Guanophore read it that way.

My apologies. I just assumed that everyone would assume that I was referring to the CC, (which was the only church that existed for the first 11 centuries of Christianity) - and that no one within the CC embraced this novel view for the first eleven centuries, which was virtually non-existent. Notice that I did say, virtually non-existent.

Perhaps you could give me some names of people claiming to be Christian, that did not belong to the CC for the first 1000 years of Christianity, that did not believe as does the CC today, regarding the Eucharist?

In a thread that centers on the figurative or literal meaning of words, we all need to be as clear as possible.

I agree friend.

 

[joe370]

Araninski;7160372]Joe, according to your understanding if one gets saved (whoever it is , whether protestant, catholic, evangelical, Jw.) Then he/she has eternal life, meaning that he/she ate and drank from Jesus body and blood, right? Even though that person didn’t necessarily believe in transubstantiation.

Araninski, I am of the mind that if a Christian does not know that the bread truly transforms into Jesus’ body upon the words of consecration, spiritually and sacramentally speaking, and receives the bread as nothing more than mere bread, as taught to him/her by his/her Pastor, (as opposed to being the real flesh and blood of JC, as per John 6) - then they will not be judged for something they simply did not know, just as I believe that non-believing Jews, Muslims etc… will not be judged for growing up in the wrong part of the world, raised outside the purview of Christianity, and will also obtain eternal life depending on the kind of person they were and the life they lived, and whether it was in accordance to Jesus’ will. If it is then Jesus will greet them with open arms and tell them who he is and what he did for them, and say: welcome to my heavenly home.

 

[joe370]

Araninski

Now as I have explained to you I literally believe that what Jesus said is literal ( ) . Just that I literally believe that His body and blood are literally spiritual food, and that literally we eat them, not in a physical way, but through spirit, literally . I view it as literal but not literal physical (earthly, bodily) but literally spiritual, I believe that through our spirit we literally eat of Jesus body and blood which is spiritual food and drink according to what I believe.

We are simpatico my friend.

If I have the fruits of Christ, I believe, this is sufficient evidence, that I have life in me, and that I will have eternal life. Because a lifeless tree can’t give fruits, literally.

Amen to that. I am not positive if I will get that eternal prize yet, but, like Paul said, I press toward the mark for the prize: “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” - Philippians 3:11-14

I appreciate the information you gave me about the translation. IMO the view is the explanation of how we, actually get life and eternal life through Christ. You are not guilty, if you honestly believe that is the way in which things get to happen, the important thing is that you are getting life and eternal life.

They were not my words. I was just quoting the words of Jesus. His words are not always easy for me to grasp but I do my best. Perhaps that is why Jesus gave us a teaching church and the HS to guide His church into all truth, until the end of time. I would never simply trust my own opinion on this matter.

. If I see a guy living according to God’s way, and preaching the Gospel of our Lord, and worshiping Him,perfect in all virtue, living a holy life, this is indeed evidence that this person is eating and drinking from His(Jesus’s) body and blood, and therefore has life and eternal life. Maybe that person doesn’t understand how it happens, but he is eating and drinking from Jesus blood and body, and you can’t deny it, you’ve got evidence. Only trees with life can give fruits, a lifeless tree can’t give fruits.

I hope you got my point.

I got it. Like I said I was just making conversation.

Peace friend and god bless…

 

[joe370]

Why? Just why?

Because, just because…LOL…

 

[PRmerger]

Well it depends on what are you referring, most “Bible” Christians believe in the “Real Presence”, as in that:

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Most believe He is really around us when congregating, at least I do

Well, he is with us, spiritually, in the same way that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.

Or in the same way when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit.

But Jesus is only Physically and Substantially present in the Eucharist. Just like our family is really only physically and substantially present when we’re together in the same room.

but I think there should be more worship time on Mass, and that people should stand up when saying the Psalms, at least.

Yahweh bless.

Where does it state in the Bible that people should stand up when saying the Psalms?

