Eucharistic Adoration

[the lumberjack]

[quote]If it was figureative, why was it so hard to believe?[/quote]

maybe the Jews thought as Catholics do...that Jesus was speaking literally.

chew on that for a minute.

THAT is why they turned and left...they didn't get it.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:29 PM']
maybe the Jews thought as Catholics do...that Jesus was speaking literally.

chew on that for a minute.

THAT is why they turned and left...they didn't get it. [/quote]
Jesus was speaking literally.

If it was figurative why would it be hard to accept?

If the Jews thought wrong, then why didn't Jesus stop them and explain it as he did with everything else?

What did the first Christians say?

Why did the first Christians be called canibals?

God Bless,
ironmonk

[the lumberjack]

if something WRONG has always been taught, does that make it right?!?!?

the writings I have are in the Bible, plainly.

and when you speak of biblical knowledge and instruction, it does you little good to use the examples IN the Bible...because they didn't have the Bible to use...this is why they needed to be instructed...exactly like all new Christians, and those of us that are still growing...which is EVERYONE.

NO ONE knows everything about God or the Bible...this is why God placed elders in our church who are guided by the Holy Spirit....to instruct us, along with His Holy Ghost.

writings mean NOTHING if they do not fall in line with the word of God.

[the lumberjack]

I repeat:

[quote]in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14)

No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)


Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body ... this is My blood." Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.

The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine! Let's look closer at His words.

No one can deny that here we have figurative language.

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root", "the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice.

"Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19).

thank you.

God bless.[/quote]

directly out of the Bible.

no writing or tradition or catholic dogma can contradict or refute the truth so plainly stated by Christ Himself in the Bible.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:33 PM'] if something WRONG has always been taught, does that make it right?!?!?

the writings I have are in the Bible, plainly.

and when you speak of biblical knowledge and instruction, it does you little good to use the examples IN the Bible...because they didn't have the Bible to use...this is why they needed to be instructed...exactly like all new Christians, and those of us that are still growing...which is EVERYONE.

NO ONE knows everything about God or the Bible...this is why God placed elders in our church who are guided by the Holy Spirit....to instruct us, along with His Holy Ghost.

writings mean NOTHING if they do not fall in line with the word of God. [/quote]
How can something wrong always be taught when Christ said that the Church would be guided in all truth?

I would become atheist if I believed as you do because the bible contradicts itself with your logic.

Christ's Church cannot be wrong.


The ones who gave us the bible has the authority and guidence of God to teach us what it means. Just as the Jews did before Christ.

God Bless with much love in Christ,
ironmonk

Edited April 20, 2004 by ironmonk

[the lumberjack]

thanks for the input monk, I'll wait for someone else to respond.

God bless.

[jesussaves]

i have been taught and believe the catholic church is the [color=red][Edited by Good Friday: negative criticism of other religions.][/color]. i looked at this website to refute this notion and it did not give anything other than speculation.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_th..._of_babylon.asp[/url]

it is also arguably speculation that the cc is the [color=red][Edited by Good Friday: negative criticism of other religions.][/color], but i think that website with the idolatry and the idea of faith plus works is good evidence against the cc.

in the end i suppose all any of us can do is make assumptions. i think if i were God i would do things my way but that is just an assumption. and that goes for fallibly assuming the cc is infallible.

[quote]Unless you are infallible, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.
Where as the Catholic does not need to go to great lenths to show with Scirpture that it IS the Flesh of Christ.[/quote]

Edited April 20, 2004 by Good Friday

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:03 PM'] No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)


[/quote]
In this passage, Jesus is speaking of the carnal man. Notice that He says THE flesh. When He is speaking of His own Flesh in the Eucharist discourse, He uses the terms "MY Flesh" or "the Flesh OF THE SON OF MAN" In this passage He tells us that His words are "spirit and life." Name one passage in the Bible, Lumberjack, where the word "spirit" is used to mean "symbolic." It isn't...

[the lumberjack]

I'm glad you responded, but don't just respond to one part of the post... respond to the whole thing.

and yes, in THAT verse it meant things that carnal man does, things of the flesh...

God bless.

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:03 PM'] in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14) [/quote]
Our spiritual hunger is satisfied by the Eucharist. It does not imply any contradiction that Christ can feed the Spirit through physical means, like He does in the Eucharist. Your argument that we wouldn't have hunger pains is contradictory to Christ's mission on earth in general:
Christ came down to earth and took the PHYSICAL form of a MAN. To do what, to save the Jews from Roman oppresion? No.... To save SOULS.

[the lumberjack]

good work around maxk...though I don't read anywhere that eating something physically will help us spiritually...I could be wrong though...

and what about the Greek translations of what Christ said?

how do you respond to those?

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:06 PM'] Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ". [/quote]
"Touto esti" can also mean "This IS (emphasis mine -- as in it really is)." So no, the idea that Jesus was speaking figuratively isn't so obvious. And your statement regarding David calling water "blood" just can't be compared to what Jesus said at the Last Supper -- apples and oranges.

In addition, to figuratively eat someone's body or drink their blood during that period meant to slander or revile them.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Dave

[maxk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 01:06 PM'] good work around maxk...though I don't read anywhere that eating something physically will help us spiritually...I could be wrong though...

and what about the Greek translations of what Christ said?

how do you respond to those?

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ". [/quote]
To be honest with you, I don't know what the heck the translations are. Hopefully, Dave took care of that. They're all Greek to me.
But I do know that in 2 Samuel 24 (which may or may not be the one you were refering) David is refering to the men who risked their lives. He uses the phrase "drink their blood" in the true Biblical figurative sense, meaning, "to assault"
"to attack" or "to persecute." How do I know that this is the true Biblical figurative sense? Because I, lumberjack, like most faithful Catholics, read the Bible: See Psalm27:2; Micah3:3; and Revelation 17:6,16. In all of these passages, the figurative sense for "eating one's flesh" and "drinking one's blood" all refer to a nasty assault-like action. If Jesus really was speaking figuratively, then it seems that one could take it as meaning. "Whoever assaults and persecutes me will have Eternal Life." hmmm... that doesn't make very much sense to me, but nice job on the flashy knowledge of Greek words. I'm impressed :boring:

[maxk]

[quote name='jesussaves' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:45 PM'] faith plus works is good evidence against the cc. [/quote]
The Catholic Church NEVER once taught that we are saved through good works alone. For 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that we are saved through grace, and from our grace flow good works. They help, but you must repent and change your life to grow in God's grace in order to be saved. We do this through the sacraments, instituted by Christ to give grace...

By the way, I don't like seeing people refer to my Church as "the cc".

[willguy]

lumberjack,

It is obvious that the Jews thought Jesus was speaking literally. Now, if He was speaking figuratively, why didn't he correct their confusion? Why did He just repeat what He had previously said instead of correcting them?

[quote]but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") [/quote] Wow, nice lie! From Strong's concordance
[quote]esti - third person singular of "to be"[/quote]
It is the same verb as Mat 3:17 when God says "This is (esti) my beloved Son." Here's a website with the definition of esti and a list of all the places it is used in the New Testament [url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1082491444-2605.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...91444-2605.html[/url]. Sorry dude, but you're gonna have to find something else, cause that arguement is wack.