Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John 6:53 - Unless you eat My flesh (open)
Proclaiming The Gospel Ministries ^ | unknown | Mike Gendron

Posted on 05/28/2008 1:33:50 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You

Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation -- the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words "Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic.

If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is -- Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively.

Counterfeit Miracle

There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Drinking Blood Forbidden

The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)

Biblical Disharmony

When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.

Produces Dilemma

It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Figurative In Old Testament

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed

Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).

Words Were Spiritual

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: communion; eucharist; heresy; transubstantiation; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

1 posted on 05/28/2008 1:33:51 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

This is part of the Bread of Life sermon. Since the OT refers to the sacrifice of a spotless lamb as the “bread of God”, I would say this part of John Chapt 6 is meant to be taken figuritively. ie. Jesus is the spiritual bread (also described as the living water in Chapt. 4) which gives eternal life as opposed to literal bread which gives material life but only for a limited time. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died, This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.” Jn 6:49-50


2 posted on 05/28/2008 1:41:22 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Food for thought (no pun intended)
3 posted on 05/28/2008 1:45:39 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

Amen - it is the Spirit that gives eternal life. All blessing and glory and honor and power be unto the Lamb of God, who was crucified ONCE for our sins and sits at the right hand of our heavenly Father.


4 posted on 05/28/2008 1:47:03 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Typing this as I look things up so this may sound rambling, just some translations and thoughts about the key words:

The word Flesh here is sarx, a translation of this could mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context through the Bible as mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God. (from Strong's). This is the same word we find used as translated as 'carnal'.

One of the translations of blood (haima) is 'seat of life'.

The word eat is esthi� and in addition to physically eating, it also means to take in or become one with.

The word drink is pin� and this one is interesting. Other than to literally drink, it also means to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen.

.. I need to think about how this could be put together based on the different meanings of the words...

5 posted on 05/28/2008 1:49:29 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

The institution of the Eucharist is a biblical event, recorded in the Gospels.

The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood

It also forbade Jews from eating pork. Yet Acts 10:13 is part of Scripture.

It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.

Not one passage of Scripture ever says that salvation is by "faith alone."

If both are literal we have a dilemma.

Unless, of course, one reads 1Cor 11:29.

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament

Indeed. Which is why Christ went out of His way to make it absolutely clear that He was not speaking figuratively, by saying that His flesh was real food and that His blood was real drink.

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment.

So the loaves and fishes were just figurative loaves and fishes then? The crowd was not literally fed?

6 posted on 05/28/2008 1:49:42 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The word eat is esthiÅ

Not here. Here it is phagein - to chew or gnaw.

It is a very graphic word.

sarx, a translation of this could mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context through the Bible as mere human nature

The passage then would make no sense - since "flesh" is only used figuratively to refer to the sin-prone aspect of human nature. Christ's sarx? is not general, it is the sarx of a very specific incarnated individual. An individual whose sarx is not sin-prone.

Christ is not telling the faithful to figuratively nourish themselves on sin-prone human nature.

He is telling them to nourish themselves on his own life-giving flesh.

7 posted on 05/28/2008 1:56:31 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

If Jesus was speaking figuratively why when his disciples and other followers left him because “this was hard to hear” did he not let those who were leaving him over this hard to hear message know he was only speaking figuratively?


8 posted on 05/28/2008 1:56:34 PM PDT by CTK YKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Two thousand years later, people still refuse to believe that Jesus meant what He said. “He can’t have meant that because logically if that’s what he was saying my whole world view blows up!”

Yep. That’s about the size of it.


9 posted on 05/28/2008 2:05:29 PM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CTK YKC
"If Jesus was speaking figuratively why when his disciples and other followers left him because “this was hard to hear” did he not let those who were leaving him over this hard to hear message know he was only speaking figuratively?"

For the same reasons he spoke in parables he know many could not understand. Jesus knew they could never understand. No one can accept and understand unless God specifically gives them the faith to do so.

"no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Jn 6:65

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Jn 6:44

In Chapter 4 Jesus gives the same figurative speech using the "living water" analogy and a whole city of Samaritans not only understand but are almost instantly converted. This despite the fact the Jews were in a much better position to understand and believe. Thus, faith is a gift from God and cannot be obtained by one's will or works.

10 posted on 05/28/2008 2:06:08 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Not one passage of Scripture ever says that salvation is by "faith alone."

True, the word 'alone' is not there. It just says we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourself. It is a gift of God, not of works, so that no man can boast.

11 posted on 05/28/2008 2:06:54 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rippin

Jesus also said if your eye offends you, pluck it out. He said if your hand offends you, cut it off. Never seen a Catholic missing an eye or hand that he’d removed himself. I guess Jesus wasn’t being literal there.


12 posted on 05/28/2008 2:08:39 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Odd, I am looking in Strong's, reference 5315 and it shows it is esthio, not phagein (I'm having trouble finding that use in the New Testament in similar context). The exact same word is used in Revelation Rev 2:17 in a very figurative verse (He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it].)

