Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CynicalBear

What Augustine is saying here is that those who merely understood Jesus in the temporal/carnal rather than understanding the spiritual are those who left Him after He said that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

It is the spirit that causes the bread to be the Body and the wine to be the Blood of Jesus.

That is what is meant by man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

The carnal is not of any avail, it is the Spirit enlivening the carnal that is of avail.

So, when one asks why if the Jesus said that those who ate the bread would never be hungry, that is a stupid question, because Jesus did not mean that the body would not feel hunger, rather that the soul would not.

He says after the feeding of the five thousand that those who follow Him are thinking of their bellies and not their souls, but that what He would give was food for their souls.

That is what Augustine was saying in this essay, that and about those who eat of the Body of Christ while not believing the Eucharist is indeed just that.


853 posted on 01/23/2012 7:20:48 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies ]


To: Jvette; CynicalBear

We are supposed to accept, without laughing, that St. Augustine did not believe in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist?

Where do they get this garbage?

CB, did you get this all on your own?


854 posted on 01/23/2012 7:46:37 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies ]

To: Jvette; CynicalBear
So, when one asks why if the Jesus said that those who ate the bread would never be hungry, that is a stupid question, because Jesus did not mean that the body would not feel hunger, rather that the soul would not.

Cynical bear's observation was 100% spot on. Literal one verse, allegorical/spiritual the next, all depending on which doctrine Catholics are trying to support. It's inconsistent, and disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.

The whole passage or discourse should be interpreted in the same manner. If it can't be then it needs to be interpreted differently. Since the discourse in John 6 makes no sense, cannot be interpreted literally for the whole thing, then it must be interpreted differently, which does make sense and make it internally consistent with the rest of Scripture.

So when Jesus says you have to eat His flesh and blood to have life in you and that when you eat you will never die or never hunger or thirst again, it's more than hypocritical to take the eating flesh and blood literally but not the living forever and never being hungry or thirsty.

862 posted on 01/23/2012 8:27:33 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson