Jericho923 Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 i think we need the school of the Eucharist...and Receive Him! must go to my date with Jesus, pray for me i for you!
Archangel Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 [b]Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist[/b] John 6:4, 11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him. Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist. Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities. John 6:24 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says. John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed. John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically. John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what? John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal. John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink. John 6:60 - as are many anti-Cathlolics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque. John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words. John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. Mark 14:38 - here Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal. 5:17 - here again we see the "spirit/flesh" comparision being used to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh." John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us. John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly. Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation. John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe. John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples. John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him. Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. John 6:54 - thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd. John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him. Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding. Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation. (from Scripture Catholic)
p0lar_bear Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Bro. Adam, Aside from the information Carson provided (props on that by the way), I want to address the more specific question of John 6:63 "the flesh is of no avail." As I'm sure you know the word "flesh" is often used in the Scriptures as the opposite of "spirit." In this use, the word refers to the material or physical rather than literal flesh itself. Given the beginning of the verse "it is the spirit that gives life," I think that the word is used here in that sense. When "flesh" is used elsewhere in the chapter, the meaning is clearly the literal flesh. If He is using the word in only one sense (literal flesh), His statements become incoherent. You must eat the flesh to have life, but it is worthless.... This is totally my own thought, so I could be way off, but.... (note: my use of "literal" here is not contrasted to symbolic. It's more like saying "the world" and meaning "the actual planet Earth" rather than "the secular world")
jmjtina Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:31 PM'] I'm not attacking you, I'm telling you the truth. Rarely do I read anything when someone only copies and pastes something. I did not say there was anything wrong with it. [/quote] [quote]I may be wrong but considering the circumstances ( how long hes been here ) he told he posted the truth (which its not) it was an attack.[/quote] I think when he means "truth" he means, truthfully, he's telling you, he is not here to attack. because obviously, he searching for the truth and with your help and discussion, we can all come to a better understanding of the Eucharist and ourselves. i like the way you think polarbear! peace and God Bless!
mulls Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:27 PM'] To me, the logic Bob is using makes sense. How could he be wrong? [/quote] "Well," for one thing, "Bob Ryan" seems to "use quotes" just a bit "excessively."
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 What do you think of this polarbear? It's from Augustine's commentary on John. 5. What is it, then, that He adds? "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, whilst Thou hast said, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?" Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Thy flesh? Then what means "the flesh profiteth nothing"? It profiteth nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that "the flesh profiteth nothing," in the same manner as it is said that "knowledge puffeth up." Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means "Knowledge puffeth up"? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, "but charity edifieth." Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, "the flesh profiteth nothing," only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. For if the flesh profiled nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profiled us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profiled us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore "it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing," as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 [quote name='mulls' date='Mar 20 2004, 05:38 PM'] "Well," for one thing, "Bob Ryan" seems to "use quotes" just a bit "excessively." [/quote] haha!
p0lar_bear Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Laudate_Dominum, That works too... I actually kind of thought about that (that the flesh without the spirit is worthless), but opted for the other interpretation.... I didn't actually do any study to come up with that, I just offered my initial thoughts. I'm quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
jmjtina Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 it's Eucharist........ typo: Eucherist. :pebcam: :ph34r:
Brother Adam Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 Thank you again, You've given me plenty more to read and put me to shame with your friendship. God Bless. I'll try to come back with some input soon.
