Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[MelanieAnne]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. If someone wants to digest “The Word of God” they can’t just do it by reading a book. They have to take Jesus into themselves, and, in so doing, He takes them into Himself.

That’s not to say that the Bible isn’t important ~ it is ~ very much so. It just isn’t all there is. It’s not enough to read about Jesus or talk about Him, so the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass gives us the chance to commune with Jesus, which is much more intimate.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. If someone wants to digest “The Word of God” they can’t just do it by reading a book. They have to take Jesus into themselves, and, in so doing, He takes them into Himself.

That’s not to say that the Bible isn’t important ~ it is ~ very much so. It just isn’t all there is. It’s not enough to read about Jesus or talk about Him, so the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass gives us the chance to commune with Jesus, which is much more intimate.

My Mennonite friends would argue that it is the Holy Spirit that is God in us - not the Eucharist.

1 John 3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

I don’t believe this excludes the Eucharist though.

 

[benedictus2]

If Scripture is God’s Word (which the CC says it is) then “digesting” it is not such a far-out concept (at least not in my mind).

That is true. But just not in relation to John 6. We indeed must digest God’s word but here the digesting is metaphorical.

But regardless, my point was only that I can see the other p.o.v. - But I do not rest my faith on these interpretations. It is pretty inconsistent to accept the Scriptures the CC gave me but not the Church’s interpretation of them.

Anyway, it is important to me to set the recorrd straight, since I spent a great deal of time here defending my own interpretation of John 6…

The main thing that threw me in John 6 was vs. 35

"Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty"

comes to me = never hungry
believes in me = never thirsty

It looks like Jesus is defining eating and drinking here.

That is what another poster said as well. But this is not quite right. The reason we will never be hungry if we come to Him is precisely because He will give us His flesh to eat. The reason we will never be thirsty if we believe in him, is because He will give us His blood to drink.

Definitions follow the term being defined so the latter verses (53 -58) in fact define verse 35.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hello Bene 2 sorry I took so long, but I like to be in prayer for a day before I reply

Okay you missed the point. What I am saying is that to read “John6” literally does not mean that that interpretation is not inspired by God. It actually requires spiritual enlightenment from the Holy spirit before you can accept the literal interpretation. In this case, your interpretation is the one that is of man because natural understanding simply cannot comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist.

If by the eucharist you mean this idea that the preist turns a peice of bread into Christs body and blood. I didn’t miss the point at all. The Holy Spirit of the living God would not inspire anyone to this blasphenous act. If I were you I would check the source of this inspiration, because it is not of God.

But 1 Cor2:12-14 HAS NO BEARING ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EUCHARIST so quoting it here is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Again if you are talking of this blasphemous rite that you call the eucharist, you are right, it has no bearing on our understanding of that, but if you want to understand what the passage really says then it has every relevance, because it shows us how to read and understand all scripture, that there are two levels on which we can understand scripture and that we should always seek the way that is given by the Spirit of God.

Yes it does matter if it is the Body of Christ because then we are not bowing before a graven image but BEFORE GOD HIMSELF.

Now it is you who is missing my point. The definition of a graven image is something made by the hands of man. Even if for the sake of discussion, this bread was magically turned into God, you would still be in violation of the second commandment.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them
God (actually Jesus) here tells us that we are to worship only Him. We are not to make something with our hands and call it God. The fact that you beleive that this turns into a bread god doesn’t alter the fact that it is a graven image.

The only way you can prove that it is idolatry is if you can prove that Christ is not in the Eucharist. But it is Christ because HE SAID SO. What is so hard to understand about that. HE SAID SO.
For example, I am sure that you believe that when two of you are gathered in His name, he is there in your midst. Now how do you know that for a fact? BECAUSE HE SAID SO.
In the same manner, we know He is the bread because HE SAID SO.

1Cor12:14For the body is not one member, but many.
27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

And what are the words of eternal life? Eat my flesh, drink my blood.