 

[joe370]

Araninski and flyonthewall, I know that you guys are established in your beliefs and I would never try to change your minds, but I would love to get your opinion regarding the following and then I will stop bugging you guys. LOL…These were the conclusions that I drew long before I entered the CC, just from reading my bible. It sure was a slow process for me. Actually, these factors, along with some other compelling stuff, were the main reason why I entered the CC.

If the bread and wine truly become Jesus’ spiritual flesh and blood via the power of God, (I am the bread that comes down from heaven and this bread is my flesh) - then what we have is an actual sacrifice akin to what happened in the old dispensation and the old covenant priesthood - yes, no, maybe, with the exception that those sacrifices of old were not efficacious? If no, that’s cool; if yes, then the Eucharistic sacrifice is nothing more than a re-presentation of Jesus’ flesh and blood, at every Mass, the concept of which takes us outside the confines of time, re-presenting the flesh and blood of Jesus, which was shed on Calvary, sacramentally speaking, under the veil of bread and wine, which is then eaten, just as Jesus commanded, and this is done everywhere in the world, at the same time, just as God predicted in Malachi 1:11. **Outside the CC and the EOC **Malachi’s prediction (1:10-11) - that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to him by the Gentiles in every place, ceases to exist. It took a long time for that concept to hit home, and I can certainly understand your reluctance. By the way, how else would that prophecy be fulfilled today?

Long before I ever entertained the notion of becoming catholic, it occurred to me that the sacrifice of Calvary, if perpetuated, as the CC and EOC taught - could be a constant occurrence for the simple fact that the past, present, and future are simultaneous to Jesus. Jesus lives outside space and time and therefore Jesus is not tied to a past event like we are, like the CC is. I use to think (because I was taught) - that the CC and EOC re-sacrifice Jesus every week or even every day but that made absolutely no sense to me. What happens in the EOC and the CC is a perpetuation of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary via the power of God and God alone. Nothing is ever repeated. Jesus allowed himself to die only once and no one can kill Jesus again, so I was forced to reject that silly notion. The concept, (as a perpetual ordinance/commemorative celebration) - of eating the lamb is Jewish in origin and takes on the form of a new Passover with Jesus, who fulfilled and perfected the old passover for the simple fact that Jesus, the Lamb of lambs, is God. This was the way of life for the people of Israel in the book of Exodus, and it occurred to me that this is what Jesus wanted in his new and everlasting covenant, for both Jew and gentile.

Like the Jewish nation in the book of Exodus, Jesus’ Church does not allow non-believers to partake of the Lamb of God, who have not, by choice, entered into the Eucharistic covenant, as was the case in the old covenant, and it does seem logical. They must be “circumcised” in the spirit, much as in the old covenant circumcision of the flesh was required, otherwise they would be eating the flesh of the Lamb unworthily which is a no - no according to Paul. Have you ever noticed the perpetual remembrance of the Passover as expounded in Exodus? The Jewish leaders taught that this participation in the passover of the lamb and unleavened bread **was no mere symbolism **but a real partaking of the exodus experience from Egypt, by all who underwent the Passover,regardless of the generation, and it was to be a ever lasting passover. It must still be ever lasting/perpetuated, and it is; it’s just perfected in the blood of the Lamb of lambs, in the new and everlasting covenant, of Jesus Christ. It also occurred to me that Jesus simply carried this Jewish concept of His, over, into the new covenant which, like the old covenant, is a real partaking of the Calvary experience, as opposed to a symbolic one. Nothing is ever repeated as I am told so often in protestant circles, nor can it be repeated from our finite perspective. That’s just silly. We, at the Mass, simply enter into the once and all for all sacrifice of Calvary, due to the power of God transforming the bread and wine into His flesh and blood, and that is why we see Jesus on the crucifix at church. It reminds us that, although Jesus is the King of kings and our glorified savior seated at the right hand of the Father, He is also the Lamb of lambs, (Lamb of lambs is my little term) - looking as if He had been slain, even in His heavenly home: “Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain …” Revelations 5

Continued…