John Chapter 6 - literally

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
I Corinthians 11:27 "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord UNWORTHILY shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."The bread is the bread that is set aside for Communion, and the cup is the wine that is to be taken at the table of the Lord. It is the cup that signifies the blood of the Lord, that is to drunk only at the table of the Lord. That cup brings forgiveness for your sins and make you a new creacher. Many people misinterpret this and say that "you have to examine yourself to see if you are worthy of taking of the table of the Lord", and they are on very dangerous ground. If you waited until you or any man was perfect to receive the bread and cup of the Lord, than no one would take of that table, for there is on one worthy. The word here is "UNWORTHILY", and it is the condition of your mind and you are not the subject nor the object of the taking of the Communion. Christ is the one that is perfect and it is to examine His perfection that makes you worthy of taking of the cup. Why would anyone that did not believe in the crucifixion want to take of the cup anyway?
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(peacebewithyou;23315)
(thesuperjag;23315)
I know that. Yahshua was speaking sybolic on that chapter. If you are literally taking those verses literally. You would know that it is against God's law. Christ is God. And God can not break His laws. So to speak...It's symbolic. Jag
Specifically which law would it be breaking?Leviticus 7:26 - Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.Leviticus 7:27 - Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.Leviticus 17:10 - And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.Jag
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
To quote Denver HereMy point here is that I am not basing what I have posted off of the early church fathers nor off of private interpretation. Ive taken examples from the entire Bible where there is a clear idiom. You cannot physically eat knowledge, but you can digest that knowledge in your mind as you think on it and meditate about it.I like to establish precedents from the Bible and not from the early church fathers. Again, the focus is clearly on the fact that Yeshua came in the flesh, not at all that you eat his flesh{quote} .......This pretty clear to anyone I would think if you use common sense or do you have to through that out at the door of the Church Buliding?to be quite frank about it this is what the scriptures says it called learning to rightly divide the word something they do not teach you in church today wouldn't want the sheeple thinking now would they.You asked we told you what the scripture says theres realy not much else to say. Believe what you like its our Job to put it out there straight from the scriptures not to tell you what to believe Gods Word speaks for itself when you have ears to hear it. You either do or dont.
 

Peacebewithyou

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
426
0
0
56
(kriss;23322)
I like to establish precedents from the Bible and not from the early church fathers. Again, the focus is clearly on the fact that Yeshua came in the flesh, not at all that you eat his flesh{quote} [/B]........
You said God's word speaks for itself. I couldn't agree with you more.You and I do not disagree about the words of the Bible - we disagree about the interpretation. I believe Jesus is speaking literally in John 6. The Early Christians believed he was speaking literally. Please note what Ignatius of Antioch wrote. (below) Why should you care what he had to say? Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself and he was ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence - Jesus truly present in the Eucharist. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD:Ignatius of Antioch: "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110])."Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).Are you cetain you want to hang onto your own personal interpretation of John over the interpretation of those who were appointed by the Apostles to teach?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
If you want to keep pushing this yes I am sure, To believe that bread becomes literal body and wine literal blood is not in the Bible nor was it ever taught by the early church nor the early church fathers and those are the facts.I had hoped you would read our biblical version and check it out for yourself but if you insist I will spell it out. .........Among the aberrant Catholic sacraments and doctrines, one of the least understood is that of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. While analogous to communion in many ways, it is also worlds apart, separated by a gulf of heresy. This article will provide a basic analysis of the Catholic Eucharist, and reveal the ways in which it is unbiblical and a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The Catholic Church teaches that once a Catholic priest has consecrated the wafer of bread during communion, or “Eucharist” as it is called by Catholics, it turns into the literal and real body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is no longer a piece of bread. It is Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread, and is therefore worthy of worship and adoration. This process of consecration followed by a literal change from a mere wafer to the body of Christ is called transubstantiation. The following paragraphs are taken from the Catholic Catechism. Paragraph 1374, page 383“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”Paragraph 1380, pages 385, 386“The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.”Paragraph 1418, pages 395“Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration.” Also see, paragraphs 1373-1377 and 1413 on pages 383-385 and page 395 The Catholic Church similarly teaches that the wine or water taken with the wafer becomes the literal blood of Christ upon consecration by a priest. They claim that Jesus taught transubstantiation at the last supper and that the disciples were anointed with the power to change bread into the actual presence of Christ. This authority was then passed down through priestly ordination and apostolic succession. To the early church the practice of the Lord’s Supper was a time of fellowship and a meal memorializing Christ’s sacrifice. The bread and wine were taken in a Thanksgiving celebration that came to be known as the Eucharist. Eucharist comes from the Greek word, eucharistia, which means “thanksgiving”. 1 It was a celebration held in expectation of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb that awaits all believers before the Glorious Appearing (Rev. 19:9). The transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Church was not taught or practiced until the middle ages, long after the emergence of Roman Catholicism in the 6th Century A.D. Four Catholic Popes can be credited with the evolution of the Eucharist to include several of the traditions now held by Catholics.21. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome AD 432-440 was the first to establish an “altar” within basilicas where the elements of bread and wine were blessed. 2. Felix IV, (AD 526-530) separated the altar as a holy place to be used exclusively for blessing the Eucharist elements. 3. Boniface II (AD 530-532) came up with altar coverings4. Gregory I (AD 590-604) in his early 7th century reforms added candles, tabernacles to hold the elements, and the vestments worn by priests.The early church never practiced these traditions. The Mass did not change from a celebration meal of thanksgiving to a ceremonial encounter with the literal body and blood of Jesus until the 12th century. The doctrine of transubstantiation was decreed in AD 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council. The Catholic Church places a great deal of authority on antiquity and appearing to be an exact replica of the early church. Therefore, when history proves that most Catholic traditions are found nowhere in the early church, and are in fact the result of an evolution of doctrines as they were passed down through a succession of Popes, the church simply rewrites history. This works because the laity are taught to never question the authority of the Church. Investigating the historical record and the evidence for the Church’s claims to authority would be tantamount to questioning the Pope. While the Catholic Church relies heavily on a revised history to support their claims, they also use the Pope’s interpretation of scripture as a support. I say “the Pope’s interpretation” because the laity is not allowed to interpret scripture for themselves and must look to the church for its meaning instead. One of the verses the Catechism lists to support transubstantiation is Luke 22:19,20. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Its proponents also commonly use chapter 6 in the book of John as a support for transubstantiation.John 6:51-55 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”When Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper we do it in remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made for us. The bread represents the body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood sacrificed to cover our sins. This verse and the verses in John do not teach that the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus, and the wine is the literal blood of Christ. The key to understanding scripture is to read it in context. We know from context when to interpret scripture literally, and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic interpretation. The Bible is replete with verses that use metaphors, symbols, and descriptive images to make a point or explain a teaching. Some examples of metaphors that would not be taken literally are listed below. Psalm 34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.” John 4:14 “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”This verse does not mean that believers will literally have a fountain of water springing up inside them. It is a metaphorical way of telling us that those who accept the salvation Christ offers will have eternal life.John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews thought that Jesus was referring to the Jewish temple, but as you read further it becomes obvious he was referring to His body. Jesus makes several I Am statements in the book of John alone that are good examples of the symbolic nature of some scripture. 1. I am the bread of life (John 6:35)2. I am the light of the world (John 8:12)3. I am the door (John 10:9)4. I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)5. I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25)6. I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)7. I am the vine.All of these statements tell us something about the nature of Jesus, however Jesus is not a literal door that opens when we ask to receive Him. He is no more a literal grape vine than he is a loaf of bread, and He does not become either. These are but a few examples out of many. Just as Jesus used parables to explain things that were hard for his listeners to understand, the Bible uses metaphors to help us understand and visualize what we read. Jesus told us to expect this in John 16:25 which reads, “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language
 

Peacebewithyou

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
426
0
0
56
Whoever wrote that article is misguided at best - lying at worst.
sad.gif
Recorded historical writings of the Early Christians: Cyril of Jerusalem:"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). Augustine: "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). ... "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). Council of Ephesus: "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]). Irenaeus: "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). Justin Martyr: "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Regarding the following as evidence that the Early Chruch did not believe in a literal interpretation of John 6: (you wrote:) Four Catholic Popes can be credited with the evolution of the Eucharist to include several of the traditions now held by Catholics.21. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome AD 432-440 was the first to establish an “altar” within basilicas where the elements of bread and wine were blessed.2. Felix IV, (AD 526-530) separated the altar as a holy place to be used exclusively for blessing the Eucharist elements. 3. Boniface II (AD 530-532) came up with altar coverings4. Gregory I (AD 590-604) in his early 7th century reforms added candles, tabernacles to hold the elements, and the vestments worn by priests. I ask: of what do they signify? Nothing. They add to the mass: altar, coverings, candles, vestments etc. - the "window dressing" if you will - but they say nothing about the long standing belief that the Eucharist is Jesus' body & blood. Just because the writer of that article "claims" the Early Christians didn't believe it to be true doesn't make it so. I've posted the words of Early Christians - respected Church Fathers who say otherwise. Unless you can produce the words of Early Christians who say it was only symbolic, I reject your opinion that was their belief, and will instead stand firm on the words of Jesus, ""For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Amen.
 

Peacebewithyou

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
426
0
0
56
Opps- forgot one of signifigance: Theodore of Mopsuestia [of the 5th century] "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Whatever, you pushed for truth you got it believe what you like. so as far as Im concerned this discussion is over I presented the facts I have nothing else to say on the subject.
 

goldy

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
204
0
0
49
(Denver;23309)
Well, this is interesting. One of you is suggesting that I should listen to some of the early church men while the other is saying that I should not listen to private interpretation. Which is it? Or does the fact that I publish something on this board, and therefore go public with it, immediately make it true?My point here is that I am not basing what I have posted off of the early church fathers nor off of private interpretation. Ive taken examples from the entire Bible where there is a clear idiom. You cannot physically eat knowledge, but you can digest that knowledge in your mind as you think on it and meditate about it.I like to establish precedents from the Bible and not from the early church fathers. Again, the focus is clearly on the fact that Yeshua came in the flesh, not at all that you eat his flesh.I'm not hip on being the in crowd for certain, but you say the early church fathers as if this position was held with unanimity, which it rather clearly was not.I think I'll stick with Scripture, thanks.
smile.gif

