Featured Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

He is doining what MANY did throughout the Gospel of John, of mistaking spiritual meanings and intent o fthe Lord to be referring to something physical!

IF we opress his way of understanding this passage...

salvation is found ONLY theu the RCC, as jesus gave that riteto administer grace thru that sacrament , but that would contridict every passage in the NT regarding what truely saves us!

 

The passage as Rome explains it makes it an exercise of futility for the audiance in his presence. Neither the supper had been instituted nor his blood shed at this poiint. However, He uses the present tense verbs "I AM the bread of life" "eateth....drinketh" noting that what he was teaching could be implemented by his audience right then and there. The only thing preventing present application is the lack of faith (Jn. 6:64-66). Peter and the rest of the disicples had ALREADY ate and drank of Him by faith (Jn. 6:67-70) and those listening could have equally obtained eternal life as instructed right then and there on the spot.

 

Jesus would have been referring to an actual reality right at the time of the discourse, not talking about what was to come, correct?

 

I'm glad to hear it.

Actually, no I'm not. What I am doing is taking Jesus at his word.

Not at all. I showing that they are full of meaning and it is in the context of the sacrificial meal called Passover as the verses point out. It is also in the context of Christ himself being our meal. The very meal which sustains and gives us life.

Your error is quite clear. You have the erroneous paradigm that the word "spirit" is equal to the word "symbolism" in this discourse which of course it is not because if following your insistence that spirit means only analogy. Then one would have to accept that Jesus wasn't being literal about being crucified. So clearly your following an illogical assumption about "spirit" equating to "analogy".

 

You cant' mess with Jesus words. I'm not doing anything other than pointing them out.

 

As I've said. Nicodemus isn't guilty of taking it too literally but confusing the modes. If he took it too literally then you would have to admit, which I've noticed you stay clear away from, that being born again doesn't mean an ontological change or a substantive change in the person born again. Its not a case of literalism but mode. Otherwise you are just repeating yourself.

As I explained there is no connection between what we are talking about an Matthew 16.

See its not even the same subject! You can't compare the two passages. Its a pretty lengthy stretch to combine the two. In one Jesus is saying you must eat him because he is the bread of life in this passage the disciples think Jesus is mad because they didn't bring bread. The only thing similar in the two verses is the word bread. Just because in a totally different context Jesus uses bread in one way doesn't mean he always uses it that way. Or else you must believe that during the institution of communion Jesus didn't hold up actual bread but a group of Pharisees which he blessed and passed around to eaten by his disciples. It is an illogical jump.

 

Nice try. However, Rome's interpretation has no application in present time to the audiance. No supper instituted yet, no cross, no shedding of blood, no sacrifice of his body therefore no Transubstantion possible.

What Jesus is teaching has been already obeyed by His disciples and can be obeyed by his listeners right then and there.

 

Your quoting the words, but fail to understand the intended meaning of them!

 

Actually what is being denied. Nay what is being ignored is by you. You keep purposely ignoring the fact of whether a person who is born again goes through a substantive changed. You know that if you agree that a born again person goes through a substantive change then Jesus is in fact speaking to a person being actually born again as a new creature. Born again in this discussion isn't an issue because the reality is a new creature is born a living creature. But you keep ignoring that fact. You know if you deny this substantive change to keep consistent in this discussion is simply symbolic. Then you would have to admit nothing Jesus said is real.

And this shows your disconnect. Physical doesn't mean more real and spiritual doesn't mean less real or symbolic. This is where you are faulted in the whole discussion.

The only person "pretending" not to see something is you as you have not answered whether you believe that Jesus holds being born again isn't a substantive change in the individual or not. You've trapped yourself.

Again spirit does not equal symbolism or else you can't take Jesus at his word for anything thus the body which he says will be offered up in sacrifice must be symbolic. But that is not what Jesus said. And again Matt 16 can find no correlation to John 6 two entirely different discussions. Therefore you are apply eisegesis to John 6 by mistakenly connecting it to Matt 16.

Then you are far from understanding scripture and the spirit. In Genesis man did not become a living being until the spirit was breathed into him. Thus it is the spirit which gives life. Let me quote this argument from the reformation.

I quote this author to express that we are indeed talking about modes. You are limiting man to just the flesh but that is not how God created us we are both flesh and Spirit therefore there is a mode of birth and death which is by spirit. God told Adam " for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die" but did Adam die in the flesh that day? No in fact " Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." According to the flesh he lived another 930 years. However, we see in that same day when he ate of the fruit " and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God" By the Spiritual mode he died that very day.

