John 6 and the bread from heaven

[BreadOfLife]

Go away my friend.

You always appear so angry. I just do not have time for your nonsense.

Discuss John 6. (this thread) or be gone.

I already proved my point, whether you agree with my proof is not my problem.

I responded to something SHE SAID. Take it up with her

In post #122 – YOU responded to MY post #112 THAT’s where you issued your anti--Catholic sentiments.

If you regret having stepped in it – just say so.
But don’t try to project YOUR anger and frustration on me.

As for John 6 – I WAS discussing it before your anti-Catholic attack in post #122 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said, don;t work for food which perishes. But food which will endure forever.

Here let me help you. I did a chart of what Jesus actually said in John 6. Vs what those who take the eucharist must say Jesus said in John 6. (whether they be catholic or not)

View attachment 38789

As you can see. there is a HUGE difference between what Jesus actually said. And those who want me to believe in a Eucharistic offering wants me to see that it says..

I know it probably took you a while to come up with this nonsense. However, “My flesh is true food” and, “My blood his true drink” are statements of reality – not symbolism. This is WHY the people walked away from Him and returned to their former way of life in verse 66.
They were the first Protestants.

”Abides in Jesus and in us”, “Will be raised in the last day”, “Lives forever”, “Has eternal life, “Will not die” - these are the RESULTS of eating His flesh and drinking his blood. They are not “symbols” for doing so.

One of YOUR main objections is the fact that Catholics receive the Eucharist as often as we can. Yet, we are commanded in Scripture to receive it as often as we gather:

1 Cor. 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The Eucharist was NEVER meant to be taken ONCE, then ignored . . .

 

[Ziggy]

I will now give you the same reminder i have given some others .
The day i see you even leaning in the direction of the catholic church , YOU GETTING REBUKED BIG TIME .
please DO the same for me , if ever i even glance in that direction . EVEN GLANCE in that direction .
THE WHORE knows only one thing . FORNICATION . THE WHORE desires only one thing
and by any and all means will do anything to attain it , POWER AND CONTROL .
and if it means for a short time she has to pretend to be as a baptist , a muslim , a atheist
a buddist , BY GOLLLY that chamelon can and will BLEND INTO the color o whatever branch she grabs hold of
TO BLEND IN as though she is of it , BUT only to TAKE OVER that branch . the whore does not rest
nor do her many daughters who have bought into her cry of false love , unity , inclusivims , common ground LIE .

I only lean towards Jesus brother.
God Bless you
Hugs

 

[Eternally Grateful]

In post #122 – YOU responded to MY post #112 THAT’s where you issued your anti--Catholic sentiments.

If you regret having stepped in it – just say so.
But don’t try to project YOUR anger and frustration on me.

As for John 6 – I WAS discussing it before your anti-Catholic attack in post #122 . . .

I am a patient man, But you make it hard

You did not discuss john 6. You were tryign to discuss a few verses in John 6. thats all. And my post was not anticatholic. it was what Jesus said in John 6

I did not step in it. You did,when you keep going to your history.

John 6 does not support the eucharist.

Thats not anti catholic. that is just the truth (see post 434 to see the differing views)

As I said before. If your doctrine does nto line up with the word of God. it does nto matter what your history says. I will not believe a history based on lies.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I know it probably took you a while to come up with this nonsense. However, “My flesh is true food” and, “My blood his true drink” are statements of reality – not symbolism. This is WHY the people walked away from Him and returned to their former way of life in verse 66.
They were the first Protestants.

”Abides in Jesus and in us”, “Will be raised in the last day”, “Lives forever”, “Has eternal life, “Will not die” - these are the RESULTS of eating His flesh and drinking his blood. They are not “symbols” for doing so.

One of YOUR main objections is the fact that Catholics receive the Eucharist as often as we can. Yet, we are commanded in Scripture to receive it as often as we gather:

1 Cor. 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The Eucharist was NEVER meant to be taken ONCE, then ignored . . .

Its nonsense?

Yet you can not refute it. You can not show me where it is wrong

And of all the points Jesus made, you only want to address 2?

Please note. Jesus spoke of food which endures forever. He eventually called that same food. his flesh and blood, which he would give.

You can post 1 cor 11 all you want

John 6 looks for what we do now. So we can receive what he promised


1 cor 11 says to look back at what he did. In remembrance of him, and does not promise one thing to those who eat it.

You want me to believe 2 + 2 = 5, I can;t.. If you wish to. that's on you

 

[Marymog]

Let me give you some friendly advice.

When you say this, you do the following

1. Prove you do not really know what the passage says, Your just believing what your "church" told you
2. Prove you are not open to discussion, Nothing anyone tells you or shows you will get through. Because you are closed minded (you think you know truth. so your right and everyone else is wrong. because your church is right)
3. Why are you even here? Your not willing to discuss. (well you will, but your not open to what anyone says, so in fact, your willingness to discuss is actually a disguise to make people think you are open to discussion)

I am reminded why I had you blocked for so long..

When your ready to actually DISCUSS the passage (if you are ever ready to OPENLY do so)

then please let me know

Thanks for the friendly advise. When you say 'the passage' I assumed you mean THE PASSAGES in John 6 and the bread of life discourse, which is the topic our discussion.

1. In John 6 Jesus 'really' say's You must eat my body and drink my blood. I and The Church believe Him and you don't. So YES, I believe what 'my church' told me because my Church repeats the words of Christ. YOU on the other hand have twisted what He said in John 6 and said, No Jesus, I don't need to eat your body and drink your blood. THIS is what you really mean when you said that. Furthermore, in a previous post you said you take Him literally. But you clearly don't......Round 1, you lost.

2. I am open to discussion. That's what we have been doing for the last several days. THAT IS YOUR PROOF. Being confident in the Truth is not being closed minded. Just because you are not confident that you have the Truth in this matter does not mean I should not be confident. YES, The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth is right.....Round 2, you lost.

3. Why am I here? Huh.....I am not willing to discuss? Huh??? I am here so that we can discuss this matter which we have been for the last several days. I think you are just frustrated because I won't accept what YOU believe because you THINK you made such a great argument in your "thesis". I am not like you. I will not change my view!! Once I know the Truth I stick with it and defend it. Sooooo I guess one could say that I am here to defend the Truth....Round 3, you lost.

What do you mean when I am ready to discuss this passage. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS?

What you really mean is when I am ready to throw away everything I believe about John 6 and accept what YOU believe, then you are ready to discuss it. But then what is there to discuss if I just agree with everything you say. And then 3 months later you change your view (which by your own admittance you have done) and then I just agree with your NEW view etc etc blah blah blah

You are killing me with a thousand paper cuts EG...Just killing me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Thanks for the friendly advise. When you say 'the passage' I assumed you mean THE PASSAGES in John 6 and the bread of life discourse, which is the topic our discussion.

1. In John 6 Jesus 'really' say's You must eat my body and drink my blood. I and The Church believe Him and you don't. So YES, I believe what 'my church' told me because my Church repeats the words of Christ. YOU on the other hand have twisted what He said in John 6 and said, No Jesus, I don't need to eat your body and drink your blood. THIS is what you really mean when you said that. Furthermore, in a previous post you said you take Him literally. But you clearly don't......Round 1, you lost.

2. I am open to discussion. That's what we have been doing for the last several days. THAT IS YOUR PROOF. Being confident in the Truth is not being closed minded. Just because you are not confident that you have the Truth in this matter does not mean I should not be confident. YES, The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth is right.....Round 2, you lost.

3. Why am I here? Huh.....I am not willing to discuss? Huh??? I am here so that we can discuss this matter which we have been for the last several days. I think you are just frustrated because I won't accept what YOU believe because you THINK you made such a great argument in your "thesis". I am not like you. I will not change my view!! Once I know the Truth I stick with it and defend it. Sooooo I guess one could say that I am here to defend the Truth....Round 3, you lost.

What do you mean when I am ready to discuss this passage. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS?

What you really mean is when I am ready to throw away everything I believe about John 6 and accept what YOU believe, then you are ready to discuss it. But then what is there to discuss if I just agree with everything you say. And then 3 months later you change your view (which by your own admittance you have done) and then I just agree with your NEW view etc etc blah blah blah

You are killing me with a thousand paper cuts EG...Just killing me.

I rest my case.

Go ahead and believe what you want. You have shown no amount of evidence will change your mind.

There is no need to go further.. Any more discussion will be seen by catholics as anti catholic bashing by protestants. And by Grace believers as Anti-Catholic bashing by catholics.

Good day

 

[Marymog]

I rest my case.

Go ahead and believe what you want. You have shown no amount of evidence will change your mind.

There is no need to go further.. Any more discussion will be seen by catholics as anti catholic bashing by protestants. And by Grace believers as Anti-Catholic bashing by catholics.

Good day

Nope, I don't see what YOU believe as anti-Catholic bashing. I see you twisting the words of Jesus and not believing what He said....but I don't think you are bashing me as a Catholic. AND, you are right. There is no evidence that you can provide to change my mind and make me stop believing what He said.

Jesus: You must eat my body....

EG; Soooo what you are saying Jesus is that I must have faith and believe.

Marymog: Ok Jesus, I will do what you tell me to do. HOW do I do that?

Jesus: I showed you how to do that at the Last Supper when I held up the bread and said this IS my body, do this.

Marymog: Thank you Jesus I believe you.

EG: You didn't really mean it Jesus when you said this IS my body. I will do it in remembrance of you like you asked me to, but it's not your body. You meant something else when you said that.

Paul: Is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Marymog: Yes Paul, it IS a participation in the body of Christ, just like He said it was.

EG No Paul, it is not a participation in the body of Christ. Here is what you and Jesus really meant..........

I agree with you EG....there is no need to go further.

 

[Marymog]

Its nonsense?

Yet you can not refute it. You can not show me where it is wrong

And of all the points Jesus made, you only want to address 2?

Please note. Jesus spoke of food which endures forever. He eventually called that same food. his flesh and blood, which he would give.

You can post 1 cor 11 all you want

John 6 looks for what we do now. So we can receive what he promised


1 cor 11 says to look back at what he did. In remembrance of him, and does not promise one thing to those who eat it.

You want me to believe 2 + 2 = 5, I can;t.. If you wish to. that's on you

Hey EG,

YOU have taken words from Scripture, interpreted those words into a math equation of 2+2=4 and then said if anyone disagrees with YOUR math (interpretation) then THEY are wrong, and your math can't be refuted.

Fine....I get it. You believe your thesis is strong and no one can refute it. EVERY biblical theologian before you got their math wrong! YOU are right. Nothing is going to change your mind.

Here is the math you are leaving out:

Bread of Life discourse (John 6) + Last Supper + Paul equating the bread/blood to Christ's body/blood and eating/drinking it in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians)

John 6; Jesus tells us that we must eat (literally chew) his body and drink his blood to have life in us (you say he is being symbolic)
Last Supper: Jesus shows us how to drink his blood and eat his body and said the bread IS his body (you say it isn't)
1 Corinthians: Paul tells us that the bread IS His body and the wine IS his blood and if we eat/drink it in an unworthy manner we are guilty of sin. (you, to the best of my knowledge, haven't addressed this in your thesis)

That is 1+1+1 equaling 3. I didn't have to change what Jesus said in John 6 to make Jesus words fit into my math equation. I didn't have to change what Jesus said at the Last supper to make it fit into MY math equation. I didn't have to change what Paul said to force the math to work. You changed or ignored what they said to make your math work.

But wait.....there is more to support my math. The NT said they ate the bread (of which Jesus said IS his body) daily and Jesus said we are to pray for this daily bread. The same bread Paul said IS his body. So that means my math is +1 MORE.

But wait...there is more. A student of an Apostle said, the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” That means my math is +1 MORE.

That means I now have 1+1+1+1+1 which equals 5 and I didn't change anything they said! My thesis (interpretation) has been taught for 2,000 years and I didn't have to twist Scripture or anyone's words to MAKE (force) my math to work.

