Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?

[havok579257]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289782506' post='2187171']
[John 6:63] Jesus states that he was speaking in a spiritual sense about his meaning behind eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

From my understanding...it is believed that the Eucharist is the Living Flesh of Jesus and the Wine is the Actual Blood of Jesus. I am suggesting that when Jesus told us to eat his Flesh he really meant to come unto Him. I am also suggesting that, when Jesus told us to drink His blood, He was actually telling us to have Faith in Him. He wasn't trying to tell us that the Eucharist is actually His flesh and the Wine is actually His blood. He was telling us to come unto Him, and have Faith in Him.

I am sorry that I am going against Catholic teaching at this time. I am waiting to see if anyone of you will present a logical arguement that will sway me away from this way of thinking.
[/quote]


if that is what he meant, then why did he not say that exact thing?

[peach_cube]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289782506' post='2187171']
[John 6:63] Jesus states that he was speaking in a spiritual sense about his meaning behind eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

From my understanding...it is believed that the Eucharist is the Living Flesh of Jesus and the Wine is the Actual Blood of Jesus. I am suggesting that when Jesus told us to eat his Flesh he really meant to come unto Him. I am also suggesting that, when Jesus told us to drink His blood, He was actually telling us to have Faith in Him. He wasn't trying to tell us that the Eucharist is actually His flesh and the Wine is actually His blood. He was telling us to come unto Him, and have Faith in Him.

I am sorry that I am going against Catholic teaching at this time. I am waiting to see if anyone of you will present a logical arguement that will sway me away from this way of thinking.
[/quote]
Seriously read the book I linked to. It will explain why your line of thinking is incorrect.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1289751838' post='2187109']
Yes he did die for our sins
[/quote]
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.

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289782506' post='2187171']
[John 6:63] Jesus states that he was speaking in a spiritual sense about his meaning behind eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

[/quote]

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.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='RomanCatholic' timestamp='1289834877' post='2187236']
Why would Jesus tell us his Body and Blood were true food and drink if it were only a way for us to "come to him"? Furthermore, you say you want a logical argument to convince you otherwise. What can be more logical than Christ telling us to eat and drink his Body and Blood lest we have no life in us? How much clearer can He get? The point isn't that you don't agree with Church teaching, rather you are not accepting Christ's teaching. Faith is a true treasure these days, and even logic can explain the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I wonder if you also think that the experiences of those throughout the world that truly know and have seen the miracles of the Eucharist are just made up. That is how it seems by your logic. If it's only a way to come to Him, then everyone throughout the world and throughout the ages that have professed that the Eucharist is the [b][i][u]BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST[/u][/i][/b] was making it up? If you say they didn't make it up, then your argument that it's just a way to "come to him" cancels itself out.

Are you looking for proof that the Eucharist is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? If so, I can help with that and cite specific sources for you to help you understand. If you are just looking for someone to agree with your position and reaffirm what you believe, then I don't think I can be of assistance. I am just trying to help you understand the great treasure that Christ Jesus left us in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

I am looking for scriptural proof that the Eucharist is Body and the Wine is his Blood....and when I am talking about this....I am talking in a Corporeal sense.

Also, I have talked with people, who believe in Talking in the Tongues in Present day, and they have Private Revelation that talking in Tongues in for real. How come the Catholic Church presently does not accept Talking in Tongues as an effective tool for praying for peoples specific needs?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1289839471' post='2187245']
if that is what he meant, then why did he not say that exact thing?
[/quote]

Explain to me what you think Jesus meant in [John 6:63].

[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]