Eucharist Not In The Bible

[Jaime]

[quote]I answered this already.

[/quote]

No not really. You just said "you can't use John 6"


We don't have a choice in what Scriptures we use and don't use. And as far as addressing your statement that Eucharist isn't in the bible, it directly refutes that. (Which may be why you don't want to address it)

Instead of disregarding the scriptures, why not defend your position with them?

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082240' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:51 PM']
Which Apostle wrote Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

The Didache is named "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" and is said to contain direct sayings of the Apostles, as reliably as Peter is said to have been written by the Apostle Peter or John is said to have been written by the Apostle John are these things said to have been written by the Apostles themselves.

Here's a good source: [url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html"]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html[/url]
[/quote]

Do you think that God knew they were not part of his breathed-out Word?

[Aloysius]

How do you know they are not part of His breated-out Word? The only reason you do not have one in your bible right before the book of revelation is because the Church of Rome surpressed them from any and all canons in AD 390.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1082242' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:53 PM']
No not really. You just said "you can't use John 6"
We don't have a choice in what Scriptures we use and don't use. And as far as addressing your statement that Eucharist isn't in the bible, it directly refutes that. (Which may be why you don't want to address it)

Instead of disregarding the scriptures, why not defend your position with them?
[/quote]

My answer from Page 3:

I can see how you may misinterpret John 6 and throw in the other passages to confirm your position, but it is still just a misinterpretation. A long history of misinterpretation does not change that.

Jesus did give you the answer to the metaphor. He did not explain how transubstantiation would work (which would have been the perfect time to explain that) but instead he explained the difference between the flesh and spirit.

61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


Did you miss that answer on Page 3?

[Aloysius]

so apparently, all these things being said in the spirit, Jesus only spiritually ascended to His Father? and when things are only spiritual, then assuredly that means they are also symbolic! therefore, the son of Man ascending to where He was before is just a symbol. your position, that Jesus' statement "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail" means that He was previously talking metaphorically requires you to see the statement He connected with it (perhaps you didn't see it because of the man-made tradition-passed number system dividing the verses), that Jesus would ascend to Heaven, as also symbolic. No, He clearly means: your flesh, which takes offence at this great miracle I offer, is of no avail. Your spirit ought to believe it, just as will happen when I ascend to heaven.

of course, I am still wondering why you have not inserted The Didache into your canon of scripture.

[Anomaly]

Sola,
Didn't you miss the answers to your 'new' interpretation on page3? What's more reasonable?
A- God and the holy spirit let the vast majority of christians to be outright wrong for almost 2,000 years until some figured out something different in the last few hundred?
B- Almost all christians have it right even though they may differ in 'how' and to 'what extent' the presence of God enters the eucharist? (Most protestant denoms claim the presence of God in the eucharist)

The real presence is fully supported in Scripture and the early christian teachings and writings are consistent with that understanding and teaching. Your idea is a new way to interpret Scripture relative to the body of Christian belief and understanding.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Anomaly

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082251' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:03 PM']
How do you know they are not part of His breated-out Word? The only reason you do not have one in your bible right before the book of revelation is because the Church of Rome surpressed them from any and all canons in AD 390.
[/quote]

The Church of Rome? That wouldn't be until the Council of Trent since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical Councils.

I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082221' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:29 PM']
Then are you saying that you cannot understand how to get to heaven unless some human authority explains the scriptures to you?
What the apostles taught to the early church is captured in the scriptures. The Gospel message is clearly laid out in scriptuire such than anyone can understand it. In the absence of a Bible, the same message can be conveyed orally, however, the scriptures are the ultimate authority as they are thw Word of God.
What is it that the apostles taught that you think is not captured in scripture?
[/quote]

What passage tells you that it was all explicitly captured? John says at the end of his letters:

[12] Deme'trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.
[13]
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
[14] I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.
[15]
Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them.

So where did he write it?

Actually a fairly answerable question and this thread has clearly demonstrated it. You say things are clear in scripture. Only when you assume that the understandings that you have in your head are the correct understandings. But are they really. My wife tells me "go to Target and get milk". A pretty simple, clear statement. She and I both know what it means. Yet within that simple statement there is a whole assumed understanding of what that sentence means, i.e. is there gas in the car, I have a drivers license, the route to the store, how I pay for it, etc. etc. .

Many assumptions. Scripture is the same. Paul for instance says " believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved". Is it that simple? Well yes it is but that statement implies much else that Luke understands when he writes Paul's words. It is not just a head bob and a sinners prayer but a life walk, starting with baptism. (I know you will disagree but your implicit does not trump mine).

