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

Er...no, you hear, "Do this in remembrance of me" at both; evidently you've never been to a Mass, otherwise you wouldn't post such drivel.

 

Drivel LOL, you left out cheereo.

 

Con Su Permisso

Legalism is alive and well on planet earth. If your religion is not authorized by the authorized dubbing authority, you have not an authorized religion.

This all goes back to Mt. 16. Who got the authorized keys? If Peter got them to pass on to the authorized bishoprics, all outside the Holy See are usurpers. Rome has not delegated any authority lately.

This presents a bit of a dilemma. The so-called protestants(reformers of Rome), have no authority if their mother has any or not. Anyone else in the world of Christendom has a similar problem: no scriptural authority.

There is one glorious exception: the Church that Jesus is building--the one referenced in the Mt., Acts, and Rev. These are the ones called out to do the work of the kingdom. Jesus promised to never leave nor forsake them.

He has kept His promise.

What is in your wallet?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

The problem Biblicist is you don't understand my post because you are in a middle of a conversation between BR and myself. Also you are the kind of person that likes to spout vitrol against anything you disagree with.

 

The problem Thinkingstuff is that you cannot answer the facts of the text which I presented and so as usual turn to your favorite whipping post and make it all personal.

Your interpretation is impossible for this text when all grammatical and contextual factors are objectively considered. He is using present tense exhortations to eat and drink of him right then and there. It should be obvious that such exhortations are unnecessary if they already had heeded them and that the future tense is necessary if they have not heeded them.

Your position is simply false.

In John 6:30-40 eating/drinking; coming; are all equal to seeing and believing in Christ

 

The problem you continue to face with understanding both John 3 and John 6 is the notion that Spirit means symbolic. I've been trying to tell you that it does not mean symbolic but is a reflection of reality. So a person who is Born Again is truelly a new creature in reality despite the fact his outward apperance remains the same. So it is with Jesus Discussion in John 6. In John 3 Jesus says "one must be born of water (baptism) and the Spirit" The physical substance of water is a sign of the Spirit reality it is also the seal of the covenant. Which we know is fact because Paul says.

Therefore the water in baptism is the covenant act that connects us to the Spiritual reality of being a really new creature in Christ. As Paul says again in Col 3:9

Which is why Catholics believe

Again Nicodemus is thinking only in the Flesh and ignores the Spiritual component of the man. As I've said man is both flesh and spirit. But it is the spirit and not the flesh which makes man a living being. This is why Jesus said.

Note at no point in his discussion with Nicodemus does he say any of this is symbolic but in fact a reality. As I noted before Nicodemus gets the mode flesh/spirit wrong by ignoring the spirit aspect of the human being despite his being a Pharisee which is why Jesus said.

And again note when Jesus speaks of "heavenly things" he isn't suggesting "symbolism" but a Heavenly reality in which a born again person really is a new creature. Has gone a real ontological change in the substance of who they are.

What is incredibly obvious is that the Baptist perspective isn't taking Jesus at his word rather is obviously equating spirit to symbolism as you have done dispite the disparity with the scriptures. In Both John 3 and John 6 Jesus isn't talking about symbolism but a heavenly reality which he identifies as "spirit".

Hint you don't know the nature of Man if you think he is a living creature because of his physical birth. Thus as there are two modes of being for a man flesh (physical)/Spirit that occure simultaneously. Thus a man is born both physically and spiritually. Even according to Watchman Nee ( a person I read while a Bapitist) holds that this is the general view of the Human Being

Though he is a believer in the human as a tripart being. But still when it comes to the Spirit he makes this observation

So it is quite obvious that the human is both a physical being and a spirit being but the spirit is the reality that gives life to the man. Like Nicodemus you are only stuck on the physical. But that doesn't mean to speak of spirit is to speak of symbolism. Thus Jesus is speaking to that very part of man that makes him connect to God. This is why your insistance on natural vaginal or cessarian birth is a non sequitur to the discussion and isn't working for you. Neither is speaking to a dog or a horse which is still an insistance on ignoring the reality of the Spirit to which Jesus speaks.

