Why did He let them walk away?

  • Thread starter Thread starter st_felicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do not have to agree with the Doctrine, but I see you have no interest in even accepting understanding the Catholic Doctrine. You are attempting to dismantle (in a very haphazard and unconvincing way) something that has been in practice since the 1st century. It hasn’t been done in 2000 years and I don’t think you are going to be able to do it today.

a piece of advice–you should at least first listen to such simple assertions that Catholics provide you with such as we believe in the spiritual dimension of the Sacrifice so that you do not CONTINUALLY go over pointless argumentation trying to convince us it is spiritual. We know it is.

**The point is that it is ALSO a physical reality. **

In an earlier post, Church Militant gave some advice. I think you should take it.

**
If you feel that you are not getting anywhere there are only two options:
Click to expand...
**
1. Acknowlege that Catholics know what they are talking about and are in fact correct about the Eucharist. (My own case and position.)
or,
**2. Acknowlege that you cannot convince knowlegeable Catholics that you are right and that we are wrong and pack it in on the topic of the Eucharist. (my recommendation to you…) 😃 **

I also call on you to answer Church Militant’s single question for you. It will help us all understand better your purpose for the thick-headed arguments.

Answer this question: Is the Catholic Church a Christian denomination? Don’t hedge or try to explain…just answer yes or no.
 
40.png
Stone:
I wasn’t “playing.” I had no idea what you were saying and to me it sounded pantheistic.
Click to expand...
Baloney.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
You do not have to agree with the Doctrine, but I see you have no interest in even accepting understanding the Catholic Doctrine. You are attempting to dismantle (in a very haphazard and unconvincing way) something that has been in practice since the 1st century. It hasn’t been done in 2000 years and I don’t think you are going to be able to do it today.I’m here for discussion. As I said before, if it’s too much for you just say you want to back off and I’ll understand completely.

I also call on you to answer Church Militant’s single question for you. It will help us all understand better your purpose for the thick-headed arguments. So you want to back off from the discussion?

Answer this question: Is the Catholic Church a Christian denomination? Don’t hedge or try to explain…just answer yes or no.
Click to expand...
Of course, all Catholic churches are Christian (Latin, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) Are they all infallible? No. No church his infallible. Does the longevity of a doctrinal belief prove its truthfulness, no. Must all practices and doctrines of all Christian denominations be brought under scrutiny of God’s written Word, I believe, yes. Therefore, I’m here to discuss. But if this is too emotionally stressful for you, I truly do understand.

In Christ,
Stone
 
40.png
Stone:
I’m here for discussion.
Click to expand...
A discussion involves a minimum of two positions (thus the prefix “di”). You seem to be only conversing with yourself since you insist on repeating the same argument over and over as if no one has addressed your statements.
As I said before, if it’s too much for you just say you want to back off and I’ll understand completely.
Click to expand...
Don’t flatter yourself…
So you want to back off from the discussion?
Click to expand...
DI-scussion would be nice…
But if this is too emotionally stressful for you, I truly do understand.
Click to expand...
I just don’t get your continual restating this–is it projection? Must be…
 
40.png
Stone:
You’re calling me a liar?:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Now who is reacting emotionally? No. I characterized your statement denying that your “pantheistic” comment was cute rhetorical games as “BALONEY”.
 
Now Stone…Let’s see if we can have a "di"scussion. I will ask a question, and you will respond to the question, then I will read your response and consider what you have said in my response to your comments and then it is your turn to do the same and then we can continue from there…

What is your belief concerning the physical nature of our bodies and our spiritual nature? Do you believe they are separate, or that they are dependant on one another, or some other explanation? It is very relevant to some things you have said thus far and very relevant to Catholic theology.
 
In doing a little more meditation on the interpretation of John 6, I’ve had a couple of more important thoughts relating to the discussion at hand. Admittedly, they relate more to Michaels posts, than the current discussion with Stone, but I think they are applicable there as well.

First, I think we have all been guilty of ignoring the *overall *context of this passage. It seems to me that in order to correctly understand this chapter, we must first acknowledge that the events described therein happened in the context of the Passover feast.
Joh 6:4 Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.
Click to expand...
John relates events in the Passover context three times in his Gospel: In chapter 2 our Lord is in Jerusalem for the Passover (And the pasch of the Jews was at hand: and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. (2:13)) when he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple and prophecies about his death and resurrection. Next is John 6 (the second Passover) where he also talks about his death and resurrection (6:51). The third Passover (13:1) is of course when His death and resurrection actually took place.

It is important to keep the Passover in mind based on it’s importance to the Jews, and what actually was commanded to be observed during the feast. An unblemished lamb (Ex 12:3) was to be immolated and the blood was to be spread over the doorposts (we can see a parallel in Jesus’s Blood sprinkled on the cross). Then the lamb was to be eaten. What’s more, not only were the people to eat the lamb, but unleavened bread as well (Ex 12:15). So Passover was a feast in which the people ate bread and drank wine, along with the sacrificing of lambs in the Temple.

It is mere coincidence that at the beginning of John’s Gospel we are told that Jesus is “the Lamb of God”? Add to that the words of Jesus concerning “the Temple” in John 2. Finally, is it also mere coincidence that Jesus was condemned to die at the 6th hour (the exact hour when the lambs were to be immolated in the Temple? John is here clearly relating the close relationship between Jesus and the Passover (and thus, to the Last Supper). We also se this connection in Revelation, where Christ is seen as “a Lamb standing, as if slain” (5:6).

cont’d…
 
…cont’d

Second, much has been made about the lack of a Last Supper Narrative in John, and I still hold to my ealier statement on that. However, I have just recently been made aware of the fact that the Greek word *eucharisteo *(where we get “Eucharist”) is used only twice in John’s Gospel…and you guessed it both times are in John 6:
Joh 6:11
Click to expand...
ἔλαβε δὲ τοὺς ἄρτους ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ εὐχαριστήσας
Joh 6:23ἄλλα δὲ ἦλθε πλοιάρια ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου, ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ Κυρίου·

I don’t think this is just a mere coincidence that the same word used in the synoptic Last Supper narratives are used only by John in the one chapter that we Catholics point to as referring to the Eucharist. To miss this is a major oversight of those who adhere to a merely figurative or metaphorical interpretation of the chapter. What’s more, the same language is used by St. Paul in I Cor 11:24:
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:24καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε καὶ εἶπε…
Click to expand...
Therefore, I believe that to say that St. John did not make a connection between “The Bread of Life” discourse and the Eucharist is a gross error.

A third thought which came to mind is that the “metaphor” interpretation of John 6 fail to take into account the implications concerning the Ascension in verses 62-63. I think a strong case can be made that the reference to the Ascension indicates that Christ has been speaking literally (even if the disciples weren’t clear as to the exact implications of the literal meaning). This literal sense in conveyed by the fact that Christ **literally **did ascend to heaven (Acts 1:9-10).

It seems (to me at least) entirely reasonable to see this one of his sayings that would have meaning to the disciples after the resurrection. In other words, it is very similar to the events of John 2 concerning the “raising of the Temple”:
Joh 2:22 When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this: and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had said.
Click to expand...
In this regard, as I have argued previously (on the “famous” Clement thread…and perhaps elsewhere), the reference to the Ascension is the key to understanding “how he will give us his flesh to eat”. It is His resurrected, glorified body that we will eat (a normal body can’t ascend to heaven). Thus, we are literally eating his body and blood (for it is still a body), but it is offered to us in a new manner (not naturally as Paul would say, but supernaturally, sacramentally). Thus we see how the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is intimately tied with both the Incarnation *and *the Resurrection. Not to mention that the reference to the Ascension also dispells all those uninformed “cannibalism” claims.

Ok, I’ve been long winded enough (for the time being 😉 ). I guess I’ll let everyone “digest” (yes, eating pun intended) all this and comment on it.
 
Stone said:
Metaphor: The application of a word or phrase to an object or concept it does not literally denote, in order to suggest comparison with another object or concept (The Random House College Dict.).
Click to expand...

This is the denotation. Do you think I am going to let you get away with a mere dictionary reference for metaphor? Not!

Scholars spend their whole lives studying metaphor. The connotation and the usage of metaphor is what is in question here. As I said before, understanding metaphor is tricky. What I really meant is that unless a person has a few score university papers and accreditations on the line, it is unlikely that that person will understand metaphor sufficiently to be able to wield it on a discussion forum with any credibility.
 
Of course, all Catholic churches are Christian (Latin, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) Are they all infallible? No. No church his infallible. Does the longevity of a doctrinal belief prove its truthfulness, no. Must all practices and doctrines of all Christian denominations be brought under scrutiny of God’s written Word, I believe, yes. Therefore, I’m here to discuss. But if this is too emotionally stressful for you, I truly do understand.
Click to expand...
In Christ,
Stone
Click to expand...
Then you are “preaching to the choir”…You have no viable answer to the question posed by this thread and you refuse to answer my honest posts on the pretext that you :crying: “don’t like my fonts” :crying: which is nothing more than a dodge because you and I both know that you have no answers that won’t prove that you have chosen to put your own teacher’s and preacher’s spin on the passages in question rather than admit the plain fact that they do indeed say what Catholics have held they say for over 2,000 years. I have met eye to eye with preachers who will not look me in the eye when they try to tell me and other Catholics that John 6 is figurative and not literal. That physical telltale is common when the person is lying or stating something that they do not really believe. My opinion is that they just simply refuse to believe it…as do you. **Everyone here has seen all the Biblical proofs that I have laid out clearly to prove that you are wrong…they all can see that you are expounding an unBiblical interpretation and refusing to accept facts as shown before you.
**
Your refusal to discourse with me on the basis of fonts is nothing more than a persistent and immature dodge.
Pax vobiscum,
 
Church Militant:
Then you are “preaching to the choir”…You have no viable answer to the question posed by this thread and you refuse to answer my honest posts on the pretext that you :crying: “don’t like my fonts” :crying: which is nothing more than a dodge because you and I both know that you have no answers that won’t prove that you have chosen to put your own teacher’s and preacher’s spin on the passages in question rather than admit the plain fact that they do indeed say what Catholics have held they say for over 2,000 years. I have met eye to eye with preachers who will not look me in the eye when they try to tell me and other Catholics that John 6 is figurative and not literal. That physical telltale is common when the person is lying or stating something that they do not really believe. My opinion is that they just simply refuse to believe it…as do you. **Everyone here has seen all the Biblical proofs that I have laid out clearly to prove that you are wrong…**they all can see that you are expounding an unBiblical interpretation and refusing to accept facts as shown before you.

Your refusal to discourse with me on the basis of fonts is nothing more than a persistent and immature dodge.
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
Michael, with all due respect, my friend, this is quite an overstatement. There has been an extremely strong case made against the Catholic interpretation of John 6. Stone’s response, in my opinion, has been straight forward and strong. No one has answered his posts with any convincing arguments in my opinion. Stone and I have both shown that the Catholic interpretation is far-fetched at best.

Now, you may not agree with these conclusions, and that is fine. But both Stone and I would be more than willing to look you in the eye and say that a literal interpretation of John 6 is eisegesis. I also believe that Stone and I have more credit to make a judgement since we don’t have a necessary conclusion that we are obligated to come to. Neither Stone or I have anything to lose by saying that John 6 is literal!

Therefore, I would be careful in your statements that Stone is lying or refusing to believe it. You don’t know that. Stone has presented a case that has yet to be refuted in my opinion. Neither Stone or I know you nor can we judge your REAL motivations in accepting it. But the least we can say is that we have put forth our arguments and we will learn from each other. I am very confident that we may let the readers decide concerning these issues being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Have a great day Michael,

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
Michael, with all due respect, my friend, this is quite an overstatement. There has been an extremely strong case made against the Catholic interpretation of John 6. Stone’s response, in my opinion, has been straight forward and strong. No one has answered his posts with any convincing arguments in my opinion. Stone and I have both shown that the Catholic interpretation is far-fetched at best.

Have a great day Michael,

Michael
Click to expand...
Repeating the same flawed interpretation over and over again is not “a strong case against the Catholic interpretation.” In fact, you have yet to convincingly refute the posts I have made, especially the more recent ones to which you have not as of yet responded.

Stone’s “convincing case” against the Catholic interpretation is that someone is still hungry or thirsty after literally eating the Eucharist, so the literal interpretation must be wrong. Unfortunately, his case works against him as well, because by his interpretation (and yours) he should never be hungry or thirsty ever again just by believing Jesus, or “coming to him”. If he has eaten or drank since becoming a “believer”, well then I guess his interpretation is invalidated by his argument as well.

Fact is, every Church Father believed in the Real Presence. The early martyrs believed in it so strongly that they were put to bodily death rather than abstain from going to Mass to receive the Eucharist (they could have easily saved their lives by not going to “Sunday Service” if the Eucharist was just a symbolic ordinance).

Your interpretation is argued against by 2000 years of constant teaching, which is still held today by the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox). Face it, your interpretation has only been held seriously for about 500 years, and your flawed eisogesis is nowhere near convincing enough to refute 2 millenia of Apostolic teaching.

Have a great day (and hopefully you can make a response to my latest posts).
 
40.png
mtr01:
Repeating the same flawed interpretation over and over again is not “a strong case against the Catholic interpretation.” In fact, you have yet to convincingly refute the posts I have made, especially the more recent ones to which you have not as of yet responded.

Stone’s “convincing case” against the Catholic interpretation is that someone is still hungry or thirsty after literally eating the Eucharist, so the literal interpretation must be wrong. Unfortunately, his case works against him as well, because by his interpretation (and yours) he should never be hungry or thirsty ever again just by believing Jesus, or “coming to him”. If he has eaten or drank since becoming a “believer”, well then I guess his interpretation is invalidated by his argument as well.

Fact is, every Church Father believed in the Real Presence. The early martyrs believed in it so strongly that they were put to bodily death rather than abstain from going to Mass to receive the Eucharist (they could have easily saved their lives by not going to “Sunday Service” if the Eucharist was just a symbolic ordinance).

Your interpretation is argued against by 2000 years of constant teaching, which is still held today by the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox). Face it, your interpretation has only been held seriously for about 500 years, and your flawed eisogesis is nowhere near convincing enough to refute 2 millenia of Apostolic teaching.

Have a great day (and hopefully you can make a response to my latest posts).
Click to expand...
MT. I did not see anything new in your latest posts and I am tired of saying the same things. To sum up: First, the context, of John in general and the immediate, tells us that eating and drinking ONLY refer to belief (this is what Stone demonstrated with great clarity). And second, (the elephant) John does not even mention the Lord’s supper discourse at all, even though 1/4 of his Gospel is devoted to the upper room.

I don’t think that either one of these issues have been sufficiently dealt with and, in my opinion, still are detrimental to your interpretation, which, with all due respect, you have no choice but to have.

As to you 2000 years of Church history, I would CERTIANLY disagree. Augusting did not hold to your interpretation of John 6. But this is another subject.

Michael
 
Hi Mike,
Y’know, there are a number of folks here that have a feeling that you and stone are one and the same person, since you are never on at the same time and you come to his aid with posts like this.

