X-Catholics and John 6

That would make more sense if Jesus HAD a physical body before he came into our concept of time.
I agree with you on the timeless concept, but while timelessness is stressed in relationship to how things are viewed from God's perspective, he still wrote with and deals with things in the concept of time as it pertains to and affects us, and in that sense Jesus did not physically exist in the flesh until he was born on earth. Not to be confused with non-existance. The Word was not literal, physical flesh until he was conceived in time, our space, our earth.
I understand your point, but can't agree with saying that because God is timeless, he does not work with us or deal with us using the concept of time. If that were the case there would have been no need for the spirits in prison until the time Jesus died.
Gina

 

Not to get off topic or anything, but wouldn't this require some sort of Purgatory?

 

No, it required waiting until Jesus had given the everlasting sacrifice. The blood of animals was not sufficient for eternity, it was temporary. However, there was no need for it after Jesus death and resurrection.
I usually get looked at cross-eyed when I go into more detail on this, but if that answer isn't sufficient and you want more details let me know and I'll just deflect the odd looks your way.
Gina

 

Gina on the Eucharist

Allright Gina you are half way Home

As far as Luke 22:19 "this is my which will be given for you" and Matt 26:28 this is my blood of the convenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sin"

These are incredibly powerful statements, and further illustrates the real presence. Jesus identifies the Body and Blood he gives at the last supper as the very same body and blood that he will sacrifice on Calvary. If we accept the sacrifice on Calvary as literal we must accept the body and blood offered in the upper room as literal.

It is is this upper room where his sacrifice begins before one stroke of any Roman whip Jesus offered himself completely to his disciples, he offered them his body and blood the same body and blood that was about to be shed on Calvary.

Understanding the proper context of the Last Supper just further deepens this understanding. The Last Supper/Eucharist was celebrated on Passover, and so we can clearly see the that it is the fullfillment of the Jewish passover sacrifice. The passover sacrifice did not just require the sacrifice of the lamb but it required that the paschal lamb be eaten (Exodus 12:8, 46) less the death of the first-born.

This is how his disciples understood Jesus's sacrifice in writing the new testament, how do they describe him the "Lamb of God" or :"our paschal lamb". And we must eat our paschal lamb just as Jesus commanded us to do. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

You have said that you base your beliefs on the Bible but on this matter you seem to be willing to do anything not to believe what the Bible so clearly says. That the bread and wine "is" His Body and "is" His blood, that his body is "real food" and His blood "real drink" Again Gina why do you refuse to discern the Body.

29For anyone who eats and drinks without DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Cor 11

God Bless

 

Born Again Catholic, please explain what you believe "discerning the body" means.

1COR 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

I already explained this verse, here is a copy of what I said.

I cannot believe that properly "discerning" the scriptures means to take eating Jesus literally. We eat bread and drink wine in remembrance, and are remembered that TRUE nourishment food and drink, that which fills us spiritually, it not what was given to fill us physically, it's that which feeds us spiritually.

Why were men not required to drink the blood of the temporary sacrifices? After all, it was a picture of the sacrifice to come, right?

I believe it is faulty logic to take words literally when all logic and proof and study show much stronger evidence of it not being meant that way.

Gina

 

Ahhhh... but they did eat the Passover Lamb!!

 

I know that this will not carry 'weight' with many of you, BUT...the kind of 'symbolism' maintained by many here simply has no support from the teachings of the early Church. I think points #4 and #5 confuse the meaning of WORD in John 1.
When Jesus said, "This is My Body...this is My Blood," why don't you believe what He said? The early Church did...

 

Why didn't they drink it's blood t2u?
Jude, do we bathe ourselves with Jesus blood? He said to be washed with it.
Will we literally clean our clothes in it to make them white?
Do we have to be physically born a second time in order to be born again?
In the passages where Jesus speaks in this way, it is always the Pharisees and unbelievers who take him literally and figuratively choke on His words.
"Can I enter my mother's womb a second time?"
"How can he give us his flesh to eat?"

Gina

 

Eke! I was thinking about that post I just made and don't want everyone to think I was making an attempt to call you Pharisees and unbelievers!

 

Christ used both symbolism, and then actual meanings. SOme things should be taken literally, others not.

That could be a reference to baptism (as His blood is saving). Doubt it, but just considering possibilities.

Again, some of what the Lord has said is symbolism, other is reality. You don't literally wash clothes in bllod to whiten them of course.

He already gave that answer to Nicodemus- no.

Also, where do you get the idea that the Apostles
didn't take Christ literally? Otherwise, why did the early Church take Christ literally?

 

Gina

With 1 Cor 11:29 think of the enormity of the punishment damnation for not discerning the body damnation, that alone should clue you in that something big is going on here.

Ironically you say that "They are taking it in as regular bodily food for their nourishment, and it does nothing for them spiritually. They eat and drink to their own damnation"

Yet your whole argument is that in reality the Lords Super is just "regular bodily food"(i.e. it is just bread and wine) it is not spiritually the real Body and Blood or physically the real body and blood of Christ, Think about it you have continued to argue it is wholly symbolic not really Jesus body or blood in any spiritual or physical way. Therefore your beliefs are contrary to Paul, you believe there is absolutely no BODY to discern just a memory to reflect on.

Amazingly at the same time you infer that it should do something for you spiritually or you face damnation, how can it possibly do anything for you if it is not really spiritual food. To continue to argue this really just turns scripture.

Here is another verse from Paul

1 Corinthians 10:16
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I am sorry Paul, but based on human logic not faith and spirit this it can’t be a real participation in the Body and Blood of Christ you misspoke again, at best it is only a symbolic participation.

Now let’s look at this symbolism

You never answered back from page one what does it mean to “ eat my body drink my blood” in a symbolic sense as I pointed out when it is used symbolically in the Bible it means to persecute, assault, destroy, slander. In fact this expression is still used to this day in that part of the world still with the negative connotation.

Here is a passage from John 6, using the symbolic meaning for eat my body drink my blood as taught in the Bible.

John 6(symbolically)
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you persecute, assault, destroy, slander Me (Jesus), you have no life in you. 54Whoever persecutes assaults, destroys, slanders me I will raise him up at the last day.

Obviously using the symbolic sense of this language would have been very confusing to the disciples so the very next line Jesus clarifies it so they know he is not talking symbolically, for he says

55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Gina please tell me what you believe what it means to “ eat my body drink my blood” in a symbolic sense, the Bible and the current language teach the symbolism of such language as I have taught it, so you must have an extra biblical way to interpret it. And symbolically how does that tie in to Jesus’ next statement that “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Again under you belief you must attribute a symbolic sense to this very simple statement. Help me out here with your symbolism and how you get it.

This is the only time in scripture we see a group of his disciples leave him over his teachings, logically they knew his Body and Blood couldn’t be real food and drink so they left him, so much for human(carnal)logic.

God Bless

 

BAC,

You are truly a blessing to all of us. Praise God for your ability to clearly explain your points of view and not jumble it up like so many us do. Thank you for your sincere and Christian attitude in all your posts. May God bless you in all you do.

 

frozencell,

I'm afraid they do. They consider it a very real, literal, sacrifice indeed, with the only concession being that it is "without blood"

Why do you think they call it the "sacrifice" of the mass?

Here are 2 exerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia to prove the point...(emphasis mine)
--------------------------------------------------

I. THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASS

Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion.

That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent(Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948)....If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term?

Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:

a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).

In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altar), and offered up to God. As regards the person offering, it is not permitted that any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account.

In the revealed religion, as in nearly all heathen religions, only a qualified person(usually called priest, sacerdos, lereus), who has been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the community. After Moses.
--------------------------------------------------

What we are talking about here is nothing less than an idolatrous abomination in direct contradiction to Gods truth found in Hebrews, and other places...that Christs sacrifice was a once for all time sacrifice.

"He entered the most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

"not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enteres the most holy place every year with the blood of another, He then would have to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified"

Here is the link...http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

God bless,

Mike

 

Brother Adam,

It was said...

And you said...

But God was not outside of time when He said that. He was in it. He deliberatly incarnated Himself and was in the time/space continueum for 33 years.

God bless,

Mike

 

Who are you to say that God knew not of every mass from the beginning of time till eternity, and give Him self, totally and freely be the power of the Holy Spirit for each and every Mass.

I am not Catholic myself, but to deny God freedom from time is to deny His divinity. Yes, God became man and dwelt amongst us, But God was God amongst us.

So, Yes God subjected His Body to time-But did God also then suppress his infinite knowlege- certainly not.


In Him,

David

 

Yes. Those that take it falsely are not believers. They are hypocrites, speaking the words and using the name of Jesus falsely.

Exactly. They are taking it in for their physical desire, and will not receive the blessing that comes from doing it for the right reasons, to remember Christ as he commanded. There are spiritual benefits to obedience in baptism, in the Lord's supper, in dressing modestly, in not offending your neighbor, etc..

No, they are not discerning the body of Christ. They are not recognizing the parallel of bread and wine to the body and the blood. If they were they would be walking worthy of Christ. If you're not walking right, not following his commandments, you cannot sit with the righteous and truly claim that you remember Christ and want to be obedient to Him.

Taking in God's word is also spiritual food. Listening to your pastor talk can be spiritual food. Fellowshipping with other believers is spiritual food. We don't eat the bible, or our pastors, or our Christian friends, but we can be nourished by them. Things that are real and everlasting are those things that are spiritual. It's REAL. Do you think bread is real? Is wine real? Is the chair you're sitting on real? No, they're all perishable. They're not real. This is a point stressed over and over in the bible, and what helps Christians be set apart from the world. We want REAL things, our desire is for that which is real. Not anything that is in this earth, nothing we can touch and hold onto on this earth.

1 Cor. 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Good verse.
This chapter deals with those eating things sacrificed to idols. Paul shows his listeners that this is wrong, and that doing so is communion with false gods. He shows them this by using the example of Christian communion, and how when Christians partake of it they are honoring and having spiritual communion/fellowship with God. Christians are to separate themselves from such entanglements as the worship of false gods and taking part in ceremonies in place for them.

My goodness, I've answered this in almost every post back to you. Are you truly reading and listening to what I'm taking the time to type in response to you? Go back and read again.

I'm unfamiliar with a group of the disciples having left him. Please point out where this happened.

Gina

 

Gina

I don't see where you have ansered it specifically all your answers form a circular logic that just twist scriptures to protect a doctrine of men and seem to consistently try to say the symbolic and the spiritual are the same thing when the Bible nevere teaches this.

So please finish this sentence for me. "Eat my body drink my blood" symbolically means_______________
and I derive this symbolic meaning from_______________ and the very next passage in the Bible“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” symbolically means____________ and I derive this interpreatation from__________________.

As far as your question

"I'm unfamiliar with a group of the disciples having left him. Please point out where this happened."

The answer is John 6:66

In John 6:60 we learn

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Accepting what you have outlined takes no faith it conforms with human logic nicely, accepting that his body and blood are real food and drink takes total faith in Jesus Christ. Many could not give that type of faith

John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

God Bless

 

Yup.

666

You guys are familiar with that number.

John 6:66

666 the guys who would not believe what Jesus had to say about His flesh and blood.

666 the guys who said that literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus is too hard to accept.

 

Dave_Matthews...

Who am I? I am nobody...except one who believes what God said is true...

"He entered the most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

"not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the most holy place every year with the blood of another, He then would have to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified"

No, buy when Christ said this...

"this IS my body, which is broken for you"

And this...

"He held up wine, and said "this IS my blood which is shed for you"."

He did not mean it literally because His blood was still in Him, and His body did not have chunks of it missing.

Jesus made it so clear...

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thrist"

Believing in Him, and "coming to" him for our life, through faith alone of course, is how we partake of the "bread" that He is referring to.

Blessings,

Mike

 

I'll answer Catholic's post after the kids are in bed as it'll take a while, (tremors are bad today) but can't resist answering "who do you think you are".
I am a daughter of the most high King. Someone He thought enough of to die for so I could live, to leave His words for so I could read, to give the Holy Spirit to for guidance when reading those words or just living my life.
Talk about rags to riches!
Who are you?
Gina