Eucharist Vs John 6

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
Sorry dualhunter but it doesn't cut it. Christ could modify the law. He did it in Matt 5 when he said: You have heard... but I say... about various topics of the law, adultery, killing, etc. etc. In John 6 he modifies the old prohibition against the prohibition of taking blood found in Lev 10 and 17, saying you must partake of my bloood (and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you shall not have life within you.). It is precisely because the blood contained the life of the animal that we are to partake of Christ's blood in the Eucharistic celebration. For it is his divine life that we want in us as partakers in his salvation. Yes he atoned for our sins but that does not negate the need for his grace to be applied to our lives. Symbolic communion is as much a violation of the Old Law prohibiting ingesting of blood in Leviticus as literal communion had Christ not changed the law, which as God he has the power to do. We are not snow covered dung but he wishes to dwell within us and change us. That is what the Eucharist is about. You can deny it all you want but it is true.

Blessings though.

Jesus did not change the law. He corrected the misconceptions that the Jews had, where they were confusing the role of the legal system with the roll of each person. The law demands justice, an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Jesus did not change this to love your neighbor as yourself, He restated what the scriptures said, that a person is to love his neighbor as himself.

18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:18 NASB

Likewise the verses I posted before show that your statement about about drinking blood being allowed in the New Covenant is false.

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. - Acts 15:19-20 NASB emphasis added

So you have accused Christ of commanding us to break God's command to abstain from blood. </font>[/QUOTE]Your opinioin dual. You are hardly an infallible interpruter and your opinoin of what those scriptures say don't cut it. Not only that but you have been given no authority to interprut them in the way that you do. You take the verse in Acts completely out of context. It is talking about blood from meat sacrificed to idols. It is not talking about the blood of the son that has been sacrificed to the father. And rather than changed I should have used the word modified. No he did not clear up misinterprutations but called them to a higher law. The law of love.

Further once again you ignore my point that at the last supper he asked us to symbolically (if that is what you believe) drink his blood. If he had not modified the law this would be just as objectionable as actually drinking blood to the Apostles.

 

[thessalonian]

Bob,

John 6:51
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I WILL give for the life of the world is My flesh."

The blind hog got the acorn on the other thread. No can do here. You think you have something when you have nothing. 1600 years of nearly all of Christianity saying that it is literal flesh and Bob says I have a new revalation. It is not. Your arguements are only good in your own mind. No amount of argueing will convince you of your blindness so I will just pray for you. I truly do wish you blessings.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ did not say "I am NOT the BREAD of heaven that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY My Flesh will be food".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY He who eats My flesh will have eternal life".

As much as the RC doctrines of today "need it" to be in John 6. Those FUTURE references by Christ are NOT there. RATHER He points to it as TRUE ALREADY.

The "only hope" the RC response has is to Point out that IN ADDITION to the facts that Christ declares to be "ALREADY true" - He ALSO adds the FUTURE action "the Bread that WILL be given for the LIFE of the WORLD is His Flesh" - but this does not negate the PRESENT tense facts ALSO listed "My FLESH IS FOOD" and the fact that ALREADY "HE who eats .. HAS eternal life".

Devastating to the RC point of view - and to the faithLESS disciples of John 6 as the text notes.

And as Thess also points out - this LITERAL flesh EATING view is exactly what the faithLESS pagan Romans wished to charge upon the faithFUL followers of Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Your opinioin dual. You are hardly an infallible interpruter and your opinoin of what those scriptures say don't cut it. Not only that but you have been given no authority to interprut them in the way that you do. You take the verse in Acts completely out of context. It is talking about blood from meat sacrificed to idols. It is not talking about the blood of the son that has been sacrificed to the father. And rather than changed I should have used the word modified. No he did not clear up misinterprutations but called them to a higher law. The law of love.

Further once again you ignore my point that at the last supper he asked us to symbolically (if that is what you believe) drink his blood. If he had not modified the law this would be just as objectionable as actually drinking blood to the Apostles.

The verses in Acts are confirming the same command given in the Old Testament, which applies to all blood, not just blood sacrificed to idols. Jesus did not command anybody to disobey God. Symbolic drinking of blood is not objectionable, literal drinking of blood is, just as the commandment states. Christ is life, hence the cup symbolizes that life which is only attainable through the blood which He shed for our sins.

Read Leviticus 19:18, when Jesus said "you have heard it said.... and eye for an eye...." He repeated the content of that verse. He did not change anything, He reafirmed the word of God.

How did you come to the conclusion that Rome infalliably interprets scripture without you yourself interpreting the scripture that Rome twists to say that Rome is the way, the truth, and the life, in the same way that Rome does? Trusting in men over God is very dangerous.

 

[thessalonian]

"Christ did not say "I am NOT the BREAD of heaven that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY My Flesh will be food".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY He who eats My flesh will have eternal life"."

There is no contradiction here and no problem with Catholic theology for what is the bread today was Christ then. He was alive and fully present in his body which was the bread of life just as he is alive and in the eucharist we receive today. He is made present to us today as he was to the apostles then. He did not become something else as your words imply. V. 51 however points to the Eucharist as being what he is. This IS (presnet tense) my body. This IS (present tense) my blood. When those words are spoken by the priest he is present for us just as he was at the last supper and in John 6 as food for our soul. Yes by his WORD for he is the WORD but the word confirmed by his very presence.