Now… You nor stone either one have made anything remotely like a good case against the Eucharist. you have done nothing but restate your arguments against it and I find them flawed because they cast an interpretation on a passage that most of the Christians on this planet say is meant to be taken literally. I find no merit in your evidence because I’ve heard and read them all before and nothing has changed…there is no evidence that is convincing that this is exigesis…especially in light of St.Paul’s clear remarks in 1st Cor 11:23-31. It’s very clear that he believed that the the bread and wine became the body and blood of his risen Lord. All the n-C exigesis notwithstanding. Since all scripture must be taken in the conntext of others on the same topic and since Jesus is recorded as saying “This is my body/blood” then it’s simple…it needs no theology, nor argument and every convert that I know to Catholicism tells me again and again how the Eucharist was the simplest and easiest belief to see.

My replies have not been “far fetched at best”, they have been logical and scriptural and if you disagree that’s your problem and your denial. Your comment that no one has answered him with any convincing arguments is flat out bunk Mike and I’m sort of offended that you would make such a statement. It’s nothing more than your very heavily biased opinion as is his…

This comment:
also believe that Stone and I have more credit to make a judgement since we don’t have a necessary conclusion that we are obligated to come to. **Neither Stone or I have anything to lose **by saying that John 6 is literal! is almost laughable since every soul on here knows better…you do indeed have a necessary conclusion that you are obligated to come to and you both prove it both by your very presence here and by your every post. that’s just about as dishonest a statement as I’ve ever seen. You do indeed have something to lose since you would lose your entire career as a non-Catholic pastor if you dared to admit that the Eucharist is real. I have a dear friend who is a pastor even now who has stated this very thing to me. He knows that as soon as he fully accepts it…he will lose his position, but he also knows that he cannot deny the truth. So don’t tell us that you have nothing to lose Mike…you have everything to lose. and that (I believe ) is one reason that you take the position that you do.

If I am wrong Prove it! Prove me wrong…Like you, I’ve read your posts and every other hotshot n-C or a-C in here and not one has a viable argument against the 2,000 year old doctrine of the Eucharist that is clearly stated in the NT.

I do feel that you and stone and many others just simply refuse to accept the Eucharistic teaching and I would say that that opinion is held by most Catholics here as well. To us it’s about as simple as anything can get and even if I was a proponent of Sola Scriptura, (which, Praise God, I am not!) I would have to accept it just on the Biblical evidence alone. The fact that the Catholic Church adheres to this most Biblically compelling doctrine is (to me) one of the best reasons for me to be Catholic.

Oh I assure you that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding the souls who are reading these posts. That’s why we see through all the arguemnts that you and your friends lay out here. It’s not my logic…it’s His inspiration.
Since Catholics do not attempt to evangelize n-C Christians, I find it distressing that you and your friends do not show us the same courtesy.
Discussion my foot! You’re evangelists…
Pax vobiscum,
 
As to you 2000 years of Church history, I would CERTIANLY disagree. Augusting did not hold to your interpretation of John 6. But this is another subject.

Michael
Click to expand...
Oh but Augustine was a Catholic bishop and did indeed hold to this doctrine or he wouldn’t’ve been a Catholic to begin with. I would say that even if he had expressed doubts at some point (which I have never seen…where do you get this allegation’s info?) that the fact that he lived and died a Catholic would rebuff your statement. Especially since he also stated that if the church didn’t teach it he might not be as ready to believe it.
 
Church Militant:
Oh but Augustine was a Catholic bishop and did indeed hold to this doctrine or he wouldn’t’ve been a Catholic to begin with. I would say that even if he had expressed doubts at some point (which I have never seen…where do you get this allegation’s info?) that the fact that he lived and died a Catholic would rebuff your statement. Especially since he also stated that if the church didn’t teach it he might not be as ready to believe it.
Click to expand...
Yes, Catholic, not Roman Catholic which did not around, in the opinion of Evangelicals until the 11th or 12th centuries.

And I am specifically referring to Augustine’s interpretation of John 6.

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top