Well Garsh.....I thought we did stick with scripture to support the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Did you not see my post quoting other scripture passages outside of John 6? People on here decided not to accept it, and then we began quoting early Church fathers.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Did you read the post above It is not in the Bible it was never taught by the apostles and it was never taught by the earliest church fathers facts not speculation whether it came into the church 400 years later or 1200 years later it is not of God but of men/Those are the hitorical facts as I posted above believe them or not but you can not argue facts it is a mans teaching Not GodsTo the early church the practice of the Lord’s Supper was a time of fellowship and a meal memorializing Christ’s sacrifice. The bread and wine were taken in a Thanksgiving celebration that came to be known as the Eucharist. Eucharist comes from the Greek word, eucharistia, which means “thanksgiving”. 1 It was a celebration held in expectation of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb that awaits all believers before the Glorious Appearing (Rev. 19:9). The transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Church was not taught or practiced until the middle ages, long after the emergence of Roman Catholicism in the 6th Century A.D.Four Catholic Popes can be credited with the evolution of the Eucharist to include several of the traditions now held by Catholics.21. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome AD 432-440 was the first to establish an “altar” within basilicas where the elements of bread and wine were blessed.2. Felix IV, (AD 526-530) separated the altar as a holy place to be used exclusively for blessing the Eucharist elements. 3. Boniface II (AD 530-532) came up with altar coverings4. Gregory I (AD 590-604) in his early 7th century reforms added candles, tabernacles to hold the elements, and the vestments worn by priests.The early church never practiced these traditions. The Mass did not change from a celebration meal of thanksgiving to a ceremonial encounter with the literal body and blood of Jesus until the 12th century. The doctrine of transubstantiation was decreed in AD 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council.The Catholic Church places a great deal of authority on antiquity and appearing to be an exact replica of the early church. Therefore, when history proves that most Catholic traditions are found nowhere in the early church, and are in fact the result of an evolution of doctrines as they were passed down through a succession of Popes, the church simply rewrites history. This works because the laity are taught to never question the authority of the Church. Investigating the historical record and the evidence for the Church’s claims to authority would be tantamount to questioning the Pope. While the Catholic Church relies heavily on a revised history to support their claims, they also use the Pope’s interpretation of scripture as a support. I say “the Pope’s interpretation” because the laity is not allowed to interpret scripture for themselves and must look to the church for its meaning instead. One of the verses the Catechism lists to support transubstantiation is Luke 22:19,20.And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.Its proponents also commonly use chapter 6 in the book of John as a support for transubstantiation.John 6:51-55 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”When Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper we do it in remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made for us. The bread represents the body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood sacrificed to cover our sins. This verse and the verses in John do not teach that the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus, and the wine is the literal blood of Christ. The key to understanding scripture is to read it in context. We know from context when to interpret scripture literally, and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic interpretation. The Bible is replete with verses that use metaphors, symbols, and descriptive images to make a point or explain a teaching. Some examples of metaphors that would not be taken literally are listed below.Psalm 34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”John 4:14 “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”This verse does not mean that believers will literally have a fountain of water springing up inside them. It is a metaphorical way of telling us that those who accept the salvation Christ offers will have eternal life.John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”The Jews thought that Jesus was referring to the Jewish temple, but as you read further it becomes obvious he was referring to His body. Jesus makes several I Am statements in the book of John alone that are good examples of the symbolic nature of some scripture. 1. I am the bread of life (John 6:35)2. I am the light of the world (John 8:12)3. I am the door (John 10:9)4. I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)5. I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25)6. I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)7. I am the vine.All of these statements tell us something about the nature of Jesus, however Jesus is not a literal door that opens when we ask to receive Him. He is no more a literal grape vine than he is a loaf of bread, and He does not become either. These are but a few examples out of many. Just as Jesus used parables to explain things that were hard for his listeners to understand, the Bible uses metaphors to help us understand and visualize what we read. Jesus told us to expect this in John 16:25 which reads, “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language__________________
 

goldy

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
204
0
0
49
(kriss;23380)
Did you read the post above It is not in the Bible it was never taught by the apostles and it was never taught by the earliest church fathers facts not speculation whether it came into the church 400 years later or 1200 years later it is not of God but of men/Those are the hitorical facts as I posted above believe them or not but you can not argue facts it is a mans teaching Not GodsTo the early church the practice of the Lord’s Supper was a time of fellowship and a meal memorializing Christ’s sacrifice. The bread and wine were taken in a Thanksgiving celebration that came to be known as the Eucharist. Eucharist comes from the Greek word, eucharistia, which means “thanksgiving”. 1 It was a celebration held in expectation of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb that awaits all believers before the Glorious Appearing (Rev. 19:9). The transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Church was not taught or practiced until the middle ages, long after the emergence of Roman Catholicism in the 6th Century A.D.Four Catholic Popes can be credited with the evolution of the Eucharist to include several of the traditions now held by Catholics.21. Sixtus III, bishop of Rome AD 432-440 was the first to establish an “altar” within basilicas where the elements of bread and wine were blessed.2. Felix IV, (AD 526-530) separated the altar as a holy place to be used exclusively for blessing the Eucharist elements. 3. Boniface II (AD 530-532) came up with altar coverings4. Gregory I (AD 590-604) in his early 7th century reforms added candles, tabernacles to hold the elements, and the vestments worn by priests.The early church never practiced these traditions. The Mass did not change from a celebration meal of thanksgiving to a ceremonial encounter with the literal body and blood of Jesus until the 12th century. The doctrine of transubstantiation was decreed in AD 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council.The Catholic Church places a great deal of authority on antiquity and appearing to be an exact replica of the early church. Therefore, when history proves that most Catholic traditions are found nowhere in the early church, and are in fact the result of an evolution of doctrines as they were passed down through a succession of Popes, the church simply rewrites history. This works because the laity are taught to never question the authority of the Church. Investigating the historical record and the evidence for the Church’s claims to authority would be tantamount to questioning the Pope. While the Catholic Church relies heavily on a revised history to support their claims, they also use the Pope’s interpretation of scripture as a support. I say “the Pope’s interpretation” because the laity is not allowed to interpret scripture for themselves and must look to the church for its meaning instead. One of the verses the Catechism lists to support transubstantiation is Luke 22:19,20.And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.Its proponents also commonly use chapter 6 in the book of John as a support for transubstantiation.John 6:51-55 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”When Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper we do it in remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made for us. The bread represents the body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood sacrificed to cover our sins. This verse and the verses in John do not teach that the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus, and the wine is the literal blood of Christ. The key to understanding scripture is to read it in context. We know from context when to interpret scripture literally, and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic interpretation. The Bible is replete with verses that use metaphors, symbols, and descriptive images to make a point or explain a teaching. Some examples of metaphors that would not be taken literally are listed below.Psalm 34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”John 4:14 “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”This verse does not mean that believers will literally have a fountain of water springing up inside them. It is a metaphorical way of telling us that those who accept the salvation Christ offers will have eternal life.John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”The Jews thought that Jesus was referring to the Jewish temple, but as you read further it becomes obvious he was referring to His body. Jesus makes several I Am statements in the book of John alone that are good examples of the symbolic nature of some scripture. 1. I am the bread of life (John 6:35)2. I am the light of the world (John 8:12)3. I am the door (John 10:9)4. I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)5. I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25)6. I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)7. I am the vine.All of these statements tell us something about the nature of Jesus, however Jesus is not a literal door that opens when we ask to receive Him. He is no more a literal grape vine than he is a loaf of bread, and He does not become either. These are but a few examples out of many. Just as Jesus used parables to explain things that were hard for his listeners to understand, the Bible uses metaphors to help us understand and visualize what we read. Jesus told us to expect this in John 16:25 which reads, “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language__________________
Kriss, Did you read my third post in this thread? I was quoting Scripture. It's not just in John 6, you know. Please go back and read that post. Yes, we also quoted early Church fathers to support the position. One of the reasons we did that was because you refused to accept those SCRIPTURE VERSES we quoted. You want Scripture to back up what you say, right? That's what we are using too. I have other Scripture passages to back this up as well. Would you like more? It's all about interpretation. I disagree with your interpretation. No need to get upset here......
 

Peacebewithyou

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
426
0
0
56
(kriss;23380)
Did you read the post above It is not in the Bible it was never taught by the apostles and it was never taught by the earliest church fathers facts not speculation whether it came into the church 400 years later or 1200 years later it is not of God but of men/Those are the hitorical facts as I posted above believe them or not but you can not argue facts it is a mans teaching Not Gods
Could you please cite the refrence for your "historical facts?" I'd like to verify them. Someone taught by the Apostles would be helpful - to counter what St. Ignatius said about it being the literal body & blood of Christ.
 

Pariah

New Member
Nov 10, 2007
416
0
0
60
Hi Peacebewithyou,Consider the full ramification of this verse, okay?John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.It is by coming to Jesus as Your Saviour that saved you. It is by believing in Jesus that you have life.If then you shall never hunger nor thirst, how can the continual sacrifice for sin be what Jesus meant when He simply said to do this in remembrance of Him.... not for life.As far as eating the body and the blood in an unworthy manner, take that in context. They were eating and drinking the bread and wine for the sake of eating and drinking; not remembering wha the Lord has done in having saved them by that one time offering for sin.So how can you be hungering or thirsting for life in the bread and the wine if those that come to Jesus, shall never hunger nor thirst? When are you going to see that Jesus referred to Himself as the bread of life? He wasn't saying that the bread of life was Him. He was saying coming to Him will be life. Proof below.John 5: 39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. The idea of a human sacrifice would turn many away, so that is why Jesus use those terms candidly.
 

whirlwind

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,286
31
0
78
(thesuperjag;23298)
Does that answer your question?Jag
That was very clever :naughty:
smile.gif
....I didn't know what you meant either.I agree. The bread and wine are symbolic, they represent Him. :shepard:.......Whirlwind
 

goldy

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
204
0
0
49
(Pariah;23393)
Hi Peacebewithyou,Consider the full ramification of this verse, okay?John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.It is by coming to Jesus as Your Saviour that saved you. It is by believing in Jesus that you have life.If then you shall never hunger nor thirst, how can the continual sacrifice for sin be what Jesus meant when He simply said to do this in remembrance of Him.... not for life.As far as eating the body and the blood in an unworthy manner, take that in context. They were eating and drinking the bread and wine for the sake of eating and drinking; not remembering wha the Lord has done in having saved them by that one time offering for sin.So how can you be hungering or thirsting for life in the bread and the wine if those that come to Jesus, shall never hunger nor thirst? When are you going to see that Jesus referred to Himself as the bread of life? He wasn't saying that the bread of life was Him. He was saying coming to Him will be life. Proof below.John 5: 39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. The idea of a human sacrifice would turn many away, so that is why Jesus use those terms candidly.
Boy, I had to say this after reading your post Pariah. With regard to taking things out of context or keeping them in context: If I had a dollar for everytime a non-Catholic took a passage out of context......well, let's just say I'd be retired and living on a beach in Maui:)I'm thinking about passages like: Luke 1:47, Rom.3:23, 1Tim.2:5, Matt.23:9, etc. I agree, I think people take things in the Bible out of context all the time.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(Peacebewithyou;23291)
Yes, I see Jesus literally.
(whirlwind;23396)
(thesuperjag;23298)
Does that answer your question?Jag
That was very clever :naughty:
smile.gif
....I didn't know what you meant either.I agree. The bread and wine are symbolic, they represent Him. :shepard:.......WhirlwindWell the whole idea is to get people to see how stupid the literal sounds. If it was literal, Christ Himself, who is God would be breaking His laws, making Himself a liar...and for I cannot believe that God sinned. Christ was proven sinless the whole time. (II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, I Peter 2:22)JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour.
 

goldy

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
204
0
0
49
(thesuperjag;23401)
Well the whole idea is to get people to see how stupid the literal sounds. If it was literal, Christ Himself, who is God would be breaking His laws, making Himself a liar...and for I cannot believe that God sinned. Christ was proven sinless the whole time. (II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, I Peter 2:22)JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour.
1. With regard to the joke on PeacebewithYou, it was lame IMHO2. With regard to this most recent post, Huh? Listen Dude, if you don't want to take John 6 literally, go ahead. It's a free country. I simply disagree with you.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(goldy;23402)
(thesuperjag;23401)
Well the whole idea is to get people to see how stupid the literal sounds. If it was literal, Christ Himself, who is God would be breaking His laws, making Himself a liar...and for I cannot believe that God sinned. Christ was proven sinless the whole time. (II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, I Peter 2:22)JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour.
1. With regard to the joke on PeacebewithYou, it was lame IMHO2. With regard to this most recent post, Huh? Listen Dude, if you don't want to take John 6 literally, go ahead. It's a free country. I simply disagree with you.It wasn't intended to be a joke. It was intended to get people to think. Would you eat your flesh? Would you drink your own blood? I know I wouldn't.Jag
 

goldy

New Member
Nov 6, 2007
204
0
0
49
(thesuperjag;23404)
It wasn't intended to be a joke. It was intended to get people to think. Would you eat your flesh? Would you drink your own blood? I know I wouldn't.Jag
No, I wouldn't eat MY flesh.....that's sort of gross don't you think? I eat His flesh.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(goldy;23405)
(thesuperjag;23404)
It wasn't intended to be a joke. It was intended to get people to think. Would you eat your flesh? Would you drink your own blood? I know I wouldn't.Jag
No, I wouldn't eat MY flesh.....that's sort of gross don't you think? I eat His flesh.Then you would know that Yahshua was not speaking literally at all then.Jag