Huh?
“Unless you eat by Body and drink my Blood you will not have life everlasting.” This is the Eucharist — words of Jesus.
Are you a Catholic and do you receive the transubtantiated bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ?
Huh?
Evangelical Christians do believe in the Eucharist, just not transubstantiation. Usually if an evangelical Christian says they believe in and take communion.
Do you think that ONLY Catholics have the right interpretation of that passage of Scripture? Are you aware that the early church understood Jesus' words to mean a "by faith" receiving of Him and that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" meant they had believed in Him? This article examines the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma:
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/.
Did Jesus eat the Father's body?
John 6 does not use the same word for flesh or body that Jesus used in the Last Supper.
John 6 is NOT talking about the eucharist.
Word for *flesh* in:
John 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
http://bible.cc/john/6-51.htm
John 6:63
http://biblos.com/john/6-63.htm
The word for *flesh* is the same in BOTH verses.
http://biblesuite.com/greek/4561.htm
sarx: flesh
Short Definition: flesh, body
Definition: flesh, body, human nature, materiality; kindred.
It is the exact same word used in Galatians 5 and Romans 8. There is also much more commentary at this link:http://biblesuite.com/greek/4561.htm
which I would post but would show up in HTML and mess up a simple post.
***************************************************************
However, it is NOT the same word as used in the Last Supper....
Matthew Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 11:24, 27, 29
soma: a body
Short Definition: body, flesh
Definition: body, flesh; the body of the Church.
There is also a more in depth analysis of the word *soma* at this link: http://biblesuite.com/greek/4983.htm
So one cannot have eternal life unless he/she believes in the Eucharist and literally consumes Jesus body and blood physically?
That would be consistent with your unequivocal understanding of the verse, but want to make sure.
**“Unless you eat by Body and drink my Blood you will not have life everlasting.” This is the Eucharist — words of Jesus.**
“it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” This is the prophecy of the Holy Ghost-Words of Jesus.
This prophecy of Jesus is telling us that his body contains the Spirit (Father) which told him what to say and do in all things spiritual. If you don’t know that, then you need to read all of the book of John, not just chapter 6:50-58 over and over, like you’ve been taught to.
When do you KNOW you have the Christ in you ‘the hope of glory’? Read John chapters 14, 15, and 16 thru verse 15. Central to it is this from John 14:16-20: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; ....I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.....AT THAT DAY ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I IN YOU.”
When do you KNOW you have him in you......it’s the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And is an experience where there is ‘rivers of living water’ coming forth (John 7:37-39); with you glorifying God by speaking a language (known or unknown to the world) that you previously didn’t know. AND it is the proof of BELIEVING ON JESUS ‘as the SCRIPTURE hath said’.
Not by crucifying the Lord afresh (RCC), and not by going forward to confess the Lord ‘as my personal saviour’ (Proddies. ‘Going forward to confess’?? sounds like a work, they better stop that!). Then there are those sometimes disregarding the Lord’s commands for repentance, always disregarding baptism in his name (JESUS, there is no other saving name), and many teaching the infilling of the Holy Ghost is just automatic, uneventful; it supposedly happens when you believe, but you don’t experience it the scriptural way. Such that teach that are blind leaders of the blind, and have never experienced it themselves (I don’t care if their name is church father this or that, Luther, Calvin, Pope this or that, Graham, Osteen, Hahn, and on and on).
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for WIDE is the gate, and BROAD is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and MANY there be which go in thereat: Because STRAIT is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life and FEW there be that find it.” -the words of Jesus.
“Are you a Catholic and do you receive the transubtantiated bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ?”
Since the Romish church asserts the “unanimous” consent of the Fathers for their doctrines, including transubstantiation (that the bread and wine ceases to be what it is and becomes truly the body of Christ), here’s a post from another thread showing the lack of unanimous consent among the “Fathers.”
Enjoy:
Here are some Roman Catholic quotations of Augustine allegedly “proving” that Augustine believed in what the RCC holds to today.
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)
To the unsuspecting reader, you would think that Augustine really does support your theology. But WAIT, how does Augustine actually define his own views?
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)
He speaks of the Eucharist as being “in a certain manner” the body of Christ, based on its bearing the name of the “reality” they resemble. Thus, when Augustine speaks of the Eucharist being the body of Christ, he means it from the standpoint of what it symbolizes, but not that it is actually a part of Christ’s real physical body placed on the altar. Here’s more:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11,
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
And another Bishop:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Orth. “” You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.””The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.