John5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Oh maaan. Will you please read my posts properly? Exactly the point I am making. They thought he was talking about cannibalism because one cannot read this figuratively without making Jesus sound stupid. That is why everyone knew he was speaking literally because a figurative interpretation does not make sense.

It only makes no sense if you do not use spiritual discernment.

In Christ Richard

 

[benedictus2]

Hello Bene 2 sorry I took so long, but I like to be in prayer for a day before I reply
If by the eucharist you mean this idea that the preist turns a peice of bread into Christs body and blood. I didn’t miss the point at all. The Holy Spirit of the living God would not inspire anyone to this blasphenous act. If I were you I would check the source of this inspiration, because it is not of God.

If this is blasphemous, then you are accusing Jesus of blasphemy because He is the one who said it.

Oh, but wait. The pharisees accused him of that too. As a matter of fact, that charge is what sealed His fate!

Again if you are talking of this blasphemous rite that you call the eucharist, you are right, it has no bearing on our understanding of that, but if you want to understand what the passage really says then it has every relevance, because it shows us how to read and understand all scripture, that there are two levels on which we can understand scripture and that we should always seek the way that is given by the Spirit of God.

Refer my reply above…

Now it is you who is missing my point. The definition of a graven image is something made by the hands of man. Even if for the sake of discussion, this bread was magically turned into God, you would still be in violation of the second commandment.

No because the commandment about graven images is clear. That it gives worship to that which is not God. That is what graven images is all about. It detracts from the worship and honor that is due to GOD ALONE.

But because the Eucharist IS GOD, BECAUSE HE SAID SO, then it is not a graven image because GOD IS NOT A GRAVEN IMAGE. COMPRENDE?

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them
God (actually Jesus) here tells us that we are to worship only Him. We are not to make something with our hands and call it God. The fact that you beleive that this turns into a bread god doesn’t alter the fact that it is a graven image.

Quoting this is irrelevant because the Eucharist is not a graven image. You can twist the definition as much as you like but that is so flimsy an argument. There might have been a bit of a point on your side if you were talking about statues, but even that is only due to a protestant misunderstanding of what we believe about the saints and Mary.

You really ought to study this commandment more and truly understand what it is about.

1Cor12:14For the body is not one member, but many.
27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

John5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Irrelevant.

It only makes no sense if you do not use spiritual discernment.

But it is your spiritual discernment that is in error and not that we did not use spritual discernment.

Think about this. If you claim that your spritual discernment is correct and another protestant claims that his spiritual discernment is correct. And you both claim to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, which one of you is correct for the Holy Spirit cannot be saying it is and it is not at the same time.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Maybe it’s just me, but I have trouble reconciling this statement contained within Post 122:

“if you are talking of this blasphemous rite that you call the eucharist”

with this Forum Rule:

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Now, I know that standards have slipped in the world, but even so, to call the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the Eucharist a “blasphemous rite” strikes me as disrespectful in the extreme (not to mention a few other things, but I’m referencing the forum rule here.) Forum rules apply even in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The communion aspect is evident in John 6 and as expounded by Paul. But one cannot make a case for a symbolic eating of his flesh/blood by spiritually “digesting” His Word. There is no reference at all to Scripture here. There is not even a HINT that Scripture is the one that needs to be digested here.

Scripture is not “flesh” nor "blood’. That is why the language became more explicit from “bread” to “flesh” and “blood”.

The most that can be linked is John 1, the inCARNATion of the Word but then the Word is VERBUM DEI not SCRIPTURA.

As an attempt at exegesis of thIs chapter, this is simply TOTALLY WAY OFF THE MARK.

As WatchfulPilgram so astutely points out, Jesus is indeed defining what eating and drinking means for the entire chapter.

"Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty”

comes to me = never hungry
believes in me = never thirst

It looks like Jesus is defining eating and drinking here.

This is not without president in the rest of the bible. Consider
John4:10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Here Jesus uses the metaphore of water to talk of the words He gives unto eternal life.

