Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289861599' post='2187298']
Jesus taught us that he is a God of love and shows us how we can be saved. If not by our strength then by repentance.
When someone who has power to do otherwise lets himself be tortured and killed for what he taught you, it drives home the point that this person was really sincere and as a result billions believe what he said and are thus saved. He did not die for every unrepentant sin! So we cannot go through life with the idea that we can sin as much as we like as long as we go through the motions of confession etc. Believing he did it once and for all time.
So yes he did die for our sins but in a roundabout way. It's still up to us to complete the task by our own way of the cross.



I don't think he was talking in a 'spiritual sense' or his [i]mortal[/i] body. We already have a mortal body subject to defects and death, why would he feed us his frail mortal body? Besides how much of it was there? How can a few KG of flesh and a few litres of blood feed billions for 2k years. And the Catholic Church describes the physical presence as the 'Accidents' which remain unchanged. He comes to us as his spiritual self at time's. "Where two or more are gathered there am I!" He said if we believed in him he would bring us to eternal life! The disciples of that time had no education and understood very little of the world around them, they would have thought their physical bodies the only level of existence. So Jesus left them to their faith. Some walked away. the apostles.. "Lord, [i]to whom shall we go[/i]? You have the words of eternal life;" In the Eucharist there is a [b]Substantial[/b] change. Substantial meaning something really significant far and beyond all else. The bread and wine feed us with his immortal resurrected supernatural body and blood which will bring us to an immortal state of existence..The resurrection and life everlasting.
[/quote]


[John 6:63]- "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

What does this mean to you? I try to get an overall understanding of what Christ is really saying by reading everything and not just one verse. Before he says what he says in verse 63 he says what he says in [John 6:35, 53, 58]. Then in [John 6:60] his disciples, who listened to what he said in [John 6:35, 53, 58] told him that what he said in [John 6:35,53,58] was hard to understand..."This saying is Hard..." then they asked him, "who can accept it?". Then he followed by saying what he said in John 6:63. So explain to me what you think he means in John 6:63...I think that is the key to understanding what he meant all along.

[reyb]

You said…

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289692917' post='2186987']
…….

If you combine what Jesus says in John 6:35 and John 6:53 you get....

whoever comes to me [Jesus]= eating the flesh (quenching hunger)of the Son of Man and....
whoever believes [Faith] in me [Jesus]= drinking his blood (quenching thirst)

So I think its by coming to him and believing in him that we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

That is why I am lead to believe that he meant in a spiritual sense that by coming to him we are eating his flesh, and by believing in him we are drinking his blood. ……
[/quote]

If the (your) above analysis is correct. Can you please equate it in relation to Matt 26:26-29?
-------------------
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body ." 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
NIV
-------------------
If these verses are 'figurative' statements – meaning, not truly referring to eat his flesh and drink his blood - as if he is saying, ‘come to me and have faith in me’. Can you please explain verse 29 ? (29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.").

Edited November 16, 2010 by reyb

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289692917' post='2186987']
John 6:35-40 (New American Bible)...

If you combine what Jesus says in John 6:35 and John 6:53 you get....

whoever comes to me [Jesus]= eating the flesh (quenching hunger)of the Son of Man and....
whoever believes [Faith] in me [Jesus]= drinking his blood (quenching thirst)

[/quote]

The above "blank equals blank" is what someone today, ingornat of Jewish culture and tradition, would think.
However, taking into account the Jewish connotations... Jesus could not have been speaking in a figurative sense.
For Jews, the figurative sense of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" was to "desecrate" and "disrespect".
If Jesus had been speaking figuratively, He would have meant, "Unless you desecrate and disrespect me, you will have no life within you."
Which is nonsensical.

Everyone knew Him to be speaking literally. That is precisely why they walked away. They could not accept that they would have to literally eat Christ. Coming to him in a spiritual sense they would have understood. Disrespecting him, they could have understood (it would have fit well into "Thou shalt not have other gods before Me"- they didn't know Christ was God) But this is not how they understood it. They took it literally, and couldn't accept that they would have to eat flesh and drink blood. They left. And you know what? [i]Jesus let them!! [/i]He did not cry out, "No, guys, you misunderstood me! I didn't mean it literally!" Instead, Christ was silent and let them go. John 6:66. (Neat numbers, by the way...).
Note that Jesus was always [i]extremely [/i]clear when speaking. If someone misunderstood Him, He corrected them, explained more clearly. He went to great lengths to make people understand. It wouldn't have fit in with His character to let the people just walk away, if they had misunderstood Him here. He did not explain here, because there was no explaining to be done.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289870721' post='2187328']
[John 6:63]- "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

What does this mean to you? I try to get an overall understanding of what Christ is really saying by reading everything and not just one verse. Before he says what he says in verse 63 he says what he says in [John 6:35, 53, 58]. Then in [John 6:60] his disciples, who listened to what he said in [John 6:35, 53, 58] told him that what he said in [John 6:35,53,58] was hard to understand..."This saying is Hard..." then they asked him, "who can accept it?". Then he followed by saying what he said in John 6:63. So explain to me what you think he means in John 6:63...I think that is the key to understanding what he meant all along.
[/quote]

I understand what you are saying. I've been struggling with this for several years myself trying to find away of bringing the Catholic belief into a reasonable and logical explanation! Lets look at that verse '[b]While the flesh is of no avail'[/b] I agree with you, this means it can't really be his physical mortal body. Mortal food feeds the mortal body [b]temporarily[/b]! He said his food will give us eternal life and we shall never hunger or thirst. But he also can't have been saying it is just his spirit in the Eucharist because he said that he is with us in spirit in many other ways at other times and conditions. There has to be more to the Eucharist than just the presence of Jesus spirit. Traditionally it is believed that it is our mortal bodies which are resurrected. But the resurrected body is free from defects of mind and body and does not die. Physical bodies get changed every number of years. The body I have now is not made of the same material as the one when I was a child. It is also very likely that the material of our bodies has at some time been part of another persons body. So is it really likely that the resurrected body is made of the same material that made our mortal bodies at some stage? I don't think it is and what's more I can't see why it should matter when our bodies have changed numerous times throughout our natural life already. I think what Jesus means is that we are ingesting his supernatural body of immortality which he will raise up.

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289880204' post='2187375']
..... I think what Jesus means is that [b]we are ingesting his supernatural body of immortality which he will raise up[/b].
[/quote]

What is that 'supernatural body of immortaltiy' then? How can you coalesce this ‘supernatural body’ to the Eucharist?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289875810' post='2187359']
The above "blank equals blank" is what someone today, ingornat of Jewish culture and tradition, would think.
However, taking into account the Jewish connotations... Jesus could not have been speaking in a figurative sense.
For Jews, the figurative sense of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" was to "desecrate" and "disrespect".
If Jesus had been speaking figuratively, He would have meant, "Unless you desecrate and disrespect me, you will have no life within you."
Which is nonsensical.

Everyone knew Him to be speaking literally. That is precisely why they walked away. They could not accept that they would have to literally eat Christ. Coming to him in a spiritual sense they would have understood. Disrespecting him, they could have understood (it would have fit well into "Thou shalt not have other gods before Me"- they didn't know Christ was God) But this is not how they understood it. They took it literally, and couldn't accept that they would have to eat flesh and drink blood. They left. And you know what? [i]Jesus let them!! [/i]He did not cry out, "No, guys, you misunderstood me! I didn't mean it literally!" Instead, Christ was silent and let them go. John 6:66. (Neat numbers, by the way...).
Note that Jesus was always [i]extremely [/i]clear when speaking. If someone misunderstood Him, He corrected them, explained more clearly. He went to great lengths to make people understand. It wouldn't have fit in with His character to let the people just walk away, if they had misunderstood Him here. He did not explain here, because there was no explaining to be done.
[/quote]

I think they walked away because they mistook his spiritual way of speaking for a literal way of speaking. Jesus' disciples also recognized that this literal way of thinking would be hard to accept, and they voiced this opinion to christ himself. Christ clarified by saying that he spoke in terms of spirit and life in John 6:63.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289874672' post='2187349']
You said…



If the (your) above analysis is correct. Can you please equate it in relation to Matt 26:26-29?
-------------------
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body ." 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
NIV
-------------------
If these verses are 'figurative' statements – meaning, not truly referring to eat his flesh and drink his blood - as if he is saying, ‘come to me and have faith in me’. Can you please explain verse 29 ? (29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.").
[/quote]

Hmmmm. I have no idea. But I think that Jesus is not the one in need of Faith.

But I can see how Matthew 26:29 backs up my theory even more that Jesus was speaking in a Spiritual Sense about drinking his blood. Why and How would Anyone (including Jesus) literally drink Blood (let alone his own) in God the Fathers Kingdom. By then there would be no need to literally/corporeally drink Blood. I think Heaven is seperated from material things.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289880204' post='2187375']
I understand what you are saying. I've been struggling with this for several years myself trying to find away of bringing the Catholic belief into a reasonable and logical explanation! Lets look at that verse '[b]While the flesh is of no avail'[/b] I agree with you, this means it can't really be his physical mortal body. Mortal food feeds the mortal body [b]temporarily[/b]! He said his food will give us eternal life and we shall never hunger or thirst. But he also can't have been saying it is just his spirit in the Eucharist because he said that he is with us in spirit in many other ways at other times and conditions. There has to be more to the Eucharist than just the presence of Jesus spirit. Traditionally it is believed that it is our mortal bodies which are resurrected. But the resurrected body is free from defects of mind and body and does not die. Physical bodies get changed every number of years. The body I have now is not made of the same material as the one when I was a child. It is also very likely that the material of our bodies has at some time been part of another persons body. So is it really likely that the resurrected body is made of the same material that made our mortal bodies at some stage? I don't think it is and what's more I can't see why it should matter when our bodies have changed numerous times throughout our natural life already. I think what Jesus means is that we are ingesting his supernatural body of immortality which he will raise up.
[/quote]

I think he never meant for there to be a Eucharist in the first place. I think he was speaking in a spiritual sense when he said to eat his body and drink his blood. Yes Jesus' (God's) Spirit is present in the Eucharist. His Spirit is present in all places...including Hell. If His presence was not present in the Eucharist (and in Hell for that matter)...then he would not truelly be Infinite.

[Archaeology cat]

There seems to be a trend today to see something spiritual as symbolic (in the modern sense of a symbol being different from what it symbolises, instead of the ancient understanding of a symbol being what it symbolises). Something being spiritual doesn't make it any less literal. It is spiritual because we (normally) cannot see its true form with our physical eyes. Besides John 6, we also have St Paul talking about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, where he says partaking of the Eucharist is a participation in Jesus' death and that partaking unworthily makes one guilty of the Body & Blood of Christ - those statements don't really make sense if the Eucharist isn't true, IMO.

God bless

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289887769' post='2187388']
I think they walked away because they mistook his spiritual way of speaking for a literal way of speaking. Jesus' disciples also recognized that this literal way of thinking would be hard to accept, and they voiced this opinion to christ himself. Christ clarified by saying that he spoke in terms of spirit and life in John 6:63.
[/quote]

I highly suggest this article [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]HERE[/url] at Catholic Answers.
They address your specific concerns.

[quote] For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is [i]never[/i] used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289887769' post='2187388']
I think they walked away because they mistook his spiritual way of speaking for a literal way of speaking. Jesus' disciples also recognized that this literal way of thinking would be hard to accept, and they voiced this opinion to christ himself. Christ clarified by saying that he spoke in terms of spirit and life in John 6:63.
[/quote]
If Jesus was only speaking metaphorically, and not literally, why didn't He clarify and explain this to His followers that were leaving Him, rather than lose disciples?

He didn't do this, but said to His Apostles, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

That Christ's words are Spirit and Life does not contradict His Real Presence in the Eucharist. And spiritual does not mean metaphorical.
After the Jews strove among themselves over Christ's words, Christ said, "[b]For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[/b]" (6:55). He didn't explain that this was only a metaphor or a parable. Jesus spoke in parables many times, but this was clearly not one of them.


And it's more than a little arrogant to think that Christ's Church, the successors to the 12 Apostles, have been wrong about this teaching all those centuries, but you yourself personally have better insight into what Jesus Christ really meant.

It is clear that Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist was recognized from the beginning of the Church.

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.

[RomanCatholic]

PERFECTLY stated Socrates!

I don't see how it doesn't make sense or isn't "logical" when we, unlike our Jewish brothers, have the deposit of faith, namely the sayings of Christ in Sacred Scripture along with Tradition. Going along with the original posters comments about the Eucharist, you are right in saying that if the Eucharist is not truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ; then our whole Faith is wrong, because everything we believe stems from Jesus and the Apostles and we have this Faith today.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289885600' post='2187385']
What is that 'supernatural body of immortaltiy' then? How can you coalesce this 'supernatural body' to the Eucharist?
[/quote]

When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...




