Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[The Irish Ram]

Clearly Jesus' command to eat his body and drink his blood has shaken your faith.

He also said we must be reborn. How many disciples started calling their moms?

 

[ding]

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
^
The Word said that.

Yep, and those that left and Judas were not included in the group that God gave him. Unless you think the bible was fallible about that too?

 

[ding]

He also said we must be reborn. How many disciples started calling their moms?

Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, who is confused about the idea of being born again, since it involves a physical birth. Jesus clarifies that he is referring to a spiritual rebirth. Jesus further explains that to be born of the Spirit, one must be "born of water and the Spirit," which is often interpreted as baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, respectively. The concept of being born again is a key theme in Christian theology, emphasizing the need for a radical change in one's spiritual life through faith in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word for repent is "metanoia." Metanoia means to change your mind. Our thoughts, the flow of consciousness which determines our behaviors, can change. Metanoia has to do with moral activity, but goes beyond that. Jesus was teaching that we could change our mind about how we treat people. We don’t have to be unforgiving, cynical and cruel. We can change our mind about being negative. We can think positive thoughts and walk in faith instead of doubt. We can change our minds about sin. Rather than being caught in the strongholds of consistent habits of lust or selfishness, for example, we can experience freedom and selflessness. Jesus would not have told us to change unless it was possible and attainable. The Bible is full of words that speak about change. Repentance, metamorphosis, transformation, conversion, resurrection, rebirth, renewal, regeneration, healing and transfiguration.

Jesus taught everyone how to become the best version of themselves. Being perfect does not mean doing perfect things. It means to BE perfect. To exist perfectly. So when one makes mistakes - which we all will - we should be truthful to ourselves about ourselves. That's how we exist perfectly. It's an ongoing process.

But if you think this means we should be symbolically reading his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood, it doesn't. In this case Jesus clarified that he was referring to a spiritual rebirth. In John 6 Jesus doubled down on his literal claim that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. There was no confusion on his part. He let MANY disciples leave because they were too shocked by his command like you are too. You have little faith in Christ to ignore the most important command he gave us.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yep, and those that left and Judas were not included in the group that God gave him. Unless you think the bible was fallible about that too?

None left, according to Jesus, except for Judas. Is it Jesus you are contradicting now or John?

Again, John 17:12 None (as in no one) has been lost except the one < (JUDAS) doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
There ya go.

 

[ding]

No I didn't stay that. Nor have I ever said that our interpretation of the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible or the Bible itself will always be infallible.

Except when he said, "this is my body."

Because you know for certain it was just bread. Forget all the miracles he performed, right. It could only be bread.

In Christian theology, "real presence" refers to the belief that during the Holy Eucharist (or Communion), Jesus Christ is physically present in the bread and wine, even while they still appear to be bread and wine. This presence is not just a symbolic or spiritual presence, but a real, bodily presence.

But Jesus couldn't do that, right? That would mean he could control matter?

 

[ding]

None left, according to Jesus, except for Judas. Is it Jesus you are contradicting now or John?

Again, John 17:12 None (as in no one) has been lost except the one < (JUDAS) doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
There ya go.

I'm not contradicting anyone. It's not like I'm saying Jesus couldn't be physically present in the bread and wine, even while they still appear to be bread and wine. That would be crazy like turning water into wine, or healing disease and deformities, or controlling the sea and winds, or raising the dead.

But to your point, I don't doubt for one second that Jesus didn't lose any of the ones that God gave him because Jesus said he didn't. Unlike you, I accept Jesus at his word without needing to revise what he said because it shocked me or because I was taught to believe a certain thing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

But to your point, I don't doubt for one second that Jesus didn't lose any of the ones that God gave him because Jesus said

Apparently, you can't even remember what you said:

Yep, and those that left and Judas were not included in the group that God gave him

Jesus said, not one. He was referring to His group including Judas, one of the members of the group. So, besides Judas, who else do you think left? Peter? John? Matthew?

 

[Foxfyre]

Except when he said, "this is my body."

Because you know for certain it was just bread. Forget all the miracles he performed, right. It could only be bread.

In Christian theology, "real presence" refers to the belief that during the Holy Eucharist (or Communion), Jesus Christ is physically present in the bread and wine, even while they still appear to be bread and wine. This presence is not just a symbolic or spiritual presence, but a real, bodily presence.

But Jesus couldn't do that, right? That would mean he could control matter?

Jesus could do anything he wanted to do. But what did he actually do the night of the Last Supper? Actual? Symbolic? Metaphor? Intended to be a sacrament or to be observed every time we break bread together in our homes or with others? No way to know and there are plenty of good arguments for all possibilities.

Those who were there probably know as no doubt it was discussed in more detail. But that detail didn't make it into the Scriptures.

That's why I honor what you believe or what others believe even if that is not my personal point of view. I think our relationship with Jesus is far more important to Him than the rituals we build around that relationship. But I don't require anybody else to believe as I believe because I know in my heart that Jesus died for all of us and not just those who do things in a certain way.

 

[ding]

Apparently, you can't even remember what you said:


Jesus said, not one. He was referring to His group including Judas, one of the members of the group. So, besides Judas, who else do you think left? Peter? John? Matthew?

Apparently you can't. The MANY disciples that left (John 6:60-66) were not any of the twelve APOSTLES.

 

[ding]

Jesus could do anything he wanted to do. But what did he actually do the night of the Last Supper? Actual? Symbolic? Metaphor? Intended to be a sacrament or to be observed every time we break bread together in our homes or with others? No way to know and there are plenty of good arguments for all possibilities.

Those who were there probably know as no doubt it was discussed in more detail. But that detail didn't make it into the Scriptures.