Matt16:6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Here bread is used to talk of the doctrine or words of the Pharisees and the Saducees

Matt15:24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

In Matthew 15:26 when Jesus says “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” He is talking of His words that He brings to the children of Israel and indeed is a statement of His fullfilment of prophecy in Dan9:27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: These are but a few of many presidents found in sripture. But if this isn’t enough how about what Jesus Himself says in John 6:61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus says here that if he went back to heaven and talked to them from there would they beleive Him then. I think that this is a bit of sarcasm on His part because He knew what they would do. 66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. But it is vs. 63 that is the clincher. He says the spirit quickeneth or gives life, the flesh or the spirit of the world prophets nothing because as proverbs 14:12 says it is the way that leads to death. Then Jesus tells them the meaning of what He has been saying through most of chapter 6 “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The WORDS which Jesus speaks are the spirit that brings life, eternal life. This is the bread that came down from heaven to give eternal life. 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. It is the WORDS of Jesus that are the flesh that we are to eat Jn1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. I don’t care about winning our little battle of rhetoric here on this forum. What I do care about is that you get this vital principle. Jesus says the WORDS that He speaks are spirit and life vs.63b
In Jn 4Jesus says 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jn17:17 says “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Jn14:6 says “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” So we are sanctified and we are to worship God through the WORD of God, Jesus. I hope that you don’t discount what I say here offhand. I would ask that you prayerfully consider this post before you reply

In Christ Richard

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Maybe it’s just me, but I have trouble reconciling this statement contained within Post 122:

with this Forum Rule:

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Now, I know that standards have slipped in the world, but even so, to call the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the Eucharist a “blasphemous rite” strikes me as disrespectful in the extreme (not to mention a few other things, but I’m referencing the forum rule here.) Forum rules apply even in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

I’m sorry if I have offended anyone. You see I used to be a Catholic, until one Sunday in Mass I was visited by the Spirit of the Living God and told to leave the CC Since that time I have been studying the bible and have come to realise just how much I had been lied to by the CC and sometimes this rises to the surface in resentment and anger, but I realise that that is not your fault and I will tone down the rhetoric

In Christ Richard

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m sorry if I have offended anyone. You see I used to be a Catholic, until one Sunday in Mass I was visited by the Spirit of the Living God and told to leave the CC Since that time I have been studying the bible and have come to realise just how much I had been lied to by the CC and sometimes this rises to the surface in resentment and anger, but I realise that that is not your fault and I will tone down the rhetoric

In Christ Richard

I appreciate your graciousness.

Your post raises an issue that has also been discussed in another thread. Suppose a person was visited by the Holy Spirit and told to leave the Catholic Church. Suppose another person was visited by the Holy Spirit and was confirmed in the understanding that they should be Catholic. In both situations the Holy Spirit is at work, yet there is only one Holy Spirit, one message and the two individuals received 2 different messages.

Likewise, more on the topic of this thread, one person could be confirmed by the Holy Spirit in the knowledge that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, while another person could receive the spiritual message that the Eucharist is symbolic.

Putting aside the determination of which is which, obviously only one of the individuals truly received a visit from the Holy Spirit, in the case of the other one, something else was at work. That “something else” could be a myriad of different things. The important thing is that the Holy Spirit gives only one message, not different ones. So in the examples cited, one of the individuals received a message that is not from God.

I do not raise this issue to be divisive within the forum. But intellectual honesty about the Holy Spirit is important. Jesus founded one church. Man has split the body of the church into thousands of disparate pieces, and the Holy Spirit is often relied upon for inspiring the divisions. Even if we do not try to figure out which is of God and which is purely of man, we have to at least admit that there is something other than the Holy Spirit involved when there are thousands of different sects.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No because the commandment about graven images is clear. That it gives worship to that which is not God. That is what graven images is all about. It detracts from the worship and honor that is due to GOD ALONE.

Well, the commandment is clear. It says 4Thou(meaning you, me, or a priest) shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above A graven image is anything made by the hands of man. Consider Isaiah 44:15Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto17And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. Notice it is the man who takes part of the tree and warms himself, with part he bakes his bread, and cooks his food and with part he manufactures a god and bows down to it. The fact that you beleive that this peice of bread is god does not alter the fact that it is a graven image.

Quoting this is irrelevant because the Eucharist is not a graven image. You can twist the definition as much as you like but that is so flimsy an argument. There might have been a bit of a point on your side if you were talking about statues, but even that is only due to a protestant misunderstanding of what we believe about the saints and Mary.

Well if as you say I am twisting the definition of graven image . It is the bible that is doing the twisting, because as you say the commandment is clear and I am simply showing you what the bible says. Something you seem reluctant to look at. Why is that?

Irrelevant.

This is truly an incredible quote by you. Here I give the bible verses again
1Cor12:14For the body is not one member, but many.
27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
John5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
One shows us what scripture means by the body of Christ. The other tells us that we can attain eternal life through the word of God, which is Jesus and you dismiss it with irrelevant. If this is irrelevant, there is nothing relevant.

Think about this. If you claim that your spritual discernment is correct and another protestant claims that his spiritual discernment is correct. And you both claim to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, which one of you is correct for the Holy Spirit cannot be saying it is and it is not at the same time.

I cannot speak for other Protestants. I can only speak for myself and I certanly am not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But one thing I know for a fact is that scripture and I mean all of scripture is inspired. 2Tim3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: What I have tried to do is to stick with the inspired word of scripture and I have found you can’t go to far wrong when you do that. I notice you don’t use scriptural quotes in your posts. Why is that?

In Christ Richard

 

[MelanieAnne]

Richard, when the bread is made it is a work of man. When it is transformed by the power of God into Body of Jesus Christ, it is a work of God. Therefore, by your own definition, it cannot be “a graven image”.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I appreciate your graciousness.

Your post raises an issue that has also been discussed in another thread. Suppose a person was visited by the Holy Spirit and told to leave the Catholic Church. Suppose another person was visited by the Holy Spirit and was confirmed in the understanding that they should be Catholic. In both situations the Holy Spirit is at work, yet there is only one Holy Spirit, one message and the two individuals received 2 different messages.

Likewise, more on the topic of this thread, one person could be confirmed by the Holy Spirit in the knowledge that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, while another person could receive the spiritual message that the Eucharist is symbolic.

Putting aside the determination of which is which, obviously only one of the individuals truly received a visit from the Holy Spirit, in the case of the other one, something else was at work. That “something else” could be a myriad of different things. The important thing is that the Holy Spirit gives only one message, not different ones. So in the examples cited, one of the individuals received a message that is not from God.

I do not raise this issue to be divisive within the forum. But intellectual honesty about the Holy Spirit is important. Jesus founded one church. Man has split the body of the church into thousands of disparate pieces, and the Holy Spirit is often relied upon for inspiring the divisions. Even if we do not try to figure out which is of God and which is purely of man, we have to at least admit that there is something other than the Holy Spirit involved when there are thousands of different sects.

We see in Ephesians 4 that there is only one Spirit and one body
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

This body as Paul points out in Col1:24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
is the church. So there is only one church and that is the one with Christ as the head. It has not been fragmented by man or Satan because as it says in Matt16:18 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church founded upon Jesus Christ. The rock of ages will not be prevailed against.

So do you suppuse MelanieAnne that this church is identified in scripture?

In Christ Richard

 

[MelanieAnne]

We see in Ephesians 4 that there is only one Spirit and one body
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

This body as Paul points out in Col1:24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
is the church. So there is only one church and that is the one with Christ as the head. It has not been fragmented by man or Satan because as it says in Matt16:18 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church founded upon Jesus Christ. The rock of ages will not be prevailed against.

So do you suppuse MelanieAnne that this church is identified in scripture?

In Christ Richard

I do believe it is identified.

But that is not my point. My point is that there is only 1 Holy Spirit. Only one message. Yet there are thousands of Christian sects all relying on the Holy Spirit to confirm their belief. They cannot all be receiving all these different messages from one Holy Spirit. Clearly, there is something else at work other than the Holy Spirit. We don’t have to determine which message is the “right” one and which of the others are not to understand that, clearly, the Holy Spirit cannot truly be confirming all these different messages.

 

[benedictus2]

As WatchfulPilgram so astutely points out, Jesus is indeed defining what eating and drinking means for the entire chapter.

And what? Did you fail to read my reply to his post?

Okay here it is.
Verse 35 : Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

Now why is it that whoever comes to him will never hunger, and whoever believes in him will never thirst?

Jesus explains why in verses 51 - 58.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; **whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." **52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “**Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **54 **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, **and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever **eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also **the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. **58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, **whoever eats this bread will live forever.” **
Is that enough explanation of verse 35?

Okay here is a summary. The reason we will not hunger when we come to him IS PRECISELY BECAUSE HE WILL GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT. The reason will not thirst if we belive in Him IS PRECISELY BECAUSE HE WILL GIVE US HIS BLOOD TO DRINK.

Definitions come after what is being defined. Verses 51 to 58 in fact DEFINE VERSE 35.

This is not without president in the rest of the bible…but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

**Here Jesus uses the metaphore of water to talk of the words He gives unto eternal life. **

True in this verse He is using metaphors. **But not in John 6. **Everyone knew he was not talking in metaphors. That is why they left, because they could not accept the hard teaching.

Matt16:6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of …
…
concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

All true but completely irrelevant once again.

Here bread is used to talk of the doctrine or words of the Pharisees and the Saducees
V
V
Vconfirm the covenant with many for one week: These are but a few of many presidents found in sripture.

You are clutching at straws here. The precedents you mention are not precedents at all. Because nowhere in these passages has he repeatedly said “eat my flesh”, “drink my blood”. In fact the words “MY flesh” and “MY blood” are not even mentioned.

But if this isn’t enough how about what Jesus Himself says in John 6:61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: v
v
v

walked no more with him. But it is vs. 63 that is the clincher. He says the spirit quickeneth or gives life, the flesh or the spirit of the world prophets nothing because as proverbs 14:12 says it is the way that leads to death.

Aaah the famous verse 63 rebuttal.

Read verse 51 to 53 again above. In those verse (6 of them) he says “MY flesh, **MY blood”. Emphasis on the “MY”. In vrs 63 he say 'THE **flesh". V63 is about flesh IN GENERAL. V51-53 is not about flesh in general but SPECIFICALLY JESUS’S FLESH.

If I were to go with your rebuttal, it would seem that Jesus is saying "Eat my flesh, drink my blood so you will have eternal. But actually doing all that is all really useless".

Can’t you see that you are making Him sound like a confused idiot?

Then Jesus tells them the meaning of what He has been saying through most of chapter 6 “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The WORDS which Jesus speaks are the spirit that brings life, eternal life.

And what are the words? EAT MY FLESH, DRINK MY BLOOD. His Words are only spirit and life to the disciple who follows what He says. If you don’t OBEY His words then they do not bring you spirit and life.

It is like his commandment 'Love one another as I have loved you". That will not bring you spirit and life if you do not OBEY THAT COMMANDMENT.

Remember His parable of the Word of God that fell on rocky ground?

 

[benedictus2]

We see in Ephesians 4 that there is only one Spirit and one body
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

True, true. When Paul was writing, there was indeed only One Body. There was only one Catholic Church and that was the Church that Christ founded on Peter.

Now there isn’t The reformation put an end to that one-ness.

This body as Paul points out in Col1:24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
is the church. So there is only one church and that is the one with Christ as the head. It has not been fragmented by man or Satan because as it says in Matt16:18 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church founded upon Jesus Christ. The rock of ages will not be prevailed against.