Basically what I am saying is that what is left out of the scriptures many times is a proper understanding of the scriptures. A verse in Corinthians speaks of baptizing the dead. Now some religion (the Mormons actually do this) might decide they need to baptize the dead because of this passage. Traditionally speaking it is a false practice. But the scriptures do not put a judgement on the practice explicitly. Now the person whole holds a bible and reads the passage that speaks of baptizing the dead, has the scriptures, but if he baptizes the dead because of it he does not have the word of God. The word of God is made up of the scriptures and the proper understanding of them. That is why Paul says "hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by word of mouth or in writing from us". Scripture cannot teach sola scriptura with this sentence in the scriptures because if sola scriptura is the end result then this passage is a contradiction to the scriptures. i.e. Paul teaches written tradition (scriptures) + oral teachings but then you say the Bible says sola scriptura. The two are contradictory.

By the way, I saw your answer regarding metaphores above. Interestingly enough I think the Lord's Supper is symbolic, metaphoric, spiritual, and literal sacramental all at once. I don't see the fact that the bread and wine symbolize community and Christ means that the sacrament is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. That is what "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" means. It's pretty clear.

Hope that helps.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1082259' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:15 PM']
Sola,
Didn't you miss the answers to your 'new' interpretation on page3? What's more reasonable?
A- God and the holy spirit let the vast majority of christians to be outright wrong for almost 2,000 years until some figured out something different in the last few hundred?
B- Almost all christians have it right even though they may differ in 'how' and to 'what extent' the presence of God enters the eucharist? (Most protestant denoms claim the presence of God in the eucharist)

The real presence is fully supported in Scripture and the early christian teachings and writings are consistent with that understanding and teaching. Your idea is a new way to interpret Scripture relative to the body of Christian belief and understanding.
[/quote]

Experience and history do not determine God's plan.

No, I do not believe the real presence is supported in the scripture and I believe that considering the eucharist to be required for salvation to be counter-scriptural.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082262' date='Oct 2 2006, 06:18 PM']
The Church of Rome? That wouldn't be until the Council of Trent since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical Councils.

I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563.
[/quote]

Flourence was Ecumenical and declares the canon. Also Pope Leo, early in the 5th century declared the canon so there is the papal statement. And no we are not saying that. It is quite clear however that the Holy Spirit worked in and through the Church.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082262' date='Oct 2 2006, 07:18 PM']
The Church of Rome? That wouldn't be until the Council of Trent since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical Councils.

I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563.
[/quote]
good diversion. I used "The Church of Rome" in reference to the way many protestants deal with the whole Church. Regardless, it was the councils of Carthage and Hippo which determined the canon... but it was the bishops of rome and later ecumenical councils which enforced it... Carthage and Hippo themselves were gatherings of a heirarchy the same as the Catholic heirarchy. Hippo and Carthage are the first determitative lists (that does not conflict with others of the same authority like some lists of the ecfs) and then the Church of Rome is the one who finally surpressed other books from the canon of the whole church.

If you live in a North African Church under the jurisdiction of Hippo or Carthage, then okay, it was not the Church of Rome which surpressed these books from your canon. Otherwise, it was.

[Mitchell_b55]

"I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563."

People often think because the Roman Catholic Church HQ is in Rome, that Catholics believe God must refer to Rome. This is not true, Rome has no significance beyond it's significance as the See of Peter, it is just a place, that has been occupied a looong time. Please respond to my thread Sola Scriptura, it is in the Debate Listing.

[cosiegirl]

And even if the Catholic Church was involved in the canon process (which I don't believe it can take full credit for), that still doesn't mean that they have infallible authority over everyone.

God gaves us his Word and he was able to preserve it through the centuries. All authority comes from God, and God alone.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082271' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:25 PM']
good diversion. I used "The Church of Rome" in reference to the way many protestants deal with the whole Church. Regardless, it was the councils of Carthage and Hippo which determined the canon... but it was the bishops of rome and later ecumenical councils which enforced it... Carthage and Hippo themselves were gatherings of a heirarchy the same as the Catholic heirarchy. Hippo and Carthage are the first determitative lists (that does not conflict with others of the same authority like some lists of the ecfs) and then the Church of Rome is the one who finally surpressed other books from the canon of the whole church.

