Holy Meal Vs. Holy Meal

[picchick]

Ok Deb....I love you and all but



EVERYBODY CHILL OUT!!!!!! I am being very serious. No more offensive flingsWe aren't out for blood here...just a good holy meal
No more "Lightweight" and no more judging (pretty evil in my eyes)
Ok....

Yes the pedophile priests did consecrate the bread and wine and it did turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. God cannot fault His people and deny them their spiritual food because the priest did something behind closed doors.

Really, what should have happened with those priests is that they should have been removed IMMEDIATELY but that is another topic.

I don't know where we are at with this conversation.

Dairygirl: When my faith is challenged...I take it very seriously. I am very sorry for what has happened in your past that made you leave the Church It saddens me to hear these stories. I love reading your threads though and they really do make me think

Edited April 28, 2008 by picchick

[Aloysius]

the priest can't consecrate because he is somehow holier than everyone else, he can consecrate because he was chosen as an Apostle of Jesus Christ like the original 12 (the rest of the believers are disciples not apostles)... and just like 1/12 of the original Apostles was a bad apple, so too might there be bad apples amongst the priests of today... but it is not through their own power that a priest consecrates but through Christ's power: the power he gave to the 12 Apostles and their successors (the bishops and by extension, the priests) so that they could take care of His disciples (ie us)

he didn't give his disciples that power; the Last Supper only speaks of the 12 Apostles being in attendance, those are the only ones He told to say "This is my body" and "This is the chalice of my blood" over bread and wine. only men who have a direct line from those whom the Apostles named as their successors to the present day are called by Jesus Christ to perform that act... and only Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests can claim that they have that direct line.

[dairygirl4u2c]

JIMSH does like to sit in his ivory tower.... he acts as if everything he says is true, and will accept, in theory, if you force him, that something he says might not be true.


he is the one who diverted teh thread with the saint stuff. now that ti's off course but the distraction winding down... he should be getting back to topic, but he's not.

and then he gets upset when people act the same way he does. including what i just said, but mostly the idea of avoiding debate and casting out "evil" this and evil that etc.

just an observation.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

one thing that strikes me when reading the John 6 discourse.

is that the followers responded to "the bread i will give is my flesh for the life of the world". with"how can this man give us his flesh to eat?".
and up to that poit, he hadn't said anything about flesh. he'd only been talking about bread and metaphors. and only in repsonse to that did Jesus say his eat my flesh discourse.

at the point htey asked if he was giving flesh to eat... it could have been talking about atonement... flesh on the cross etc. and jesus was simly running with the idea.

and to throw another possible wrench into that, he said "the words i have spoken are spirit and life" after all that. which would also indicate figurative.

the disciples did leave though. and didn't come back.
but recently i realized many didn't know what he meant when he said that he'd build the tmeple up in hree days, referring to himself. and he didn't correct them, and in fact, people were talking about that at the crucifixtion too in the bible. this might not be super analogous but it's something to consider.

but one other point... which i never really looked up or looked into... is the idea that he changed verb tenses from ordiary "eat" to "gnaw" which catholics say was enforcing a hard idea. a word which means "unless you mutiliate my body, you hve no life in you". though, i think that could be applied to atonement... and how his death was a necessity. and, i have not looked into how htey get that the change in verbs indicates necessarily a more froceful saying... it might be an exaggeration until actual orginaial language looked at.

[picchick]

A priest once said that many times Jesus had to explain his parables when asked to clarify. This is one of the only cases where Jesus does not use symbolism because when He said

Now I have the Douay-Rheims version so bear with me:

[quote]Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said to them: Amen amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I him him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eatheth me, the same also shall live by me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that easteth this bread, shall live for ever.

These things he said, teaching in the synagugue, in Capharnaum.

Maybe therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it?

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.[/quote]

Ok, excuse the typos. There are so many important things here.

Jesus does mention flesh before the Jews do: [quote]the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.[/quote]

Then the Jews question this. Jesus explains further repeating himself many times. He says: [quote]For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.[/quote] That is pretty explicit. I don't know how you can argue symbolism there.

Then the disciples reject this teaching and begin to leave. What does Jesus do? He doesn't say, "Wait, wait wait! You mistook me! I really didn't mean EAT my body! I mean it in a metaphorical way!"

No, he says: Is this to hard for you to get? Why does this offend you? My words are spirit and life. By spirit and life, I don't think He means that His words are symbols but rather that these words will help in you spirit and life.

Meg

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512430' date='Apr 28 2008, 10:15 AM']one thing that strikes me when reading the John 6 discourse.

is that the followers responded to "the bread i will give is my flesh for the life of the world". with"how can this man give us his flesh to eat?".
and up to that poit, he hadn't said anything about flesh. he'd only been talking about bread and metaphors. and only in repsonse to that did Jesus say his eat my flesh discourse.

at the point htey asked if he was giving flesh to eat... it could have been talking about atonement... flesh on the cross etc. and jesus was simly running with the idea.

and to throw another possible wrench into that, he said "the words i have spoken are spirit and life" after all that. which would also indicate figurative.

the disciples did leave though. and didn't come back.
but recently i realized many didn't know what he meant when he said that he'd build the tmeple up in hree days, referring to himself. and he didn't correct them, and in fact, people were talking about that at the crucifixtion too in the bible. this might not be super analogous but it's something to consider.