What Strong's reference number do you have for phagein?

13 posted on 05/28/2008 2:09:40 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
It just says we are saved by grace

Precisely. We are saved by grace. Faith is a means that God uses to infuse the soul with His saving grace. Our own belief does not save. God saves.

Never seen a Catholic missing an eye or hand that he’d removed himself. I guess Jesus wasn’t being literal there.

Again, it is clear from the context of John 6 that Christ is repreatedly emphasizing the literal, non-figurative nature of what he is saying.

"My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

He did not say "If an eye offend thee, pluck it out. Pluck out your real eye."

14 posted on 05/28/2008 2:13:04 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Again, it is clear from the context of John 6 that Christ is repreatedly emphasizing the literal, non-figurative nature of what he is saying. "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink." He did not say "If an eye offend thee, pluck it out. Pluck out your real eye."

So he meant your pretend eye and your pretend hand? Um, okay.

15 posted on 05/28/2008 2:15:56 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

You are correct, the word is esthio. It means to consume. It doesn’t have to literally mean “eat” in this context.


16 posted on 05/28/2008 2:16:13 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
Two thousand years later, people still refuse to believe that Jesus meant what He said.

So you believe the Eucharist is both necessary and sufficient for salvation, then?
17 posted on 05/28/2008 2:17:37 PM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
I am looking in Strong's, reference 5315 and it shows it is esthio, not phagein

That's because Strong's does not assign a separate number to phagein. Strong's is a useful but flawed tool.

If one consults John 6:53 in any Greek text of the New Testament, the word used is phagein.

I do not find phagein in Rev 2:17.

18 posted on 05/28/2008 2:21:50 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: joebuck; wideawake
I think wideawake may be looking at the word for Devour such as in Hebrews 10:27 (but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.) which is also esthio but is preceded by phago which, together is used in the same context as a different word trogo which does mean, as wide awake stated, to literally gnaw. John 6:53, however, doesn't use either trogo nor phago esthio, just esthio.
19 posted on 05/28/2008 2:22:33 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: joebuck; mnehrling
You are correct, the word is esthio.

The word used for eat in John 6:53 is not "esthio" but "phagein."

Check your Greek New Testament.

20 posted on 05/28/2008 2:23:39 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

esthio, not phago esthio

21 posted on 05/28/2008 2:25:27 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Directly from the greek:

ἐσθίω,v {es-thee'-o} 1) to eat 2) to eat (consume) a thing 2a) to take food, eat a meal 3) metaph. to devour, consume

http://www.greekbible.com/l.php?e)sqi/w_v-2aas-p--_p

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

Phagein not used in this verse.

22 posted on 05/28/2008 2:29:06 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
I think wideawake may be looking at the word for Devour such as in Hebrews 10:27

No, that is esthio.

a different word trogo which does mean, as wide awake stated, to literally gnaw

That is an even more intense word, which continues the aggressiveness of the language used in the passage, starting in 6:54 - to rip with the teeth.

John 6:53, however, doesn't use either trogo nor phago esthio, just esthio.

Again, I have to disagree.

23 posted on 05/28/2008 2:29:31 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

What Greek bible site or version are you looking at? Here is my source for word by word translations.

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php


24 posted on 05/28/2008 2:30:50 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The twelfth word in the Greek text you just posted clearly reads phaghte.
25 posted on 05/28/2008 2:31:30 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Because it is. Not literally, but in truth. Man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

If John's words state clearly that we must drink the blood of Jesus to be saved, how can we be saved by the Priest drinking the blood?

26 posted on 05/28/2008 2:32:23 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

The same base text that your source uses.


27 posted on 05/28/2008 2:32:42 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I am looking at the UBS (3rd Edition) and the word is esthio.
28 posted on 05/28/2008 2:33:36 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If John's words state clearly that we must drink the blood of Jesus to be saved, how can we be saved by the Priest drinking the blood?

The blood is present in the flesh, because it is living flesh.

29 posted on 05/28/2008 2:33:47 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

I have that edition at home, I believe. I will check it.


30 posted on 05/28/2008 2:34:23 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Interesting because when I click on it it says it is esthio. ἐσθίω


31 posted on 05/28/2008 2:34:59 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Imagine what the poor translators back in the 1600s had to deal with having no cross references and word of mouth as to deeper meanings of items.
32 posted on 05/28/2008 2:37:11 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

A catholic could prove this by spitting out the wafer turned to flesh and wine turned to blood and have it tested.

Jesus did not teach cannibalism.


33 posted on 05/28/2008 2:40:20 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I am confused. On the online greek new testament, it is esthio.

esqiw,v {es-thee'-o}

online greek bible

It looked the same on another online bible I checked. I have to note that I don't read greek. But I know how to recognize some letters, and input words into lexicons.

It just seems odd that we are having an argument over which word is in the greek. Is it possible we have different greek bibles, and the one you use supports your contention?

34 posted on 05/28/2008 2:42:13 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Ah, interesting. I see that now, sort of, and still wonder why we are getting different answers. But I’ve exhausted my knowledge of greek (which took all of 2 seconds).


35 posted on 05/28/2008 2:44:55 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Then why does the priest drink the wine/blood?


36 posted on 05/28/2008 2:45:51 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; wideawake
It just seems odd that we are having an argument over which word is in the greek.

I wouldn't call it an argument, we are exploring and discussing; it is an important distinction. One word (esthio) is a passive verb that can have a figurative or metaphorical meaning. The other word (phagein or phago esthio) is a strong active verb that literally means to gnaw or chew on and generally has no metaphorical meaning (when taken literally.)

37 posted on 05/28/2008 2:48:12 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; wideawake
I think I've figured it out. Phago is the aorist tense of esthio. The Strongs number is 5315. To wideawake's credit, this is the tense Zodhiates in his "Complete Word Study dictionary" says is being used in John 6:53 despite the fact the esthio is what appears in both UBS and NA27. BUT, Zodhiates defines the word, as used here, as:

(III) Spiritually to feed by faith and be sustained in a spiritual and eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 53). Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5315).

38 posted on 05/28/2008 2:50:46 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: joebuck; CharlesWayneCT
Charles, Ping 38. I was wrong on Phago not having the metaphorical or spiritual meaning and literal only.
39 posted on 05/28/2008 2:54:56 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

BTTT


40 posted on 05/28/2008 2:57:08 PM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck; CharlesWayneCT; wideawake

Y’all have to admit, you wouldn’t get chats like this at those other poser sites. :->


41 posted on 05/28/2008 2:58:14 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; wideawake; joebuck; CharlesWayneCT
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἶμα, ούκ ἔχετε ζωμὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
42 posted on 05/28/2008 3:00:13 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

“Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words “Hoc corpus meus est.”

First of all, please use the correct term. It is not a wafer, it is a HOST. The word host has a big difference in meaning from the word wafer.

Second - the priest calls down the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This is certainly logical, for if we Christians believe that a virgin, a young HUMAN woman can conceive in her womb the Son of God through the overpowering of the Holy Spirit, it then is also possible that the Holy Spirit can transform the host into the body of Christ.

The apostle, John, writes a gospel which is different in all aspects from the other three gospels, yet does not contradict them. John does not rely on a lot of miracles, but on the words of his Lord and Savior. It is up to us to determine whether Jesus was telling the truth, or was introducing confusion. The fact that Jesus was sad when many of the people turned away from him (in the 6th chapter of John), and asked his apostles whether they would also leave him, seems to indicate that Jesus was very serious about what He said.

People can agree or disagree with the meaning of the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John, but at the end of the gospel, the apostle, who was the closest apostle to Jesus and His Mother, Mary, specifically states that he has written his testimony so that everyone will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, so that all may have eternal life.


43 posted on 05/28/2008 3:09:44 PM PDT by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Interesting word analysis.

From a practical stand point, the theory of transubstantiation falls when you look at the practices of Christians detailed in the Didache. The preachers who called the Agape Feast that communion was a part of were picked by the congregation, no special words were spoken and no hierarchy existed to pass along the purported mystical powers to the clerics.

44 posted on 05/28/2008 3:12:48 PM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumdrop

I agree with your about the reason John’s Gospel was written - Amen!

Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.


45 posted on 05/28/2008 3:14:00 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gumdrop

I agree with your about the reason John’s Gospel was written - Amen!

Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.

Also - the men RCs call “priests” have no authority to “call down” the Holy Spirit of God. And nowhere in Scripture is this magic show the Spirit allegedly performs even hinted at.


46 posted on 05/28/2008 3:15:05 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gumdrop
"John does not rely on a lot of miracles, but on the words of his Lord and Savior."

In John, Jesus performs 7 major miracles. Virtually every one is either preceded or followed by a major discourse of Jesus which somehow relates to the miracle in question. Also, it is interesting to note the seven miracles performed by Jesus in the book of John are virtually identical to the seven miracles performed by the prophet Elisha in the book of 2 Kings.

47 posted on 05/28/2008 3:16:45 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
"Y’all have to admit, you wouldn’t get chats like this at those other poser sites."

Roger that! Actually this was a pretty fun and informative thread as opposed to the flame wars which are so common on the religion board. Maybe there is something to this Ecumenical designation.

48 posted on 05/28/2008 3:19:35 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer.

At least you admit that this is only an interpretation of the text. But then I have to ask you, by what authority do you claim that I must accept your interpretation?

49 posted on 05/28/2008 3:23:44 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

“Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.”

When you call the host a wafer, you are exercising your freedom to accept or deny Jesus’s exact words - or the interpretation given to them by the RC church. However, please do not refer to the communion host (or wafer, as you call it) as possibly “containing microscopic vermin.” I realize you are probably being sarcastic, and do not mean to insult. Never-the-less, are you 100% certain that your interpretation is correct. What if you are not correct? Perhaps a bit of caution in your written words might be in order. Not for me of course, but in respect for Jesus.

Have a good day!


50 posted on 05/28/2008 3:24:06 PM PDT by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson