CATHOLICS AND BAPTISTS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT

Spirit Daily ^ | July 14, 2004

[Desdemona]

Besides, it is not very catholic to elevate one part of Scripture over another- leave that for the "higher critics" and Jesus Seminar people.

While this may be true, think of when scripture is incensed at Mass. At the Gospel. The Gospels are given to the bishops at their elevation Mass. The Gospels have a different place. And one Evangelist was actually a witness to all that happened.

We may not elevate one part, but the gospels are certainly treated differently.

[Atheist2Theist]

Acutally his name is Fr. Antonio Leon.

[lupie]

I knew I was missing something. Thanks.

No problem. I just hope I didn't say it wrong or weird. :)

[Petronski]

No problem. I just hope I didn't say it wrong or weird. :)

Nope. It was my narrow reading of 'gospel.' Have a good day.

[lupie]

There are some areas of scripture which are of particular importance over and above others.

I respectfully very much disagree with you but I am not inclined to go down that road very far. Just suffice it to say that yes, the Lord's prayer is "important", but so are all the other prayers. John 17 is a key one, but so is Hannah's prayer, all of the Psalms that are prayers, etc.

Or, for another example, I don't think one needs to know the story of Esther's efforts to save God's people in the Old Testament in order to get to heaven. One does need to know of Christ's redemption of mankind on Calvary, though.

It isn't just about Esther efforts to save God's people - it is about the God she serves and about how He redeems His people and destroyed the enemy despite the enemies plans. That is the God who became flesh in order to satisfy His own requirements of all the sacrifices and redeem us. And just knowing this does not guarantee eternal life. It is about knowing the person of God intimately and trusting God for our redemption, Jesus Christ and wanting Him to change our life. And all of scripture teaches us about WHO He is, and who we are and the consequences of trusting in ourselves, or in Him. Yes, the gospel message is in Esther. And in Ruth, and Leviticus, and Zechariah, and Titus, etc..

What NY very much implied was that the books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on the life of the Lord were Truth and Paul's books were not. That is why I posted - to point out the error in what he so bodly implied. I understand more than your realize what his overall argument was. It just doesn't happen to be right. :)

In Jesus

[PetroniusMaximus]

***"I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him.***

... and he is like our food and drink in that the believer's life is sustained through him.

***But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).***

Actually it further confirms that it is metaphoric because of the use of the word "indeed" or often "real" which is a translation of the greek word "Alethos"

Alethos
Def: truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly

The same word is used in the metaphorical passages you refered to. The word used there adjective form of the same exact word "Alethinos"

Alethinos
Def: that which has not o­nly the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine

See the following verses as an example of the metaphorical use of this word...

Joh 1:9

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Joh 6:32

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven

Joh 15:1

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

***The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.***

Not quite accurate for John uses no other word for "eating". I.E. It's his generic word for eating.

And along those lines...

Jesus said...

Joh 6:55

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Which I would imagine you would take to be further confirmation of the literal nature of the reference. But Jesus used the same word in the following passages...

Joh 4:32

But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Joh 6:27

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Both are clearly metaphorical, or better "spiritual" references. Jesus' disciples are concerned that he had not bread - he tells them he has spiritual bread - unseen, untouchable but just as real.

Jesus tells his followers not to labor for physical bread which perishes (as I assume the host does) but for the eternal and spiritual bread which the Son of Man himself feeds his disciples.

I'll come back to your other points.

 

[Bill Hutton III]

"I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." (Acts 17:22)

The pagan superstitions of the dark and occultic religion of the papists are very evident in this post - and in the hysterical responses to it by its adherents.

[SumProVita]

There are plenty of scientifically verified miracles of the Eucharist, which is NOT mere bread, but rather, the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTxaMbTODyk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=related

[SumProVita]

Here’s another on Lanciano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMKiznugP18&feature=related

[Salvation]

BTTT for an anonymous FReeper.