Posted on 12/30/2018 10:24:23 AM PST by Baynative
It’s official: A Woodstock 50th anniversary concert is coming to the original site of the 1969 music festival in Upstate New York next year.
The Bethel Woods Center for the Arts confirmed Thursday that it will host a three-day event on August 16-18, 2019, titled “Bethel Woods Music and Culture Festival.” The “pan-generational music, culture, and community event” will celebrate the golden anniversary of the original Woodstock concert with a series of concerts, “TED-style talks,” and a “We Are Golden” history exhibit at the Museum at Bethel Woods.
"Fifty years ago, people gathered peacefully on our site inspired to change the world through music. As the stewards of this historic site, we remain committed to preserving this rich history and spirit and to educating and inspiring new generations to contribute positively to the world through music, culture and community,” Bethel Woods CEO Darlene Fedun said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at syracuse.com ...
Hopefully they don't have drunk Hell's angels on speed "protecting" the stage.
“Let alone most of secular Rock.”
I actually think secular rock is less offensive. It isn’t trying to fool people in to believing it’s something it isn’t.
Let's start with our belief that the Catholic Church is from Christ and that American Protestant sects derived from the Anglican - Methodist - Baptist line all started in King Henry VIII's underwear. That very simple objective fact of history (a truth) angers Protestants to no end, when it should enlighten them. I've also, posted Christ's direct words regarding the Eucharist, that too infuriates them - Christs own words make bible readers angry. Still trying to figure that out.
To some degree, but it was you with your Catholic animosity that choose to denigrate my mere reference to being at Woodstock 94 offering evangelical gospel tracts
Not really. You had an oblique insinuative air about you, (still do) that people who go to rock concerts or listen to rock music are somehow fallen and need your help. Then you overtly stated it here, which makes you ridiculous. Hence you kind of cornered me into admitting that I think heretics need our (Catholics) help.
Thanks but don't need your help, scriptural readings or songs etc. I have a 2,000 year history to tap into with doctors, theologians and catechism if I were to have any issues whatsoever with listening to "Hotel California."
And just what meal were they eating at the time?
That's right: the PASSOVER.
Jews knew from the cradle just what each of the foods and drinks meant in that meal. They ate it every year for REMEMBERANCE.
Early Christianity highjacked those elements to make it into what it is today.
Good John references. What does LUKE, the good doctor, say? Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) 1Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the pasch, was at hand. 2And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put Jesus to death: but they feared the people. 3And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. 4And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. 5And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. 6And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude. 7And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed. 8And he sent Peter and John, saying: Go, and prepare for us the pasch, that we may eat. 9But they said: Where wilt thou that we prepare? 10And he said to them: Behold, as you go into the city, there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water: follow him into the house where he entereth in. 11And you shall say to the goodman of the house: The master saith to thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I may eat the pasch with my disciples? 12And he will shew you a large dining room, furnished; and there prepare. 13And they going, found as he had said to them, and made ready the pasch. 14And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. 16For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. 21But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22And the Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined: but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed. 23And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
And the pasch of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
John 2:12-14 (in Context) John 2 (Whole Chapter)
Now when he was at Jerusalem, at the pasch, upon the festival day, many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did.
John 2:22-24 (in Context) John 2 (Whole Chapter)
Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.
John 6:3-5 (in Context) John 6 (Whole Chapter)
And the pasch of the Jews was at hand; and many from the country went up to Jerusalem, before the pasch to purify themselves.
John 11:54-56 (in Context) John 11 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 22
Matthew 26:17-30 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.
20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[a] 21 and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.”
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
THIS is a PASSOVER meal.
Not fun: almost mockery.
Perhaps you can point out to the unlearned just which Scriptures that Rome gave us tells of these 'angels'.
bizarre you say?
Why??
Wine turning into BLOOD is bizarre!!!
ASKED??
Not COMMANDED?
I think it would do the lurkers good to know just WHERE in the book Rome gave us to 'do that for all time'.
In Heaven?
How'd they get there ahead of the rest of the Dead in Christ?
So?
To which schism of Catholicism do most of the American Catholics belong?
Again the qualifier.
What does 'traditional' mean in this context?
How tacky.
Let me just say that the Catholics of today are directly descended from....
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
That was REFRESHING!!
I feel SO much more superior now!
Really?
This from a fella(?) that ignores CNMF and attempts to spin away the effect of doing so??
He is a great study, I wish more people knew of him. Of course your analogy is beyond absurd, because he didn't start a false religion like King Henry or documented psychopath Luther. He and people like him are simply Catholics who went bad. In his case we dug him up, tried him, burned him and threw what was left into the Tiber.
When Catholics get it right, we dig up and burn our dead heretics. Protestants, for whatever reason, follow them to hell.
FWIW if you're interested, Popes are technically Bishops of Rome in the succession of Peter and are supposed to be Vicars of Christ. They do go bad sometimes -like the current mental patient - but they are not founders of our religion.
I’m in.
So you start out your attempt at apologetics by making a false and unsubstantiated charge, as well as resorting to mind-reading ad hominem. This doesn't look promising.
Let's start with our belief that the Catholic Church is from Christ and that American Protestant sects derived from the Anglican - Methodist - Baptist line all started in King Henry VIII's underwear. That very simple objective fact of history (a truth) angers Protestants to no end, when it should enlighten them. I've also, posted Christ's direct words regarding the Eucharist, that too infuriates them - Christs own words make bible readers angry. Still trying to figure that out.
Your second attempt is also fallacious, for the substantiated fact is that rather than the RCC being from Christ and Protestant faith being a few hundred years new, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Not really. You had an oblique insinuative air about you, (still do) that people who go to rock concerts or listen to rock music are somehow fallen and need your help. Then you overtly stated it here, which makes you ridiculous.
Oh what a terrible presumption! Surely most people in general are saved, especially those who go to rock concerts! So when the Lord said preach the gospel to every creature, these venues were excludes. But the reality is that we want to see every event outreached at, from sports to theater crowds (the latter being furthest from the kingdom of God IMO), though alternative rock crowds are the most open and attractive. And a few years back some RCs even started to copy us locally.
Hence you kind of cornered me into admitting that I think heretics need our (Catholics) help.
i think you are being oversensitive, too much like college liberals.
Thanks but don't need your help, scriptural readings or songs etc. I have a 2,000 year history to tap into with doctors, theologians and catechism if I were to have any issues whatsoever with listening to "Hotel California."
If you have not come to God as a contrite sinner in desperate need of salvation, and placed all your faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save you on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and no by your works or church affiliation, then you need to be saved by doing so, and be baptized, and then continue in the faith.
Forgot about this remark, which is more recourse to fallacy, for rather than Christ words making me angry, as if i would be even if they supported the Catholic contrivance of them, as shown , it is RCs who neither take them as plainly literal, nor consent to understand them in the immediate and larger context of Scripture, in which only the metaphorical understanding easily conflates with Scripture overall. But which reproof is what upsets many Catholics, and who, as you quite evidently, ignore it.
I know you people think you're loving wayward Catholics when you try to "convert" them, but you really hate them - in worst imaginable way.
No Catholic can ever be anything else but Catholic, no matter what he thinks he is professing. Even if you somehow "convert" them, Catholicism is indelible, for life, and any conversion does nothing but bring great harm to them.
Read what Christ is telling is. This is not a parable, Christ is not mincing words, He is being quite literal, to the point of scandalizing those around Him - including His disciples.
(6-51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
(6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
(6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(6-54) 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.
(6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
(6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
(6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
(6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
(6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
(6-61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
(6-62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
(6-63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
(6-64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(6-65) But there are some of you that believe not.
Now comes the part where the Protestants get in a tizzy and start telling me Christ didn't mean what he said... literally and repeatedly.
They don't like being told they have no life in them and have to find excuses why they turned the Sacrifice of Our Lord into some ridiculous, chaotic Sunday School.
Which is a mere unsubstantiated "argument by assertion," meaning it is not an argument at all. Moreover, the RC basis for calling all forms of Protestantism to be heresy (though much heresy exists under that big tent, as in Catholicism) is based upon her own authoritative presumption that she is assuredly correct.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
literal PROTEST against the very Body of Christ. You are wasting your time sir. I know you people think you're loving wayward Catholics when you try to "convert" them, but you really hate them - in worst imaginable way.
Which is simply more recourse to unwarranted ad hominem, which is a poor substitute for a actual viable argument. Which you have utterly failed to provide. And like a liberal, you construe a burden to save souls and turn them to holy fruitful Christians to be "hate."
No Catholic can ever be anything else but Catholic, no matter what he thinks he is professing. Even if you somehow "convert" them, Catholicism is indelible, for life, and any conversion does nothing but bring great harm to them.
Which is simply another unsubstantiated argument by assertion, while what is evidenced is that RCs who convert to evangelicalism do so because of the spiritual deficiency of Catholicism, while evangelicals testify to being far more more committed and conservative than Catholics . .
And converts from Rome are free from being accounted as Cath. brethren along with proabortiion, prohomosexual RCs whom Rome manifestly considers members on life and in death
Read what Christ is telling is.
So I cannot tell you anything, and so you refuse to read what refutes your Eucharistic christ , but you have something to teach me? Sorry, your argument went down with the ship long ago.
(6-51)This is not a parable, Christ is not mincing words, He is being quite literal, to the point of scandalizing those around Him - including His disciples. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
"Quite literal?" "my flesh, for the life of the world?" Once again, see here , but apparently you refuse to look at what refutes you. The only flesh that was ever that of Christ, and was crucified was not some docetist or gnostic christ whose physical appearance did not correspond to what he materially was, but one who was manifestly incarnated, who looked, handled, felt, smelled, and would tastes and scientifically test as really human, God being present thereby. And which manifest physicality is emphasized by John in contrast to a christ who was not materially what he appeared to be:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6) "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)
Which stands in stark contrast to the metaphysical contrivance of Rome of a Christ who appears as mere bread and wine, which looks, handles, feels, tastes and scientifically tests as mere bread or wine, and thus can effect RCs with celiac disease, or alcoholics.
Yet as said, despite this reality, this bread or wine is defined as not even existing, with it instead "being true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical 'reality.'” (Mysterium Fidei), so that "eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally,” even though this is contrary to the manifest Christ of Scripture. And which christ then ceases to be is "truly, really, and substantially" present once the non-existent brad and wine begins to manifest decay (even though it has been since baked).
In contrast, to take "this is My body which is broken for you," "which I will give for the life of the world" literally, would mean that one is to consume that manifestly physical flesh that was indeed crucified. To teach that inanimate objects are the body and blood of the crucified Christ is no more valid than would be saying that crucified bread and wine was the true body and blood of Christ!
Why must Catholicism resort to Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to rationalize Because (apart from claimed miracles, which do not correspond to eucharistic theology of transubstantiation), because her priests cannot turn bread and wine into the manifestly incarnated Christ.
In addition is the belief that only priests can conduct the Lord's supper, and that it is a sacrifice for sin. But instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, neither of which NT pastors are ever described as doing in the life of the church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2)) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32)
(6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (6-54) 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. (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
And which is simply specious isolationist exegesis, ignoring how the NT church understood this in the light of Acts and the epistles. In which, rather than souls obtaining life in them by taking part in the Lord supper ("except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you," and note, you have some verse numbers wrong)) that is never taught as a means of obtaining spiritual life. Instead, (once again) it is be believing the gospels that souls are saved, (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) by the hearing of it. Thus the preaching of the word, which is called "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12,14) to feed the flock (Acts 20:28) is the primary active function of pastors. (2Tim. 4:2)
Again, in John and rest of the Scripture spiritual life is never obtained by literally physically eating anything, nor spiritual nourished by the same, but by believing the gospel and being strengthen in faith by the word of God, and thus living it out. Consistent with this, it is the word of God that is referred to as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)
6-51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (6-54) 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. (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Which your semiliteralist (which we will get to later) isolationist proof-texting ignores the metaphorical language that John and Scripture frequently uses, in which the Canaanites were said to be "bread" for Israel, and David called potable water the "blood" of men, and thus refused to drink it, and poured it out unto the Lord. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
Here, David clearly calls drinking water human blood, and consistent with the command of Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23 (cf. Lv. 17:10,11), he poured it on to the ground, and did so as an act of worship unto the Lord. What David did not do was contrive some metaphysical justification for drinking this, but to be consistent with the professed plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist they hold to in regards to "this is my body," then they should also insist this was literal in this case. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:
• “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,
• The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
• David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)
• And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)
• While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)
• But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)
• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)
• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:
• And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)
• And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,
"Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)
• Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.
And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
•I n John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
(6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
That's actually v. 57, and which is interpretive of what this bread that man lives by it. For "he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me" means we should ask, "just how did Christ live by the Father"? tThe answer is that the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34) And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life: “What and if ye 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 speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63)
But as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as Peter said, versus eating flesh, which profits nothing spiritually.
For rather than unbelievers in Jn 6 correctly understanding the Lord's words and rejecting them, instead they represent another example of carnally minded souls who are presented in John (especially) who do not seek the meaning of the Lord's enigmatic words. For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, standing beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women coming for physical water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
(6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. (6-61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? (6-62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? (6-63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (6-64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (6-65) But there are some of you that believe not.
Indeed the the flesh (which in John is set in contrast with the spirit) profiteth nothing spiritually, and Christ would not be there to give it (He said nothing about some priestly transubstantiation), but as elsewhere in John and the rest of the NT, the Cath. contrivance is not what is taught, but show that spiritual life and nourishment come by hearing and receiving the word of Truth. And which is what ministers are charged with providing, and not once in Acts-Revelation are they instructed in transubstantiation and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, or even conducting it as the only ones who could.
And in contrast to Catholics, the Lord's supper is hardly even manifestly mentioned except in 1 Co. 10, and 11, which contextually do not teach it ether, but teach that the Lord's supper is a an effectual communal remembrance of and thus a declaration of the Lord's death,(1 Corinthians 11:26) by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) which declares this by sharing bread and wine with each other as bought saints bought by Christ's sinless shed blood.
Who are to manifest fellowship with Christ and each other by this communal sharing of a actual meal, like as pagans manifest fellowship with their object of worship and each other in their dedicatory feasts. (1 Corinthians 10:15-23)
Thus to eat independent of each others, ignoring and thus shaming those who have not, is to "not eat the Lord's supper," and which was the sin and cause of judgment in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (see here ), that of not effectually recognizing the body of Christ, which theme of unity continues into the next chapter.
Likewise, to take part in pagan religious feasts as well as sanction Christian communion to anyone is also to incur judgment, by signifying fellowship with those who are not of God, and are contrary to Him, and in the case of Christian communion it is defiling what is to be a holy declarative communion with Christ and each other who are bought with His blood. To take part in the Lord's supper while being or acting contrary to those for whom Christ died is to "come together unto condemnation."
But if the congregation is told before hand what this supper is about, which thus requires manifest regeneration and treating others as blood-bought saints (both in positive affirmation as well as needed correction) then if some presume to be partakers their blood is on their own hands.
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (1 Corinthians 11:17)
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
No wonder I have never encountered you on the FR RF in 13 years, in which RC arguments have been refuted into silence time and time again, by the grace of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.