Posted on 04/19/2016 7:13:24 AM PDT by marshmallow
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
John 6:28-36
It’s not flesh.
It’s not blood.
If, on rare occasion, a miracle occurs where it is - then it is rarely, and the rest of the time it isn’t.
Obviously it’s symbolic, because it’s not actually & always not.
“Obviously it’s symbolic, because it’s not actually & always not.”
Yet no one thought it was merely symbolic.
Well, they sure didn’t expect & accept that they would literally eat Him. They weren’t sure what else he meant, but knew He didn’t mean THAT.
For someone who spoke almost exclusively in parables etc, taking “eat me” literally was obviously wrong.
“Well, they sure didn’t expect & accept that they would literally eat Him.”
Sure they did. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
“They weren’t sure what else he meant, but knew He didn’t mean THAT.”
Yes, He did. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm
“For someone who spoke almost exclusively in parables etc, taking “eat me” literally was obviously wrong.”
Nope. Remember, we know what “eat my flesh” means when used as a metaphor: Psalm 27:2:
New International Version
When the wicked advance against me to devour me, it is my enemies and my foes who will stumble and fall.
As a metaphor it isn’t something positive.
Jesus meant what He said. You eat the Passover Lamb (just like in Exodus 12).
“They weren’t sure what else he meant, but knew He didn’t mean THAT.”
You might want to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Bread-Alone-Historical-Eucharistic/dp/1579181244
It’s why so many disciples walked away.....because His saying was hard. Symbolic talk is not “hard”..and it certainly doesn’t cause disciples to walk away.
Three second rule?
One minor detail....the blood was NEVER consumed.
Jesus would not have commanded the Jews, nor His disciples who were well acquainted with the OT Law, to break the Law by consuming blood.
This would also go against the Council of Jerusalem's letter to the Gentiles.
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but 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
Not only does the Council's ruling go against the catholic understanding of the "sacrifice" of the Mass, it is also against the worship of Mary. It is well known catholics bow down statues of Mary, pray to Mary, rely upon her for salvation, etc.
You’re right. His blood was of the New Covenant. He commanded no one to drink His blood under the Old Covenant.
It was NOT consumed.
No where in the OT was blood ever consumed.
I've already referenced the Council of Jerusalem's ruling on this bringing this under the New Covenant.
If you want from the New Covenant perspective we can do that also.
Catholics claim the mass is the same sacrifice as the Cross.
Q. 920. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.
Yet they contradict themselves by stating:
Q. 917. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson24.htm
However, both of these go against the NT teaching on Christ being offered as a ONE TIME sacrifice. There is no need of another on-going sacrifice as taught by catholicism.
And don't just think of the Mass conducted at your local church.
This is happening who knows how many times during just one day around the world. Christ is being sacrificed again and again and again and again, etc.
“Jesus would not have commanded the Jews, nor His disciples who were well acquainted with the OT Law, to break the Law by consuming blood.”
Since it was His blood sacramentally there was no violation of the OT Law.
See, once again, we see you are apparently unfamiliar with basic things. As your favorite Catholic theologian wrote: “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (Fr. John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215).
You never even read his book, did you? Oh, that’s right, you proved that fact last time.
Didn't think so.
As always vlad, you major in the minors looking for little technical issues to divert attention away from the primary issue.
The catholic mass, as attested to by the baltimore catechism, and O'Brien, and here:
360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ. http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson27.html
And all of this stems from the catholic misunderstanding of John 6.
The disciples, when asked if they wanted to leave, replied:
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6:67-69
They did not say we need to eat your flesh/blood as they understood it was belief in Him that saves.
Catholics seem to be asking the same question as the unbelieving Jews when they said:
30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’ John 6;30-31
To which He replied:
32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:32-40
If catholics really want to take John 6 as a literal interpretation I ask,
do you get hungry?
do you get thirsty?
“Have you read ALL of the writings from ALL catholic writers?”
But you said you got the quote from the original, correct? Wouldn’t that mean you read the book? Oops! I guess we see you were not telling the truth after all! Of course, that was already known.
“As always vlad, you major in the minors looking for little technical issues to divert attention away from the primary issue.”
Honesty or dishonesty is not a “minor” or “little technical issue”. It’s EVERYTHING.
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Thanks for proving Newman right yet again.
Again the primary issue you continue to dodge is catholicism claims the mass is a sacrifice of Christ to which you cannot refute. It is a contradiction of the Word. Hence your need to go Clinton.
Btw....waiting on your answers from post 33. Let’s see if you really believe in a literal interpretation of this passage.
Christ said this to his disciples:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And the Jews argued among themselves saying:
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Then Jesus said to them
Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
On hearing this, many of his disciples said,
This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them,
Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life
Christ backed up His words by saying that they are Spirit and they are Life.
At this point his audience could only have understood that Christ meant what He was saying.
Christ stood by His words. He declared them to be Spirit and Life. He declared that His flesh was real food and His blood was real drink.
No-one who heard Him was in any doubt that He meant what He said. This is why so many of His disciples stop following Him
They left Christ, unable to reconcile themselves to His stark and obvious meaning. They knew Christ wasn't speaking in metaphor. His teaching shocked them into leaving. Just like many on this thread, they could not accept it.
And Christ watched them go. He didn’t call them back to explain what He’d really meant. He stood by His words. He did not retract or clarify them.
There are simply no other ways to take the John 6 narrative. Like those people in Capernaum we must accept that Christ literally means for us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
Christ's sacrifice is once and for all. At the Mass, faithful to His command - we become engaged with - we become part of - His sacrifice. We become witnesses to His Passion.
Christ's sacrifice is once and for all. God is not bound to time and space, and His great act of salvation was not done in a corner, hostage to a moment in time.
Christ's sacrifice is once and for all. The Passion of God is the greatest event in time and in eternity - it fills reality like water fills a river. We just need to reach out and touch it.
Christ commands us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. His life, His death and His resurrection - the most important events that ever were or ever could be - are waiting for us at Mass.
We are drawn into God's presence. The veils of time and space are removed like the veil of the temple. We become present at His sacrifice, which is indeed once and for all.
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
Hope this is helpful.
How could it be possibly against the Levitical law for Christ to perfectly fulfill the Passover?
Christ is the Passover Lamb.
He is what all those centuries of Passovers and sacrifice were all about - they reached towards His Death and His Resurrection - His Living Sacrifice - standing at the center of history.
By His passion (his life, his death and his resurrection) Christ fulfilled the Law. He is the High Priest. He is the Sacrifice.
The Mosaic Law forbade unclean foods. But Christ's Body and Blood is not an unclean food.
Christ is both God and Man. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. When we eat His Body and drink His Blood we are nourished by the living God Himself.
God is not to be likened to some ritually unclean meat. Being nourished by and upon God Himself cannot be either unclean or evil.
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.