Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Faith Presses On

You state: “Jesus is literally the Word of God, I also believe that there is some literal meaning to Jesus saying the bread and wine are His body and blood. The Catholic doctrine on it, though, I don’t accept, as it conflicts with Scripture. “

I do not understand your comment on how the Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation conflicts with the Words of Jesus.

Your comment: “But these can’t be proper interpretations as is because Jesus never followed through with the very literal acts that Catholic apologists say offended the people in John 6 and drove many of them away from Him. He never gave to His apostles for them to eat from His actual body and blood, although He was there physically, both at the Last Supper, and after His resurrection”

You may not believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood, but how can you make a factual statement that Jesus did not (nor does not to this day)make it happen?

You seem to accept other miracles that Christ performed, how can you be so certain that Christ does not continue to perform miracles through His apostles and the priests of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years?


7 posted on 03/29/2015 9:21:30 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ADSUM; Campion

Christ also told the woman at the well that he would give her “living water” so that she would never go thirsty and she would have eternal life.

So perhaps churches should start the ritual of “the living water” so that such consecrated waters also convey saving grace just in case the living presence in the “bread and cup” is working.

I mean no disrespect to our Lord...but these were all metaphors our Lord was using to describe the transactions of life and grace transmitted to the inner man by the Holy Spirit “day by day” as Paul describes. You read the Bible, you pray and commune in the Spirit and you get life transmitted to you. Christ said “it wasn’t by BREAD ALONE” we live but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Father”


12 posted on 03/30/2015 1:51:05 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (If Hitler, Nazi, OR...McCarthy are mentioned in an argument, then the arguement is over!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: ADSUM; Faith Presses On
You seem to accept other miracles that Christ performed, how can you be so certain that Christ does not continue to perform miracles through His apostles and the priests of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years?

One question ...did the apostles and Jesus eat the actual flesh and drink the real actual blood of Christ while He lived and was using it??

Catholics keep sacrificing Christ over and over daily ...then they eat him hoping that it will somehow make them holy

So sad.. what delusion

27 posted on 03/31/2015 11:05:57 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: ADSUM

I mean it in the same way that I believe that Jesus is literally, somehow, the Word of God. Understanding so little of God’s nature, including how He is a trinity, it’s hard to understand how Jesus could be God’s Word and what exactly that means. Yet, I believe it’s true. I also believe this is literally true in a similar way:

37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)

” You may not believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood, but how can you make a factual statement that Jesus did not (nor does not to this day)make it happen?”

I was responding to the specific claim that’s often made about the reaction of those whom Jesus told this to. The argument goes that those people “got it” (what Jesus meant) and that offended them so that they turned away. The argument also goes that if Jesus only meant to speak metaphorically, they wouldn’t have reacted as they did. So, it’s the audience reaction argument. Now, those people, knowing nothing of Christianity as it was only coming into being and neither the Last Supper nor Christ’s death and resurrection had happened yet, heard Him say that they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Further, the audience reaction argument says they got what He meant right, taking it literally. So at that point in time, what would taking it literally mean? If someone says that, eat my flesh and drink my blood, what exactly, linguistically, if it’s meant literally, does that involve? Actually eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood. And, Jesus not only could have done that (He had a human body present on earth), but THAT would have been what would have matched what was in the minds of those He said this to - Him actually doing so.


36 posted on 03/31/2015 3:27:17 PM PDT by Faith Presses On ("After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson