Forbidden to drink blood

Uh, Bob, worshiping Christ is in fact idolatry once you admit you are not Christian.

Your move...

 

What ex cathedra statements, and by what popes?

Have you bothered to do any research on popes and how many infallible statements ANY pope has made during the last 2000 years?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes - the number is -- zero.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about....bear in mind you will give an accounting for what you do in this life.


LaRae

 

Bob

On my way to see the passion so this will be short, your understanding is of John 6 is incredible. From Jesus' words everyone there knew he was speaking literally those who left could not accept the teaching "my flesh is real food and my blood real drink" so they left. The only time he lost disciples was over the reality of his body and blood.

Your under of John 6:63 (It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.)is also tortured for you interpretation to make sense you have to take it to mean that Christ's flesh is of no avail. Maybe you should go see the "Passion".


God Bless

 

John 6:
61“Does this cause you to stumble?
62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

In John 6 it is ONLY the faithLESS disciples that are stuck in "literal flesh eating mode".

In Matt 16 Christ condemns the disciples for being "too literal" for thinking that BREAD is in fact "literal bread" when in fact the bread that came down from heaven "is the WORD" John 1 and Deut 8 make that point loud and clear.

Christ emphasizes that same point in John 6 - after talking about the Flesh giving eternal life in John 6 speaking in symbols - at the end He speaks plainly saying -- it is the WORD that gives life and that in fact "the Flesh is Worthless". It could not be any easier - He spelled it all out for us - and only the faithLESS disciples of John 6 failed to "get the message".

The FaithFUL disciples of John 6 "took no bite out of Christ".

Notice Christ did not say "SOME day in the FUTURE my flesh WILL BECOME FOOD" because in fact the BREAD of heaven had ALREADY come down and the Word of Christ was ALREADY life and it ALREADY had to be spiritually eaten. Christ argues that it is PRESENT fact - and not a soul among the faithFULL bit Him.

How obvious - and devastating - for the RC spin on this.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I must have missed them talking about the Eucharist in Matt. 16, Bob.

But keep up the work. Your showing how scriptural Catholicism is.

 

Bob

Am I understanding you correctly do you believe Christ's flesh is worthless? Yes or No.

 

I believe Jesus Christ. Tell me yes or no - do you "believe Jesus Christ" when He said tothose faithLESS disciples stumbling over their false literal interpretation "The Flesh profits NOTHING"?

YEs or No BAC?

In Christ,

Bob

 

This Christ said of His flesh – His literal flesh-- IN the context of the literal meaning taken by the faithLESS disciples that left him.

In John 6 it is ONLY the faithLESS disciples that are stuck in "literal flesh eating mode". It is “they” that stumble by taking a false literal interpretation to the Bread that came down out of heaven – just as in Matt 16 the disciples are chastised for not seeing bread as a symbol for “teaching”.

In Matt 16 Christ condemns the disciples for being "too literal" for thinking that BREAD is in fact "literal bread" when in fact the bread that came down from heaven "is the WORD" John 1 and Deut 8 make that point loud and clear.

Christ emphasizes that same point in John 6 - after talking about the Flesh giving eternal life in John 6 speaking in symbols - at the end He speaks plainly saying -- it is the WORD that gives life and that in fact "the Flesh is Worthless". It could not be any easier - He spelled it all out for us - and only the faithLESS disciples of John 6 failed to "get the message".

The FaithFUL disciples of John 6 "took no bite out of Christ".

Notice Christ did not say "SOME day in the FUTURE my flesh WILL BECOME FOOD" because in fact the BREAD of heaven had ALREADY come down and the Word of Christ was ALREADY life and it ALREADY had to be spiritually eaten. Christ argues that it is PRESENT fact - and not a soul among the faithFULL bit Him.

How obvious - and devastating - for the RC spin on this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Peter’s Confession of Faith
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Yes - taking Him literally here means believing His Word Then and There.

But taking the earlier symbols of eating flesh "literally Then and There" meant walking up Then and THERE - and taking a BITE out of Him "then and there" or else not having true LIFE - NOW.

This is the TENSE used by Christ. And it is TRUE using HIS own statments regarding the TRUE use of His WORD - it was TRUE THEN and There that they must DIGEST His WORD THEN and that if they did not - then RIGHT then - they did NOT have eternal life.

But of course - that requires paying attention to the details of God' Word - exegeting the text - and ignoring the mythologies of man-made traditions baked for the confused masses of the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another "fine example of our RC bretheren paying attention to Details".

Christ chastises the disciples for not understanding that the "symbol" of bread – is “teaching” and “Word” even as the “Bread of Heaven” illustration Christ uses in John 6.

Spend time in the Word of God my RC brethren. Turn from the myths of the dark ages - and embrace the truth of God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

You refuse to answer a simple question

Do you believe Christ's flesh is worthless? Yes or No.

Then you ask me a simple question

I will do you the courtesy of answering your question.

Yes absolutely i believe jesus when he says the "flesh is of no avail". Your understanding of "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail" needs work though, what Jesus said in John 6:63 in no way contradicts what He just said in John6:53-56...

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

In John 6:63" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail". Jesus is distinguishing between a carnal/fleshy/human understanding and a spiritual understanding. According to your interpretation spiritual=unreal this is a completely false premise for as Jesus says "my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

Now please answer my question

Do you believe Christ's flesh is worthless? Yes or No.

 

There is no reason Matthew 16 cannot be understood in a symbolic sense- Christ explains it in a symbolic sense. But Christ is also refering to the teachings of the corrupt leaders in Matthew 16.

