Posted on 07/09/2008 5:53:23 AM PDT by markomalley
47 In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead;
50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’
52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.
57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me.
58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.
59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue.
60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’
Now you will say that is not what my KJV says. You are right before 1500 AD and before there was a King James there was the version of the Bible which you see above.
How do you reconcile your rejection of Christ's Body as the Eucharist?
so you REJECT the exhortation of Christ too?
you too find it to be too hard?
(More) false witness against the Catholic Church.
How can someone be guilty of unworthily taking something that is merely "figurative"?
“but we are not meant to take his words in a literal, physical sense”
You are directly refuting what Christ said that his Flesh was true food.
How can someone be guilty of unworthily taking something that is merely “figurative”?
Oh that is very good!
Lurking’
Let Scripture answer you: continue on from the verse you cited:
27 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.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 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.
You like that verse, eh??? Your entire religion is built on that one verse...You care to show us the verse that gives your priests the authority and ability to turn wafers and wine into Jesus' flesh and blood???
Your entire religion is built on that one verse..
You are right! It is built upon that one verse because that verse is what Christ commands us to do.
You religion is built on the rejection of what Christ commands you to do in that verse.
Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66
Lurking’
It’s context, I think, that the Catholic Church misses. Jesus was foretelling His Crucifixion in verse 53. Prior to that verse He was explaining to the priests that He was the Bread of Life, not that the bread itself was life. To say that Jesus was explaining transubstantiation here is to say that partaking in the Eucharist is what brings eternal life, instead of a saving faith in Christ.
Post verse 58 Jesus explains what he meant. I’m sorry, but my reaction to your comment is going to have to be:
Catholics=John 6:53-58
Everyone Else=John 6:22-65
One verse would be enough, given the inspired nature of the Holy Scripture. However, the Catholic Eucharistic theology is supported by the words of the Institution (Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20), the teaching on the Real Presence in John 6 and 1 Cor. 11:23-29, and the typology of the transsubstantiation in the Road to Emmaus episode (Lk 24).
Huh? What is it you think He explains other than the Catholic Eucharistic theology?
The Church teaches that literal interpretation is one taken first, and unless there is a clear context that commands metaphorical or anagogical interpretation, the literal one is correct (at times both literal and allegorical interpretations are correct). The literal interpretation of John 6 is one Jesus Himself is insisting on ("Amen, amen it is food indeed"), and it is echoed by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:29).
When Jesus speaks figuratively, He either calls it a parable Himself, or it is clear form context. For example, when He says "I am the door" in John 10, he also calls Himself "good shepherd" and he calls his disciples sheep, so it is clear that He does not mean it literally.
This is not the only case where the Catholic reading is literal while the Protestants tend to explain it away or find metaphors. We take "born of water" as literally referring to water in John 3; we take "baptism saves you" literally in 1 Pe. 3:21; we take "not by faith alone" literally in James 2.
So where the command and the instructions for you guys to turn a wafer and wine into Jesus flesh and blood??? Surely if Jesus told you to eat his flesh and drink his blood every minute of every day for eternity, he must have left you instructions on how to accomplish this...Where's it at???
Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66.
Catholics=John 6:53-58...Everyone else, Genesis 1-Revelation 22...
ray,
sure if you say say so.
A billion plus Catholics and I believe differently.
Lurking’
Where’s it at???
Through the first laying on of hands by Peter through Pope Benedict.
Where’s yours?
Which one oy your priests? ministers? had hands laid on them in an unbroken line from Peter?
Lurking’
Do this in memory of Me.
Luke 22.
Do what in memory of Jesus??? Eat the bread and drink the wine??? Do you see where it says Catholic priests will be given power and authority to first turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood??? You don't see it???
That's because it's not there...Jesus said 'eat the bread, drink the wine'...In remembrance of me...No more...No less...
And that's what we non-Catholics do...
Jesus never instructed anyone to miraculously turn wine and bread into his blood and flesh...That was invented to cover the total lack of comprehension of John, chapter 6...
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.