Like most AntiCatholic[PROTEST[ant] churches-you waste most of your time
criticizing the Catholic Church, instead of doing what Christ instructed all of us to do on every Sunday-like our Catholic Church does during worship.
You quote from scripture & obviously don't know what church inspiringly compiled our sacred scriptures ,what church was established before our bible, & what church was the ONLY Christian Church to exist before the 16th century.
Did Christ state this is symbolically my body & blood?? I think not-in fact he lost many followers when he emphacized & reitterated -truly truly,I say to you, unless you eat of my body & drink my blood -you will not have everlasting life. Certainly he would not have wanted to lose so many over this.
Firstly, indeed there is Miracle involved here as cannot be denied.
The Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ -- body, soul, and divinity.
Therefore the Miracle is an affirmation of that Faith to those who do not believe.
It does not contradict transubstantiation for the doctrine merely explain why most manifestation of God's power is hidden in form of bread and wine. It does not restrict the action of God to affirm the Catholic Faith.
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
@snuffluphagus2 It doesn't matter what version you use, the rules of grammar still apply. Jesus never said he changed the bread and wine into his body and blood; he spoke figuratively. "This is my body which will be given up for you" - note the "will be given"; he died on the cross the next day.
@thrufaithalone Peace to you...if any bible believing christian/catholic just simply reads, now, I never sat down at the same table as Christ myself, so I cannot say whether he was speaking figuratively or not, but I do know that in JOHN 6, if you read through the whole thing, that in John 6:66, states that the crowd began to murmer and doubt what Jesus was saying, if what He was saying was a mistake, don't you think that he would've corrected Himself when they were beginning to leave???????????
What's up with the faith alone conversation guys? All you have to do is grab an encyclopedia and do a study of your history to find out that original texts say NOTHING about faith alone. The original says by faith and good works! BUT, Luther (do your homework), revised that verse and also threw out 7 other books from the bible, because in his era, they were being used out of context.
so, trying to understand this very wordy clip; basically it seems to say taht the catholic church is a lying wonderous church? (Because it doesn't even believe it's own miracles?) I'm catholic, well was catholic, but and VERY educated as to what the "church" teaches...seems that the clip is saying that no miracle is from God...and that we shouldn't witness miracles as testimony to God's power because really it's satan doing the work...??? huh? Soryy, I don't get it.
Also in the bread of life discourse: Jesus says unless you eat of my body and drink my blood, you shall have no life within you. Whenever The Son of Man had spoken metaphorically before, his followers knew. But here every one of his disciples left except for the twelve. Obviuosly yhy took it literally
@johnthreesixteen It's funny how Protestants claim to take scripture so literally, but not with this one passage. Jesus said this IS my body, not this is a symbol of my body.
This authors not very logical...if the accidents(appearance)changed, does that mean the substance did not change? No that just means that the accidents changed along with the substance. Therefore, transubstantiation.
When Christ said to eat His body and drink His blood He was speaking figuratively, not literally. The Book of John also says "unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Does this mean we need to be pushed out of our mother's womb again? Of course not. That would be impossible. Christ offered His body and blood on the cross for us. He wants us to accept His body and blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.
5) And the obvious question is, why don't you get your own bible instead of using the bible that the holy spirit guided the catholic church to put together?
By living by the sola scriptura you accept that the Catholic church was infallable when the put the bible together.
Is Baptism necessary for Salvation? There is confusion on the matter outside of the Catholic faith.
Some Protestants say yes and others say no.
Christianity is not a "Bible Only" faith. If it was, when Martin Luther left the Catholic Church, he would have joined the nearest "Bible Only" church. But instead he ad to start one. Why? Because there wasn't one in existence for him to join.
1 Peter 30:20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
@Guardian1223 The "baptism" Peter speaks about has nothing to do with water; it's metaphorical evidenced in Titus 3:5, 6: "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HOLY SPIRIT, whom he POURED OUT on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior." Btw they had "baptism" (immerse) in the OT as well, used for cleansing, which is why Peter says "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)" It's SPIRITUAL.
Regarding justification, the only time that faith alone, or "faith only", appears in the Bible, is when it is being denounced by God. Both faith and good works are necessary.
James 2
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jesus tells believers how they will be judged without good works in Matthew 25:42-46 and it isn't good.
@Guardian1223 To what good works was Jesus referring? Again, if baptism saves, what of what of faith? What of Christ's Sacrifice? What of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HOLY SPIRIT, whom he POURED OUT on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior." "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)" The baptism he's referring to is SPIRITUAL.
Who ever said that faith isn't necessary? It is essential. You say that Baptism does nothing. That is your personal interpretation and it is wrong and goes against the word of God.
God's word says, Baptism into Christ cleanses us from all past sins. It is specifically FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
@Guardian1223 I don't think that baptism cleanses us from sin...Jesus did that through the work He did on the cross, and ONLY THAT WHICH HE DID can remove sin from us, we repent FIRST, being truly sorry for our sins, and in that act we are forgiven, the baptism is for reformation of our souls, to make us new, a new birth so to say - a second beginning. I understand the scripture, but it's got to be made clear that our seeking forgiveness from our sins and Jesus forgiving us is what saves us.
@snuffluphagus2 ... "@Guardian1223 I don't think that baptism cleanses us from sin"
It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks. The word of God plainly and clearly says... "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."(Acts 2:37,38)
If you teach people other than what is written above, you teach falsely. You are teaching what YOU want people to believe, not what God's word SAYS.
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
The author forgets that the Bible was not around until 382 A.D. when the Bishop of Rome decided what 73 books belong in the Bible we have today. How did Christians worship before this? To answer this question we have to go back to Justin Martyr in the first century:
truefaithalone??? - yes Jesus indeed used metaphors, similes etc. "I am the vine..." - no one walked away... "I am the gate..." - no one walked away BUT " I am the living bread ... my flesh is real food, my blood real drink... he who eats my flesh..." They knew as we do it was no metaphor . "and they followed him no longer." Hmmm must have meant exactly what he said!
you are forgetting that Christ also said that if one eats or drinks unworthily, then they do so to their CONDEMNATION. If it were merely bread and wine then His words would not make sense. The TRUTH is that the Catholic church is THE church that Christ established. It is an HISTORICAL FACT. Read the writings of the church Fathers. I pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes.
I can't believe that the devil would do something that would bring so many TO the church. These miracles draw people from around the world. I just can't give satan the credit for these miracles.
I study scripture on a daily basis, in fact I taught religion for many years until a bad accident left me dead, yes, dead, evidently the Lord was not done with me I still had work to do here. The church also teaches us that we do not live by scripture alone but through acts and deeds. I still stand by my comment that HE (in the Eucharist) is the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of our Lord no matter how badly put or out of context or the really bad english that I use. God bless you.
catbelieves- I am sorry if you think I was being critical of your english (I wasn't)
Again, all I am trying to get you to see is that those rules we learned also apply to Scripture; Jesus used metaphores, similes and other figures of speech. If the rules are not consistently applied, it results in confusionand contradiction.
Who taught you our doctrine? In the catechism of the Catholic church page 342 section V. #1357 We carry out the command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of His sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what He Himself has given us...creation, bread and wine, which by the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT and the words of JESUS CHRIST, have become the BODY & BLOOD of CHRIST. CHRIST is thus really and mysteriously made PRESENT.
catbelieves-no I am not trying to put you down. I am trying to get you to make the connection that the literary devices (metaphors, idioms, similes, etc) we learned in school apply equally to Scripture.
When we recieve the Eucharist we are recieving the body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as it was commanded in the bible.. to have everlasting life
"Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ."
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
So Saint Paul warns us against Heretical (false) teachings, Protestant, evangelical etc.. which is not the same as those accepted by the Church which Jesus founded from the Apostles.
In the miracles of the Eucharist the veil of the apperances were lifted after Transubstantiation not because people were asking for a miracle but to confirm the True Church not the Protestant Heretics who were threatening the Church. These Miracles do not decieve but confirm the true teaching of Jesus John 6. but just as his disciples who could not accept such a doctrine, so to today many people e.g. followers of Matin Luther the false prophet do not believe!
Do you think the grammatical rules that we use for other literature don't apply to the Bible? It is no less figurative when Jesus uses such terms. Consider 2Sam23:17 when David refers to the cup of water his men risked their lives to get for him: "is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?"
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
This passage was meant literally, was understood literally, and as a result many of His disciples left him. He did not water down the doctrine of the Eucharist which He emphasized repeatedly.
We are to understand that truly, truly it is his body and blood but they didn't like it one bit. If it was mean to have some metaphorical meaning then Our Lord would have stopped them and explained as on many other occasions.
"He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
And Why then did he not explain "to the select few" that he was speaking figurativly. Instead Jesus asked the apostles "Do you also want to leave?" Think about it.
"What are you saying here ? that Jesus was saying his flesh profits nothing?"
Jesus was saying that eating his flesh in the carnal sense would profit nothing. The only way His flesh profits us is in believing and trusting His finished work on the Cross.
No Jesus does not contradict Himself, He cannot say Eating his flesh and drinking his blood will give the person Eternal Life and at another time say it would not profit him?
This cannot be ! and it prove you misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
The flesh notice he did not say His flesh!
refers to Our flesh (our own power). That is to say without God we are nothing! Which is true.
Both are true. To bleieve in Him means to believe in all that he said( including the Eucharist), and to do as he said, not only some of the things. You cannot believe in him, do the contrary (or ignore things) and say I believe? this cannot be. Then you would be like those who left Him.
The life we get is Eternal life.
If it was metaphorical they would not have left. He said "does this offend you?" but he did not water it down!
we ignore your youtube beliefs, but rahter we accept the teachings of the apostles. Remember, the belief of the Eucharist came ebfore your belief. Meaning, you adopted a man-made teaching. Your faith alone doctrine came from Martin Luther (your pope) our belief in the true presence came from Peter (our Pope). You see the difference?
kiddo500-Christ alone is the "the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Col2:19
Luther, a mere mortal, never claimed to be anything else and my faith is a gift from God.
Jesus knew of and frequently used figurative language. "I AM the bread of life" "I AM the door" "I AM the light". These are every bit as much absolute statements as "This is my body". Why do you not take them literally?
you should be asking, why did the only Christian church at existence (save Orthodoy) for 1500 years take it literally. These are the teachings from the Aposlts. Also, Jesus HIMSELF said, my body is REAL food, my Blood is REAL dring. What else do you want?
God is obliged to tell the truth and not deceive or confuse us. If it was metaphorical then then the phase to "eat his body and drink his blood" does not make any sense. It would mean to hate him and how could hating him give us eternal life?
"As the Hebrews represented knowledge and wisdom by meat and drink, they made use of the phrases eating and drinking, to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, so as to be strongly moved thereby."
"...our fathers...all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."
To be consistant, you would have to apply that to the following passage as well.
1Cor 10:3-4 says "our fathers...all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."
Which makes more sense, "hating him" or "using the phrases eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctriine or insturction"?
again His followers that left him because of the "intolerable language" did not assume as you do that this is metaphorical. they were there, they herd it in the same language our Lord spoke and understood it that way. Jesus didn't say "hey guys wait you misunderstood me I was only speaking symbolically" NO!! He let them go away with that understanding because it is True!! and his apostles stayed with him because they believed him!!
Unfortunatly for you, you do not have an infallible church to guide you throught the bible for the correct interpretation and help you discern when Jesus is speaking figurativley and when he is speaking literally. What a joy it is for Catholics to know that our church was established by Jesus and not by a fallible man.
Where does God's Word tell us to look for understanding?
"...when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth..." John 16:3
"the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie" 1John2:27
The fact is the apostles believed, the Early Church Fathers believed in the Body, Blood Soul and divinity of Jesus (The Most Holy Eucharist).
for 1,054 years the Church was one and believed in the Eucharist. All apostolic churches still hold this true belief.
Saint Paul wrote on the Most Holy Eucharist and didn't say it was a symbol. Again and Again and again our lord said the Eucharist is his body and blood, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. It is very clear. No parable explainations were given!
St Augustine says in another place: "[Christ has healed us Gentiles.] We did not know him in the flesh, yet we have deserved to eat his Flesh and to be his members in his Flesh." "He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it and we sin by not adoring"
"Not what is said in v 55: "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is "drink indeed' For he is the true food; but of the mind, not of the stomach; of the heart and of faith, not of the mouth. Thus it denotes the truth of the similitude between corporeal food and spiritual and celestial food as to the efficacy of nutrition, but not as to the mode of eating. As "Why do you prepare teeth and stomach, believe and thou hast eaten," (cont'd)
"as Augustine says on John 6* (Tractate 25, On the Gospel of John* [NPNFI, 7:164; PL 35.1602]). Thus he is called "the true light" (Jn. 1:9), i.e., far truer than the visible light. Therefore he is called the true food, but spiritually, not corporeally"
St Augustine cont....."Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: This is my Body. Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands".
John 6:45-59, Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. The Jews understood literally and questioned such a teaching. Jesus became even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. John 6:66, it says that many of Jesus' disciples left Jesus because they could not accept such a teaching. Did Jesus say "Come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!" No he didn't. That is because they understood Him correctly, and that was literally.
So you prefer to ignore Christ's explanation in John 6:63? Have you watched my video on Hebrew metaphors and idioms? We still use such metaphors; we "eat up" or "consume" newspaper articles; we "devour" books.
True....Eucharistic Miracles are not Transubstantiation....they arejust that....Miracles!!!! And Why is Jesus allowing these Eucharistic Miracles to occur? Answer: for Prostestants and other non believers who do not believe the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Chrisr and deny christs Teaching that his Body is "real food" and his blood is "real drink" John6:55
"I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Jesus here tells us that the "food that endures to eternal life" has nothing to do with physical bread; it's spiritual in nature. Please watch the video on Hebrew metaphors and idioms.
The early Church fathers were unanimous in their view that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Many of these Fathers lived during apostolic times (Ignatius, Polycarp). All the Fathers claimed to be handing on what they received from the apostles. The history is very compelling,and this poses a real problem for Protestant theology. Just because Jesus speaks symbolically at the beginning of John 6 doesn't mean that He is not speaking literally in John 6:51-66.
Learn your history when you comment on St Augustine....there are quotes of his that can seem like he didn't beleive in the real presence...but when questioned he clarify's himself... and clearly the church would not have named him a saint had he held to the belief that christ was not present in the Eucharist.
""Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure"
Your analysis fails to admit that sometimes Jesus speaks literally, and sometimes He speaks metaphorically. The glaring problem in your exegesis is that the crowds understood Jesus literally in John 6 and HE DID NOT CORRECT THEM. He let them remain with that understanding. This is distinguishable from situations where Jesus speaks metaphorically, and the disciples understand Him as such. For example, when Jesus calls Himself "the door" or the "true vine"."Jesus, are you really a door? Or a vine?
"the crowds understood Jesus literally in John 6 and HE DID NOT CORRECT THEM"
Those that took him literally were unbelievers and scoffers: "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?""
"Those that took him literally were unbelievers and scoffers" What are you talking about? Did u even read john 6? Jn6:60 "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" also jn6:66 "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him". These don't look like scoffers and unbelievers...they were some of his disciples...only the 12 apostles remained. This teaching is so clear, yet you cloud it.
We have to believe Jesus is the Eucharist with our spiritual eyes !! Why? because Jesus said so and I believe in every word! I do not call Jesus a Liar! People can walk away but I remain with Him !!
What work do You perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'"
"Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.'"
"Then they said to Him, 'Lord, always give us this bread.'" (cont'd)
What makes you think Jesus is speaking figurativley here? 2000 years of church teaching guided by the holy spirit says he's speaking literally. He wasn't using parables here...he was speaking matter of factly.
Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."
So you agree that he is talking literally applied to his physical body. Fortunatly he never mentioned the bread figuratively...He held up the Bread and said This IS my body. Finally we agree. Now just ask yourself "Is the church I go to THE church that Jesus Christ himself established? Or is my church established by a fallible man?" If your church is not 2000 yrs old...we know the answer. Come home to Christ's church.
You are twisting what I said and completely ignoring the fact that Jesus was present. "Take and eat" refers to the bread; "This is my body which will be given for you" applies to His physical body.
OH come on! Read the very next verse! "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." He is saying his bloo is in the cup he just handed them! Your argument just went up in smoke. There is just too much evidence that the eaucharist is the reall body and blood of christ. All the writing of the early church Fathers in the first 300 yrs of christianity believed it too...why don't you? I can send u the evidence if you like.
I see...just ignore the next verse I pointed to above. protestants make me laugh...we throw verse after verse at them and they argue the same verse over and over. Instead of taking out the meaning of a verse, you inject a meaning to the verse to siut you.
I will also add that it is quite presumptuous of you to think that you know what Jesus intended to teach when everyone in the early Church disagrees with you. Do you know better than the Fathers? Do you know better than those who were taught directly by the apostles? Or where all these men who lived in apostolic times deceived? Was there a great apostasy in the early Church that we are only discovering today due to the scholarship of Protestant interpretation 20 centuries removed?
Unfortunately for you, you cannot find one single witness in the early Church to support your interpretation. And more so, the entire patristic witness of the first ten centuries of the Church disagrees with you. I have found that, instead of honestly investigating what the early Church believed, many Protestants rather persevere in their erroneous opinions because of pride, ignorance or prejudice against the Catholic Church. I hope that is not the case with you.
Like most AntiCatholic[PROTEST[ant] churches-you waste most of your time
criticizing the Catholic Church, instead of doing what Christ instructed all of us to do on every Sunday-like our Catholic Church does during worship.
winter1936 1 month ago
You quote from scripture & obviously don't know what church inspiringly compiled our sacred scriptures ,what church was established before our bible, & what church was the ONLY Christian Church to exist before the 16th century.
winter1936 1 month ago
Did Christ state this is symbolically my body & blood?? I think not-in fact he lost many followers when he emphacized & reitterated -truly truly,I say to you, unless you eat of my body & drink my blood -you will not have everlasting life. Certainly he would not have wanted to lose so many over this.
winter1936 1 month ago
Firstly, indeed there is Miracle involved here as cannot be denied.
The Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ -- body, soul, and divinity.
Therefore the Miracle is an affirmation of that Faith to those who do not believe.
It does not contradict transubstantiation for the doctrine merely explain why most manifestation of God's power is hidden in form of bread and wine. It does not restrict the action of God to affirm the Catholic Faith.
Begone you Satan
FaithRationale 7 months ago
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God bless you and be brave
JezusSlave 10 months ago
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God bless you and be brave
JezusSlave 11 months ago
just curious...which translations of the bible are you folks all using?
snuffluphagus2 1 year ago
@snuffluphagus2 It doesn't matter what version you use, the rules of grammar still apply. Jesus never said he changed the bread and wine into his body and blood; he spoke figuratively. "This is my body which will be given up for you" - note the "will be given"; he died on the cross the next day.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone Peace to you...if any bible believing christian/catholic just simply reads, now, I never sat down at the same table as Christ myself, so I cannot say whether he was speaking figuratively or not, but I do know that in JOHN 6, if you read through the whole thing, that in John 6:66, states that the crowd began to murmer and doubt what Jesus was saying, if what He was saying was a mistake, don't you think that he would've corrected Himself when they were beginning to leave???????????
snuffluphagus2 10 months ago
will be given, that is on His Death on the Cross. It's not figurative. You mistaken in
affirming the timeline. It is His Death on the Cross and by that future action --- Jesus
advanced the giving of Body and Blood to His disciples.
"This is my Body", "This is My Blood" <--- not figurative.
You doubt Christ words, you Satan!
FaithRationale 7 months ago
What's up with the faith alone conversation guys? All you have to do is grab an encyclopedia and do a study of your history to find out that original texts say NOTHING about faith alone. The original says by faith and good works! BUT, Luther (do your homework), revised that verse and also threw out 7 other books from the bible, because in his era, they were being used out of context.
snuffluphagus2 1 year ago
so, trying to understand this very wordy clip; basically it seems to say taht the catholic church is a lying wonderous church? (Because it doesn't even believe it's own miracles?) I'm catholic, well was catholic, but and VERY educated as to what the "church" teaches...seems that the clip is saying that no miracle is from God...and that we shouldn't witness miracles as testimony to God's power because really it's satan doing the work...??? huh? Soryy, I don't get it.
snuffluphagus2 1 year ago
Also in the bread of life discourse: Jesus says unless you eat of my body and drink my blood, you shall have no life within you. Whenever The Son of Man had spoken metaphorically before, his followers knew. But here every one of his disciples left except for the twelve. Obviuosly yhy took it literally
joseph12ful 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen It's funny how Protestants claim to take scripture so literally, but not with this one passage. Jesus said this IS my body, not this is a symbol of my body.
joseph12ful 1 year ago
This authors not very logical...if the accidents(appearance)changed, does that mean the substance did not change? No that just means that the accidents changed along with the substance. Therefore, transubstantiation.
joseph12ful 1 year ago
When Christ said to eat His body and drink His blood He was speaking figuratively, not literally. The Book of John also says "unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Does this mean we need to be pushed out of our mother's womb again? Of course not. That would be impossible. Christ offered His body and blood on the cross for us. He wants us to accept His body and blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.
johnthreesixteen316 2 years ago
5) And the obvious question is, why don't you get your own bible instead of using the bible that the holy spirit guided the catholic church to put together?
By living by the sola scriptura you accept that the Catholic church was infallable when the put the bible together.
blueukulele 2 years ago
a couple of points
1) satan cannot come near anything holy, there for he cannot turn the bread and wine into human flesh and blood.
2)The eucharist has been examined by scientists (athiests) and they confirm that it belonged to a man in his 30's who suffered great trauma.