[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289874672' post='2187349']
"Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
NIV
-------------------
If these verses are 'figurative' statements – meaning, not truly referring to eat his flesh and drink his blood - as if he is saying, ‘come to me and have faith in me’. Can you please explain verse 29 ? (29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.").
[/quote]

29 Presumably this is referring to the resurrection of the faithful. 'Drinks it [b]anew[/b] with us.' (communion) Our [b]new[/b] resurrected body by his own resurrected body and blood.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1289921571' post='2187414']
Something being spiritual doesn't make it any less literal.

God bless
[/quote]
I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289888480' post='2187393']
I think he never meant for there to be a Eucharist in the first place. I think he was speaking in a spiritual sense when he said to eat his body and drink his blood. Yes Jesus' (God's) Spirit is present in the Eucharist. His Spirit is present in all places...including Hell. If His presence was not present in the Eucharist (and in Hell for that matter)...then he would not truelly be Infinite.
[/quote]

God is omnipresent in that he sees and knows all, but as Jesus he is with us in many ways some are figurative, some are spiritual. The last supper has to be more than figurative or spiritual otherwise there would be no real point in what he said at the last supper. He had already taught about his spiritual presence.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1289950051' post='2187480']

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.
[/quote]
Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...






29 Presumably this is referring to the resurrection of the faithful. 'Drinks it [b]anew[/b] with us.' (communion) Our [b]new[/b] resurrected body by his own resurrected body and blood.


I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.



God is omnipresent in that he sees and knows all, but as Jesus he is with us in many ways some are figurative, some are spiritual. The last supper has to be more than figurative or spiritual otherwise there would be no real point in what he said at the last supper. He had already taught about his spiritual presence.



Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?
[/quote]

I totally agree with you that the spiritual world is the greater reality.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1289950051' post='2187480']
If Jesus was only speaking metaphorically, and not literally, why didn't He clarify and explain this to His followers that were leaving Him, rather than lose disciples?

He didn't do this, but said to His Apostles, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

That Christ's words are Spirit and Life does not contradict His Real Presence in the Eucharist. And spiritual does not mean metaphorical.
After the Jews strove among themselves over Christ's words, Christ said, "[b]For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[/b]" (6:55). He didn't explain that this was only a metaphor or a parable. Jesus spoke in parables many times, but this was clearly not one of them.


And it's more than a little arrogant to think that Christ's Church, the successors to the 12 Apostles, have been wrong about this teaching all those centuries, but you yourself personally have better insight into what Jesus Christ really meant.

It is clear that Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist was recognized from the beginning of the Church.

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.
[/quote]


Is it possible to speak metaphorically and literally at the same time? If so then please give me an example.

I think he clarified in John 6:63.

How do we know Paul wasnt speaking metaphorically?

Edited November 17, 2010 by infinitelord1

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...
[/quote]

Just for curiosity, since you said [i]‘[post='2187490']Physical bodies get changed every number of years. The body I have now is not made of the same material as the one when I was a child. It is also very likely that the material of our bodies has at some time been part of another persons body. So is it really likely that the resurrected body is made of the same material that made our mortal bodies at some stage? I don't think it is and what's more I can't see why it should matter when our bodies have changed numerous times throughout our natural life already. I think what Jesus means is that we are ingesting his supernatural body of immortality which he will raise up.
[/post][/i]
-----------------

In short, you are saying that your 3 year-old body is not the same ‘material’ of whatever you have now. And much more to say, your ‘resurrected’ body will never be the same ‘bodily-material’ as you have now. Do I get it correctly?

So how about the body of Jesus Christ when he was still a 3 year old baby? Do you think he has the same bodily-material when he becomes 33 years old? Or do you think he has the same 'bodily material' before and after his death?

Now if you answer is…..

Answer 1. ‘He has the same body before and after his resurrection and since the beginning of his childhood’.

Question 1:

Do ‘resurrected body’ really feel pain and fatique?

Answer 2. If he does not have the same body (meaning His resurrected body is different from his mortal body).

Question 2:

What bodily material of Jesus Christ you are now calling as ‘the Eucharist’? Is it his body before he died or after his resurrection? Or it is his dead body?

What do you think?

Edited November 17, 2010 by reyb

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289969853' post='2187530']
Just for curiosity, since you said [i]‘[post='2187490']Physical bodies get changed every number of years. The body I have now is not made of the same material as the one when I was a child. It is also very likely that the material of our bodies has at some time been part of another persons body. So is it really likely that the resurrected body is made of the same material that made our mortal bodies at some stage? I don't think it is and what's more I can't see why it should matter when our bodies have changed numerous times throughout our natural life already. I think what Jesus means is that we are ingesting his supernatural body of immortality which he will raise up.
[/post][/i]
-----------------

In short, you are saying that your 3 year-old body is not the same ‘material’ of whatever you have now. And much more to say, your ‘resurrected’ body will never be the same ‘bodily-material’ as you have now. Do I get it correctly?

So how about the body of Jesus Christ when he was still a 3 year old baby? Do you think he has the same bodily-material when he becomes 33 years old? Or do you think he has the same 'bodily material' before and after his death?

Now if you answer is…..

Answer 1. ‘He has the same body before and after his resurrection and since the beginning of his childhood’.

Question 1:

Do ‘resurrected body’ really feel pain and fatique?

Answer 2. If he does not have the same body (meaning His resurrected body is different from his mortal body).

Question 2:

What bodily material of Jesus Christ you are now calling as ‘the Eucharist’? Is it his body before he died or after his resurrection? Or it is his dead body?

What do you think?
[/quote]

Well I think hes gonna take the Transubstantiation route.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.
[/quote]
That kinda reminds me of CS Lewis' [i]The Last Battle[/i], where it's explained that the things on earth are the shadow, and the reality is in Heaven.

Anyway, if John 6:63 is supposed to be a clarification that He wasn't speaking literally (though I still don't see that as linguistically the case), shouldn't He have said that part earlier, when the Jews first understood Him to be speaking literally? But He doesn't do that. He instead repeats it, slightly more forcefully, if I remember correctly, and then they walk away and then He turns to the Apostles and asks if they're leaving, too. That's when he says that verse. If He didn't mean to be taken literally, though, He should have clarified when the people first misunderstood, because otherwise He's allowing them to walk away based on a misunderstanding. That doesn't strike me as something God would do. Letting them walk away if they've understood correctly, OK, we have free will after all, but passing up the chance to correct them and letting them believe something that isn't true? I don't think so. I also don't think it fits well with John 3, where He's speaking of being born again. Nicodemus misunderstands Him, and Jesus immediately clarifies instead of just repeating what He'd said before. I'd think He'd do the same if they misunderstood Him in John 6, especially since it's a matter of great importance, a matter of eternal importance.

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?
[/quote]

If that is the case, this Eucharist ‘transubstantiates’ and becomes a true body of Christ because of your ‘faith’ and not because it is the true body of Christ in its real sense.

As I have said before, ‘faith has no power against the truth’. While it is true that sometimes thru the eyes of faith, a lie can be seen as truth but still, a lie will remain a lie. And no matter how strong your faith is, such faith will never change a lie to become truth because, truth is the power of God and not your faith. While on the other hand, truth will remain truth whether you are a believer or not because, nothing can go against the truth since Truth is God.

I hope you can hear me now, brothers.

Edited November 17, 2010 by reyb

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1290010279' post='2187631']
If that is the case, this Eucharist ‘transubstantiates’ and becomes a true body of Christ because of your ‘faith’ and not because it is the true body of Christ in its real sense.

As I have said before, ‘faith has no power against the truth’. While it is true that sometimes thru the eyes of faith, a lie can be seen as truth but still, a lie will remain a lie. And no matter how strong your faith is, such faith will never change a lie to become truth because, truth is the power of God and not your faith. While on the other hand, truth will remain truth whether you are a believer or not because, nothing can go against the truth since Truth is God.

I hope you can hear me now, brothers.
[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying. It has nothing to do with our Faith. There is nothing we can do. I also think that God was always present, in our hearts, for us to see him...this is revealed when we believe and love Jesus Christ. Its then when we experience his Grace. And what does it say in Ephesians 2? We are saved by Grace. So the reality is that when we are experiencing his Grace...we are in a state of Salvation. The problem is....there are things (evils) that distract us from this reality. So we must constantly strive for this Grace by focusing on Jesus Christ (Faith).

Edited November 17, 2010 by infinitelord1