Zone1 JOHN 6- Did Jesus institute the Eucharist as Roman Catholicism claims?

[ninja007]

Jn.6

www.letusreason.org

In John 6, we find the Jews continue to resist Jesus' claims of being divine. They challenge Him to prove who he is by bringing down manna from heaven as Moses had done. Jesus uses their reference to the manna, the food which was essential for their survival and life in the desert and applies it figuratively to himself. He answers, “I am the bread of life.” Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent believing. This is consistent all the way through His illustration.

The day before he fed 5,000 and proclaims that He can give “food which endures to eternal life.”

Jn.6:26 Describes those that came after Jesus because their stomachs were filled. Jesus tells them not to labor for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to everlasting life… This resumes a dispute with the Jewish authorities about who Jesus is. They were already plotting to kill him, because he was “making Himself equal with God.”

V.28-29 “What must we do to do the works of God?” Jesus answers: “This is the work of God. That you believe in Him whom He sent.” They insist on a sign (today Catholics ask for the same thing, except there is no proof for theirs, they must take it by blind faith).

V.31-33 The bread Moses gave was not the true bread, you don't literally eat it. “The bread of God is He Who comes down from Heaven, and gives life to the World.” Did Jesus body come from heaven, or did God who is Spirit come in a living body?

V.35 “I am that bread. He who believes in Me will never hunger or thirst.” Notice He does not say “He who eats...” will not hunger or thirst. He is speaking to those who reject him as the source of eternal life. He uses bread as an analogy to illustrate mankind's need to believe in him. Jesus never relates this to wine. The eating of Christ, who is “the living bread which came down from heaven” (6:51), is no more a physical act than the eating of “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; it was offering spiritual truth to the people that did not understand.

V.36 “ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” Notice He is pointing to Himself, that is present among them, and He scolds them for not believing. It is hard to believe what you don't understand.

V.41-42 The Jews wonder at His statement about coming down from Heaven. Thinking he is speaking of his body.

V. 47 “He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Here Jesus points to himself as the source, by believing not eating.

V.49 “the fathers ate the bread in the wilderness and they all died,” in v.50 he then points to Himself as the solution for death.

V. 51 “I am the living bread which came from heaven.” He is pointing to himself as the one who is God, that has eternal life to give. Notice He says in the present tense He is the bread. Jesus then predicts, “The bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW MANY TIMES? Once. Not over and over on the altars.

Earlier, Jesus had identified himself as the bread of life. Now he says he will give the bread, that is himself, his own flesh, for the life of the world. Many other times near the end of his life he made similar predictions.

V. 52-53 unless you are to eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you.” the Jews begin to argue with one another, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Because of their antagonism for Jesus, they not only rejected His teaching but lacked discernment to understand when He was using an illustration.

This is not to be mistaken for flesh of a wafer coming from a bakery of mans hands nor grapes squeezed by men. It is his flesh and blood. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Rather than teach the necessity of receiving Holy Communion, it speaks of the necessity of faith in Christ. If you do not trust in his payment for sin on the cross, you will not have eternal life in yourself.

V. 54 he says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ Moments earlier he had said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The results are identically the same, as are the actions to obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His figurative statements are easily understood when read in the context of the other verses in this teaching.

V.55, he states, “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” To make this as a teaching that Christ is bodily present in the host is to change the focus interpreting it out of context . Here again, Jesus is emphasizing that he is the source of real spiritual life and nourishment.

V.57 ...so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me” Certainly Jesus is not speaking of a wafer that would be produced later but symbolically of Himself who is able to give life. If when Jesus said you must eat my body and drink my blood meant the bread and wine then He Himself did not have to die on the cross. In Exod 12:8-10 'Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 'Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire-- its head with its legs and its entrails. 'You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. Num 9:12 'They shall leave none of it until morning. Remember, that John had introduced as the lamb of God to take away our sins.

V.58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven-- Not as your fathers ate manna and died...” (He is not physical food but spiritual). Jesus had talked about the manna that fell in the wilderness which fed them physically and they died, but that He was the true bread who came from heaven that if they ate would never die. No one would say that all of Israel ate Christ for 40 years 1,500 years before he was born, nor is He was not saying that he would become a communion wafer later on and if this bread was to be taken they would never die.
He is explaining to partake of his sacrifice in a spiritual sense that would save the soul from separation, which had occurred 2,000 years ago.

V.63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak are Spirit, it is they that are life.” Nothing could be clearer it is not literal but figurative language, he used a natural example to illustrate a spiritual truth. the words are life- they are Spirit. We have seen that “to eat” is “to believe,” and that the giving of his flesh refers to his death on the cross. And so, “to eat his flesh” or “to drink his blood” would be to trust in the sacrifice of his life. It is to rely upon his death on the cross as the payment for our sins. This interpretation fits the context of the whole teaching. By the sacrifice of his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, he is the source of eternal life not by the Eucharist. The savior is a person salvation is not a thing that was created, this is the intent of the discourse. That He came from heaven to give salvation. (look at the emphasis on the words of Jesus as the means to life in v.63, and vs.68-69. “But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The idea of a wafer that becomes Jesus each time it is baked is refuted by none other than Jesus Himself. If we read further in v.57- 58 He states the bread is Himself, His body, not a wafer baked in a bakery that will become Him by words spoken by a priest. We must distinguish the difference between the substance (who He was ) and the symbol He uses to describe Himself by, and the symbol taken afterwards (the communion that was the Passover).

The the same language in John 6 is used when He takes the bread in blessing and says take eat this is my body. It was a symbol of a spiritual meaning that the Jews practiced for 1,500 years. They knew exactly what He meant, the Passover. Kept in the context of the Passover service, we know that throughout the ceremony there is a consistent symbolism used to mean, “This represents that.” The salt water represents the salty tears and the Red Sea. The Charoseth represents the brick mortar. The parsley represents Israel in the springtime of her nationhood. The horseradish represents the bitterness of slavery, etc. The middle Matzah of the three (unleavened bread) represents His body and the third cup in the service represents His blood as it is the cup of redemption. In the context of the Passover, that is all that was intended, the word we find throughout the Passover observance is “remember.” This is a reference to the Passover that they were celebrating for 1,500 years to remember this meal as the deliverance from the bondage of their slavery in Egypt. Now Jesus applies this to Himself in their deliverance from the bondage of sin. Paul later states about the communion 1 Cor.11:24 “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me” in the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” It no longer was applied to freedom from slavery in Egypt but freedom from sin. We remember this by what He has done by His death that took place only once (for all) on the cross- and we remember by looking forward to His promise of His return. Once He returns we will no longer take communion (the Eucharist).

John 6 refers to receiving Jesus as the Son of God by accepting His teaching about Himself you are feeding on the food for eternal life (see the requirements for being raised up at the last day-verses 39-40, 44, 54).


its quite funny that the RCC much of the time, esp. in prophecy says that these things are just symbollism or allegory yet Jesus HIMSELF WAS VERY CLEAR HE WAS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY yet the RCC takes the one thing literally that was symbolism.

 

[rampart]

Jn.6

www.letusreason.org

In John 6, we find the Jews continue to resist Jesus' claims of being divine. They challenge Him to prove who he is by bringing down manna from heaven as Moses had done. Jesus uses their reference to the manna, the food which was essential for their survival and life in the desert and applies it figuratively to himself. He answers, “I am the bread of life.” Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent believing. This is consistent all the way through His illustration.

The day before he fed 5,000 and proclaims that He can give “food which endures to eternal life.”

Jn.6:26 Describes those that came after Jesus because their stomachs were filled. Jesus tells them not to labor for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to everlasting life… This resumes a dispute with the Jewish authorities about who Jesus is. They were already plotting to kill him, because he was “making Himself equal with God.”

V.28-29 “What must we do to do the works of God?” Jesus answers: “This is the work of God. That you believe in Him whom He sent.” They insist on a sign (today Catholics ask for the same thing, except there is no proof for theirs, they must take it by blind faith).

V.31-33 The bread Moses gave was not the true bread, you don't literally eat it. “The bread of God is He Who comes down from Heaven, and gives life to the World.” Did Jesus body come from heaven, or did God who is Spirit come in a living body?

V.35 “I am that bread. He who believes in Me will never hunger or thirst.” Notice He does not say “He who eats...” will not hunger or thirst. He is speaking to those who reject him as the source of eternal life. He uses bread as an analogy to illustrate mankind's need to believe in him. Jesus never relates this to wine. The eating of Christ, who is “the living bread which came down from heaven” (6:51), is no more a physical act than the eating of “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; it was offering spiritual truth to the people that did not understand.

V.36 “ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” Notice He is pointing to Himself, that is present among them, and He scolds them for not believing. It is hard to believe what you don't understand.

V.41-42 The Jews wonder at His statement about coming down from Heaven. Thinking he is speaking of his body.

V. 47 “He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Here Jesus points to himself as the source, by believing not eating.

V.49 “the fathers ate the bread in the wilderness and they all died,” in v.50 he then points to Himself as the solution for death.

V. 51 “I am the living bread which came from heaven.” He is pointing to himself as the one who is God, that has eternal life to give. Notice He says in the present tense He is the bread. Jesus then predicts, “The bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW MANY TIMES? Once. Not over and over on the altars.

Earlier, Jesus had identified himself as the bread of life. Now he says he will give the bread, that is himself, his own flesh, for the life of the world. Many other times near the end of his life he made similar predictions.

V. 52-53 unless you are to eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you.” the Jews begin to argue with one another, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Because of their antagonism for Jesus, they not only rejected His teaching but lacked discernment to understand when He was using an illustration.

This is not to be mistaken for flesh of a wafer coming from a bakery of mans hands nor grapes squeezed by men. It is his flesh and blood. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Rather than teach the necessity of receiving Holy Communion, it speaks of the necessity of faith in Christ. If you do not trust in his payment for sin on the cross, you will not have eternal life in yourself.

V. 54 he says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ Moments earlier he had said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The results are identically the same, as are the actions to obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His figurative statements are easily understood when read in the context of the other verses in this teaching.

V.55, he states, “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” To make this as a teaching that Christ is bodily present in the host is to change the focus interpreting it out of context . Here again, Jesus is emphasizing that he is the source of real spiritual life and nourishment.

V.57 ...so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me” Certainly Jesus is not speaking of a wafer that would be produced later but symbolically of Himself who is able to give life. If when Jesus said you must eat my body and drink my blood meant the bread and wine then He Himself did not have to die on the cross. In Exod 12:8-10 'Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 'Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire-- its head with its legs and its entrails. 'You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. Num 9:12 'They shall leave none of it until morning. Remember, that John had introduced as the lamb of God to take away our sins.

V.58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven-- Not as your fathers ate manna and died...” (He is not physical food but spiritual). Jesus had talked about the manna that fell in the wilderness which fed them physically and they died, but that He was the true bread who came from heaven that if they ate would never die. No one would say that all of Israel ate Christ for 40 years 1,500 years before he was born, nor is He was not saying that he would become a communion wafer later on and if this bread was to be taken they would never die.
He is explaining to partake of his sacrifice in a spiritual sense that would save the soul from separation, which had occurred 2,000 years ago.

V.63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak are Spirit, it is they that are life.” Nothing could be clearer it is not literal but figurative language, he used a natural example to illustrate a spiritual truth. the words are life- they are Spirit. We have seen that “to eat” is “to believe,” and that the giving of his flesh refers to his death on the cross. And so, “to eat his flesh” or “to drink his blood” would be to trust in the sacrifice of his life. It is to rely upon his death on the cross as the payment for our sins. This interpretation fits the context of the whole teaching. By the sacrifice of his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, he is the source of eternal life not by the Eucharist. The savior is a person salvation is not a thing that was created, this is the intent of the discourse. That He came from heaven to give salvation. (look at the emphasis on the words of Jesus as the means to life in v.63, and vs.68-69. “But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The idea of a wafer that becomes Jesus each time it is baked is refuted by none other than Jesus Himself. If we read further in v.57- 58 He states the bread is Himself, His body, not a wafer baked in a bakery that will become Him by words spoken by a priest. We must distinguish the difference between the substance (who He was ) and the symbol He uses to describe Himself by, and the symbol taken afterwards (the communion that was the Passover).

The the same language in John 6 is used when He takes the bread in blessing and says take eat this is my body. It was a symbol of a spiritual meaning that the Jews practiced for 1,500 years. They knew exactly what He meant, the Passover. Kept in the context of the Passover service, we know that throughout the ceremony there is a consistent symbolism used to mean, “This represents that.” The salt water represents the salty tears and the Red Sea. The Charoseth represents the brick mortar. The parsley represents Israel in the springtime of her nationhood. The horseradish represents the bitterness of slavery, etc. The middle Matzah of the three (unleavened bread) represents His body and the third cup in the service represents His blood as it is the cup of redemption. In the context of the Passover, that is all that was intended, the word we find throughout the Passover observance is “remember.” This is a reference to the Passover that they were celebrating for 1,500 years to remember this meal as the deliverance from the bondage of their slavery in Egypt. Now Jesus applies this to Himself in their deliverance from the bondage of sin. Paul later states about the communion 1 Cor.11:24 “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me” in the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” It no longer was applied to freedom from slavery in Egypt but freedom from sin. We remember this by what He has done by His death that took place only once (for all) on the cross- and we remember by looking forward to His promise of His return. Once He returns we will no longer take communion (the Eucharist).

John 6 refers to receiving Jesus as the Son of God by accepting His teaching about Himself you are feeding on the food for eternal life (see the requirements for being raised up at the last day-verses 39-40, 44, 54).


its quite funny that the RCC much of the time, esp. in prophecy says that these things are just symbollism or allegory yet Jesus HIMSELF WAS VERY CLEAR HE WAS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY yet the RCC takes the one thing literally that was symbolism.

"as often as you do this, do so in memory of me." luke 22:19

is holy communion, the ritual sharing of bread and wine, not what jesus was talking about.?

i'm a little skeptical about the actual substance (called a "host" i suppose because it is parasitized by gods spiritual essence) being more than a symbolic representation, but this is the kind of mystery that requires high order faith.

 

[theHawk]

its quite funny that the RCC much of the time, esp. in prophecy says that these things are just symbollism or allegory yet Jesus HIMSELF WAS VERY CLEAR HE WAS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY yet the RCC takes the one thing literally that was symbolism.

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

 

[ninja007]

1 John 5:13

 

[rampart]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

i'll bow out. either position requires faith.

i think theHawk has stated the catholic position as closely as i remember the baltimore catechism

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

you mean they took out commandments, that church? or the one that believes in dozens of man made traditions and adding to the scripture? The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. You worship men and your rcc rather then Jesus. If I recall Jesus had alot to say about that, esp. to the Pharisees.

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

 

[ninja007]

Quite funny you attack the RCC which put together the Bible and carried all of Christianity for over a thousand years. If they were wrong then how could Protestants possibly know better?


The Eucharist is the body of Christ. He has the ability to make the bread and wine a part of his body. All matter in the universe is made up of atomic particles. Our bodies are no different than the gases and rocks in space on an atomic level. We all are borrowing these materials to make up our “bodies”. We do it by consuming food and drink. God on the other hand can do it with a thought, which is how the bread and wine become a part of his body. It is not “symbolic”. Typing that is not in all caps isn’t going to change that.

Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)? Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin. You can't.

 

[there4eyeM]

It seems odd that people do not take more seriously how Jesus said "every time you eat", not "every special occasion that occurs in a special building".

 

[ninja007]

SORRY BUT LAST TIME i CHECKED Jesus said It was FINISHED. He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of God not coming down millions of times a day all over the world to be eaten again and again by cannibals.

 

[rampart]

If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

ya sure sent me to the search engine for that one. .... the argument was between two great saints and "doctors of the church"

Augustine argued for the canonicity of the Apocrypha, drawing from it frequently in his writings. Jerome, however, pushed back and distinguished between canonical and ecclesiastical texts. Canonical texts informed faith and practice, but ecclesiastical texts were to be read in the church solely for edification, not to construct doctrine. Ultimately, the Council of Carthage (AD 397) sided with Augustine, but the two views remained in the church until the Reformation.

canonical or ecclesiastical? i don't know, but my favorite (every schoolboy's favorite) quote from st aug

"lord, please grant me chastity, but not yet." st augistine of hippo

SORRY BUT LAST TIME i CHECKED Jesus said It was FINISHED. He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of God not coming down millions of times a day all over the world to be eaten again and again by cannibals.

it may be a little more mystical and symbolic than that, and there is that omnipresence thing but, yea, ninja, these symbolic meals were appropriated from the hellenistic mysteries.