"You search the Scriptures because you
think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;".

I know that you will never understand on your own Bob. Keep searching though. It must really be bothering you.

[ May 05, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[thessalonian]

"How did you come to the conclusion that Rome infalliably interprets scripture without you yourself interpreting the scripture that Rome twists to say that Rome is the way, the truth, and the life, in the same way that Rome does? Trusting in men over God is very dangerous. "

What bothers me is that everyone who says this to me contradicts everyone else who says this to me and Rome does not contradict what I know in my heart is true. Now the contradictions I know are not of God. Now God did not say never listen to any man for he said "HE WHO HEARS YOU HEARS ME" so it seems to me that he left his authority in some men. And Paul in 2 Tim 2:2 says that we can confirm what we have heard by the witness of the Church. He doesn't say "what you have heard in the presence of witnesses pass on to others who shouldn't listen to you because your man, hand them a bible instead". He says pass it on to them and they will pass it on. The question in it all is do you trust yourself. Your A man aren't you. Rome's twisting is only in your mind.

Blessings

 

[Dualhunter]

It's not a question of trusting yourself, me or Rome. It's a question of trusting what God says. As already shown Rome contradicts the Bible's command not to drink blood. Do you really think God inspired men by His Spirit to write the Bible just so that a bunch of guys in fancy robes who like to be called "your emininence" or "your holiness" could be the sole keepers of the true interpretation. Rather than trusting men for fancy interpretations, take God at His word.

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" - Matthew 4:4 NASB

Eat and be satisfied.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Christ did not say "I am NOT the BREAD of heaven that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY My Flesh will be food".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY He who eats My flesh will have eternal life".

As much as the RC doctrines of today "need it" to be in John 6. Those FUTURE references by Christ are NOT there. RATHER He points to it as TRUE ALREADY.

And the disciples had both the good judgment and the good "manners" to wait until it was offered to them.

The "only hope" the RC response has is to Point out that IN ADDITION to the facts that Christ declares to be "ALREADY true" - He ALSO adds the FUTURE action "the Bread that WILL be given for the LIFE of the WORLD is His Flesh" - but this does not negate the PRESENT tense facts ALSO listed "My FLESH IS FOOD" and the fact that ALREADY "HE who eats .. HAS eternal life".

And the disciples had both the good judgment and the good "manners" to wait until it was offered to them.

Devastating to the RC point of view

Nay, 'tis nary a scratch!

And as Thess also points out - this LITERAL flesh EATING view is exactly what the faithLESS pagan Romans wished to charge upon the faithFUL followers of Christ.

Because they didn't understand the Sacramental manner which Christ instituted to offer us His true flesh and true blood in an unbloody manner.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob --
"Christ did not say "I am NOT the BREAD of heaven that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY My Flesh will be food".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY He who eats My flesh will have eternal life"."

Thess
There is no contradiction here and no problem with Catholic theology for what is the bread today was Christ then. He was alive and fully present in his body which was the bread of life

Exactly! and so where was the ever-biting, ever-flesh-eating Catholic faithFUL follower in John 6? NOT biting Christ??!!

But HOW can that be when Christ declares as PRESENT reality the FOOD and the BREAD - that Catholics so LOVE to literally BITE as literal flesh.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Bob --
"Christ did not say "I am NOT the BREAD of heaven that CAME DOWN out of HEAVEN".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY My Flesh will be food".

Christ did not say "SOME DAY He who eats My flesh will have eternal life"."


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thess
There is no contradiction here and no problem with Catholic theology for what is the bread today was Christ then. He was alive and fully present in his body which was the bread of life

Exactly! and so where was the ever-biting, ever-flesh-eating Catholic faithFUL follower in John 6? NOT biting Christ??!!

But HOW can that be when Christ declares as PRESENT reality the FOOD and the BREAD - that Catholics so LOVE to literally BITE as literal flesh.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for stopping by Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ did not say "Some day in the future I WILL be bread, My flesh WILL BE food and then as faithful catholics when that day comes - you will literally eat my flesh and drink my blood.

But TODAY I urge you NOT to do so - for doing so NOW would end the Gospel right here".

In Fact Christ declares that His faithful are CURRENTL eating that flesh - as Christ said "HE WHO BELIEVES has eternal life" - "He who EATS my Flesh has Eternal Life" - "MY WORDS are Spirit and ARE Life" - it was a LIVING reality THEN and THERE.

And the response of the faithFUL disciple was "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".

The response of the faithLESS disciple was too take Him "too literally" and balk at cannibalism "HOW can He expect us to literally eat His Flesh"???

But of Course - Christ gives the answer "Eating LITERAL FLESH to obtain LIFE is pointless - worthless - rather My WORD taken into the soul is literally Spirit and literally LIFE".

It is obvious and simple.

And as noted previously - we have yet to see an RC response attempt to deal with the DETAILS of John 6.

In Christ,

Bob