Again what is incredibly obvious is the fact that you as I have said before are reading a pretext into both passages that is based on the paradigm that by saying "by the spirit" Jesus means symbolic. However, understanding "the spirit" in context of Jesus discussion and cultural context we know that is not what he is saying.

As I've stated before they physical symbol of "water" in John 3 connects us to the covenant as does circumcision did in the Old Testament. The differense between John 3 and John 6 is that Jesus isn't saying bread connects by way of covenant but that He is the bread of life. Or simply put Bread of Life = Jesus. And Jesus said that this bread is his flesh which he gives for the world. Or simply put Bread = Crucified body. Thus in both John 3 being born again isn't symbolism but a statement of fact on a heavenly level or by the Spirit so it is that the bread which Jesus gives is his flesh also on a heavenly level or by the spirit. Niether is symbolic.

 

Your out in left feild with your comment to begin with. Look at the actual discussion. And see the context in Post 84 BobRyan said

To counter that statement I said.

So contextually I'm right on the mark. You don't get credit for jumping in with a non-sequitur.

 

I read his remark and he responded to my statement confirming that my statement was exactly one of the points he had made.

This is just another attempt by you to avoid the real contextual problem we have placed before you to the Catholic misinterpretation of John 6.

1. Jesus is calling on them to take PRESENT ACTION right then and there.


However, Rome's interpretation makes PRESENT ACTION impossible as no blood had been shed, no body had been broken, no supper had been instituted.

2. The future tense text you allude is essential consequence for PRESENT ACTION.

If you will go back and read, you will see Bob commented on my post and affirmed he had made the same point.

Quit playing hide and seek and deal with the evidence.

 

One word will throw you whole argument under the bus. the word "will". IE I "will" give. Not present now is it?

 

You either do not read very good or you are intentionally playing silly games.

"will" refers to the consequence of responding to PRESENT ACTION. Believing, coming, eating precede life. However, the "will" is a consequence of taking PRESENT ACTION to eat, drink, come, believe. Can't simplify it more than that! Christ is exhorting them to PRESENTLY eat, drink, believe, come and you cannot deny that as that is the plain grammatical facts. However, you are choosing to divorce common sense from your dealing with these PRESENT TENSE exhortations when you conlcude that a future tense consequence for taking present tense actions is contradictory!!!

 

Neither. Think of this senario. You visit a doctor. The Doctor tells you. "you need to take crestor for your cholesterol" - present tense. "take a crestor and you reduce your chances for a heart attack" - present tense. "the script I will give you is for crestor." - Future tense. The conversation and contexts of present tenses and future tenses are exatly the same as in the John 6 discourse. You just want to force your pretext into the verse. But that one phrase as the phrase I showed you above with the script. Throws out that argument. "The bread that I will give." It is understood that it isn't yet given. Its really simple.

 

Your examples disprove your interpretation not mine! The words "you need to take" infer a future action not a present action or else he would not even have to say these words.

He is exhorting them to PRESENTLY act (believeth, eateth, drinketh, cometh) in order to obtain life (future tense). So simple! So clear and so contrary to your forced interpretation.

Your intepretation denies the possibility they can respond to present tense exhortations. If Rome's interpretation was true they should have said, well lets get to killing you so we can eat and drink of you. Or let's observe the Lord's Supper so we can have eternal life. But neither is true and neither is what Christ intended. Just plain common sense should show the context defines coming, eating and drinking as believing on him (Jn. 6:35).

 

I don't know how much english you've had but that statement is present tense. The term "need" indicates present necessity. I does not say you will need. It seems you are confused.

Just like in the example. In order to have eternal life you must eat my flesh. The bread that I will give. Indciates a future event. Its not forced You ignore the word "will".