but one other point... which i never really looked up or looked into... is the idea that he changed verb tenses from ordiary "eat" to "gnaw" which catholics say was enforcing a hard idea. a word which means "unless you mutiliate my body, you hve no life in you". though, i think that could be applied to atonement... and how his death was a necessity. and, i have not looked into how htey get that the change in verbs indicates necessarily a more froceful saying... it might be an exaggeration until actual orginaial language looked at.[/quote]

In John's gospel he is very clear as to when Jesus is using a parable or discussing something that others just don't understand. The verb used then in classical Greek for eats, would have meant munch or gnaw and refers literally to eating his flesh. John's chapter on eating the flesh and drinking the blood is very literal and it is emphasized. Jesus repeats himself many times to make it clear. I think his statement that the words he has spoken are spirit and life are literal too. They will not understand that his words of eating his flesh are literally giving one everlasting life when they eat it until they have received the spirit. No one can get to Jesus unless through the spirit as no one can get to God except through Jesus.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='picchick' post='1512443' date='Apr 28 2008, 09:35 AM']A priest once said that many times Jesus had to explain his parables when asked to clarify. This is one of the only cases where Jesus does not use symbolism because when He said

Now I have the Douay-Rheims version so bear with me:
Ok, excuse the typos. There are so many important things here.

Jesus does mention flesh before the Jews do:

Then the Jews question this. Jesus explains further repeating himself many times. He says: That is pretty explicit. I don't know how you can argue symbolism there.

Then the disciples reject this teaching and begin to leave. What does Jesus do? He doesn't say, "Wait, wait wait! You mistook me! I really didn't mean EAT my body! I mean it in a metaphorical way!"

No, he says: Is this to hard for you to get? Why does this offend you? My words are spirit and life. By spirit and life, I don't think He means that His words are symbols but rather that these words will help in you spirit and life.

Meg[/quote]

hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) to nick pick scripture with you Meg, but did you read the last paragraphy closely?

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [b]It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.[/b] The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

It is the spirit that saves us, not the flesh. The words he speaks are spiritual, and not flesh. . .

As a side note, Jesus says he was ascending to where we was before, proving that Christ is indeed God, and therefore we have someone saying he was god in a round about way.

Edited April 28, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[dairygirl4u2c]

how do you account for the fact they left JIMSH apparently/arguably wrongfully guided and Jesus let them under false pretenses? i have a few ideas but want to hear yours.

how do you respond to the verb tense changes?

how do you respond to the idea that the early church was so forceful in the literal understanding?
i checked once, and tehre's strong langauge in all the known area that time.... asia minor, europe/italy, northern africa... all in the earliest church.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1512459' date='Apr 28 2008, 10:48 AM']hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate), appreciate) to nick pick scripture with you Meg, but did you read the last paragraphy closely?

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [b]It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.[/b] The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

It is the spirit that saves us, not the flesh. The words he speaks are spiritual, and not flesh. . .

As a side note, Jesus says he was ascending to where we was before, proving that Christ is indeed God, and therefore we have someone saying he was god in a round about way.[/quote]

No please get nick picky...it is the only way I learn.

Could it not mean that Jesus flesh that we eat is not for our flesh but for our spirits? Our flesh profiteth nothing but our spirits quickeneth.

I don't understand what you mean when you say: As a side note, Jesus says he was ascending to where we was before, proving that Christ is indeed God, and therefore we have someone saying he was god in a round about way.

[CatherineM]

I think the part I like best about Jesus' discourse on the Body in John is that he just hammers it over and over again, and then basically stands back and says take it or leave it. I think the church still operates with that same authority. This is who we are, this is what we believe, take it or leave it.

[picchick]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512461' date='Apr 28 2008, 10:51 AM']how do you account for the fact they left JIMSH apparently/arguably wrongfully guided and Jesus let them under false pretenses? i have a few ideas but want to hear yours.

how do you respond to the verb tense changes?

how do you respond to the idea that the early church was so forceful in the literal understanding?
i checked once, and tehre's strong langauge in all the known area that time.... asia minor, europe/italy, northern africa... all in the earliest church.[/quote]


I'm sorry...could you explain this a bit. Do you mean "they" as in the popes?

What do you mean bey verb tense changes? In the bible or in my posts? I'll have to take a while for the last one...I have to run an errand.

Geez you guy really make this fun!

Meg

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was speaking to JIMSH. i am concedeing the strength of the catholic argument for the sake of argument... and want his response to those stronger points.

the verb tense change is only in the original language, not in the english translations.

fyi, i think his point about Jesus and God is just an incidental tirade on his part.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

Oh...sorry. I thought it was to me.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, JIMSH, if you don't know how to respond, just say so. it's okay, the world will not end. probably the biggest problem with debates and US politics etc is that people won't say that. it sends all the wrongs messages when not willing to do that.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1512459' date='Apr 28 2008, 03:48 PM']But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [b]It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.[/b] The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

It is the spirit that saves us, not the flesh. The words he speaks are spiritual, and not flesh. . .[/quote]
Why must "spirit" mean that the passage is not literal? Not attacking, it's an honest question, since I see no problem with this being spiritual food and yet also literally the Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1512481' date='Apr 28 2008, 04:08 PM']I think the part I like best about Jesus' discourse on the Body in John is that he just hammers it over and over again, and then basically stands back and says take it or leave it. I think the church still operates with that same authority. This is who we are, this is what we believe, take it or leave it.[/quote]
I don't see how it can be taken any way except literally. Earlier in the discourse he makes other "Amen" statements, things the crowd didn't dispute as being true, and then makes the other "Amen" statement saying that we must eat His flesh & drink His blood to have life within us.