As a Baptist or an SDA. You have a serious Paradigm problem to deal with if you equate Spirit to analogy. In the scriptures the spirit is more real than the flesh. Therefore Spiritual mode is the only way you can understand John 3 or John 6. Which doesn't mean any less real. Nicodemus wasn't an more literal he just only applied it to his flesh and not the spirit. Yet by the spirit there is a new creature.

Here is another problem you face. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't present his flesh to be eaten as some future date. But I while re-reading the passage it became clear to me you missed something.

So he is talking about a future time when he will offer his bread.

Also you face this problem. If Spirit equates to analogy and bread is analogy then this verse I just quoted that this bread which equals his body must mean his crucified body is also analogy. And since you say spirit equals symbolism therefore you must hold Jesus died on the Cross symbolically and then what makes you different than the gnostics?

 

Why not use some common sense when you are reading? Obviously to those who have not yet eaten it is future and it will always be future to those who presently are not beleiving!

However, His presentation of himself for eating in this sense is always PRESENT not future. "I AM...eatETH....drinkETH..." However, this is impossible for your position as the Lord's Supper had not yet been instituted and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense. His blood and flesh had not yet been sacrified and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense.

Peter claims he already had eaten the "WORDS of LIFE" and then defines precisely what partaking of Christ really means "WE BELIEVE thou art the Christ...."

Rome's interpretation is simply false without any Biblical or practical basis for the audiance Jesus is addressing.

 

Finally we are getting somewhere. The idea of a "spiritual idea" is wrong however. It is a Spiritual reality. Thus its not the idea but the reality which is real in the Spirit. And yes the physical "water" in Nicodemus and "bread" in John 6 are physical symbols of the spiritual reality. Not that bread is a symbol of bread but as Paul says a "sign and a seal". Both water and bread not only symbolizes a spiritual reality. But connect us to that reality. Thus water is part of being born again. And bread that Jesus gives in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. It is the spiritual reality.

Incredibly obvious to any Baptist who is at the point of possibly considering Catholicism but has not yet gone for it hook-line-and-sinker.

No because you are limiting the discussion to human flesh. But Jesus says it is by the spirit. Which means a reality greater than physical observation. Man isn't born just of flesh but is born of spirit as well and thus the (for a lack of better term) the mode is by spirit. You are stuck in a carnal mindset not believing the reality of the Spirit. And its the physical substance of water that symbolizes and connects us to the spiritual reality. I'm not putting forth any effort into this concept because age immemorial in The Christian Church this was the belief. I'm not saying anything new. Just putting forth an ancient Christian idea. And hopefully in a way which you can understand.

Do you deny that a man is made up of both flesh and spirit? If you reject one or the other then you don't have a complete picture of man? Thus Nicodemus just like you was stuck only in the flesh ignoring the Spirit. Thus he had an incomplete understanding of even the entire human being despite his Jewishness. Jesus put him in contact with his error. Flesh is of the Flesh. But the Spirit is the thing. IT is the reality and when a person is born again of the spirit there is no less an ontological change to the person than was to Adam when he was formed of his flesh and was with out spirit then God breathed into him. And thus man was born.

 

Ok - this is just as weird as anything that Ellen White ever wrote.

Does SDA stand for Sort of Delusional Always?

 

I watch TV sometimes and notice RC priest lift up the cookies and chalice, then ask his god to forgive the sins of the people.

He never mentioned all the sins of the world was already forgiven by the precious Blood and Death of Jesus Christ.

He never mentioned that now no more sacrifice is necessary according to Hebrews 10:17-18.

This is the main difference between RC and Christians Faith

Christian Faith is that All the sins were already forgiven at the Cross Once for ALL, by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ.

RC ask their god to forgive their sins by their Eucharist, based on the cookies and chalice lifted by them,
because they don't believe the Eternal Effect of the Forgiveness at the Cross.

For this purpose, they need to make the cookies imprinted with IHS as the body of Jesus and the chalice as the Blood of Jesus

IHS must be the symbol for Isis, Horus Sep, Egyptian or Babylonian gods.

They offer the immitation blood and flesh.

But the True Christians believe and remember the Blood and Death of Jesus by taking the Bread and Wine, and give thanks to Jesus who shed the Blood.

 

Here is how to tell the difference. At the Lord's Supper, one will her "Do this in rememberence of Me." At the Catholic Eucharist, one will hear "now, for my next trick...."