Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | help me understand | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 57997 | ||
dasev, Christ in the Eucharist: Part I The following will at least make clear the true Catholic position on the Eucharist and address some of your objections and questions. Agreement with this doctrine is not necessarily expected. This will take several posts. I am sorry not to present an original essay, but I see no point in reinventing the wheel. "Christ in the Eucharist ... John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Again and Again Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). No Corrections Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction? On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis. In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14). But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do (others) say? Merely Figurative? They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ. But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "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" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3. " http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp |
||||||
2 | may i rebuke the roman heresy , heretics | John 6:66 | dasev | 58364 | ||
dear emmaus, perhaps one might ask this, at the last supper why did Jesus not carve off the real flesh of his body and fill their cups from his very veins. surley this would have established this roman catholic doctrine more effectively. and this question, would the so called flesh of the roman eucharist not taste like flesh, and the blood like blood? and this, if the Lord is so ammenable to this daily miracle working by roman priests, why is he not doing other miracles thru them, such as raising the dead, opening blind eyes and deaf ears, or perhaps actually creating new hands and legs where there is now no flesh? the real intent of roman doctrine is in this and many other instances to erect a wall of tradition by which it can indoctrinate and control the masses. it is a way of by fantasy separating itself and deceitfully promoting itself as a source of truth which cannot be supported by scripture or daily life. lets remember that the roman so called church did not allow its flock to read the Bible for centuries. it also made an extrordinarily successful effort to eliminate the truth and the true church by progromatic murder. it also forbids its so called pastors from marriage contadicting very clear scripture, allows and in some cases promotes statues or idols to be prayed to and worshipped, elevates Mary, Christ's mother in the flesh to the status of God, has long and to this day promoted purgatory and by falsehood and extortion deprived the poor of their money, having them to buy their dead loved ones release from purgatory, and sells to this day indulgences, that is to be forgiven in advance for sins not committed but planned. the present day prevalence of the roman so called church is a testimony of the human condition of absolute depravity of man apart from the redemption of the LORD Jesus Christ, and the gullible, lazy nature of men who are willing to let others search the scriptures for them. it is interesting to note that before 325 a.d. when constantine, who was the first real pope, opened the church to the unbelieving masses, the seven churches of Revelation's early chapters had already been destroyed by earthquakes. emmaus and you other roman heritcs need to come out from among the unclean and get washed in the blood and filled by the Spirit. hurry for the day draws near whes you will see Him, either to be like Him or to see Him no more. for Christ, dasev | ||||||
3 | may i rebuke the roman heresy , heretics | John 6:66 | Emmaus | 58382 | ||
dasev, If you can't argue the scripture and the real history I guess you have to argue the way you have chosen. I am sorry you have chosen that path. It would seem we will not have a fruitful discussion for either of our perspectives. I am happy to say that your's is not the attitude of most of the members of this forum. Emmaus |
||||||
4 | may i rebuke the roman heresy , heretics | John 6:66 | dasev | 58394 | ||
dear emmaus, Jesus says many are called few chosen. i'm not at this forum for popularity but for truth. as for the scripture why should i continue to cast my pearls before swine. scripture is not open, or subject to private interpertation. thats why i rebuke heresy, and will not engage in an arguement. no party spirit for me, just the pure unadulterated gospel. no traditions of men for me either, the pharoahsees and sadyousees got an earful of reproof from the LORD for that mess. dasev | ||||||
5 | may i rebuke the roman heresy , heretics | John 6:66 | kalos | 58419 | ||
You write: "i'm not at this forum for popularity but for truth." So far you have missed the former and ignored the latter. You write: "as for the scripture why should i continue to cast my pearls before swine." You really do have an exalted opinion of yourself. *WE* are not swine and *YOUR* ignorant speculations are not pearls. If you rebuke heresy, you must do it standing in front of a mirror. You have no argument. Whatever you are preaching, it is NOT the pure unadulterated gospel. Neither you nor Darktanianxx is the guide of the blind, the light of them who are in darkness, the instructor of the foolish, nor the teacher of babes that you think you are. |
||||||