[metmom]

Then if you're going to take John 6 literally, is Jesus made of bread dough? After all, He said, (vs35) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

IOW, according to Catholic teaching that you have to eat his literal flesh and blood, anyone who takes the eucharist will never become hungry and thirsty again, right? I mean, after all,it is literal and He didn't tell us it was figurative. Right?

And in verse 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

Funny, I haven't met any Catholics yet who haven't died. Have you taken communion and do you expect to die?

What about this verse, verse 47? Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

So which is it? Is it believing or eating His flesh?

Now, if eating His flesh is enough, then why do Catholics have to take communion often? Why isn't just eating once enough? After all, when you eat, you HAVE eternal life don't you? Did Jesus say you could lose it?

[impimp]

Excellent questions.
1. Hunger and thirst can mean things other than desire for food and drink - that is the primary definition but not the only definition.
2. Jesus was right when he said “not die”. Death means the death of grace in your soul. He is talking about eternal life in Heaven. Again, we have a case of a word having two meanings.
3. If you don’t believe that you are eating His flesh when you eat Communion then you likely won’t have eternal life. This is just as Jesus said.
4. Catholic salvation can be lost. Jesus redeemed us with His death on the cross, but we can turn away from His love. This is the nature of free will. I give you this verse to reflect on - “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27)

[boatbums]

Jesus could not have meant his literal flesh and blood because people had already believed on him and been saved before he was born. The Old Testament saints looked forward in faith to the Messiah, the Redeemer, who would make atonement for all their sins. When they participated in the Passover Feast, for example, they were eating the bread, drinking the wine and eating of the roasted lamb as outward signs of faith. They certainly didn't think those "elements" were literally the flesh and blood of the Messiah, nor did they HAVE to be, because it was faith that saved them. God's terms don't change. Faith is STILL the necessary response to the Savior.

If Catholics want to have faith that the Eucharistic elements mysteriously change into the literal flesh and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and that by receiving the "host" they are consuming Christ and receiving a measure of grace needed to be saved, then let them. I don't believe they have a Scriptural basis for that doctrine nor do I accept their view as the ONLY way to look at the object lesson Christ gave to us - it certainly was an oft-discussed subject in the early centuries. They are wrong to insist that ONLY their current view is correct and nobody can be saved unless they succumb to the Roman Catholic Church and accept ALL the dogmas and doctrines it puts forth. You and others have consistently shown that the Catholic version of what Jesus meant by what he said in John 6 does not and cannot be argued all the way down to the least point - at several levels, the argument breaks down. The only sensible way to look at this is that it is all a matter of faith - all the way - and without faith, it is impossible to please God. Faith is what counts the most!