No that is incorrect. Look at the passage again

the comment isn't speaking this must immediately be done rather that this is the action you must take. Time isn't indicated. You imagine immediacy when there is none. You've added immediacy to the passage when none was suggested and in fact Jesus indicates that the bread that he is giving isn't in the present but some point in the future when he says

Just like it is some time in the future one will obtain eternal life when he says

Note he doesn't say currently living forever. But you must do this when I will give this to have this at some future point. Your time constraints go against the context of the Passage.

 

Your made up sentence in a made up context has no comparison to John 6:29-35. It is not a matter of tense with your sentence but with content and context in which you place it that makes it future.


The context you placed it in demands taking of it is future tense application as he does not even possess the prescription yet.

However, that is not the context of John 6:29-35 because he rebukes them for not already taking his prescription for eternal life:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

If as Rome interprets the "crestor" they needed to take was something impossible at present, and indeed is impossible as neither the Supper was instituted or the sacrifice offered and must be yet future from this preaching then how could Christ rebuke them presently????? He couldn't!

He uses the PRESENT TENSE "I AM the bread of life - he that "EATETH"! The future tense giving of his life on the cross later does not prevent obtaining eternal life NOW by EATING NOW! However, Rome's application makes it impossible to EAT NOW as neither the supper or the cross was PRESENT and AVAILABLE.

You are making a simple thing confusing

 

You know I'm right so now you have to make an accusation. Typical of you. Ie "You made it up!!!" Blah, blah, blah. Of course I relayed a conversation I had with my doctor and that is how it went. The point of the conversation use is to show you the tenses and context with in a discussion which showed your appeal is wrong.

Before in your previous post tense made all the diffence now it doesn't? Just admit you were wrong. Why don't you keep on with Spirit = Symbol that gives you more traction than this arguement.

 

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to describe your response. Jesus rebuked them for not PRESENTLY eating, believing on him as the present tense "I AM" the bread of life. You canont respond so once again you get personal and play the ridicule game.

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to descibe this response. It is your concocted illustration that tense makes no difference. I have not moved one iota from what I first stated about the context of John 6:29-35.

You simply can't respond and so you make up things that have no connection with the Biblical context, and you ignore that your illustration does not harmonize with the words of Jesus in John 6 as he rebukes some for not PRESENTLY eating RIGHT THEN AND THERE, or in the words of your illustration, for not PRESENTLY taking the prescription right then and there.


Your concocted non-biblical illustration falls apart in your attempt to apply it to Christ's words. Your illustration demands only a FUTURE application while Jesus rebukes them for not having applied EATING him ALREADY (Jn. 3:35-35). So your illustration breaks down at the very point of debate.

 

I'm not the one whose ridiculing you, however, started off your whole discussion on this very topic by ridiculing. I'm just stating what is true. For instance you make this assertion

Ok I'm looking at the passage and I'll put in the passages that he rebukes someone.

These are where he rebukes them not one of these verses indicate that he rebukes them for not presenting eating. However, If you are trying to imply that this passage

is a rebuke then you didn't understand it in the context of the passage. Its an explanation to their questioning. As you can see as I expand the passage so you can better see the context.

So they wonder how they can eat his flesh. And he say "Yep truly, unless you eat my flesh". Therefore it is not a rebuke. As for present tense of the discussion that would be comparable to the discussion my doctor and I had. "you need to take crestor" - Doctor and I replied "Isn't there some way I don't have to take that pill?" The Doctor answered "Look, unless you want a heart attack you really need to be on this medicine." The tense is present but I still hadn't got the script yet. So your understanding of this passage is way off if you think he is rebuking them for not yet eating. That is nonsense sorry the passage doesn't support your hypothesis.

Remember, when you point one accusing finger at me you got three pointed right back at you.

Unfortunately, Not concocted as much as I would like. I hate having to have to rely on pills but really its my fault for not eating right. But that aside. It's used to show how you are wrong about tenses of the passage. There is nothing in that passage that suggest and immediacy of eating right then and there. What is presented in the passage is understanding his point which is once again

and we know that this bread which he gives will be in the future because of this one word..."will" as it is used in this passage.

As in it hasn't been given as yet. The passage is clear. Which means you are imposing your views into the passage.