Your math does not take into equation the blood He said we must drink. Your math doesn't take into equation what the NT Christians did or Paul what said or what Jesus asked us to pray for in the Lords Prayer. Your math doesn't take into account what a student of John said. Your math (thesis) lacks ALL the numbers to come up with a proper, accurate or true answer. Your math (thesis) is incomplete.

Thoughts? from you or @BreadOfLife @Illuminator

 

[Marymog]

For this I will try to color code each digit so it is easier to see

two plus two equals X

John 6: 26 - 27 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

Food + (nothing yet) = eternal life


vs 32 - 33 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
- Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

Bread (he who comes from heaven) + He who comes to me and he who believes in me = You will never hunger and you will never thirst

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

Me (christ) + comes to me = never be cast out

40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Me (christ) + sees and believes = everlasting life and the promise he WILL raise them the last day


47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Bread of life + Believes in him, he who eats this living bread (his flesh) = will live forever


vs 53 - 58 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, 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 food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Flesh and blood + eat and drink (literally gnaw and chew) = will live forever, promised to be raised on the last day, will live because of him (as long as Spirit (words of Christ) lives they will live


vs 61 -63 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Spirit (words of Christ) + It is assumed believe or see and believe here) = Gives life,


vs 67 - 71 - Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” 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.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

the words of eternal life the Christ, the son of the living God + believing = eternal life

Post #379 from YOU: I take jesus literally..It’s not my interpretation.

But everything you wrote above is NOT taking Him literally.

Can you explain?

 

[Illuminator]

Hey EG,

YOU have taken words from Scripture, interpreted those words into a math equation of 2+2=4 and then said if anyone disagrees with YOUR math (interpretation) then THEY are wrong, and your math can't be refuted.

EG argues like an atheist. Rationalists and materialists don't accept miracles as evidence.

Eucharistic Miracles

Documented Eucharistic Miracles that have been approved by the Catholic Church. Presents evidence attesting to their authenticity.

www.therealpresence.org

Fine....I get it. You believe your thesis is strong and no one can refute it. EVERY biblical theologian before you got their math wrong! YOU are right. Nothing is going to change your mind.

Because EG is divorced from the early church.

The Early Church Believed in the Eucharist

There were heretics in the early Church who denied the Real Presence, and yet the erroneous teaching of those heretics did not endure.

www.catholic.com

Here is the math you are leaving out:

Bread of Life discourse (John 6) + Last Supper + Paul equating the bread/blood to Christ's body/blood and eating/drinking it in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians)

1 Cor. 11:27-29 – in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 – this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 – thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

John 6; Jesus tells us that we must eat (literally chew) his body and drink his blood to have life in us (you say he is being symbolic)

John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So EG cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be his argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Last Supper: Jesus shows us how to drink his blood and eat his body and said the bread IS his body (you say it isn't)
1 Corinthians: Paul tells us that the bread IS His body and the wine IS his blood and if we eat/drink it in an unworthy manner we are guilty of sin. (you, to the best of my knowledge, haven't addressed this in your thesis)

Symbols can't give eternal life.

That is 1+1+1 equaling 3. I didn't have to change what Jesus said in John 6 to make Jesus words fit into my math equation. I didn't have to change what Jesus said at the Last supper to make it fit into MY math equation. I didn't have to change what Paul said to force the math to work. You changed or ignored what they said to make your math work.

But wait.....there is more to support my math. The NT said they ate the bread (of which Jesus said IS his body) daily and Jesus said we are to pray for this daily bread. The same bread Paul said IS his body. So that means my math is +1 MORE.

But wait...there is more. A student of an Apostle said, the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” That means my math is +1 MORE.

That means I now have 1+1+1+1+1 which equals 5 and I didn't change anything they said! My thesis (interpretation) has been taught for 2,000 years and I didn't have to twist Scripture or anyone's words to MAKE (force) my math to work.

Your math does not take into equation the blood He said we must drink. Your math doesn't take into equation what the NT Christians did or Paul what said or what Jesus asked us to pray for in the Lords Prayer. Your math doesn't take into account what a student of John said. Your math (thesis) lacks ALL the numbers to come up with a proper, accurate or true answer. Your math (thesis) is incomplete.

Thoughts? from you or @BreadOfLife @Illuminator

John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Matt. 19:6 – Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 – our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

EG argues like an atheist. Rationalists and materialists don't accept miracles as evidence.

Eucharistic Miracles

Documented Eucharistic Miracles that have been approved by the Catholic Church. Presents evidence attesting to their authenticity.

www.therealpresence.org

Because EG is divorced from the early church.

The Early Church Believed in the Eucharist

There were heretics in the early Church who denied the Real Presence, and yet the erroneous teaching of those heretics did not endure.

www.catholic.com

1 Cor. 11:27-29 – in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 – this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 – thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So EG cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be his argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Symbols can't give eternal life.


John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Matt. 19:6 – Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 – our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice,

lol

No

EG looks to jesus and takes him literally

I notice as usual you are unable to speak of certain things which are shown to you. Why is this?

Can you show me where I am wrong here? Nothing you stated in those posts refutes what I said. The true church would certainly be able to see the difference in these two things Jesus said, and what the false church said

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey EG,

YOU have taken words from Scripture, interpreted those words into a math equation of 2+2=4 and then said if anyone disagrees with YOUR math (interpretation) then THEY are wrong, and your math can't be refuted.

Fine....I get it. You believe your thesis is strong and no one can refute it. EVERY biblical theologian before you got their math wrong! YOU are right. Nothing is going to change your mind.

Here is the math you are leaving out:

Bread of Life discourse (John 6) + Last Supper + Paul equating the bread/blood to Christ's body/blood and eating/drinking it in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians)

John 6; Jesus tells us that we must eat (literally chew) his body and drink his blood to have life in us (you say he is being symbolic)
Last Supper: Jesus shows us how to drink his blood and eat his body and said the bread IS his body (you say it isn't)
1 Corinthians: Paul tells us that the bread IS His body and the wine IS his blood and if we eat/drink it in an unworthy manner we are guilty of sin. (you, to the best of my knowledge, haven't addressed this in your thesis)

That is 1+1+1 equaling 3. I didn't have to change what Jesus said in John 6 to make Jesus words fit into my math equation. I didn't have to change what Jesus said at the Last supper to make it fit into MY math equation. I didn't have to change what Paul said to force the math to work. You changed or ignored what they said to make your math work.

But wait.....there is more to support my math. The NT said they ate the bread (of which Jesus said IS his body) daily and Jesus said we are to pray for this daily bread. The same bread Paul said IS his body. So that means my math is +1 MORE.

But wait...there is more. A student of an Apostle said, the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” That means my math is +1 MORE.

That means I now have 1+1+1+1+1 which equals 5 and I didn't change anything they said! My thesis (interpretation) has been taught for 2,000 years and I didn't have to twist Scripture or anyone's words to MAKE (force) my math to work.

Your math does not take into equation the blood He said we must drink. Your math doesn't take into equation what the NT Christians did or Paul what said or what Jesus asked us to pray for in the Lords Prayer. Your math doesn't take into account what a student of John said. Your math (thesis) lacks ALL the numbers to come up with a proper, accurate or true answer. Your math (thesis) is incomplete.

Thoughts? from you or @BreadOfLife @Illuminator

It’s interesting how deniers of the Eucharist think that “in remembrance of me” means “pretend”, “symbolic”, “metaphorical”, etc. Can you show me another instance of this in Scripture?

Jesus commanded His disciples to eat His flesh, which is “true food” and drink His blood, which is “true drink” (John 6:55). At the Last Supper, He told them, “This IS my body”, and “This IS my blood.”

NOWHERE in ALL of Scripture does Jesus or Paul or any other writer states that the Eucharistic elements merely “represent” His flesh and blood.

I issue the following challenge to @Eternally Grateful . . .
- Show me the verse where He said, “This represents my body and blood.” It ain’t there . . .

- Explain to me why Jesus didn’t try to explain the “symbolism” of what He said to the crowds that abandoned Him in John 6:66 because they were freaked out by what He was saying.

