Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
Indeed, but He was naturally present with them at the time. The Institution actually occurred at the Last Supper with the commandment given the holy Apostles, "do it". The discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 relates it to the Ascension (John 6:63), as it is at that time that the Eucharistic Presence of Christ became a necessity for us.
There could be a genuine misunderstanding there. Love in Latin is caritas, from which we also have “charity” — not quite the same thing, especially in modern society that industrialized charity. The modern understanding of “work” is “paid job”. As we know, any work done for a reward — social recognition or plain old salary — is not salvific. On this point Catholics and Protestants often speak past each other. The inability of recognizing the good works — a term of art for Catholic Christians, — of the Good Thief is an illustration of this problem.
That’s an excellent point. Thanks for that.
Sing us some of the Songs of Zion.
God is in control, DrE. It’s the only thing that makes anything make sense.
There are passages from Calvin that are just empty sloganeering, not worth even making fun of.
Good post. I like to think of the “good works” that are required as a “labor of love” (charity, as you said). That is, the “good works” that are salvific aren’t done to “expect” anything, rather, simply because we enjoy doing them. For example, as Scripture says, “the cheerful giver” is loved by God. (cf 2 Cor 9:7)
“The discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 relates it to the Ascension (John 6:63)”
I think it was a general teaching to the assembled Jews in the synagogue (John 6:59), “These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.” The explanation of what he meant by the idiom “so I ate up every word he said” is what he gave to the disciples.
A year before the last supper he was telling his audience that everything he said and did was life to them. That’s why John could say later in the Gospel (John 20:30-31) “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
John did not say “eating his flesh...drinking his blood” but used the words of Jesus in John 6 “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 did not say “eating his flesh...drinking his blood” but used the words of Jesus in John 6”
To the contrary, In John 6:54, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day”
John put extra emphasis on the word “eat” by not using the classical Greek verb of human eating, but that of animal eating “munch, gnaw”. He was making it clear he meant literally eating.
“He was making it clear he meant literally eating.”
So then, did the thief on the cross eat his flesh and drink his blood since he was going to be with Jesus in paradise?
Help me out here. So you are saved by faith alone?
Do you think Christ, as He hangs on the cross dying for our sins, is bound by your legalistic game of gotcha?
I do not play your games. I am not on your stand.
Yawn.
“Do you think Christ, as He hangs on the cross dying for our sins, is bound by your legalistic game of gotcha?”
Has nothing to do with a game, but it has all to do with the plan of salvation. If this is the plan of salvation, the literal “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” that was stated by Jesus a year before he died, and he gives no exception, especially when he sees most of his followers walking away, why then is it not the same requirement for the thief?
Obviously He DID give an exception.
AMEN!
"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." -- John 12:46
“Obviously He DID give an exception.”
Well then the “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” plan of salvation can’t be binding on everyone since there are exceptions. Anyone can have an excuse for not “eating..drinking” and point to this exception and demand justice.
You're being ridiculous. Yes. There are exceptions for anyone Christ says is excepted. I count one man (the thief).
Your game of gotcha is an absurd failure.
Indeed. Truth is, the word “Eucharist” did not take on the Gnostic meanings held by the RCC until some time after the 4th century. For many years, “communion” = “Eucharist”; until the RCC redefined “Eucharist” into a fable.
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.