Bread of life Discourse

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Dairy, you've provided no arguments against the real presence. All your "interpretations" are quite a stretch and really are quite differenct from what it actually says in the Bible (which supports the Real Presence).[/quote]
I've got just as much evidence as you have..
Without that change in the word eat, you'd have nothing.
With the word, I'm not sure, but it's a lot to base the whole thing on one verb change in a sentence.


The early church beliefs I will delve into later as it appears no one want to stand up to the rigor of my questions. Same might be said to me but yea..
I try to find out the info that I need to draw connections between where christians lived, when, and if they believed in the eucharist as the Catholic Church says, and then draw some conclusions, but it's harder than you'd think! Which as of right now based on things like the didache and just my lack of finding what I need, I'd give the benefit that they all did not believe, you can give the benefit as you want. If you take all the evidence for one side of something and present some of the facts in cettain way, you can believe anything.. (can be said bout anyone but yea)

Anyway, I'm sure someone would take me up on it though instead of being like well you're not doing it! if they weren't afraid of not being able to answer my questions..

Edited May 17, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 17 2005, 09:13 AM'] I've got just as much evidence as you have..
Without that change in the word eat, you'd have nothing.
With the word, I'm not sure, but it's a lot to base the whole thing on one verb change in a sentence.


The early church beliefs I will delve into later as it appears no one want to stand up to the rigor of my questions. Same might be said to me but yea..
I try to find out the info that I need to draw connections between where christians lived, when, and if they believed in the eucharist as the Catholic Church says, and then draw some conclusions, but it's harder than you'd think! Which as of right now based on things like the didache and just my lack of finding what I need, I'd give the benefit that they all did not believe, you can give the benefit as you want. If you take all the evidence for one side of something and present some of the facts in cettain way, you can believe anything.. (can be said bout anyone but yea)

Anyway, I'm sure someone would take me up on it though instead of being like well you're not doing it! if they weren't afraid of not being able to answer my questions.. [/quote]
No one's "taking you up" on your arguments, because you don't have any. To be honest, it's quite hard to even follow what you are trying to say (other than that Jesus meant something totally different than what He said, and failed to explain this to anybody, even when they began leaving Him).

What is the "change in the word eat"?

If you have any solid evidence that the early Church beleived anything different about the Real Presence, please bring it forward.
Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to go with what the Church teaches, rather than what Dairygirl proposes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[QUOTE]Change in the word eat is when at first Jesus says to eat him with the word phago in greek. Then he uses trogo, which is another form of the word eat, but here to slowly chew like a cow (or something along these lines). This could indicate that he's emphasising that you have to eat literally, and I agree it's a good point that he did change the word (assuming the Greek that we used is okay in that one spot change), but I think it's too much simply biblically speaking to stake a belief on only one change. I know you'll say you have more to base your argument on in the bible, but it's all circumstantial. To see why I say this please read the everything already posted above. (I'm not sure if you did as you did not know what I was referring to when I said eat)

One point at a time:
[QUOTE]I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? [/QUOTE]
Considering that prots think he was referring to his death in the flesh that acted as the bread for belief. Will anyone agree that the Jews were jumping to conclusions/not necessarily thinking spiritually here just based on what Jesus had said so far?

[QUOTE]No one's "taking you up" on your arguments, because you don't have any.[/QUOTE]
You cannot know know what my arguments are as no one's taken me up. What I want someone to do is post some early chruch evidence that they think proves their belief in the real presense was unanimous. Then you have to answer all my questions regarding the evidence. (again I admit the questions may or may not be relevant or copouts, that's for everyone to decide for themself)

Edited May 18, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Please see the quotes in the Real Presence thread for what the early Church Fathers had to say about the Eucharist.

[Matt Black]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 10:45 AM'] I was reading this today and thought it was fascinating. The next time a Protestant states that John 6 is nothing more than a symbol, go ahead and say "oh, okay". Then share with them what it would have meant to the disciples if Jesus shared with their culture that they were to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' symbolically. To those he was talking to, it would have meant that those who follow him were to mock and scorn him, to beat him and his family. Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him. [/quote]
To reply to the OP, I've come across two main Protestant objections to the Catholic interpretation of this passage:

1. v63, where Jesus says that the flesh does not profit but the spirit does, thus suggesting a purely spiritual meaning to eating His flesh and drinking His blood ie: through faith in His death and all that means for us

2. The fact that no-one tried to eat ([i]phagein[/i]) or bite ([i]trogein[/i]) Him there and then; if His hearers had interpreted His words literally and physiaclly, then they would have done that.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[desertwoman]

Um..... my dad and I are raised protestant and we both believe that we are eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ for he said this is my body, do this in remembrence of me. Even the church I went to when we had communion when we went up to partake of the bread and wine they would say body of Christ, blood of Christ.

[scardella]

the quote you gave:
[quote]Jn 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
[/quote]
Here, we see 2 main differences from the John 6 passage:
1. It doesn't say anyone walked away.
2. It DOES say "But He spoke of the temple of His Body."

Doesn't it seem reasonable that if the author did interpret John 6 symbolically, he would definitely add that in? People unfamiliar with the faith would have read it and done exactly the same thing in walking away from this "lunatic". There is no apology for the words. We are left with the stark contrast of the Apostles who accepted the teaching and the others who walked away.

regarding v63.
1. "My words are spirit and life"
2. What are Jesus' words? "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood."
3. What's the problem?

Let's review:
1. Jesus uses graphic words to describe that they have to eat His Flesh to have everlasting life.
2. Everyone is baffled by this statement.
3. Some reject him and leave, while others do not.
4. Jesus makes no attempt to call them back and explain it as symbolic.
5. The author makes no attempt to explain it as symbolic.
6. Jesus does not afterward explain to his Apostles that it is symbolic. Instead, he asks them if they are going to leave as well. In effect, he's leaving them with the impression that they have to eat Him and drink Him.
7. The early Church Fathers were clear that THEY believed it. Why is this significant? They were much closer in culture and time to the events, and several had direct contact with the Apostles. We can be reasonably sure that such a situation would give them a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Faith. "Faith comes from what is heard" - St. Paul, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against [the Church]" - Jesus

Is this an adequate treatment?