Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?

[Socrates]

[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]
If Jesus was only speaking metaphorically, and not literally, why didn't He clarify and explain this to His followers that were leaving Him, rather than lose disciples?

He didn't do this, but said to His Apostles, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

That Christ's words are Spirit and Life does not contradict His Real Presence in the Eucharist. And spiritual does not mean metaphorical.
After the Jews strove among themselves over Christ's words, Christ said, "[b]For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[/b]" (6:55). He didn't explain that this was only a metaphor or a parable. Jesus spoke in parables many times, but this was clearly not one of them.


And it's more than a little arrogant to think that Christ's Church, the successors to the 12 Apostles, have been wrong about this teaching all those centuries, but you yourself personally have better insight into what Jesus Christ really meant.

It is clear that Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist was recognized from the beginning of the Church.

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.

[RomanCatholic]

PERFECTLY stated Socrates!

I don't see how it doesn't make sense or isn't "logical" when we, unlike our Jewish brothers, have the deposit of faith, namely the sayings of Christ in Sacred Scripture along with Tradition. Going along with the original posters comments about the Eucharist, you are right in saying that if the Eucharist is not truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ; then our whole Faith is wrong, because everything we believe stems from Jesus and the Apostles and we have this Faith today.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289885600' post='2187385']
What is that 'supernatural body of immortaltiy' then? How can you coalesce this 'supernatural body' to the Eucharist?
[/quote]

When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...




[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289874672' post='2187349']
"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]

29 Presumably this is referring to the resurrection of the faithful. 'Drinks it [b]anew[/b] with us.' (communion) Our [b]new[/b] resurrected body by his own resurrected body and blood.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1289921571' post='2187414']
Something being spiritual doesn't make it any less literal.

God bless
[/quote]
I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289888480' post='2187393']
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.
[/quote]

God is omnipresent in that he sees and knows all, but as Jesus he is with us in many ways some are figurative, some are spiritual. The last supper has to be more than figurative or spiritual otherwise there would be no real point in what he said at the last supper. He had already taught about his spiritual presence.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1289950051' post='2187480']

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.
[/quote]
Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...






29 Presumably this is referring to the resurrection of the faithful. 'Drinks it [b]anew[/b] with us.' (communion) Our [b]new[/b] resurrected body by his own resurrected body and blood.


I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.



God is omnipresent in that he sees and knows all, but as Jesus he is with us in many ways some are figurative, some are spiritual. The last supper has to be more than figurative or spiritual otherwise there would be no real point in what he said at the last supper. He had already taught about his spiritual presence.



Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?
[/quote]

I totally agree with you that the spiritual world is the greater reality.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1289950051' post='2187480']
If Jesus was only speaking metaphorically, and not literally, why didn't He clarify and explain this to His followers that were leaving Him, rather than lose disciples?

He didn't do this, but said to His Apostles, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

That Christ's words are Spirit and Life does not contradict His Real Presence in the Eucharist. And spiritual does not mean metaphorical.
After the Jews strove among themselves over Christ's words, Christ said, "[b]For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[/b]" (6:55). He didn't explain that this was only a metaphor or a parable. Jesus spoke in parables many times, but this was clearly not one of them.


And it's more than a little arrogant to think that Christ's Church, the successors to the 12 Apostles, have been wrong about this teaching all those centuries, but you yourself personally have better insight into what Jesus Christ really meant.

It is clear that Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist was recognized from the beginning of the Church.

Saint Paul writes: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,[b] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b]"

This doesn't make sense if the Eucharist is only a mere symbol.
[/quote]


Is it possible to speak metaphorically and literally at the same time? If so then please give me an example.

I think he clarified in John 6:63.

How do we know Paul wasnt speaking metaphorically?

Edited November 17, 2010 by infinitelord1

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
When Jesus was scourged he was in pain, when he carried his cross he fell when fatigue overtook him, when a spear was thrust into his side he bled, then he died. Yet after he was risen he entered the room though the door was locked. He let Thomas feel his wounds but apparently was not in pain. His wounds no longer hindered him or made him fall dead. When you're resurrected which body will you have, the one when you were 3 or maybe 12 or maybe it's your adult prime body, or your mature age and wise body. Some people have severe defects from birth to death. If this body is the one I'm going to have for eternity, then I don't want it, it has too many defects and causes me too much pain. If God is going to make me indestructible and free from defects then it can't be the same body! .... The Eucharist is at least the reality of the supernatural body being nourished by the communion with Christ...
[/quote]

Just for curiosity, since you said [i]‘[post='2187490']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.
[/post][/i]
-----------------

In short, you are saying that your 3 year-old body is not the same ‘material’ of whatever you have now. And much more to say, your ‘resurrected’ body will never be the same ‘bodily-material’ as you have now. Do I get it correctly?

So how about the body of Jesus Christ when he was still a 3 year old baby? Do you think he has the same bodily-material when he becomes 33 years old? Or do you think he has the same 'bodily material' before and after his death?

Now if you answer is…..

Answer 1. ‘He has the same body before and after his resurrection and since the beginning of his childhood’.

Question 1:

Do ‘resurrected body’ really feel pain and fatique?

Answer 2. If he does not have the same body (meaning His resurrected body is different from his mortal body).

Question 2:

What bodily material of Jesus Christ you are now calling as ‘the Eucharist’? Is it his body before he died or after his resurrection? Or it is his dead body?

What do you think?

Edited November 17, 2010 by reyb

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289969853' post='2187530']
Just for curiosity, since you said [i]‘[post='2187490']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.
[/post][/i]
-----------------

In short, you are saying that your 3 year-old body is not the same ‘material’ of whatever you have now. And much more to say, your ‘resurrected’ body will never be the same ‘bodily-material’ as you have now. Do I get it correctly?

So how about the body of Jesus Christ when he was still a 3 year old baby? Do you think he has the same bodily-material when he becomes 33 years old? Or do you think he has the same 'bodily material' before and after his death?

Now if you answer is…..

Answer 1. ‘He has the same body before and after his resurrection and since the beginning of his childhood’.

Question 1:

Do ‘resurrected body’ really feel pain and fatique?

Answer 2. If he does not have the same body (meaning His resurrected body is different from his mortal body).

Question 2:

What bodily material of Jesus Christ you are now calling as ‘the Eucharist’? Is it his body before he died or after his resurrection? Or it is his dead body?

What do you think?
[/quote]

Well I think hes gonna take the Transubstantiation route.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
I believe that the spiritual world is the greater reality. The physical reality is a subset of the spiritual. The physical world is terminal whereas the spiritual is permanent.
[/quote]
That kinda reminds me of CS Lewis' [i]The Last Battle[/i], where it's explained that the things on earth are the shadow, and the reality is in Heaven.

Anyway, if John 6:63 is supposed to be a clarification that He wasn't speaking literally (though I still don't see that as linguistically the case), shouldn't He have said that part earlier, when the Jews first understood Him to be speaking literally? But He doesn't do that. He instead repeats it, slightly more forcefully, if I remember correctly, and then they walk away and then He turns to the Apostles and asks if they're leaving, too. That's when he says that verse. If He didn't mean to be taken literally, though, He should have clarified when the people first misunderstood, because otherwise He's allowing them to walk away based on a misunderstanding. That doesn't strike me as something God would do. Letting them walk away if they've understood correctly, OK, we have free will after all, but passing up the chance to correct them and letting them believe something that isn't true? I don't think so. I also don't think it fits well with John 3, where He's speaking of being born again. Nicodemus misunderstands Him, and Jesus immediately clarifies instead of just repeating what He'd said before. I'd think He'd do the same if they misunderstood Him in John 6, especially since it's a matter of great importance, a matter of eternal importance.

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']
Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?
[/quote]

If that is the case, this Eucharist ‘transubstantiates’ and becomes a true body of Christ because of your ‘faith’ and not because it is the true body of Christ in its real sense.

As I have said before, ‘faith has no power against the truth’. While it is true that sometimes thru the eyes of faith, a lie can be seen as truth but still, a lie will remain a lie. And no matter how strong your faith is, such faith will never change a lie to become truth because, truth is the power of God and not your faith. While on the other hand, truth will remain truth whether you are a believer or not because, nothing can go against the truth since Truth is God.

I hope you can hear me now, brothers.

Edited November 17, 2010 by reyb

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1290010279' post='2187631']
If that is the case, this Eucharist ‘transubstantiates’ and becomes a true body of Christ because of your ‘faith’ and not because it is the true body of Christ in its real sense.

As I have said before, ‘faith has no power against the truth’. While it is true that sometimes thru the eyes of faith, a lie can be seen as truth but still, a lie will remain a lie. And no matter how strong your faith is, such faith will never change a lie to become truth because, truth is the power of God and not your faith. While on the other hand, truth will remain truth whether you are a believer or not because, nothing can go against the truth since Truth is God.

I hope you can hear me now, brothers.
[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying. It has nothing to do with our Faith. There is nothing we can do. I also think that God was always present, in our hearts, for us to see him...this is revealed when we believe and love Jesus Christ. Its then when we experience his Grace. And what does it say in Ephesians 2? We are saved by Grace. So the reality is that when we are experiencing his Grace...we are in a state of Salvation. The problem is....there are things (evils) that distract us from this reality. So we must constantly strive for this Grace by focusing on Jesus Christ (Faith).

Edited November 17, 2010 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1289993523' post='2187605']
That kinda reminds me of CS Lewis' [i]The Last Battle[/i], where it's explained that the things on earth are the shadow, and the reality is in Heaven.

Anyway, if John 6:63 is supposed to be a clarification that He wasn't speaking literally (though I still don't see that as linguistically the case), shouldn't He have said that part earlier, when the Jews first understood Him to be speaking literally? But He doesn't do that. He instead repeats it, slightly more forcefully, if I remember correctly, and then they walk away and then He turns to the Apostles and asks if they're leaving, too. That's when he says that verse. If He didn't mean to be taken literally, though, He should have clarified when the people first misunderstood, because otherwise He's allowing them to walk away based on a misunderstanding. That doesn't strike me as something God would do. Letting them walk away if they've understood correctly, OK, we have free will after all, but passing up the chance to correct them and letting them believe something that isn't true? I don't think so. I also don't think it fits well with John 3, where He's speaking of being born again. Nicodemus misunderstands Him, and Jesus immediately clarifies instead of just repeating what He'd said before. I'd think He'd do the same if they misunderstood Him in John 6, especially since it's a matter of great importance, a matter of eternal importance.
[/quote]

I think that even if he clarified what he had meant then they still would not have believed Him. Jesus had to be very careful about what he said because if he came out and said that He was God then the non believers would have killed him right then and there. In the gospels He even tells this to some of the non-believers...he basically says, "You want to kill me don't you". But theres really no telling for sure. Even some of his Apostles doubted him in many ways. Heck, one of his apostles was a devil (Judas). I think the only reason why he clarified with his Apostles is because some of them were believing him at that present time.

Edited November 17, 2010 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

I just noticed that someone put the warning sign under my profile picture.

I think that the Church is Jesus Christ, and those who Believe and Love Him. Those who Believe and Love Him are parts of the Body of Christ [1Corinthians 12:27]. And Jesus works through his body parts [1Corinthians 12:4-6].

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1290013633' post='2187637']
I think that even if he clarified what he had meant then they still would not have believed Him. Jesus had to be very careful about what he said because if he came out and said that He was God then the non believers would have killed him right then and there. In the gospels He even tells this to some of the non-believers...he basically says, "You want to kill me don't you". But theres really no telling for sure. Even some of his Apostles doubted him in many ways. Heck, one of his apostles was a devil (Judas). I think the only reason why he clarified with his Apostles is because some of them were believing him at that present time.
[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure some would walk away anyway, but it's one thing to allow them to walk away after clarifying, and another to have them walk away with a faulty understanding when there was clearly the opportunity to clarify before then if He'd meant it to be not literal.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1289969853' post='2187530']
Just for curiosity, since you said [i]'[post='2187490']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.
[/post][/i]
-----------------

In short, you are saying that your 3 year-old body is not the same 'material' of whatever you have now. And much more to say, your 'resurrected' body will never be the same 'bodily-material' as you have now. Do I get it correctly?
[color="#ff0000"]Yes[/color]

So how about the body of Jesus Christ when he was still a 3 year old baby? Do you think he has the same bodily-material when he becomes 33 years old? Or do you think he has the same 'bodily material' before and after his death?
[color="#ff0000"]No[/color]
Now if you answer is…..

