Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[The Biblicist]

These are where he rebukes them not one of these verses indicate that he rebukes them for not presenting eating.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.


You have divorced/separated verse 36 from from verses 34-35 and that is the only reason you can deny Christ could have already been EATEN by them as the Bread of Life. By isolating verse 36 from verses 34-35 that is the only way you can deny he is rebuking them for having not already EATEN of him as "the bread of life".

1. They are asking to eat this bread in PRESENT TENSE - v. 34 - ("GIVE us this bread")

2. He is claiming to be that bread in PRESENT TENSE - v. 35 ("I AM the bread OF LIFE")

3. He is claiming is claiming the they can satisfy their hunger by coming and beleving in him in PRESENT TENSE - v. 35 ("he that COMETH to me shall NEVER HUNGER....BELEIVETH on me shall NEVER THIRST").

4. He is rebuking them for not having already partook of him as the bread of life by COMING and BELIEVING on him in PAST TENSE - v. 36 - "you HAVE seen and BELIEVE NOT"


This CONTEXTUL BASED rebuke is impossible according to your interpretation of him as "THE BREAD OF LIFE" as your intepretation denies they can PARTAKE OF HIM as "THE BREAD OF LIFE" by PRESENTLY coming and believing in him. Your interpretation requires the institution of the Lord's Supper and the cross to occur first in order to partake of Him as "THE BREAD OF LIFE."

 

[Walter]

One word will throw you whole argument under the bus. the word "will". IE I "will" give. Not present now is it?

SLAM DUNK!!! :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

SLAM DUNK!!! :thumbs:

Can't read either? huh? The cross was yet future without doubt. However, that is not the verse I referred to. I referred to John 6:34-36 where he states in the PRESENT TENSE "I AM the bread OF LIFE" and where he states in the PRESENT TENSE that coming and believing thus partaking of Him as THE BREAD OF LIFE removes hunger RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Verse 36 uses the PAST TENSE as a rebuke for them not having already PARTAKEN of him as the bread OF LIFE.

 

[The Biblicist]

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.


You have divorced/separated verse 36 from from verses 34-35 and that is the only reason you can deny Christ could have already been EATEN by them as the Bread of Life. By isolating verse 36 from verses 34-35 that is the only way you can deny he is rebuking them for having not already EATEN of him as "the bread of life".

1. They are asking to eat this bread in PRESENT TENSE - v. 34 - ("GIVE us this bread")

2. He is claiming to be that bread in PRESENT TENSE - v. 35 ("I AM the bread OF LIFE")

3. He is claiming is claiming the they can satisfy their hunger by coming and beleving in him in PRESENT TENSE - v. 35 ("he that COMETH to me shall NEVER HUNGER....BELEIVETH on me shall NEVER THIRST").

4. He is rebuking them for not having already partook of him as the bread of life by COMING and BELIEVING on him in PAST TENSE - v. 36 - "you HAVE seen and BELIEVE NOT"


This CONTEXTUL BASED rebuke is impossible according to your interpretation of him as "THE BREAD OF LIFE" as your intepretation denies they can PARTAKE OF HIM as "THE BREAD OF LIFE" by PRESENTLY coming and believing in him. Your interpretation requires the institution of the Lord's Supper and the cross to occur first in order to partake of Him as "THE BREAD OF LIFE."

The Catholics on this forum can only deal with John 6:34-36 by (1) perverting the language; (2) ignoring the language; (3) perverting the language of those who point it out the language.

This scripture completley repudiates the whole Romans Catholic sacramental system and that is why they scratch and claw at it.

The same is true of John 6:36-40; Romans 4:5 as these texts completely repudiate Roman Catholic Sacramentalism. Notice that they don't dare attempt to tackle my posts on these two other texts. If they attempt to, it will be without any sound exegetical methods, more ridicule than rational common sense.

 

[Matt Black]

Nope. Epic fail. The Scripture is as plain as day; only by perverting it can one come to a 'Non-Realist' position.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope. Epic fail. The Scripture is as plain as day; only by perverting it can one come to a 'Non-Realist' position.

Matthew deal with the evidence instead of making unsubstantiated assertions. I have placed the evidence (Jn. 6:30-36) before all and none seem to want to address it or can address it and so they respond like you do - make unsubstantiated assertions contrary to the contextual facts. The facts are:

1. He claimed to be PRESENT TENSE "I AM the bread OF LIFE"
2. He claimed they cold PRESENT TENSE "eateth" of him which he defines in the very same verse to be equal to believing on him (v. 35)
3. He rebuked some for not ALREADY DOING SO - v. 36

Hence, this totally repudiates the Roman Claims and interpretations of this passage as your claims had no PRESENT application because your claims had to do with the FUTURE institution of the Supper and the FUTURE sacrifice on the cross.

So why reassert complete ignorance and error?

 

[Matt Black]

Oh, an easy one! Verses 32-36 of course have to be read together with the rest of the passage and in particular v51 which is clearly future tense.

Next question!

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, an easy one! Verses 32-36 of course have to be read together with the rest of the passage and in particular v51 which is clearly future tense.

Next question!

Nobody is denying the future sacrifice of Christ on the cross (v. 51) or the future institution of the Lord's Supper (Jn. 13-17). That is a red herring in order to escape PRESENT APPLICATION of Christ as bread that can be PRESENTLY EATEN and rebuke by Christ for not having already done so. That is the precise point of John 6:29-45 which totally and completely repudiates the total future application of this context by Rome. It proves that "eateth" (Jn. 6:35a) from the very beginning of this context is defined by Christ as simply partaking of him by faith "believeth on him" (Jn. 6:35b) rather than actually eating by way of the literal mouth as Rome claims.

Deal with the facts.

 

[Matt Black]

The facts are plain: Christ had not yet given His flesh (v51), therefore eating it - the Bread of Life - was impossible until then.

 

[The Biblicist]

The facts are plain: Christ had not yet given His flesh (v51), therefore eating it - the Bread of Life - was impossible until then.

So back to complete ignoring of the contextual evidence and just reasserting willful falsehood and ignorance????

Your assertions do not change the grammar, do not change what he said, do not change his rebuke of those who did not partake of him as He described partaking of him (Jn. 6:29-45). You are simply jerking one text (v. 51) out of its context and pitting it against the preceding text that defines and lays the foundation for understanding it.

 

[The Biblicist]

So back to complete ignoring of the contextual evidence and just reasserting willful falsehood and ignorance????

Your assertions do not change the grammar, do not change what he said, do not change his rebuke of those who did not partake of him as He described partaking of him (Jn. 6:29-45). You are simply jerking one text (v. 51) out of its context and pitting it against the preceding text that defines and lays the foundation for understanding it.

In John 6:29-45 Jesus makes it clear that partaking of him metaphorically (eating and drinking - v. 35) is by faith and it can be done PRESENTLY at the moment he is speaking.

In John 6:60-70 Jesus makes it clear his words in John 6:51-59 were metaphorical in nature and that partaking of him is by believing in His words as his words are the words "of eternal life." This is exactly what some failed to do (Jn. 6:64-66) while others already did as in the case of Peter (Jn. 6:67-68).

Now, John 6:51-59 is stuck in between. Rome interprets what is stuck in between in direct contradiction to what precedes and follows this passage.

Anybody with common sense who can read and understand English can plainly see that John 6:35 equates "eateth" and "drinketh" (PRESENT TENSE VERBS) to mean partaking of him by faith "beleiveth on him" as Jesus defines it so in the very same verse. Anybody with common sense who can read English can read and understand that Peter who is listening to Jesus clearly understands the "words" of Jesus in the very same sense "the words of life" that called people right then and there to "believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." This is precisely what Jesus meant for his listeners to understand by his words, that they are to partake of him by faith and that partaking food and drink is analogous to this - "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Peter understood it so and said "Thou hast the WORDS OF LIFE" and then spelled out exactly what those words were intended to convey "we beleive and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

The future institution of the Lord's Supper and the future sacrifice on the cross presents only the confirmation that such a faith in him RIGHT THEN would be validated by his redemptive work. Thus he rebuked his hearers for not beleiving in him as the "bread of life" right then and there (Jn. 3:35-36) just as he condemned "disciples" who went away from him for not believing in him "from the beginning" (Jn. 6:64).

 

[Matt Black]

Nope. It doesn't need Rome to interpret it as the interpretation is as plain as day in Scripture itself. v.51 is hardly prised out of context as it is there in the midst of the very Discourse on the Bread of Life which it helps explain!!! You're the one who is trying to divorce it from the rest of the passage. Thanks, but I'd rather not 'twist the Scriptures to my own destruction' like that!

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope. It doesn't need Rome to interpret it as the interpretation is as plain as day in Scripture itself. v.51 is hardly prised out of context as it is there in the midst of the very Discourse on the Bread of Life which it helps explain!!! You're the one who is trying to divorce it from the rest of the passage. Thanks, but I'd rather not 'twist the Scriptures to my own destruction' like that!

Then why can't you deal with the scripture that precedes verse 51 but rather choose to ignore it? John 6:30-36 plainly and unequivocally uses the present tnese "I AM" the bread of life not "I WILL BE" the bread of life. John 6:35 plainly states in present tense that "eateth" and "drinketh" is one and the same as "believeth on him" and all of this can be PRESENTLY accomplished and he rebukes those in verse 36 for not having already done so!!!

Your intepretation flies directly in the face of all this PRECEDING context that lays down the definitions for understanding the LATER texts you refer to. Moreover the texts following verses 51-59 reinforce the very same definitions laid down in the PRECEDING context. Your interpretation files in the face of the WHOLE CONTEXT that precedes and follows.

Finally, look at your posts! You offer no substance but only empty unsubstantiated repeated assertions!!!! You either cannot or will not respond to grammatical and contextual evidence contrary to your abritrary interpretation. Your position is just plain dogma without credentials.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not the interpretation, it's the Scripture itself. I'm making no assertion about it as none needs to be made - it speaks for itself. Look at verse 51. Actually look at it. It says - and it needs no commentary or interpretation or Rome or Concordance - "this bread is My flesh, which I will give for the world". 'Will give'. Future tense. Not past, not present. Therefore the preceding parts of the passage can't be interpreted in the present tense as you assert, otherwise verse 51 will contradict them, and you know - don't you? - that Scripture cannot contradict itself.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's not the interpretation, it's the Scripture itself. I'm making no assertion about it as none needs to be made - it speaks for itself. Look at verse 51. Actually look at it. It says - and it needs no commentary or interpretation or Rome or Concordance - "this bread is My flesh, which I will give for the world". 'Will give'. Future tense. Not past, not present. Therefore the preceding parts of the passage can't be interpreted in the present tense as you assert, otherwise verse 51 will contradict them, and you know - don't you? - that Scripture cannot contradict itself.

You are the one making it a contradiction not I! My interpretation perfectly harmonizes both statements but you are forced to deny the very grammar being used.

As I said no one denies Christ must go to the cross but you are denying that any can partake of that future sacrifice NOW by faith when the very context demands they not only could but some did.

The context itself denies his words are to be taken literally and MATERIALISTICALLY but are to be understood spiritually of partaking of him by faith both before verse 51 (vv. 35-36) and afterwards (vv. 60-68).

It just takes common sense and honesty

 

[Matt Black]

If you don't want to read what's there in front of you in plain English, I can't really help you...:BangHead:

 

[The Biblicist]

If you don't want to read what's there in front of you in plain English, I can't really help you...:BangHead:

By anyone's definition of irrational and unreasonable you are the epitome of both. You jerk a text out of context and use it for a pretext to support absolute foolishness that the immediate and overall context of Scripture will not support. You literalize and materialize what Christ plainly treats as metaphorical (vv. 35-36) and explicitly states are to be spiritually understood in the immaterial sense as plainly and explicitly spelled out by Peter in the very context that follows.

Your case is the perfect example where I make a transition from presenting substantive evidence to ridicule as you refuse to even deal with the evidence, totally ignore and act more like a parrot that repeats the same unsubstantiated nonsense over and over and overa again. That kind of parotting calls for condemnation and repetition calls for ridicule.

 

[Matt Black]

Then I really can't help you further. I am exiting this dialogue of the deaf and shaking the dust from my feet as the Lord advised.

 

[Walter]

:applause:

Then I really can't help you further. I am exiting this dialogue of the deaf and shaking the dust from my feet as the Lord advised.

:applause::applause: All you can do is show what scripture plainly says. It is Biblicists that must twist scripture to mean what it does not. Anyone with common sense can understand what the scripture plainly says. Mark 16:16 has to be twisted in the same way to support their un-biblical position on baptism. If a person picks up a bible and reads the passage and has never been taught Mark 16:16 does not mean what it clearly means, they understand that faith AND baptism are necessary to be saved.

 

[Bro. James]

Common or nonsense?

Man has been fighting with God about the efficacy of man's works for salvation ever since Cain tried to pay for his sin with vegetables instead of innocent blood. Those orthodox(?) have been disputing baptism and communion for hundreds of years.

The payment for sin is still innocent blood. Only blood washes sin. We are now being told that somehow the water of baptism washes sin. Something is flagrantly contradictory.

Moving on to the trans-sub, con-sub, no-sub trilogy: there is still no agreement as to what happens and how with the bread and fruit of the vine. Supposedly someone properly authorized says certain words in Latin over the fruits of human labor and there is a magical change of the molecular structure to divine flesh and blood. This sounds a lot like what Cain tried to do with his veggies. One cannot be saved without this sacrament--and you have to receive it from a duly appointed man with the authority to do a mass. Sure sounds a lot like salvation by works.

The con-sub crowd has difficulty defining what that(consubstantiation, love those 17 letter words) might mean: somewhere between trans and con(pun intended). Apparently they are having trouble with the chemistry too.

The no-sub people are happy with the words of Jesus, "This do in remembrance of me."

There is only one means of salvation: faith in the shed blood of Jesus.

Any admixtures and additions of man are so much hell bound prittle prattle.

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James