New survey: Only one-third of Catholics believe in Real Presence

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]

Where did Christ say He was a shepherd or a door or gate. He said "eat . . ." and "drink. . . ". Christ also said, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." [John 6:54]. The command confronts you, eat, drink Christ or no life will be find in you. So, can we assume you re-still-born, dead, without eating His flesh, drinking His blood. And so that He your sensibilities aren't insulted, He says He will come to you in the appearance of bread and wine, everyday in every age!

JoeT

 

Yeah, where is the Scripture for that one?

He also said he was the light of the world: John 8:12
Shepherd: John 10:11,14
Door: John 10:7, 9
He is a vine: John 15:1, 5

So is he literally a light? Is he literally a shepherd of sheep? Is he a literal door? Is he a literal vine? The answer to all of these questions is no. Yet, when he says "I am the bread" somehow that is all of a sudden literal? No. That's absurd.

 

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." [John 14:6]. He said "I am the light" He is the light. Do you deny it? He said, "I am the truth". Do you deny the one who made you that He is indeed truth? And too, do you deny that Christ is the personification of life?

I don't deny these things do you?

So is he literally a light? Is he literally a shepherd of sheep? Is he a literal door? Is he a literal vine? The answer to all of these questions is no. Yet, when he says "I am the bread" somehow that is all of a sudden literal? No. That's absurd.[/QUOTE]

That's right He is the light, But, as St. John says, "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."[John 1:5]. The meaning most Catholic commentators give to this verse is considering an individual to be cold stone blind because of a congenital defect the light will incomprehensibly shine regardless of whether or not it is seen. Likewise, there are those in protest who cannot allow them to see reality, they cannot comprehend, yet the light still shines as direct light and reflective light; a mix of reality and metaphor.

I'd suggest an eye exam, or maybe an appen-protest-omy.

JoeT

 

You ignored most of my post. How about shepherd? How about door? How about vine? You are avoiding the issues.

 

No disciples threw a fit and up and left when they heard those bold claims. Precisely because he was being symbolic.

But actually eating his body and blood, look at all the trouble it gives you.

Even when we ask you what is he being symbolic of, you go silent avoiding the fact you have nothing scriptural to identify the symbolism of anything.

 

Muslims don't die professing Christ.

 

I can easily make the charge that your faith tradition is a false church that has false teachings. Once that charge is made and if the person making it really believes it, than any further debate is quite pointless.

 

Except we can prove our viewpoint from Scripture without tradition and reading into the text. Big difference.

 

Still ignored the part of the post that blows your view out of the water. Typical.

 

No you can't. The only thing you can "prove" is that you have a different biblical interpretation. As for "traditions", it was in the early days of the Christian Church they were starting them and subsequent generations followed them. You know, like the "tradition" of Sunday worship. So you are wrong, "tradition" is a vital part of the Christian experience and that is why St. Paul spoke of them.

 

Because He backed it up at the Last Supper when He held bread and wine in His hands and said it was His Body and Blood.
.Nothing "absurd" about it.

He never turned into a door or a shepherd or a vine . . .

 

Again SYMBOLISM.

 

No - once again: Comparing Himself to a Door and a Shepherd and a Vine is symbolism.
Calling Himself the "Bread of Life" was quite literal.

"This IS my Body."
"This IS my Blood."

Doesn't get much clearer than that . . .

 

“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.” - John 6:51

 

This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he *said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No” [John 1:9-21].


(Jesus) And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come [Matthew 11:14].

Who was the liar? John, who said he is not Elijah, or Jesus who said "he himself IS Elijah?"

 

He did not say anything different when comparing himself to the door, shepherd, or vine. In each of those, just like the bread, he said ego ami (Greek Transliterated). I AM. It is a metaphor, it is symbolism. You only change the last one because of some crazy church tradition because you have been brainwashed with that has no basis in textual/biblical reality.

 

Again, symbolism. Apparently Catholics don't understand symbolism.

 

metaphor
■ noun a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.
▶ a thing regarded as symbolic of something else.

 

Christ explicitly states that He is the bread of life and that the bread He will give is His flesh. It doesn't get more explicit that that.

If you believe His flesh was but a symbol and not actual flesh, then you are rehashing Docetism.

 

Christ defines the bread as His flesh.

“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.” - John 6:51