In John 6, he never mentions anything about teachings or symbols, but explains over and over again that the disciples must eat his flesh. Some of the disciples leave in disgust. If Christ was teaching symbolically, he would be morally obligated to teach those disciples that he was speaking in symbolic terms. Instead he told them over and over again they must eat (Greek: to chew) his flesh. Indeed, it was a difficult teaching, because it was a literal teaching, and he didn't seem to get flustered when some of the disciples took it that way and left him.

Of course he was speaking in terms of "You eat my toe, and you can have a finger", he was speaking of the Eucharist, which he futher explains in the Last Supper. Where in the Greek used for "remembrance" does not mean "recall to mind" rather, is used in sacraficial terms seen only in one other place: Hebrews 10:3, in which it is an act of a carrying out a sacrafice.


I look forward to your debunk. Actually, I would really like to see someone, anyone, debunk it. Frankly, I don't really want to believe in Real Presence, but the more I read the Bible, the more it seems biblical.

 

The above Should read "Of course he wasn't speaking in terms of"

Not was !

 

Hi Brother Adam. Before I take a break from the board I'd like to ask why you don't want to believe this. I appreciate your honesty in admitting it, and would like to hear your reasons that you feel this way.

I'll be reading the board but not replying from this point on (but I always reply to emails).

May God bless your efforts and your search for His Truth.

 

And? How does a sacrifice necessitate it being the actual body and blood in the Eucharist? There are steps missing.

I don't want to sound cruel, but at times reading your posts I honestly want to call "troll" and be done with it. I am serious.

There is nothing "biblical" about the eucharist. Most catholics (the honest ones) will say that. There simply is no proof in the scriptures for it. Rather it is an interpretation of the passage.

What catholics will say is that their history shows their interpretation to be correct, but that is not biblical proof.

If you are simply looking at that one passage in the bible, there are two valid interpretations. Taking the bible as a whole means leaning more towards the symbolic (in my opinion).

jason

 

Awww, shucks, you can call me a troll. You can call me the Anti-Christ. You can call me anything you want! Just remember its you that has to answer the Lord for your actions. So I probably wouldn't suggest it. A troll never makes it through nearly 4500 posts on this board. Ask Clint or the webmaster.

But hey Jason! You're totally right! All you have is your opinion.

 

Thank you Adam. Thank you for proving my point. But then again, you would probably just think your point was some poignant baroque philosophical gem. In reality, I have never read anything even remotely insightful from you. Will I now have to answer to God for telling you the truth?

 

I believe that "it is not what you EAT that saves you".

I believe Christ when HE said in the context of HIS own discussion on FLESH "literal FLESH profits Nothing" - so "YES - I believe Him".

"Yes" Absolutely!

Indeed "YES" and "Amen" to His statement "Flesh profits Nothing" - the FLESH of Christ -- fully chewed and then swallowed (no matter how you season it) DOES NOT result in the new Birth! Christ stated "the obvious" for the faithFULL disciples - and condemned the shallow understanding of the FaithLESS disciples.

Tell me you already knew that was what I believed.

Just say "yes" or "no".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Whoa! What a minute - we can't "agree here" - or you will have to stop being Catholic!

How will you HOLD to a firm exegetically sound position if you AGREE with Christ that "Eating FLESH does not save you"??

How will the RC traditions hold up if you reject that idea that " it is what you eat that saves you - not what you believe"?

"Obviously"

JUST as when He speaks of Leaven in Matt 16 and then pounds the disciples for being so stupid as to think this is a literal reference to bread - THIS to was not "a contradiction" because the SYMBOL perfectly FIT the real truth being taught about the "teaching".

So Christ is free to do the SAME thing in John 6 pointing out that it is NOT literally "eating flesh" the gives LIFE - but rather the WORD gives life and the Spirit gives life. The WORD is in fact Spirit and Life.

Perfect HARMONY between the symbol and the lesson it teaches. No contradiction at all.

IN FACT this symbol is ALREADY used to teach this lesson in Deut 8:3 with the BREAD that came down out of HEAVEN - teaching the LESSON "MAN does NOT live by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD".

No contradiction "at all".

But as I said before - this leaves you stuck.

How are you going to get out of the light and back onto the RC path laid out for you in the dark ages by the RCC?

BAC said

Jesus says nothing in John 6 about "flesh understanding is worthless but spiritual understanding is life".

If you say that the MEANING of FLESH in John 6 is "flesh understanding" then it becomes "He who eats my flesh understanding has life" - and of course - even your own RCC authorities would not accept such a slight of hand.

So --- what is your "answer"?

ooops! Are you done?

You mean - that was all?

Oh well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have a little book called the "Confession of a Roman Catholic" by Paul Whitcomb who was a convert to Catholicism and is very good in how he came to change his beliefs.

As a lay person who has been born into Catholicism, relapsed and recently returned, the Eucharist debate is often perplexing. I have not the wit to match words here so shall I just say it is a matter of faith, taken from John 6:48-52
John 6:54-56, Matt. 26:26-28,Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20 1Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor.11:28-29.

By the consecration of bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the actual substance of the Saviour.

This aknowledges a miracle takes place and that the receivers of the Host are partaking in a spiritual union with our Saviour.

This is what I believe and this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. It has been a source of endless debate throughout the Ages but it boils down to an act of faith and the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ by those who are Catholic.

This missive is simply to tell you what I believe and it can and no doubt will be jeered and vilified. The Roman Catholic Church is not infallible, has been often swayed by powerful men seeking to persue their own political ends, as is the case of all organisations.

God Bless to all