Yes, and yes again. And none of the Protestant Churches can trace their church back to Peter. They all stop at around 1500.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

As WatchfulPilgram so astutely points out, Jesus is indeed defining what eating and drinking means for the entire chapter.

Actually, I corrected my error.

But what I now realize is that coming to Jesus does not necessarily exclude coming to Him in the Eucharist. Believing in Jesus does not exclude believing in Him in the Eucharist. The rest of the chapter (about eating and drinking) explains what we should do as a result of that faith; that coming to Jesus and believing in Him: to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

coming to Jesus = never be thirsty
believing in Jesus = never be hungry

Now, I could say that if I believe in MacDonalds, and go there, I will never be hungry or thirsty again, and that may or may not be true. I believe MacDonalds exists and I can go there, but I will still be hungry and thirst unless I eat and drink.

coming to MacDonalds = never be thirsty
believing in MacDonalds = never be hungry

The error is that coming to and believing in Jesus does not necessarily exclude literal eating and drinking. In fact, throughout the discourse he very plainly says that we must eat and drink - He says it very graphically - emphasizing it through repetition.

As I said earlier, I do still see the non-Catholic p.o.v… I would still probably lean toward the non-C interpretation except for one thing: I would not be sitting here reading these passages as inspired Scripture if the church hadn’t the authority to pronounce it so.

Notice that there are thousands of denominations in Christendom. Notice that there have not been thousands of compilations of Scripture. That is b/c the early church recognized the authority of the Church to decide what was inspired Scripture.

This is, in essence, the whole error within this thread. It’s all about authority and Tradition, both of which Scripture very well gives witness to. Indeed, Scripture IS Tradition! And Scripture also gives witness to Christ’s Church being the pillar and ground of truth which the gates of Hell would not prevail against…

So, we accept the Bible that came out of the Church. Why would we not accept Transubstantiation which also came from the Church? Don’t say b/c it contradicts Scripture, b/c that came from the Church too.

For all you know, John 6 is not really inspired Scripture at all and it was erroneously put there by the Catholic Church to have us believe the host was really Christ.

If the Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures through the Church, then what did it do? Cease to preserve the truth after the compilation of the canon? It suits us fine to believe that God used the Church at that time to preserve His Word, but for some reason we refuse to believe that God continued to use that Church about future doctrine? So God left that Church after the compilation of Scripture? And the Church fell into apostacy and taught blasphemous things like Transubstantiation and Purgatory, etc., right? Well, perhaps God left the Church before the compilation of the canon. Why don’t you believe that? Maybe the Church fell into apostacy BEFORE the compilation of the canon. Then this Bible is corrupt too. There really is absolutely no assurance that this is not the case.

None whatsoever.

Unless you believe God rested His authority in the Church. Unless He was true to His Word that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. That “he who hears you hears Me”. That the Church is the pillar and bulkwark of truth.

Anything else is blind arrogance; to believe that we can rightly divide the Word apart from those who gave us that Word - and I mean myself here as well as you and anyone else who believes they have the right interpretation.

God did not leave us orphans. He didn’t leave us revelation and then leave us on our own to argue about how to interpret it. God is still with us, not just individually, but as a shepherd, through His Church.

We can’t take a Catholic book and try to correct Catholics about what it means.

Peace~

 

[MelanieAnne]

WatchfulPilgrim ~ WELL DONE!!

 

[benedictus2]

Well, the commandment is clear. It says 4Thou(meaning you, me, or a priest) shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above

If you have not understood what I have written all this time then there is no hope.

You really need to go back and start reading the decalogue to understand what it is all about.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If you have not understood what I have written all this time then there is no hope.

You really need to go back and start reading the decalogue to understand what it is all about.

I agree.

When anyone starts equating the Eucharist with a “Graven Image” they are so far off track that it is hard to know how to pull them back on track.

I am not familiar with such anti-Catholic attitudes, this one is a new one to me.

Good luck!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Well I tried. Your blood is not on my hands. It’s time to shake the dust off of my sandles and move on.

In Christ Richard