If you live in a North African Church under the jurisdiction of Hippo or Carthage, then okay, it was not the Church of Rome which surpressed these books from your canon. Otherwise, it was.
[/quote]

And I say it was God who supressed the books. If the men were correct in putting together the canon it was by the power of God alone. And not because those men were special or infallible, but because can use anyone to do his will.

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1082273' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:27 PM']
"I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563."

People often think because the Roman Catholic Church HQ is in Rome, that Catholics believe God must refer to Rome. This is not true, Rome has no significance beyond it's significance as the See of Peter, it is just a place, that has been occupied a looong time. Please respond to my thread Sola Scriptura, it is in the Debate Listing.
[/quote]

It was your own brethern who brought up Rome, not me.

[Mitchell_b55]

Why God did I promise to be kind and charitable? I just am ignored and trodden on. Alas, if it must be so.

P.S. - "If the men were correct in putting together the canon it was by the power of God alone." Then we agree, what is the difficulty.

P.P.S. - "It was your own brethern who brought up Rome, not me." I did not, I responded to your comment, the above quote confirms we agree. Perhaps not on the Canon, but atleast in the manner that it was decided. It was decided by God. My brethren do not disagree with this assessment, they are simply trying to explain that it was through the Church that "God" preserved the Canon. You must understand a semantic issue, when a Catholic refers to the "Church" he is referring to the "Mystical Body of Christ," thus he is intends to mean that the it was "God." Even though you may be confused by the terminology, we are on the same ground.

Edited October 2, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082269' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:23 PM']
Experience and history do not determine God's plan.

No, I do not believe the real presence is supported in the scripture and I believe that considering the eucharist to be required for salvation to be counter-scriptural.
[/quote]What makes your new idea via your interpretation that the real "absence" is so 'right' after all these many, many, many years of Christian theology? I believe the Catholic "scholars" here will also point out that the Eucharist is not required for slavation but is a means of Grace, which is what is needed for salvation.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082253' date='Oct 2 2006, 06:03 PM']
My answer from Page 3:
[/quote]

As an aside and I hope this is helpful to all PMers.... some of us have it set up to show more posts per page than others... So, what is my page 3 wouldn't be the same as your page 3. If you would refere to post numbers (located in the upper right hand corner) that would be more helpful...

thanks.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1082266' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:22 PM']
What passage tells you that it was all explicitly captured? John says at the end of his letters:

[12] Deme'trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.
[13]
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
[14] I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.
[15]
Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them.

So where did he write it?

Actually a fairly answerable question and this thread has clearly demonstrated it. You say things are clear in scripture. Only when you assume that the understandings that you have in your head are the correct understandings. But are they really. My wife tells me "go to Target and get milk". A pretty simple, clear statement. She and I both know what it means. Yet within that simple statement there is a whole assumed understanding of what that sentence means, i.e. is there gas in the car, I have a drivers license, the route to the store, how I pay for it, etc. etc. .

Many assumptions. Scripture is the same. Paul for instance says " believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved". Is it that simple? Well yes it is but that statement implies much else that Luke understands when he writes Paul's words. It is not just a head bob and a sinners prayer but a life walk, starting with baptism. (I know you will disagree but your implicit does not trump mine).

Basically what I am saying is that what is left out of the scriptures many times is a proper understanding of the scriptures. A verse in Corinthians speaks of baptizing the dead. Now some religion (the Mormons actually do this) might decide they need to baptize the dead because of this passage. Traditionally speaking it is a false practice. But the scriptures do not put a judgement on the practice explicitly. Now the person whole holds a bible and reads the passage that speaks of baptizing the dead, has the scriptures, but if he baptizes the dead because of it he does not have the word of God. The word of God is made up of the scriptures and the proper understanding of them. That is why Paul says "hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by word of mouth or in writing from us". Scripture cannot teach sola scriptura with this sentence in the scriptures because if sola scriptura is the end result then this passage is a contradiction to the scriptures. i.e. Paul teaches written tradition (scriptures) + oral teachings but then you say the Bible says sola scriptura. The two are contradictory.

By the way, I saw your answer regarding metaphores above. Interestingly enough I think the Lord's Supper is symbolic, metaphoric, spiritual, and literal sacramental all at once. I don't see the fact that the bread and wine symbolize community and Christ means that the sacrament is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. That is what "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" means. It's pretty clear.

Hope that helps.
[/quote]


Sorry, I am getting people confused, so maybe you can answer this simple question.

If I was stranded on a deserted island with just a Bible, would I be able to figure out how to get to heaven or would I be doomed for hell automatically?

[Winchester]

The Church has never taught that the Bible is insufficient.