 

[Libby von H]

Jn.6

www.letusreason.org

In John 6, we find the Jews continue to resist Jesus' claims of being divine. They challenge Him to prove who he is by bringing down manna from heaven as Moses had done. Jesus uses their reference to the manna, the food which was essential for their survival and life in the desert and applies it figuratively to himself. He answers, “I am the bread of life.” Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent believing. This is consistent all the way through His illustration.

The day before he fed 5,000 and proclaims that He can give “food which endures to eternal life.”

Jn.6:26 Describes those that came after Jesus because their stomachs were filled. Jesus tells them not to labor for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to everlasting life… This resumes a dispute with the Jewish authorities about who Jesus is. They were already plotting to kill him, because he was “making Himself equal with God.”

V.28-29 “What must we do to do the works of God?” Jesus answers: “This is the work of God. That you believe in Him whom He sent.” They insist on a sign (today Catholics ask for the same thing, except there is no proof for theirs, they must take it by blind faith).

V.31-33 The bread Moses gave was not the true bread, you don't literally eat it. “The bread of God is He Who comes down from Heaven, and gives life to the World.” Did Jesus body come from heaven, or did God who is Spirit come in a living body?

V.35 “I am that bread. He who believes in Me will never hunger or thirst.” Notice He does not say “He who eats...” will not hunger or thirst. He is speaking to those who reject him as the source of eternal life. He uses bread as an analogy to illustrate mankind's need to believe in him. Jesus never relates this to wine. The eating of Christ, who is “the living bread which came down from heaven” (6:51), is no more a physical act than the eating of “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; it was offering spiritual truth to the people that did not understand.

V.36 “ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” Notice He is pointing to Himself, that is present among them, and He scolds them for not believing. It is hard to believe what you don't understand.

V.41-42 The Jews wonder at His statement about coming down from Heaven. Thinking he is speaking of his body.

V. 47 “He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Here Jesus points to himself as the source, by believing not eating.

V.49 “the fathers ate the bread in the wilderness and they all died,” in v.50 he then points to Himself as the solution for death.

V. 51 “I am the living bread which came from heaven.” He is pointing to himself as the one who is God, that has eternal life to give. Notice He says in the present tense He is the bread. Jesus then predicts, “The bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW MANY TIMES? Once. Not over and over on the altars.

Earlier, Jesus had identified himself as the bread of life. Now he says he will give the bread, that is himself, his own flesh, for the life of the world. Many other times near the end of his life he made similar predictions.

V. 52-53 unless you are to eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you.” the Jews begin to argue with one another, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Because of their antagonism for Jesus, they not only rejected His teaching but lacked discernment to understand when He was using an illustration.

This is not to be mistaken for flesh of a wafer coming from a bakery of mans hands nor grapes squeezed by men. It is his flesh and blood. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Rather than teach the necessity of receiving Holy Communion, it speaks of the necessity of faith in Christ. If you do not trust in his payment for sin on the cross, you will not have eternal life in yourself.

V. 54 he says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ Moments earlier he had said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The results are identically the same, as are the actions to obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His figurative statements are easily understood when read in the context of the other verses in this teaching.

V.55, he states, “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” To make this as a teaching that Christ is bodily present in the host is to change the focus interpreting it out of context . Here again, Jesus is emphasizing that he is the source of real spiritual life and nourishment.

V.57 ...so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me” Certainly Jesus is not speaking of a wafer that would be produced later but symbolically of Himself who is able to give life. If when Jesus said you must eat my body and drink my blood meant the bread and wine then He Himself did not have to die on the cross. In Exod 12:8-10 'Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 'Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire-- its head with its legs and its entrails. 'You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. Num 9:12 'They shall leave none of it until morning. Remember, that John had introduced as the lamb of God to take away our sins.

V.58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven-- Not as your fathers ate manna and died...” (He is not physical food but spiritual). Jesus had talked about the manna that fell in the wilderness which fed them physically and they died, but that He was the true bread who came from heaven that if they ate would never die. No one would say that all of Israel ate Christ for 40 years 1,500 years before he was born, nor is He was not saying that he would become a communion wafer later on and if this bread was to be taken they would never die.
He is explaining to partake of his sacrifice in a spiritual sense that would save the soul from separation, which had occurred 2,000 years ago.

V.63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak are Spirit, it is they that are life.” Nothing could be clearer it is not literal but figurative language, he used a natural example to illustrate a spiritual truth. the words are life- they are Spirit. We have seen that “to eat” is “to believe,” and that the giving of his flesh refers to his death on the cross. And so, “to eat his flesh” or “to drink his blood” would be to trust in the sacrifice of his life. It is to rely upon his death on the cross as the payment for our sins. This interpretation fits the context of the whole teaching. By the sacrifice of his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, he is the source of eternal life not by the Eucharist. The savior is a person salvation is not a thing that was created, this is the intent of the discourse. That He came from heaven to give salvation. (look at the emphasis on the words of Jesus as the means to life in v.63, and vs.68-69. “But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The idea of a wafer that becomes Jesus each time it is baked is refuted by none other than Jesus Himself. If we read further in v.57- 58 He states the bread is Himself, His body, not a wafer baked in a bakery that will become Him by words spoken by a priest. We must distinguish the difference between the substance (who He was ) and the symbol He uses to describe Himself by, and the symbol taken afterwards (the communion that was the Passover).

The the same language in John 6 is used when He takes the bread in blessing and says take eat this is my body. It was a symbol of a spiritual meaning that the Jews practiced for 1,500 years. They knew exactly what He meant, the Passover. Kept in the context of the Passover service, we know that throughout the ceremony there is a consistent symbolism used to mean, “This represents that.” The salt water represents the salty tears and the Red Sea. The Charoseth represents the brick mortar. The parsley represents Israel in the springtime of her nationhood. The horseradish represents the bitterness of slavery, etc. The middle Matzah of the three (unleavened bread) represents His body and the third cup in the service represents His blood as it is the cup of redemption. In the context of the Passover, that is all that was intended, the word we find throughout the Passover observance is “remember.” This is a reference to the Passover that they were celebrating for 1,500 years to remember this meal as the deliverance from the bondage of their slavery in Egypt. Now Jesus applies this to Himself in their deliverance from the bondage of sin. Paul later states about the communion 1 Cor.11:24 “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me” in the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” It no longer was applied to freedom from slavery in Egypt but freedom from sin. We remember this by what He has done by His death that took place only once (for all) on the cross- and we remember by looking forward to His promise of His return. Once He returns we will no longer take communion (the Eucharist).

John 6 refers to receiving Jesus as the Son of God by accepting His teaching about Himself you are feeding on the food for eternal life (see the requirements for being raised up at the last day-verses 39-40, 44, 54).


its quite funny that the RCC much of the time, esp. in prophecy says that these things are just symbollism or allegory yet Jesus HIMSELF WAS VERY CLEAR HE WAS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY yet the RCC takes the one thing literally that was symbolism.

Just talking logic, but unknown to you, you seem to be arguing an even less possible point, that some anonymous bloke foisted onto Jesus a doctrine that should have appeared alien to anyone who had ever known Jesus or any of his Apostles. Now that is a godawful stupid argument for you to make, is it not ?

 

[Meriweather]

It seems odd that people do not take more seriously how Jesus said "every time you eat", not "every special occasion that occurs in a special building".

No more odd that people do not take more seriously that every time they bathe or shower they are being baptized.

 

[Libby von H]

No more odd that people do not take more seriously that every time they bathe or shower they are being baptized.

Which "fact" you could not know since whoever takes that as normal would NOT report it to outsiders as something NOT NORMAL
Got it ?

 

[theHawk]

you mean they took out commandments, that church? or the one that believes in dozens of man made traditions and adding to the scripture? The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. You worship men and your rcc rather then Jesus. If I recall Jesus had alot to say about that, esp. to the Pharisees.

Now you are telling me who I worship? What “man” am I worshipping other than Jesus?

As for the Pope, he isn’t much more than the Bishop of Rome.

 

[theHawk]

If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

Ridiculous. The deuterocanonical books had always been used by Jews and early Christians. They were part of the Greek Septuagint. It is Martin Luther who unilaterally decided to remove certain books. By what authority did he have? You claim the RCC didn’t have the authority to declare what is canon, yet Martin Luther did? Your premise falls flat on its face yet again.