Posted on 05/08/2011 3:20:44 PM PDT by NYer
Bill, Tom, Pat, James, Josue and Miguel? That explains why Bill's not at breakfast any more! I hope he's paying the church a decent rent or at least cleaning the bathrooms ...
Ping to 37; it’s those tenants again. SIX of them this time.
Perhaps you do not realize that the Bible you worship was compiled by the Catholic Church. That said, let's take a closer look at the scriptural basis of the above article.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy (i.e. a conversation) that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Scripture is very clear on this matter.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians:not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” –Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
So Martin Luther says only the devil believes the bread is only bread.
Where would he get such an idea? From Christ Himself!
I was going to correct him on that too. But I figured I would talk about the Eucharist first.
too bad Luther is not alive so old texan can explain his “metaphor” theory to him!
LOL! Those answers are on my homepage!
if you talk to him, ask him while has was “catholic”, if he was ever taught to worship: Mary, statues or bread?
I have found that when it comes to Catholicism, what is taught in the Bible and what is taught in Catholicism are mutually exclusive and should not be confused as being tied to one another in any senseReally? What odd little sect do you recommend then?
OT = types and shadows
NT = the fullfillment of the OT promises in the person of Jesus.
Jesus is the fullfillment of Passover, His blood keeps the second death from having any power over us.
LOL - The auto-correct on my IPad refuses to accept "tenent" without some intervention.
The meaning of believing 6:52–59
Jesus introduced a new metaphor for believing on Him, namely eating His flesh. The following pericope is highly metaphorical.
6:52 As Jesus’ hearers had objected to what He had said about His identity (vv. 41–42), so they now expressed confusion about what He meant by eating flesh. An intense argument (Gr. emachonto) erupted among them. They were struggling to understand His meaning. In what sense would Jesus give His flesh as food?
6:53–54 This is the fourth and last of Jesus’ strong prefaces in this discourse (cf. vv. 26, 32, 47). It should be obvious to any readers of this discourse by now that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally. By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (v. 40). He expressed the same truth negatively (v. 53) and then positively (v. 54a). He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44).
Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title “Son of Man.” Blood in the Old Testament represented violent death primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death. The idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev. 3:17; 17:10–14). Jesus’ hearers should have understood that He was speaking metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (vv. 60–61).
Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord’s Supper in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find support here for their belief that participation in the eucharist is essential for salvation. However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service. Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements. Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life. Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the symbolism of the eucharist.
“In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”261
6:55 This verse explains why Jesus’ statements in verses 53 and 54 are true. Jesus’ person is what truly satisfies and sustains life. This is the true function of food and drink.
6:56 Because Jesus’ person is what truly satisfies and sustains life those who believe in Him remain (Gr. meno, abide) in Him. This is a new term in the discussion, but it is synonymous with having eternal life. Jesus was saying that believers continue to possess eternal life; they will never lose it. Believers remain in Christ, and He remains in them. Jesus was not speaking here to His disciples about the importance of believers abiding in fellowship with God as He did in chapter 15. Here He was speaking to unbelievers about entering into a saving relationship with God.
6:57 Jesus traced the eternal life that the believer receives when he or she trusts in Jesus back through the Son to the living God (cf. 5:21, 24–27). This helps us see that eternal life is essentially God’s life that He imparts to believers. It also clarifies Jesus’ central role as the mediator of eternal life from the Father to humankind.
6:58 In conclusion, Jesus returned to His initial claim that He had come from the Father (v. 29). The Jews often substituted the term “heaven” for “God” out of respect for God’s name, and Jesus did that here.262 The Israelites who ate the physical bread that came down from God died in the wilderness (vv. 30–31), but those who believe in the spiritual Bread that came down from Him will live forever.
Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 6:51–58).
The Lord made the doctrine plenty plain for all to understand.
Many of his disciples went away disappointed after hearing him say that “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have life within you.”
I love the Emmaus story.
The first post resurrection Mass.
none have been done away with, all have been fullfilled in the person of Jesus. the purpose of the OT was to point to Jesus thru types and shadows. When Jesus suffered, died and rose from the dead, the OT was fullfilled and the new coveneant in His blood established. The question now is, what do you believe about Jesus?
of course, i agree with you. post #16 was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek!! i also love this story, can you imagine how they felt having Jesus Himself opening up the scriptures for them, what a blessing!!
so Jesus said “This is like My Body”?
Paul and every other Christian for 1,500 years didn’t beleive this novel belief, so much for the Church being the pillar of truth, huh??
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.