[phatcatholic]

this thread has gotten off topic. allow me to bring us back to where we belong.

in the OT there are many forshadowings of the eucharistic sacrifice. first, in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Malachi+1%3A11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mal&NavGo=1&NavCurrentChapter=1"][b]Mal 1:11[/b][/url] we see that in every place a burnt offering [or a sacrifice] will be made. in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Exodus+12%3A14§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mal&NavGo=1&NavCurrentChapter=1"][b]Exo 12:14[/b][/url] we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Jer+33%3A17-18§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ex&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12"][b]Jer 33:17-18[/b][/url] says that the house of Israel shall never want of a priest "to do sacrifice continually." the Eucharistic Sacrifice fulfills all of these prophecies.

next, although it is common knowledge that Jesus is the "paschal lamb" (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Cor+5%3A7§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=jer&NavGo=33&NavCurrentChapter=33"][b]1 Cor 5:7[/b][/url]), what is often forgotten is that the lamb [i][b]must be eaten[/b][/i]. this is seen in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Exodus+12%3A8%2C11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Exo 12:8,11[/b][/url] where the Israelites were told to eat the lamb so that the angel would pass over them. in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Exodus+29%3A33§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ex&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12"][b]Exo 29:33[/b][/url] "they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them". in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Lev+7%3A15§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ex&NavGo=29&NavCurrentChapter=29"][b]Lev 7:15[/b][/url] the flesh of the sacrifice must be eaten. in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Chron+30%3A15-17§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=le&NavGo=7&NavCurrentChapter=7"][b]2 Chron 30:15-17[/b][/url] (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Chron+35%3A1%2C6%2C11%2C13§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ch&NavGo=30&NavCurrentChapter=30"][b]2 Chron 35:1,6,11,13[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezra+6%3A20-21§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ch&NavGo=35&NavCurrentChapter=35"][b]Ezr 6:20-21[/b][/url]) the lamb is eaten so as to achieve purification. also, in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezekiel+2%3A8-10§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ezr&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]Ezek 2:8-10[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezekiel+3%3A1-3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=eze&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2"][b]3:1-3[/b][/url] Ezekiel is commanded by God to eat the scroll--the Word of God--which was in his mouth "as honey for sweetness." all of these verses forshadow Jesus Christ, the lamb and the Word of God, who must be eaten.

from here we move to the new testament.

the first thing to note about the "Eucharistic Discourse" (as it is often called) from John 6 is that it occurs on the eve of the Passover, when the lambs are slaughtered and eaten (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A4§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=eze&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3"][b]John 6:4[/b][/url]). this adds greater significance to his words and further points to him as the paschal lamb that must be eaten. after this, [i][b]he begins to gradually call the Jews to a greater act of faith[/b][/i]. first, Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes. this points to the Eucharist in many ways. Jesus will be their nourishment and they will never grow hungry. also noteworthy is the fact that the account of the miracle begins with almost the same words as those which the synoptics and st. paul use to describe the institution of the Eucharist (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+26%3A26§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]Mat 26:26[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+14%3A22§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=26&NavCurrentChapter=26"][b]Mark 14:22[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+22%3A19§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"][b]Luke 22:19[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+11%3A23-24§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]1 Cor 11:23-24[/b][/url]). this indicates that the miracle is a symbol of the Eucharist, about which our Lord will speak shortly. upon this miracle, the people begin to believe, but their beleif is imperfect b/c they see him as an earthly savior and wish to make him king (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A14-15§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]John 6:14-15[/b][/url]).

[i][b]from this act of faith, he calls for one still greater[/b][/i]. next, he compares himself to the manna which came from heaven. but, while the manna nourished for a time, if they will only believe in him, the true bread, they will be filled forever (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A32-35§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=Johh+6%3A32-35"][b]John 6:32-35[/b][/url]). this is no small claim, to compare oneself to that very bread that saved the Israelites. but this is what Jesus has done........and on top of that, asking that they believe in Him as their spiritual savior. yet again, the Jews show their lack of faith (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A36%2C41§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 6:36,41[/b][/url]). [i][b]but, Jesus is not done, for he demands the most sublime act of faith[/b][/i]. and what is this sublime act of faith, that will weed out the unbelievers and even cause some of his very disciples to depart from him? it is to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

he begins by saying that this bread from heaven which they will eat is his flesh (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A51§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 6:51[/b][/url]). the greek word used for "eat" here is [i]favgomai[/i] (or "phago"), which means "to eat or consume." in response, the Jews obviously take him literally; they "strove among themselves" ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A52§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 6:52[/b][/url]). if he was still speaking metaphorically, would this not have been the time to clarify himself? afterall, he wasn't getting the act of faith he was looking for and it seemed to be b/c of how they were understanding him. also, we know that in many similar instances, Jesus explains himself to the people, or at least to the 12 on the side (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+16%3A11-12§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]Mat 16:11-12[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+4%3A34§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=16&NavCurrentChapter=16"][b]Mark 4:34[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+3%3A3-11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=4&NavCurrentChapter=4"][b]John 3:3-11[/b][/url]) whenever he intends a meaning other than the one they understood.

[i][b]but, he does not do that here. instead, he is even more persistent.[/b][/i] starting with vs. 54, we find Jesus telling the crowd 4 more times that they must eat his flesh and 2 more times that they must drink his blood:

[b]54 [/b]he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[b]55 [/b]For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[b]56 [/b]He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[b]57 [/b]As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[b]58 [/b]This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

despite using repitition to drive the point home, he even uses a new, much harsher and more explicit word for "eat." in these instances, the greek word is [i]trwvgw[/i] (or "trogo") which means "to gnaw, crunch, or chew." while "phago" may have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. it occurs only two other times outside this discourse (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+24%3A38§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]Mat 24:38[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+13%3A18§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=24&NavCurrentChapter=24"][b]John 13:18[/b][/url]) and in both cases means a literal eating. it is undeniable what Jesus is asking of them. they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

vs. 55 from this passage is also quite significant. for one, we are to eat, not his "body" ([i]sw'ma[/i], or "soma"), which often has a metaphorical meaning in the bible, but his [i][b]flesh[/b][/i]. the greek word here is [i]savrx[/i] (or "sarx") and it is always used for literal flesh in the bible (proof [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4561&version=kjv"][b]here[/b][/url]). also, his flesh is meat [i]indeed[/i], his blood drink [i]indeed[/i]. the greek word here is [i]ajlhqw'ß[/i] (or "alethos"). it means "truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly" and Jesus uses it to dispel any doubts concerning the reality of His flesh and blood as being food and drink.

in response to this they walk away, including many of his very beloved disciples. but [i][b]even now, even when he has lost many of his followers, he does not back down[/b][/i]. he turns to the faithful remnant, who acknowledge that His is "a hard saying" ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=John+6%3A60§ion=0&version=rsv&language=en"][b]John 6:60[/b][/url]), and says to them, "Do you take offense at this?" ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A61§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 6:61[/b][/url]). "Do you also wish to go away?" ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A67§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 6:67[/b][/url]). he does not intend to retract his statement or to explain it away. instead, he explains [i]to them[/i] why they don't believe it:

[b]61 [/b]But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
[b]62 [/b]Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[b]63 [/b]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.
[b]64 [/b]But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him

it is often asserted here that, by saying that his words are spirit and life that he is meaning to clarify that he was only speaking symbolically. i find no merit in this claim. for one, nowhere in the bible is the word "spirit" meant to mean "symbol" and nowhere else is something said to be symbolic b/c it is spiritual. instead, what we find here is a comparison between the spirit and the flesh that is often used throughout the bible to mean one thing: human wisdom vs. supernatural faith. both Jesus and Paul use this terminology quite often to point out that we must go beyond the natural to comprehend the supernatural (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+3%3A6§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]John 3:6[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+14%3A38§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3"][b]Mark 14:38[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Cor+2%3A14§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"][b]1 Cor 2:14[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+3%3A3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2"][b]3:3[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Rom+8%3A5§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3"][b]Rom 8:5[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Gal+5%3A17§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ro&NavGo=8&NavCurrentChapter=8"][b]Gal 5:17[/b][/url]).

in response to all of this, we find the words of Peter in one of my favorite passages from the Bible:

[b]68 [/b]Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[b]69 [/b]and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

[i][b]here Jesus has finally received that most sublime act of faith that he requires from every one of us.[/b][/i]

hopefully, this will suffice as an introductory defense of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. sorry it was so long. believe it or not, much more could be said i await your point-by-point rebuttal.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082287' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:50 PM']
Sorry, I am getting people confused, so maybe you can answer this simple question.

If I was stranded on a deserted island with just a Bible, would I be able to figure out how to get to heaven or would I be doomed for hell automatically?
[/quote]


If you could correctly figure it out, the Eurcharist is there. Unless you blind your self, making it a "too hard of saying."