Zone1 Question for Christians.

[Unkotare]

Do you deny that Christian leaders have taken a larger role in politics over the last several years?

Yes. Study US history.

 

[hadit]

Jesus said he was the bread that came down from heaven. (John 6:51) This takes us back to Exodus and the traditions that began at that time. Manna, from God, came down from heaven. This is not the only place in Exodus where bread is mentioned. We also have the Bread of the Presence (face bread) that was baked and placed in the Tabernacle (later the Temple) in the Presence of the Lord. Each week the Bread of the Presence was consumed by the priests because that bread had been surrounded by (absorbed) the Presence of God.

Yes, physical bread, given for us to eat and be filled. The Presence didn't transform the bread into flesh and blood, however.

God became man. He said he was the bread that came down from heaven. He taught us that his body was true food; his blood true drink. Those who believed and ate/gnawed his body and drank his blood would have his life within them.

He also said He would give us springs of living water that would eternally quench our thirst. In fact the woman He was speaking to was ecstatic that she would not have to come to the well anymore, and He didn't correct her. But no one gives up drinking water because they never get thirsty. He said we have eternal life, but there are no thousand-year-old believers around us who will never die. He used colorful and spiritual imagery when He talked to get across His message. It comes down to what you take literally and what you deem to be only spiritual.

From John 6:

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Jesus is the bread of life, and clearly He's talking spiritually here, because Christians still need to eat food and drink water, or they'll die. When you look at this, it becomes apparent that He's not talking about Him literally becoming something we physically eat and drink.

Humans are made up of body, mind, and soul/spirit. Until Christ, God was only Spirit and His spirit in both manna and in the Bread of the Presence came down from heaven and was consumed by men. With Jesus, God now had both Body and Spirit. This is the new bread that came down from heaven and is God still feeding his people--body, blood, and divinity.

It sounds like you're saying you believe the bread is infilled with the Spirit and believers obtain that Spirit through eating that Spirit-filled bread, is that correct? I am of the belief that God puts the Holy Spirit in me through my acceptance of Him and that I don't get more of Him by eating consecrated bread.

And thus to this day we consume bread (body, blood, and divinity) from heaven. Early Christians understood this, and as mentioned before, were accused of cannibalism. Their belief in God's bread from heaven that strong. This is my body...this is my blood. God in the midst of His people.

But the church didn't make it official for another 1200 years. If this were true, and the belief that strong, it should have been official from the very start. I mean, you make it a central tenet of Catholic belief. Since believers were thought of as cannibals, I would think it should have been an official stance so that everyone knew the entire church was behind them.

Jesus explained his presence in bread and wine to the people of his own time. Some said, We cannot accept this. They no longer followed him. Jesus did not try to call them back, did not send his Apostles to go running after them to explain he was only speaking metaphorically. He simply asked his Apostles, Will you go, too? Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

That is not the same thing as saying the bread literally becomes flesh. That is saying that the bread is infused with the Presence of Christ, something different.

What you seem to be asserting, hadit , is that while you may believe Jesus had the power to perform miracles--even raising Lazarus from the dead--Jesus did not, and does not, have the power to send his whole presence--body, blood, and divinity--into bread and wine. You want a sign he can do this. You want to taste actual flesh. You want to taste actual blood. (Send me a sign! But no sign would/will be given except the sign of Jonah. You believe Jesus had the power to rise from the dead, but that's his limit?)

There is a large difference between what I understand Jesus CAN do and what I think He WILL do. No, I don't want to taste blood when I take communion. That would be abhorrent to me, yet you are telling me that I should literally be drinking blood. And yes, that question is still out there. If I'm drinking literal blood, but taste only wine, why? You don't have to answer it now, but it's still there. And you know full well that you taste only wine, so there has to be an answer.

Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed thousands. Are you not limiting Him when you say He won't supply the bread and wine Himself, without the need for man to harvest and bake it? I mean, you said above that God is still feeding His people literal bread. If we are to take all that language literally, we should be fed living bread at church and never go hungry, receive living water and wine and never get thirsty, and be around in a thousand years to see our children many generations from now, with no expectation of dying.

I believe it is dangerous to take some passages literally while seemingly arbitrarily deeming others to be spiritual only without very good reason to do so. Instead, I believe Jesus meant we would have spiritual bread and wine to feed our spiritual hunger for Him, living water to satisfy our spiritual thirst for Him, and eternal life after we die to live forever with Him. From John 3:16, "shall not die, but have everlasting life".

On the road to Emmaus, we are told that Jesus pointed to all scriptures that referred to him. And then, when in Emmaus, his disciples recognized him in the breaking of the bread.

The Apostles, being Jews, were well aware of the Bread of the Presence eaten by priests. But Jesus...he was to be eaten by all who believe. You have no belief/faith to offer when it comes to this. However, you do have remembrance, and you are assuring us this remembrance is all that is needed.

That's because Jesus said to eat the meal together in remembrance of him.

You want those who come to Mass in the Catholic Church to just offer remembrance so all can come together. The only way I see this happening is if the Catholic Church has a separate line of bread and wine--that has not been consecrated--for non-believing Christians to receive.

Now, Paul talked about those who take communion in an unworthy manner being subject to sickness and death. Do you have any knowledge that Catholics are doing it "right" while Protestants are doing it "wrong" and thus Catholics are healthier and live longer than Protestants do? I'm not aware of anything like that.

It really comes down to, like I said, what you take literally from the Word and what you deem to be spiritual from the Word. In this case, it LOOKS LIKE you carefully carve out the body of Christ in communion as being literal, but not the living water or eternal life from other passages.

 

[ding]

Yes, physical bread, given for us to eat and be filled. The Presence didn't transform the bread into flesh and blood, however.

He also said He would give us springs of living water that would eternally quench our thirst. In fact the woman He was speaking to was ecstatic that she would not have to come to the well anymore, and He didn't correct her. But no one gives up drinking water because they never get thirsty. He said we have eternal life, but there are no thousand-year-old believers around us who will never die. He used colorful and spiritual imagery when He talked to get across His message. It comes down to what you take literally and what you deem to be only spiritual.

From John 6:

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Jesus is the bread of life, and clearly He's talking spiritually here, because Christians still need to eat food and drink water, or they'll die. When you look at this, it becomes apparent that He's not talking about Him literally becoming something we physically eat and drink.

It sounds like you're saying you believe the bread is infilled with the Spirit and believers obtain that Spirit through eating that Spirit-filled bread, is that correct? I am of the belief that God puts the Holy Spirit in me through my acceptance of Him and that I don't get more of Him by eating consecrated bread.

But the church didn't make it official for another 1200 years. If this were true, and the belief that strong, it should have been official from the very start. I mean, you make it a central tenet of Catholic belief. Since believers were thought of as cannibals, I would think it should have been an official stance so that everyone knew the entire church was behind them.

That is not the same thing as saying the bread literally becomes flesh. That is saying that the bread is infused with the Presence of Christ, something different.

There is a large difference between what I understand Jesus CAN do and what I think He WILL do. No, I don't want to taste blood when I take communion. That would be abhorrent to me, yet you are telling me that I should literally be drinking blood. And yes, that question is still out there. If I'm drinking literal blood, but taste only wine, why? You don't have to answer it now, but it's still there. And you know full well that you taste only wine, so there has to be an answer.

Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed thousands. Are you not limiting Him when you say He won't supply the bread and wine Himself, without the need for man to harvest and bake it? I mean, you said above that God is still feeding His people literal bread. If we are to take all that language literally, we should be fed living bread at church and never go hungry, receive living water and wine and never get thirsty, and be around in a thousand years to see our children many generations from now, with no expectation of dying.

I believe it is dangerous to take some passages literally while seemingly arbitrarily deeming others to be spiritual only without very good reason to do so. Instead, I believe Jesus meant we would have spiritual bread and wine to feed our spiritual hunger for Him, living water to satisfy our spiritual thirst for Him, and eternal life after we die to live forever with Him. From John 3:16, "shall not die, but have everlasting life".

That's because Jesus said to eat the meal together in remembrance of him.

Now, Paul talked about those who take communion in an unworthy manner being subject to sickness and death. Do you have any knowledge that Catholics are doing it "right" while Protestants are doing it "wrong" and thus Catholics are healthier and live longer than Protestants do? I'm not aware of anything like that.

It really comes down to, like I said, what you take literally from the Word and what you deem to be spiritual from the Word. In this case, it LOOKS LIKE you carefully carve out the body of Christ in communion as being literal, but not the living water or eternal life from other passages.

He was given a chance to make it symbolic and doubled down on it instead. Paul admonished early Christians that they were not eating just bread and drinking wine. What more do you need?

 

[hadit]

He was given a chance to make it symbolic and doubled down on it instead. Paul admonished early Christians that they were not eating just bread and drinking wine. What more do you need?

He didn't make it symbolic to the woman at the well who was ecstatic that she wouldn't have to fill her bucket anymore. He didn't specify He wasn't talking about our physical bodies to Nicodemus when He told him believers would live forever. There are multiple places where He left the language unspecific. Paul also said those who were doing it incorrectly were getting drunk. You don't get drunk from drinking blood, there's no alcohol in it.

 

[ding]

He didn't make it symbolic to the woman at the well who was ecstatic that she wouldn't have to fill her bucket anymore. He didn't specify He wasn't talking about our physical bodies to Nicodemus when He told him believers would live forever. There are multiple places where He left the language unspecific. Paul also said those who were doing it incorrectly were getting drunk. You don't get drunk from drinking blood, there's no alcohol in it.

He wasn't discussing his body and blood with that woman. Try reading what he actually said about his body and blood.

 

[hadit]

He wasn't discussing his body and blood with that woman. Try reading what he actually said about his body and blood.

I have. He was discussing living water He could give, and she thought He meant literally. He did not correct her.

 

[ding]

I have. He was discussing living water He could give, and she thought He meant literally. He did not correct her.

He wasn't discussing eating his body or drinking his blood. There's a very detailed passage on that subject that you ignore because it apparently offends your sensibilities. Maybe take it up with Jesus when you meet him.

 

[hadit]

He wasn't discussing eating his body or drinking his blood. There's a very detailed passage on that subject that you ignore because it apparently offends your sensibilities. Maybe take it up with Jesus when you meet him.

It's the same kind of imagery, the same kind of rhetoric. He also said He was the Good Shepherd and He takes care of His sheep. He said He was the door, and the sheep go in and out through Him.

He said He was a lot of things that are not taken literally, yet with this one thing, you make it a central tenet of faith that He was speaking literally.

 

[ding]

It's the same kind of imagery, the same kind of rhetoric. He also said He was the Good Shepherd and He takes care of His sheep. He said He was the door, and the sheep go in and out through Him.

He said He was a lot of things that are not taken literally, yet with this one thing, you make it a central tenet of faith that He was speaking literally.

When they questioned him and suggested it was symbolic, rather than agreeing with them he doubled down on it. Read the passage.

 

[Meriweather]

It's the same kind of imagery, the same kind of rhetoric. He also said He was the Good Shepherd and He takes care of His sheep. He said He was the door, and the sheep go in and out through Him.

He said He was a lot of things that are not taken literally, yet with this one thing, you make it a central tenet of faith that He was speaking literally.

How many disciples left him each time something was not to be taken literally.

 

[hadit]

How many disciples left him each time something was not to be taken literally.

Some things are harder to understand than others. Look, we don't have clear guidance from Scripture where He says, "Take this literally but not that", so we're left with understanding what He really meant, and literally having people eating His flesh and drinking His blood doesn't fit with the rest of His ministry, given how many metaphors and parables He used.

 

[Meriweather]

Some things are harder to understand than others. Look, we don't have clear guidance from Scripture where He says, "Take this literally but not that", so we're left with understanding what He really meant, and literally having people eating His flesh and drinking His blood doesn't fit with the rest of His ministry, given how many metaphors and parables He used.

So...when a teaching is hard, no one shouldn't take it literally? Especially if the Lord doubles down on that teaching, especially if he never explained--even to his Apostles--what he "really" meant as he did with some of his parables?

Did Jesus double down on insisting the Apostles were sheep? Did he double down on the Apostles being called slaves?

There is not a compelling case for not taking literally what he said at the Last Supper, and the Last Supper discourses. You note--like those in Biblical times--"This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?" If it were not meant literally, it would be easy to understand, would it not?

 

[hadit]

So...when a teaching is hard, no one shouldn't take it literally? Especially if the Lord doubles down on that teaching, especially if he never explained--even to his Apostles--what he "really" meant as he did with some of his parables?

Did Jesus double down on insisting the Apostles were sheep? Did he double down on the Apostles being called slaves?

There is not a compelling case for not taking literally what he said at the Last Supper, and the Last Supper discourses. You note--like those in Biblical times--"This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?" If it were not meant literally, it would be easy to understand, would it not?

No one is saying that something being hard to understand is evidence it is not literal. I'm saying that it's not always easy to know if He was speaking literally or metaphorically. Given how often He cloaked His message in imagery, I tend to lean towards assuming metaphorically and looking for the meaning behind it unless He specified He was speaking literally.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes. Study US history.

There has been a notable increase in religious groups involving themselves with politics since I was a kid.

 

[Unkotare]

There has been a notable increase in religious groups involving themselves with politics since I was a kid.

That's just your impression, and US history is a lot longer than since you were a kid.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just your impression, and US history is a lot longer than since you were a kid.

History is much longer than that. That's why I specified the change within recent years.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes. Study US history.

is that before or after they removed the christian bible from public class rooms ...

 

[BULLDOG]

is that before or after they removed the christian bible from public class rooms ...

Would you prefer to have the Koran and the Bible both in classrooms?

 

[BreezeWood]

Would you prefer to have the Koran and the Bible both in classrooms?

there are three desert religions w/ the same preamble to their religious documents and in fact are one in the same.

their removal is simply not the inclusion of the other hundreds of religions that have their own locations for individual who so desire may chose from.

a religious domain is in itself not warranted in a public institution without the public institution also being included in the sanctuaries of the respective churches.

- neither are warranted in the other.

 

[hadit]

So...when a teaching is hard, no one shouldn't take it literally? Especially if the Lord doubles down on that teaching, especially if he never explained--even to his Apostles--what he "really" meant as he did with some of his parables?

Did Jesus double down on insisting the Apostles were sheep? Did he double down on the Apostles being called slaves?

There is not a compelling case for not taking literally what he said at the Last Supper, and the Last Supper discourses. You note--like those in Biblical times--"This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?" If it were not meant literally, it would be easy to understand, would it not?

Let me ask you about this consecration that turns the bread and wine into flesh and blood (that can't be discerned physically, only spiritually). Why do I get the distinct impression that you are convinced only a Catholic priest can do it correctly? Would you accept a Protestant minister doing the ritual? Could you even tell if the bread and wine were consecrated incorrectly, or would your faith render the point, and thus the consecration, moot? Can you do the consecration ritual yourself for a congregation? If not, why not? We are all a royal priesthood, after all.

Also consider the following and understand why you get accused of viewing non-Catholics as unworthy, less than or not even in the Body. This comes from the Council of Trent, at the time the Catholic church first stated transubstantiation as official church policy (in 1215, BTW, NOT the early church):

Canon I. If anyone denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Canon II. If anyone saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1941, 1978), p. 149).

THE EUCHARIST: Its Historical Development and Roman Catholic Teaching – Christian Resources

I highlighted the important word. You are commanded by the church (not Scripture, I will point out) to consider me and those like me anathema. How then can you say you don't look down on non-Catholics as "less than", and claim you accept them as full members of the Body? Has there been a subsequent order changing this edict of which I am not aware, or are you disobedient to church authority? It sounds an awful lot like the church drew a line in the sand and kicked people out the door if they disagreed.