Eucharistic Adoration

[the lumberjack]

thanks for the input monk, I'll wait for someone else to respond.

God bless.

[jesussaves]

i have been taught and believe the catholic church is the [color=red][Edited by Good Friday: negative criticism of other religions.][/color]. i looked at this website to refute this notion and it did not give anything other than speculation.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_th..._of_babylon.asp[/url]

it is also arguably speculation that the cc is the [color=red][Edited by Good Friday: negative criticism of other religions.][/color], but i think that website with the idolatry and the idea of faith plus works is good evidence against the cc.

in the end i suppose all any of us can do is make assumptions. i think if i were God i would do things my way but that is just an assumption. and that goes for fallibly assuming the cc is infallible.

[quote]Unless you are infallible, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.
Where as the Catholic does not need to go to great lenths to show with Scirpture that it IS the Flesh of Christ.[/quote]

Edited April 20, 2004 by Good Friday

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:03 PM'] No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)


[/quote]
In this passage, Jesus is speaking of the carnal man. Notice that He says THE flesh. When He is speaking of His own Flesh in the Eucharist discourse, He uses the terms "MY Flesh" or "the Flesh OF THE SON OF MAN" In this passage He tells us that His words are "spirit and life." Name one passage in the Bible, Lumberjack, where the word "spirit" is used to mean "symbolic." It isn't...

[the lumberjack]

I'm glad you responded, but don't just respond to one part of the post... respond to the whole thing.

and yes, in THAT verse it meant things that carnal man does, things of the flesh...

God bless.

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:03 PM'] in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14) [/quote]
Our spiritual hunger is satisfied by the Eucharist. It does not imply any contradiction that Christ can feed the Spirit through physical means, like He does in the Eucharist. Your argument that we wouldn't have hunger pains is contradictory to Christ's mission on earth in general:
Christ came down to earth and took the PHYSICAL form of a MAN. To do what, to save the Jews from Roman oppresion? No.... To save SOULS.

[the lumberjack]

good work around maxk...though I don't read anywhere that eating something physically will help us spiritually...I could be wrong though...

and what about the Greek translations of what Christ said?

how do you respond to those?

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:06 PM'] Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ". [/quote]
"Touto esti" can also mean "This IS (emphasis mine -- as in it really is)." So no, the idea that Jesus was speaking figuratively isn't so obvious. And your statement regarding David calling water "blood" just can't be compared to what Jesus said at the Last Supper -- apples and oranges.

In addition, to figuratively eat someone's body or drink their blood during that period meant to slander or revile them.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Dave

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 01:06 PM'] good work around maxk...though I don't read anywhere that eating something physically will help us spiritually...I could be wrong though...

and what about the Greek translations of what Christ said?

how do you respond to those?

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ". [/quote]
To be honest with you, I don't know what the heck the translations are. Hopefully, Dave took care of that. They're all Greek to me.
But I do know that in 2 Samuel 24 (which may or may not be the one you were refering) David is refering to the men who risked their lives. He uses the phrase "drink their blood" in the true Biblical figurative sense, meaning, "to assault"
"to attack" or "to persecute." How do I know that this is the true Biblical figurative sense? Because I, lumberjack, like most faithful Catholics, read the Bible: See Psalm27:2; Micah3:3; and Revelation 17:6,16. In all of these passages, the figurative sense for "eating one's flesh" and "drinking one's blood" all refer to a nasty assault-like action. If Jesus really was speaking figuratively, then it seems that one could take it as meaning. "Whoever assaults and persecutes me will have Eternal Life." hmmm... that doesn't make very much sense to me, but nice job on the flashy knowledge of Greek words. I'm impressed :boring:

[maxk]

[quote name='jesussaves' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:45 PM'] faith plus works is good evidence against the cc. [/quote]
The Catholic Church NEVER once taught that we are saved through good works alone. For 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that we are saved through grace, and from our grace flow good works. They help, but you must repent and change your life to grow in God's grace in order to be saved. We do this through the sacraments, instituted by Christ to give grace...

By the way, I don't like seeing people refer to my Church as "the cc".

[willguy]

lumberjack,

It is obvious that the Jews thought Jesus was speaking literally. Now, if He was speaking figuratively, why didn't he correct their confusion? Why did He just repeat what He had previously said instead of correcting them?

[quote]but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") [/quote] Wow, nice lie! From Strong's concordance
[quote]esti - third person singular of "to be"[/quote]
It is the same verb as Mat 3:17 when God says "This is (esti) my beloved Son." Here's a website with the definition of esti and a list of all the places it is used in the New Testament [url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1082491444-2605.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...91444-2605.html[/url]. Sorry dude, but you're gonna have to find something else, cause that arguement is wack.

[Good Friday]

This signifies my beloved Son...?
This represents my beloved Son...?
This stands for my beloved Son...?

As Will pointed out, consistently applying Lumberjack's definition of "touto esti" makes for a very different Christianity. If "touto esti" only means "this signifies, represents, stands for," then Jesus Christ is not the Son of God -- He only signifies, represents, or stands for the Son of God.

So I'd think it would be best for all Christians concerned to admit that, in this case as in all other cases, "touto esti" literally means "THIS IS." If not, we're all in big trouble.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14) [/quote]

Of course, Jesus uses a lot of symbols in the first half of John 6. The Jews understand the symbols perfectly too when Jesus says that whoever comes to him they shall not hunger or thirst. They don't respond by saying "how can this man cure our hunger and our thirst". Or "how can this man say he is a loaf of bread coming out of the sky." Rather they say "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven?'" Is this confusion on the part of the Jews for taking Jesus too literally and not understanding his symbols? Of course not, it is [u][b]unbelief[/b][/u] for Jesus is trying to tell them that he is the Son of God sent from heaven. They understand the figurative language just fine and they realize what Jesus really means.

There then becomes a dramatic shift in word choice and language and the Jews pick up on it. There objections are more unbelief because Jesus is now telling them something new. We now see the words "flesh" and "eat" appear for the first time in the passage. They now say "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?". Do the Jews suddenly not understand the symbols of Jesus anymore? No, because Jesus isn't talking figuratively anymore. The whole dialogue isn't one of misunderstanding symbolism, rather it is quite clearly one of [b][u]unbelief[/u][/b].


[quote]don't just respond to one part of the post... respond to the whole thing[/quote]

You may be the last one on this board who deserves that courtesy.

[Hananiah]

Hmmm... I wonder if that Schleiffer guy or whatever his name is could dig up a pagan precedent for moistened cube worship. I doubt it. Most likely it is purely a coincidence that the Roman rite uses a host that looks like a sun.

[God Conquers]

Lumberjack... if context is all that matters, who are you to judge context?

I dare you to answer me this question.

Is your judgement of the context of Christ's words, 2000 years after His resurection, as speaker of a different language, MORE RIGHT than Ignatius of Antioch's judgement of of the context of Christ's words 70 years after His resurection, who was a speaker of the same language.?

I will be shocked if you will answer this, but sincerely hope that you do.

[Jake Huether]

LJ,

30,000 denominations + all the Rites of the Catholic Church + all the non-Catholic / non-Protestant Christian Churches READ THE SAME BIBLE YOU ARE.


So, if it is so plain and clear. Tell me please why they all have different ideas about what is being said?

They all claim what you claim, "Its as clear as day, yada yada yada..." They believe they are led by the Spirit.


Why, tell us all why you are right and all the others wrong?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Apr 20 2004, 04:24 PM']
Of course, Jesus uses a lot of symbols in the first half of John 6. [/quote]
You have brought up an important point with this phrase...

John did not writing in paragraphs with verse numbers. Somebody arbitrarily divided into the present day text. So to say "in this section of John 6" ( and I'm not picking on you because we all do this) violates the text in a way.
Try reading it as it was written, and it makes more sense to see how the Church has always read it.

And please remember the Church celebrated the Real Presence of Jesus weekly, long before the Gospel of John was written. It is a confirmation of Church teaching, NOT a proof text.

[Justified Saint]

I suggest that you read the full length of my post. There is no doubting that Jesus is using a lot of symbolic language but there is a clear transition. The text is aloud to change, it doesn't have to speak figuratively and stay figuratively for the whole chapter or book. I just said first section to reference, the fact still remains that there is a transition and the reason for the transition is evidenced in the context.

Lumberjack is right, Jesus isn't talking about physical relief from hunger and thrist in verse 35.

[God Conquers]

I ask you the same question posted above then. Please answer it, it is not unfair.

Is your judgement of the context of Christ's words, 2000 years after His resurection, as speaker of a different language, MORE RIGHT than Ignatius of Antioch's judgement of of the context of Christ's words 70 years after His resurection, who was a speaker of the same language.?

[Justified Saint]

I am confused...are you suggesting that Jesus is referring to actual physical relief from hunger and physical relief from thrist in verse 35?

[God Conquers]

As shown earlier, sometimes the Eucharist does relieve physical hunger and relief, and so yes, He could have spoken of it in that way.

As for the general question of interpretation, and who has the authority to interpret the scripture most correctly, given equal guidance by the Holy Spirit, my question still stands.