That's why I honor what you believe or what others believe even if that is not my personal point of view. I think our relationship with Jesus is far more important to Him than the rituals we build around that relationship. But I don't require anybody else to believe as I believe because I know in my heart that Jesus died for all of us and not just those who do things in a certain way.

Like I said before he was very clear. See John 6:60-66 where he let MANY disciples leave because they were shocked by his command.

 

[hadit]

Are you looking at the Catholic Church solely as one Christian denomination? For Catholics it has a much broader definition, founded by Christ, a community not defined by a space or time. It is far reaching, even beyond the universe for it is the Body of Christ.

Community has always been an essential part of the Catholic faith--and that community, includes both the living and those who have passed on.

Because all Christian churches are a part of the Body of Christ, we don't see you on the outside. Do you see Catholics as on the outside? Do you see it as your church versus the Catholic church?

No, I don't. I see us as a body of believers and desire unity in Christ. I don't like things that keep us separated.

 

[hadit]

LOL I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing here.

"The term 'catholic' (little 'c') means universal or all who believe and accept the Christ. That is what is implied in the Apostles Creed and, depending on whose interpretation we use, the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church (large "C" on catholic) of course refers to a specific church organization to distinguish it from the east/west schism separating the Eastern Orthodox Church from what would become the RCC. (12th Century.) And to separate it from forming Protestant denominations during and following the Reformation (16rh into the 17th Century.)

Perhaps it seems arrogant to presume you belong to the 'one true Church' but I don't fault people who believe that or try to shake their belief in that.

Perhaps it seems wishy washy to others to presume that denominations don't matter all that much and all belong to the one universal Church established by a risen Jesus of Nazareth himself despite some widely differing beliefs in dogma and doctrine. But I don't fault people who believe that or try to shake their belief in that.

Ultimately when we all meet in heaven, I can envision us all having a really good laugh about how much of all this we got wrong.

I do try to remind all of us that we will not be rubbing elbows only with <fill in favorite group here> when we're on the new earth.

 

[ding]

I do try to remind all of us that we will not be rubbing elbows only with <fill in favorite group here> when we're on the new earth.

Tell me more about this new earth?

 

[hadit]

Tell me more about this new earth?

From the book of Revelation:

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

It's very clear. Our ultimate destination is not floating on a cloud in heaven playing a harp, it's back to the Garden on a new earth. All things will be made new.

 

[ding]

From the book of Revelation:

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

It's very clear. Our ultimate destination is not floating on a cloud in heaven playing a harp, it's back to the Garden on a new earth. All things will be made new.

Except that Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[hadit]

Except that Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire.

No, I don't buy that. See, here's the thing. You knew exactly what I was talking about, and you pretended to be ignorant about it so you could make your statement as if it meant something (very immature and bad form). I've heard that nonsense before, it's not new to me at all, and no, it's not about the Roman empire. If it was, where's the New Jerusalem? Where is the new heaven, the new earth? Where is God dwelling with His people as spelled out in the book? You have to ignore vast amounts of the book to make that case. Tell me, do you believe you'll be floating a cloud, strumming a harp for eternity?

 

[ding]

No, I don't buy that. See, here's the thing. You knew exactly what I was talking about, and you pretended to be ignorant about it so you could make your statement as if it meant something (very immature and bad form). I've heard that nonsense before, it's not new to me at all, and no, it's not about the Roman empire. If it was, where's the New Jerusalem? Where is the new heaven, the new earth? Where is God dwelling with His people as spelled out in the book? You have to ignore vast amounts of the book to make that case. Tell me, do you believe you'll be floating a cloud, strumming a harp for eternity?

Actually, I didn't. I have no idea what others think and that's why I ask. I think it's dumb to make assumptions when questions can be easily asked instead. But putting that aside, Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire and that's why it was written in code the way it was.

 

[hadit]

Actually, I didn't. I have no idea what others think and that's why I ask. I think it's dumb to make assumptions when questions can be easily asked instead. But putting that aside, Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire and that's why it was written in code the way it was.

Well, you have no problem insisting that Jesus was speaking very literally indeed about other stuff, taking one small section out of a much larger passage, but now insist this entire book was written in code. Recalling an encounter with the risen and glorified savior is not speaking in code.

 

[Meriweather]

Well, you have no problem insisting that Jesus was speaking very literally indeed about other stuff, taking one small section out of a much larger passage, but now insist this entire book was written in code. Recalling an encounter with the risen and glorified savior is not speaking in code.

Apocalyptic literature was a popular literary style of that time. Revelation is a great example of apocalyptic literature. It was written to encourage early Christians that they would overcome the Roman persecutions, that God is always with us. In this literary form was the idea that what will come to earth is first being built in heaven. Despite the ruin Jerusalem had become at the hands of the Romans, it would be rebuilt because it was already being rebuilt in heaven.

The Book of Daniel is another example of apocalyptic literature. Jesus did not speak in the style of apocalyptic literature, his favorite style being one of parables. He did use figurative speech, but something to consider: Did he lose followers when he said, "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off?" Or, when he said people should first remove the log from their own eye? Hebrew/Aramaic is an objective, picture language. People of the time were used to this. But...when Jesus said, "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" people did not see it as the picture form of their language. They took it quite literally--and some left.

 

[ding]

Well, you have no problem insisting that Jesus was speaking very literally indeed about other stuff, taking one small section out of a much larger passage, but now insist this entire book was written in code. Recalling an encounter with the risen and glorified savior is not speaking in code.

Not sure how you can read Revelation literally. But to your point, each account must be read as the author intended. It's not one way for all accounts.