P
Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...
- Status
F
flyonthewall
Guest
On the contrary…I absolutely believe that you see the spiritual. I just think you have gone overboard in trying to take something literally that was not intended.
As I have stated before, the purpose of the Eucharist is to bring to rememberance the Atonement of Christ. I believe your faith does that. My faith does the same thing without the literal presence. To partake of the Eucharistis to partake of the Atonement.
I really don’t think there is any harm in the belief of the literal presense, as it does bring to remembrance of the Atonement, it’s just not required.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I suppose that’s like saying, “I don’t need to be literally present to my spouse. I’m spiritually with her even when I’m out playing poker.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m not certain if this is where your argument is headed, but I hope you’re not saying that a “remembrance” or a symbol of something is just as good as a physical presence.
'Cause I don’t think there’s anyone who’s going to say that a symbol is better than the real thing.
My dad passed away in 1991. He was a doctor. A symbol of him is his stethoscope. Now, if given the opportunity to spend time with this stethoscope, in remembrance of him, or to have him back, physically, can you guess which one I’d jump at?
F
flyonthewall
Guest
I have stated before, that I believe in the spiritual presence, not the physical. Remember, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. ",
The remembrance is of the Atonement. The presense is the spirit.
By your own(Catholic) definition, nothing physically happens to the bread that can be noticed by the 5 senses we have. Therefore, any change that is happening is by your faith, and that is a spiritual event.
Now if you are asking if I would choose the presense of the spirit over the flesh…?
Well, you may already know that one.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you see it? Touch it? Any of your 5 senses detect this spiritual presence?
It would seem to me that the very argument you’re proposing to refute the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be used right here.
If you’re saying that Christ isn’t present in the Eucharist because nothing’s changed in appearance, then, clearly, Christ is not present in your Remembrance ceremonies either.
Very good.
Then, should the Catholic proposition be true, you would have to agree that having Christ physically and spiritually present is much, much better than only having him spiritually there.
F
flyonthewall
Guest
Um…that is what makes it spiritual, not physical
Jesus is not there physically, He is there spiritually. To be there physically, we could distinguish Him with our senses. I do not claim He is there physically, but spiritually.If you’re saying that Christ isn’t present in the Eucharist because nothing’s changed in appearance, then, clearly, Christ is not present in your Remembrance ceremonies either.
I believe He is there for you spiritually according to one’s faith. To claim a physical presense without any physical evidence is, well not really physical…it is spiritual. There is no physical way to distinguish between your Eucharist and our Sacrament.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
Then, if one cannot see, feel, or touch him, how do you know he is present there?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok. So how do you know he’s there spiritually?
(Just a hint, fly: if you’re going to make a reference to “faith” in his presence, then be very, very careful. You’re building a two-edged sword that will be used to slice your own argument to pieces.)
And, there is no way to distinguish the “spiritual” presence in your Sacrament and a PTO meeting. No unbiased observer would be able to tell any difference.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Read this and tell me if you think the Holy SPIRIT is making an appearance.
It seems that there is a physical presentation of this spiritual phenomenon, yes?
So it seems curious that you are objecting to the Catholic’s understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, without any outward change in the physical appearance of the bread and wine, yet claim that the Presence of Christ is in your meetings, yet there is no outward sign of his presence? :coffeeread:
F
flyonthewall
Guest
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I do not beleive it matters what religion you are, if you are gathered in His name, with a sincere intent, you can feel the spirit, His spirit.
It sounds like you are wanting a physical manifestation of the spiritual. Spiritual experiences are very personal, however they can be shared by those ready to experience them.And, there is no way to distinguish the “spiritual” presence in your Sacrament and a PTO meeting. No unbiased observer would be able to tell any difference.
There is a way to distinguish though…
“And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you know he’s there by faith only. There is no outward sign of him, eh?
Then you cannot argue that the Lord is not present in the Eucharist because no outward change in the accidents occurs.
You seem to be forgetting about Acts. Pentecost. Not a very personal manifestation of the spiritual, was it?
LOL! You’re citing a reference when Jesus was physically present to these men to prove your point? :whacky:
F
flyonthewall
Guest
Addressed previously.
