Posted on 01/11/2018 7:54:48 AM PST by Salvation
No video today.
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Hyperbole here....but not John 6?
The inconsistency of Roman Catholicism.
“Portraits” like those described in Romans chapter 1 - or - the authentic Christian kind, Jesus instructed to be rendered for His eyes and ears?
Where is the hyperbole in John 6?
Why is this hyperbole and John 6:53 not?
54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day
Six times he tells us to eat his body and drink his blood. He uses the Greek word meaning for an animal to gnaw, R.I.P. with his teeth. Many of his disciples leave him. Compared to the hyperbole in other verses/parables, this is about Him and not others. I could go on but a true intimate and physical relationship with Jesus calls me to the Eucharist several times a week. This is not a parable. It is repeated by St. Paul.
Why didn't the Jews immediately seize Him and begin to gnaw/RIP Him with their teeth?
Why at the Cross did the disciples not rush to catch the blood and drink it? Or rip the flesh and begin to consume it?
What Paul recorded?
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB
Roman Catholicism would have us believe He ate and drank His own flesh and blood.
It appears that some people do not understand the word — transubstantiation —
trans = transfer
substantiation — substance
The substance of bread and wine are changed through Christ’s words to his Body and Blood on John 6. (And also changed by the priest’s words that repeat those of Christ’s in each and every Mass.)
Every word in John is there for a reason; he was writing theology after all the synoptic Gospels.
No...we understand it.
It's just not what the NT says is happening.
It’s exactly what John writes in John 6. It is as it happened through Christ’s words.
Is there some reason you don’t believe Christ’s words?
Just the opinion of non believers....
John 6
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
The Scriptures often speak of the “authority” with which Jesus taught. For example, Scripture says of Jesus, he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law (Mat 7:29). Indeed, the teachers of Jesus’ time played it safe, quoting only reputable authorities in a wooden sort of way. Jesus, however, taught with authority.
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 John 6:35 NASB
If you want to interpret the John 6 literally then are we to understand you're not eating and drinking any longer?
I see a lot of Roman Catholics eat and drink every day.
So which is it? Literal or not? Let's see if your consistent.
What say you to the questions?
The teachers who Jesus condemned for their tradition had bound up the Jews in a hopeless web of rules which were impossible to keep....ummmm....sounds like a group we know today.
You do not believe the very words of Jesus!
Too bad that your very firm non-beliefs about direct teachings from Jesus about His Body and Blood in the Eucharist may prevent you from eternal salvation.
Deal with this specific teaching of Jesus, do not try to change the subject.
Thank you!
Roman Catholicism would have us believe He ate and drank His own flesh and blood.
Well, he said he did. I believe him.
But to be clear....
The context of John 6...and context is the key to understanding this passage in relation to the remainder of John and the NT, is about faith/belief in Him.
28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
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.
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 6:28- 40 NASB
The Jews didn't understand, much like Roman Catholicism, that we come to Christ through faith.
When Jesus visited with Nicodemus and the woman at the well He did not say a word about having to eat/drink His flesh and blood. Did He lie to them? If we are to believe Roman Catholicism's understanding of the scriptures we'd have to say yes.
However, He did say it was through belief in Him.
Paul, in Romans, did not once say we had to eat/drink His flesh or blood. Did Paul err? No. Because he understood it was about faith in Christ.
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
What Roman Catholicism would have us believe is this:
Prior to John 6:52-58 and after that Jesus, and the NT writers, all write about the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation....Rome has focused on six verses out of the NT that aren't about faith in Him. Like the unbelieving Jews, including many of His disciples, they did not understand the message.
We appropriate Christ through faith.
>>Six times he tells us to eat his body and drink his blood.
And where exactly does He assign the dominion of distributing that to those who’ve assumed it?
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.