Brother Adam Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well ... are you religious or atheist?" "Religious." "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist." "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Justified Saint Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 (edited) Don't mean to "darken" the mood, but isn't it obvious how Mr. Ryan dodged the very important piece of evidence, which has already been brought up enough times here, that is that Jesus never explained what his symbols meant. Mr. Ryan claims he did at the end of John 6 but it simply isn't there, he has to read that interpretation into the text when there is clearly no evidence for that interpretation. The Holy Spirit does give live, who is arguing that? How does that make the whole passage symbolic? Is the Holy Spirit just a symbol? Those grumbling around Jesus weren't confused at his use of "symbols" and taking him too literal when they shouldn't have been, they were in [b]unbelief[/b] over what Jesus was no commanding them to do. When the Jews asked him how he could give them flesh to eat Jesus responded with more vivid language and imagery using the Greek word for "chew" and "gnaw" when referring to the eating of his flesh. Jesus even suspected that his own 12 might abandon him over this teaching. Were the 12 just now figuring out that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God? No, this is new revelation that was accepted [b]because[/b] the 12 believed just that, that Jesus was the Son therefore they had to listen to his commandments and obey him. Edited March 21, 2004 by Justified Saint
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 [quote name='Justified Saint' date='Mar 21 2004, 05:47 PM']Don't mean to "darken" the mood, but isn't it obvious how Mr. Ryan dodged the very important piece of evidence, which has already been brought up enough times here, that is that Jesus never explained what his symbols meant. Mr. Ryan claims he did at the end of John 6 but it simply isn't there, he has to read that interpretation into the text when there is clearly no evidence for that interpretation. The Holy Spirit does give live, who is arguing that? How does that make the whole passage symbolic? Is the Holy Spirit symbolic? Those grumbling around Jesus weren't confused at his use of "symbols" and taking him too literal when they shouldn't have been, they were in [b]unbelief[/b] over what Jesus was no commanding them to do. When the Jews asked him how he could give them flesh to eat Jesus responded with more vivid language and imagery using the Greek word for "chew" and "gnaw" when referring to the eating of his flesh. Jesus even suspected that his own 12 might abandon him over this teaching. Were the 12 just now figuring out that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God? No, this is new revelation that was accepted [b]because[/b] the 12 believed just that, that Jesus was the Son therefore they had to listen to his commandments and obey him.[/quote] I think I love you :wub:
goldenchild17 Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 (edited) [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Mar 20 2004, 05:19 PM'] Bro. Adam, Aside from the information Carson provided (props on that by the way), I want to address the more specific question of John 6:63 "the flesh is of no avail." As I'm sure you know the word "flesh" is often used in the Scriptures as the opposite of "spirit." In this use, the word refers to the material or physical rather than literal flesh itself. Given the beginning of the verse "it is the spirit that gives life," I think that the word is used here in that sense. When "flesh" is used elsewhere in the chapter, the meaning is clearly the literal flesh. If He is using the word in only one sense (literal flesh), His statements become incoherent. You must eat the flesh to have life, but it is worthless.... This is totally my own thought, so I could be way off, but.... (note: my use of "literal" here is not contrasted to symbolic. It's more like saying "the world" and meaning "the actual planet Earth" rather than "the secular world") [/quote] Yeah. I would also say that Christ definitely makes a distinction between "THE flesh" and "MY flesh". We all know that "THE flesh"(ours) IS to no avail. But how can any Christian honestly believe that Christ would say that His flesh was of no avail? This would mean that the crucifixion was all for naught, and our whole Christian faith is a wash! Edited March 22, 2004 by goldenchild17
Jake Huether Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2004, 06:21 PM'] I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well ... are you religious or atheist?" "Religious." "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist." "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off. [/quote] Bro. You are one awesome man of God. I think that all that needs to be said on the Eucharist has been said. I know you have already, but spend some more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Pray, and pray and pray. God will reveal himself to you, if you let Him. Take care, and my prayers are with you.
Hananiah Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Bob's use of 1 Corinthians 11 is absolutely atrocious. He seems to think that by highlighting the phrase "do this in remembrance of me" he is demonstrating that Jesus intended the Eucharist to be a symbolic reminder, whereas in fact it proves the exact opposite. Bob needs to learn what the word [i]anamnesis[/i] means.
the lumberjack Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:29 PM'] I think it is now. Your attacking not asking. I don't care if you've been 50 years. If you studied the subject and still deny it thats your thing. [/quote] so YOU personally are saying that it DOESN'T matter how long he's been around or how much he's proven himself...EVEN IF IT WAS [b]50[/b] YEARS...you'll still always question his motives? you sound a lot like christians I know.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now