Spiritual experiences are very personal, **however they can be shared by those ready to experience them. **
However they could see Him and hear Him - physical evidence. What was happening while Jesus was speaking to them, the Holy Spirit was confirming the truth of His words - this is a spiritual manifestation that accompanied His physical presence.
As interesting as this thread has been, I think it has run its course.
I wish you well in your faith.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As you wish.
I will end this discussion by saying that any denomination that claims Jesus is present “spiritually” at their meetings “because Scripture says he is there” cannot object to Catholics claiming Jesus is present “physically” in the Eucharist, because “Scripture says he is there” as well.
There is no evidence that he is there at your meetings, thus one cannot demand evidence for the Real Presence either, without presenting an egregious hypocrisy.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Fly…
So it is your belief that Jesus explained the parable to His apostles after the other followers walked away, and explained that he didn’t really want them to eat his flesh and drink his blood? According to my sola scriptura friends, if it’s not in the bible it is not to be believed. Where, in the NT does Jesus clarify and delineate the parable to His apostles? A parable is a simple edifying story illustrating a moral or religious lesson. What is the meaning of this supposed parable that says the following:
*“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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. *
I get these parables, but I do not get the supposed parable of John 6:
So we are in agreement; they left because they thought that Jesus wanted them to eat his flesh? So Jesus, instead of correcting them, chose to let them walk away? I am sorry but I still don’t get that; I never understood that teaching as it was presented to me by my former Pastor. You are suggesting that Jesus, like other times, was speaking to them in parable, and instead of reassuring them that He was only speaking in parable, as opposed to telling them to eat his flesh, Jesus let them walk away and then turned to His apostles and asked them: do you guys want to walk away because of the parable I have just used???
So it is your belief that Jesus explained the parable to His apostles after the other followers walked away, and explained that he didn’t really want them to eat his flesh and drink his blood? According to my sola scriptura friends, if it’s not in the bible it is not to be believed. Where, in the NT does Jesus clarify and delineate the parable to His apostles?
A parable is a simple edifying story illustrating a moral or religious lesson. What is the meaning of this supposed parable that says the following: *“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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. *
He still said thought; he called his flesh real food; how can you deny his own words Fly? Even though still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, and has the same texture as bread, surely God could accomplish this miracle yes, no maybe???
I get these parables, but I do not get the supposed parable of John 6:
- Master and Servant (Luke 17:7-10)
- The Servant Entrusted with Authority or The Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46)
- The Waiting Servants (Luke 12:35-38; Mark 13:33-37)
- The Laborers in the Vineyard or The Generous Employer (Matt.20:1-16)
- The Money in Trust or The Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27)
- The Lamp (Matt 5:14-16; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16, 11:31) and The City Set on a Hill (Matt. 5:14b)
- The Body’s Lamp (Matthew 6:22 f.; Luke 11:34-36)
- The Discarded Salt (Matt 5:13; Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34 f.)
- The Patch and the Wineskins (Matt. 9:16 f.; Mark 2:21 f.; Luke 5:36-39)
- The Householder’s Treasure (Matthew 13:52)
- The Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1-12) Revised!
- The Defendant (Luke 12:58 f.; Matthew 5:25 f.)
- The Unforgiving Official or The Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
- The Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21)
- The Wicked Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16)
- The Two Builders (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49)
- The Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-43)
- The Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)
- The Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45 f.)
Code:
* The Sulking Children or The Children in the Marketplace (Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-35)
* The Arrogant Guest (Luke 14:7-11)
* The Bridegroom's Friend (John 3:28)
* The Bridegroom's Attendants (Matt.9:15a; Mark 2:18 f.; Luke 5:34)
* The Bride's Girlfriends or Ten Virgins (Matt25:1-13)
* The Tower Builder and The Warring King (Luke 14:28-32)
* The Wedding Feast or The Unwilling Guests (Matt 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-24)
* The Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:11-14)
* The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
* The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
* The Prodigal Son or The Loving Father (Luke 15:11-32)
* The Two Sons, The Apprentice Son, and The Slave and Son (Matthew 21:28-32; John 5:19-20a; John 3:35)
* The Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10)
* The Lost Sheep (Matthew 28:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)
* The Shepherd, the Thief, and the Doorkeeper (John 10:1-18)
* The Doctor and the Sick (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5: 31 f.)
* The Great Assize or The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
* The Sower and the Seeds (Mark 4:3-9; Matt 13:3-9; Luke 8:5-8)
* The Grain of Wheat (John 12:24)
* The Weeds in the Grain or the Tares (Matt 13:24-30)
* The Net (Matthew 13:47-50)
* The Seed Growing Secretly (Spontaneously) or The Patient Husbandman (Mark 4:26-29)
* The Mustard Seed (Matt13:31f.;Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18 f.)
* The Leaven (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20 f.)
* The Budding Fig Tree (Matt 24:32 f.; Mark 13:28 f.; Luke 21:19-31)
* The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9)
* The Birds of Heaven (Matthew 6:26; Luke 12:24)
* The Flowers of the Field (Matt 6:28-30; Luke 12:27f.)
* The Vultures & the Carcass (Matt 24:28; Luke 17:37)
* The Tree and its Fruits (Matthew 7:16; Luke 6:43-49)
* The Weather Signs (Luke 12:54-56; cf. Matthew 26:2 f.; Mark 8:11-13)
J
joe370
Guest
Here is one of Jesus’ parables:
In coming to the other side of the sea, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus said to them, “Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.” When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”** Then they understood** that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
If you could show me where the bible has Jesus explaining the meaning of His parable in John 6, as He does with this parable - now that would be convincing!!!
The bible tells us why Jesus spoke in parables. It was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.”
Why doesn’t even the disciples of the apostles eg Ignatius, believe that Jesus was using a parabolic device in John 6? Did the holy spirit fail to guide Jesus’ fledging church into truth regarding this parable found in John 6? I don’t think I could be a Christian if I thought that Jesus failed to guide his church, right from the word go. According to this logic, everyone in the 1st century must have believed that John 6 was a parable. Is this what you believe?
In coming to the other side of the sea, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus said to them, “Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.” When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”** Then they understood** that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
If you could show me where the bible has Jesus explaining the meaning of His parable in John 6, as He does with this parable - now that would be convincing!!!
The bible tells us why Jesus spoke in parables. It was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.”
Why doesn’t even the disciples of the apostles eg Ignatius, believe that Jesus was using a parabolic device in John 6? Did the holy spirit fail to guide Jesus’ fledging church into truth regarding this parable found in John 6? I don’t think I could be a Christian if I thought that Jesus failed to guide his church, right from the word go. According to this logic, everyone in the 1st century must have believed that John 6 was a parable. Is this what you believe?
F
flyonthewall
Guest
Apparetnly I have not done a good job in explaining myself. I’ll try again…Hey Fly…
So we are in agreement; they left because they thought that Jesus wanted them to eat his flesh? So Jesus, instead of correcting them, chose to let them walk away? I am sorry but I still don’t get that; I never understood that teaching as it was presented to me by my former Pastor. You are suggesting that Jesus, like other times, was speaking to them in parable, and instead of reassuring them that He was only speaking in parable, as opposed to telling them to eat his flesh, Jesus let them walk away and then turned to His apostles and asked them: do you guys want to walk away because of the parable I have just used???
So it is your belief that Jesus explained the parable to His apostles after the other followers walked away, and explained that he didn’t really want them to eat his flesh and drink his blood? According to my sola scriptura friends, if it’s not in the bible it is not to be believed. Where, in the NT does Jesus clarify and delineate the parable to His apostles?
*“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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. *
He still said thought; he called his flesh real food; how can you deny his own words Fly? Even though still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, and has the same texture as bread, surely God could accomplish this miracle yes, no maybe???
John 6 is NOT a parable. As you stated, a parable is a story used to illustrate a lesson, concept or moral. The parable is symbolic as it uses the elements of the story to represent something other than what they actually are. For example the good Samaritan in that parable, is not really a Samaritan but represents something else.
John 6 is not a story, but it still uses symbolism.
In verse 35, He states:
“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
This is about as plain as He gets. To eat His bread is to “cometh” to Him, and to drink His blood is to “beleiveth” on Him.
Even then His message is veiled because a literal or physical approach to the Savior does not do anything in particular as there were many that were physically close to Him but they also sought or helped in His betrayal or execution.
From the beginning of this exchange, Jesus knew that they, the crowd, was not there out of devotion to Him, but were looking for a free meal.
He tried to speak plainly to them, but their ears did not hear.
He tried again to illustrate with a metaphor, He used Israelites and the manna they ate:
To eat His flesh and drink His blood is to cometh to Him and beleive on Him.
Yet, they did not understand, because they their ears heard not.
At this point, He did not explain anymore, but furthered the symbolism of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
This shocked them because it went against everything they were taught about eating human flesh and drinking blood.
He did not give that which was holy unto the dogs, niether did He case pearls before swine.
Coming unto Christ and believing on Him is believing on the Atonement, for which purpose His body was given and His blood was shed.
During the last supper, He told the Apostles that the bread and wine represent His flesh and blood which was freely given for the Atonement.
It is as simple as that.
Gotta run, will post more when I come back
F
flyonthewall
Guest
This was not a parable, but was similar to John 6. He used the symbolism of leaven to illustrate that what the Pharisees and Sadducees offered was an impure gospel. Even then, the Apostles did not understand at first, He had to clarify that he was NOT talking literally about bread, but was using symbolism.
He spoke using symbols to lay out that which was “hidden” to those that would hear. Those that turned away in John 6 could not hear. The Apostles had faith that Jesus had the words of eternal life. If they did not understand then and there, that had faith that they would come to understand it later.
Why doesn’t even the disciples of the apostles eg Ignatius, believe that Jesus was using a parabolic device in John 6? Did the holy spirit fail to guide Jesus’ fledging church into truth regarding this parable found in John 6? I don’t think I could be a Christian if I thought that Jesus failed to guide his church, right from the word go. According to this logic, everyone in the 1st century must have believed that John 6 was a parable. Is this what you believe?
I believe the Apostles understood it to be symbolic, representative of the Atonement. Once the Apostles all died out, things went off the rails so to speak. Literal meanings began to be assigned to symbolic words, then projected backwards as always being there.
I am not asking that you believe me, or even agree. All I am trying to do is show that my disagreement with the physical presence is based upon and founded in the scriptures.
J
joe370
Guest
Hi Fly…
I did not mean to call it a parable. Just wanted to show that Jesus did clarify when people didn’t understand his words.
In my next post I will show you how I came to believe what I now believe, regarding John 6. Perhaps you could critique it? If my logic is flawed then I certainly want to know where those flaws are.
;7194615]This was not a parable, but was similar to John 6.
I did not mean to call it a parable. Just wanted to show that Jesus did clarify when people didn’t understand his words.
I get the symbolism as it was used by Jesus.
I still don’t see the symbolism in John 6 as I do with the leaven of the Pharisees.
Were they deaf. Just kidding…LOL…Not all of the grumblers walked away; some stayed. Your point is: they simply could not see the truth of Jesus’ words which are symbolic and not parabolic??? They walked away because they interpreted Jesus’ words literally, and Jesus was speaking in metaphor??? They just couldn’t hear/understand the metaphor??? If so then I am with them. I don’t understand the metaphor either.
So, they got the metaphor, or would come to understand the metaphorical language of John 6. Got it! I mean, I don’t get it but I understand your interpretation.
Based upon the teachings of your church coupled with your interpretation. Got it. I now have a clear understanding of your interpretation of John 6. I was getting confused when you were using the word parable…I certainly respect your beliefs brother.
In my next post I will show you how I came to believe what I now believe, regarding John 6. Perhaps you could critique it?
If my logic is flawed then I certainly want to know where those flaws are.
J
joe370
Guest
Fly, you said:
Believe on ME…
I wish I could see the symbolism in “eat my flesh” - “My flesh is true food,” just as I can see the symbolism in the following, but I can’t. I have tried though; trust me.
I understand! Seems like a whole lot of language being used by Jesus to convey the following :
Believe on ME…
I wish I could see the symbolism in “eat my flesh” - “My flesh is true food,” just as I can see the symbolism in the following, but I can’t. I have tried though; trust me.
- Status