- Explain to me why John doesn’t use the usual word for human eating (phago) when describing how we are to eat the flesh of Jesus. He uses the word “trogo”, which is the way an animal eats by ripping apart and gnawing on his food.

- Explain to me why the Early Christians were willing to be slaughtered for this belief after being labeled by the pagan Romans as “cannibals”, for eating the flesh of their God.

 

[Marymog]

EG looks to jesus and takes him literally

Not true! Look at post #2 of yours on this thread. Well, I guess you are kind of telling the truth. You LITERALLY changed everything He said into what YOU believe he meant.


Now, let's get serious EG....Please Just in ONE conversation be serious.

You say that you take Jesus literally. He literally told us that we must eat his body and drink His blood. How do you do eat his body and drink his blood EG?

Patient Mary

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It’s interesting how deniers of the Eucharist think that “in remembrance of me” means “pretend”, “symbolic”, “metaphorical”, etc. Can you show me another instance of this in Scripture?

Jesus commanded His disciples to eat His flesh, which is “true food” and drink His blood, which is “true drink” (John 6:55). At the Last Supper, He told them, “This IS my body”, and “This IS my blood.”

NOWHERE in ALL of Scripture does Jesus or Paul or any other writer states that the Eucharistic elements merely “represent” His flesh and blood.

I issue the following challenge to @Eternally Grateful . . .
- Show me the verse where He said, “This represents my body and blood.” It ain’t there . . .

- Explain to me why Jesus didn’t try to explain the “symbolism” of what He said to the crowds that abandoned Him in John 6:66 because they were freaked out by what He was saying.

- Explain to me why John doesn’t use the usual word for human eating (phago) when describing how we are to eat the flesh of Jesus. He uses the word “trogo”, which is the way an animal eats by ripping apart and gnawing on his food.

- Explain to me why the Early Christians were willing to be slaughtered for this belief after being labeled by the pagan Romans as “cannibals”, for eating the flesh of their God.

you can;t answer it either?

I love it when people attach another’s belief, yet when it comes to what is really said they run.

Nice thing is you will not get any converts.. They can see what you seemingly are unwilling to see

 

[BreadOfLife]

you can;t answer it either?

I love it when people attach another’s belief, yet when it comes to what is really said they run.

Nice thing is you will not get any converts.. They can see what you seemingly are unwilling to see

Soooo, you couldb't anwer a SINGLE point I made. That's what I thought.
I can answwer ALL of them. Allow mw to explain, so pay attention . . .

- Show me the verse where He said, “This represents my body and blood.” It ain’t there . . .
It DOESN’T exist because Hea meant what He said about EATING His flesh and DINKING His blood.

- Explain to me why Jesus didn’t try to explain the “symbolism” of what He said to the crowds that abandoned Him in John 6:66 because they were freaked out by what He was saying.
It DIDN’T mention the “symbolism” because Hea meant what He said about EATING His flesh and DINKING His blood.

- Explain to me why John doesn’t use the usual word for human eating (phago) when describing how we are to eat the flesh of Jesus. He uses the word “trogo”, which is the way an animal eats by ripping apart and gnawing on his food.
He used those words to emphasize the reality about EATING His flesh and DINKING His blood.

- Explain to me why the Early Christians were willing to be slaughtered for this belief after being labeled by the pagan Romans as “cannibals”, for eating the flesh of their God.
Because they believed what the Apostles taught them: that they were EATING Jesus’s flesh and DINKING His blood.

 

[Augustin56]

A few of us have been discussing John 6 and the roman church with @Marymog and @Augustin56 in the thread if you think mary remained.....

In this thread, @Augustin56 said the following about the bible


My reply to him was that God did not give us a letter that we could not read. In fact. John tells us that the words are written to us so we may not be decieved

I wanted to go deeper into this. But I did not want to keep taking a thread someone made about Mary and keep trying to discuss something else. So I thought I would continue this conversation and show what I meant about the math equation and how we can use it to see if someone is trying to lead us astray, or to better yet. show how John 6 is not really all that complicated.


I am going to look at different aspects of the conversation and put them into rows. and use what Jesus said to make up this equation.

2 + 2 = X

where the first 2 will be all the things Jesus named about this food.

the second 2 will be what God told us to do

and the X will represent what will happen if we add these two things together.

Now I know some people think this may be foolish. But my hope is to show that John 6 is really not that complicated that people make it seem to be. and the difference between those who think X = 4 and those who think X = 5

[My reply to him was that God did not give us a letter that we could not read. In fact. John tells us that the words are written to us so we may not be decieved.]

Context is the most important part you're missing. The Bible is a tool of the Church, not a standalone instrument. It is the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that decided which documents out of over 300, should be considered Scipture, in the late 4th century. That's where the 27 books we call the New Testament were decided.

Reading the Bible out of the context of the constant teachings of the Church, which preceded the New Testament, leads to error after error after error. Just look at the literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing Protestant denominations (and counting). All based on someone's personal interpretation in contradiction of what Christ has always taught through His church. If there had been any validity to Protestantism and self-interpretation of Scripture upon which it is based, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, teaching one unchanging body of doctrines. The opposite is the case, though. In fact, I heard of one Protestant pastor who bragged that his denomination kept their doctrines in a loose-leaf binder because they changed so often, it made it easier to swap out pages.

 

[Illuminator]

lol

No

EG looks to jesus and takes him literally.

That would make him a Catholic.

I notice as usual you are unable to speak of certain things which are shown to you. Why is this?

Why are you unable to speak on my last post? Or the one before that? Or the several pages before that?

Can you show me where I am wrong here? Nothing you stated in those posts refutes what I said. The true church would certainly be able to see the difference in these two things Jesus said, and what the false church said

View attachment 38850

Can you document this alleged "false church" with scholarly primary and/or secondary sources or do just have bad manners?

I have many on ignore who jump from one stupid insult after another. I am not obligated to address every child in this thread.
Sometimes I click on "show ignored content", for a peek. Same old boring arguments that have been refuted for centuries.

 

[Illuminator]

[My reply to him was that God did not give us a letter that we could not read. In fact. John tells us that the words are written to us so we may not be decieved.]

Context is the most important part you're missing. The Bible is a tool of the Church, not a standalone instrument. It is the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that decided which documents out of over 300, should be considered Scipture, in the late 4th century. That's where the 27 books we call the New Testament were decided.

Reading the Bible out of the context of the constant teachings of the Church, which preceded the New Testament, leads to error after error after error. Just look at the literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing Protestant denominations (and counting). All based on someone's personal interpretation in contradiction of what Christ has always taught through His church. If there had been any validity to Protestantism and self-interpretation of Scripture upon which it is based, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, teaching one unchanging body of doctrines. The opposite is the case, though. In fact, I heard of one Protestant pastor who bragged that his denomination kept their doctrines in a loose-leaf binder because they changed so often, it made it easier to swap out pages.

I think EG is proving and disproving the Real Presence at the same time.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

[My reply to him was that God did not give us a letter that we could not read. In fact. John tells us that the words are written to us so we may not be decieved.]

Context is the most important part you're missing. The Bible is a tool of the Church, not a standalone instrument. It is the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that decided which documents out of over 300, should be considered Scipture, in the late 4th century. That's where the 27 books we call the New Testament were decided.

Reading the Bible out of the context of the constant teachings of the Church, which preceded the New Testament, leads to error after error after error. Just look at the literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing Protestant denominations (and counting). All based on someone's personal interpretation in contradiction of what Christ has always taught through His church. If there had been any validity to Protestantism and self-interpretation of Scripture upon which it is based, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, teaching one unchanging body of doctrines. The opposite is the case, though. In fact, I heard of one Protestant pastor who bragged that his denomination kept their doctrines in a loose-leaf binder because they changed so often, it made it easier to swap out pages.

Tell me where i read it out of context? Show me the context?

You can’t just say you took it out of context. Then fail to show how he did that.

if anything, your focused on 5 verses out of how many?