Answer 1. 'He has the same body before and after his resurrection and since the beginning of his childhood'.
[color="#ff0000"]No[/color]
Question 1:

Do 'resurrected body' really feel pain and fatique?
[color="#ff0000"]No[/color], [color="#ff0000"]it's invincible[/color]

Answer 2. If he does not have the same body (meaning His resurrected body is different from his mortal body).
[color="#ff0000"]Yes, it's very different it didn't come from the dust it came from God himself[/color]
Question 2:

What bodily material of Jesus Christ you are now calling as 'the Eucharist'? Is it his body before he died or after his resurrection? Or it is his dead body?
[color="#ff0000"]His resurrected body[/color]! [color="#ff0000"]His physical body like ours only served the purpose of his earthly mission. God as a man to show us how to live as wo/men and to demonstrate his love for us for our redemption.[/color]
What do you think?
[/quote]
Jesus was a hypostatic union. Both Human and Divine. What happened to his fingernails, hair and shed skin throughout his life? 'As a human from the dust he came and to the dust he should logically return.' Now about what became of his crucified and final physical body. Good question! Integrated into his supernatural resurrected body, maybe? But then he was able to pass through a locked door, so it would have had to have been altered significantly and therefore could not be considered the same. An enigma! Probably not important what happened, only that he showed us the way to immortality.

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1289974264' post='2187580']
Well I think hes gonna take the Transubstantiation route.
[/quote]

Some confusion arises by what transubstantiation means. We have said that physically (the accidents) the bread and wine is unchanged. So substantial change must be referring to something else. A hat is not very substantial as far as material objects are concerned but if your life depends on it to keep you alive in the desert then you will be careful not to lose or damage it. It will become very substantial to you. Bread and wine is not much it may be important if it stops you from dying from starvation, but when it becomes the resurrected body and blood which will bring you to an eternal life of happiness then it becomes very substantial. That's why consubstantiation is a silly argument and I dismissed it very early on. How can bread be substantially compared to God?

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1289993523' post='2187605']
That kinda reminds me of CS Lewis' [i]The Last Battle[/i], where it's explained that the things on earth are the shadow, and the reality is in Heaven.

Anyway, if John 6:63 is supposed to be a clarification that He wasn't speaking literally (though I still don't see that as linguistically the case), shouldn't He have said that part earlier, when the Jews first understood Him to be speaking literally? But He doesn't do that. He instead repeats it, slightly more forcefully, if I remember correctly, and then they walk away and then He turns to the Apostles and asks if they're leaving, too. That's when he says that verse. If He didn't mean to be taken literally, though, He should have clarified when the people first misunderstood, because otherwise He's allowing them to walk away based on a misunderstanding. That doesn't strike me as something God would do. Letting them walk away if they've understood correctly, OK, we have free will after all, but passing up the chance to correct them and letting them believe something that isn't true? I don't think so. I also don't think it fits well with John 3, where He's speaking of being born again. Nicodemus misunderstands Him, and Jesus immediately clarifies instead of just repeating what He'd said before. I'd think He'd do the same if they misunderstood Him in John 6, especially since it's a matter of great importance, a matter of eternal importance.
[/quote]
I agree! That's why there has to be something more significant than Spirit alone. I have sensed the Spiritual presence of Jesus at other times during the Mass but the Eucharist is substantially more. (excuse the pun)

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1290010279' post='2187631']
If that is the case, this Eucharist 'transubstantiates' and becomes a true body of Christ because of your 'faith' and not because it is the true body of Christ in its real sense.

As I have said before, 'faith has no power against the truth'. While it is true that sometimes thru the eyes of faith, a lie can be seen as truth but still, a lie will remain a lie. And no matter how strong your faith is, such faith will never change a lie to become truth because, truth is the power of God and not your faith. While on the other hand, truth will remain truth whether you are a believer or not because, nothing can go against the truth since Truth is God.

I hope you can hear me now, brothers.
[/quote]

Faith is the most powerful force in the Universe! Many times Jesus made the statement "Because of your faith you are healed." Faith is what overcomes our blindness to God. Without faith we are nothing and will be lost. Never underestimate the power of faith. 'If your faith is strong enough you can command the mountain to move from here to there and it will obey.'

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1290022034' post='2187661']
I just noticed that someone put the warning sign under my profile picture.

[/quote]

Hopefully not because of questioning the Eucharist. Most Catholics in my Parish would not be able to give a proper Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist.Never the less know that you are loved!

Edited November 17, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289954050' post='2187490']

Does this mean that if a person partakes in a Eucharist only for tradition or to mock mean that the bread and wine cease to be Jesus? I personally think that the recipient has to be true or it ceases to be Jesus, but some Catholics believe that even if satanists take the host from the Church to perform evil acts it still remains the body of Jesus. Do you know if the Church has a view on this?
[/quote]
Bump. By the power invested in the priest the bread and wine is consecrated. Through our [b]faith[/b] we unite in communion with Christ. If someone does not have faith will the Eucharist still be valid, if so in what way? What will it do for the blind sinner? Does anyone know the Church' view?