3) why do protestants claim to believe the bible only, when they except the Rapture, which was invented in by Philip Doddridge in the 1700s
4) If the Rapture had been revealed to a Catholic would you still accept it?
blueukulele 2 years ago
"The eucharist has been examined by scientists (athiests) and they confirm that it belonged to a man in his 30's who suffered great trauma"
I think you are confusing the Eucharist with the shroud of Turin.
God is not the author of confusion and he doesn't change the rules of grammar for Scripture.
thrufaithalone 2 years ago
No the eucharist I will find the link to the video and send it to you
God Bless
blueukulele 2 years ago
@thrufaithalone
"God is not the author of confusion..."
Is Baptism necessary for Salvation? There is confusion on the matter outside of the Catholic faith.
Some Protestants say yes and others say no.
Christianity is not a "Bible Only" faith. If it was, when Martin Luther left the Catholic Church, he would have joined the nearest "Bible Only" church. But instead he ad to start one. Why? Because there wasn't one in existence for him to join.
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 "Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?"
If it were, the thief on the cross would not have qualified.
Re: a "Bible Only faith" Jesus said "Thy Word is Truth"; thus it is the only way we have of testing the truth of any given doctrine.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone regarding Baptism and the good thief, ... Jesus is sovereign. He can waive any rule that He has imposed at His good pleasure.
Does your Bible say that Baptism is optional or that it must be done?
Does your Bible state that Baptism saves us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? 1st Peter. That's Catholic teaching.
In the Bible Jesus established a Church with men in positions of authority. They are Bishops. The Bible says we are to obey them in matters of faith.
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 Baptism does not save anyone. Please go read Hebrews chapter 11 to see what does.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone
1 Peter 30:20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 The "baptism" Peter speaks about has nothing to do with water; it's metaphorical evidenced in Titus 3:5, 6: "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HOLY SPIRIT, whom he POURED OUT on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior." Btw they had "baptism" (immerse) in the OT as well, used for cleansing, which is why Peter says "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)" It's SPIRITUAL.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone"The "baptism" Peter speaks about has nothing to do with water;"
You can't be serious. It has everything to do with WATER!
Peter compares the water that lifted Noah and his family to safety to the water of Baptism which "doth also now save us".
" ... wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... "
My Bible says "Baptism doth also now save us" I'll believe the word of God over your words.
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 It also says it was a "figure".
You say water Baptism saves - then what of faith? What of Christ's Sacrifice? What of regeneration by the Holy Spirit?
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone
I don't say it. God does. I just showed WHERE He said it!
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 You make salvation a work of man, not of God.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone
Regarding justification, the only time that faith alone, or "faith only", appears in the Bible, is when it is being denounced by God. Both faith and good works are necessary.
James 2
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jesus tells believers how they will be judged without good works in Matthew 25:42-46 and it isn't good.
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 To what good works was Jesus referring? Again, if baptism saves, what of what of faith? What of Christ's Sacrifice? What of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HOLY SPIRIT, whom he POURED OUT on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior." "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)" The baptism he's referring to is SPIRITUAL.
thrufaithalone 1 year ago
@thrufaithalone
Who ever said that faith isn't necessary? It is essential. You say that Baptism does nothing. That is your personal interpretation and it is wrong and goes against the word of God.
God's word says, Baptism into Christ cleanses us from all past sins. It is specifically FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37,38).
Guardian1223 1 year ago
@Guardian1223 I don't think that baptism cleanses us from sin...Jesus did that through the work He did on the cross, and ONLY THAT WHICH HE DID can remove sin from us, we repent FIRST, being truly sorry for our sins, and in that act we are forgiven, the baptism is for reformation of our souls, to make us new, a new birth so to say - a second beginning. I understand the scripture, but it's got to be made clear that our seeking forgiveness from our sins and Jesus forgiving us is what saves us.
snuffluphagus2 1 year ago
@snuffluphagus2 ... "@Guardian1223 I don't think that baptism cleanses us from sin"
It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks. The word of God plainly and clearly says... "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."(Acts 2:37,38)
If you teach people other than what is written above, you teach falsely. You are teaching what YOU want people to believe, not what God's word SAYS.
Guardian1223 1 year ago
Thank you for saying this truth, His Truth.
Sometimes I feel like in a chaos when I come here on youtube....
LilyOfTheValley385 2 years ago
Comment removed
stevedixon29 2 years ago
Clearly the Christians right after the rise of our Lord believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Why don't protestants?
stevedixon29 2 years ago
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
stevedixon29 2 years ago
The author forgets that the Bible was not around until 382 A.D. when the Bishop of Rome decided what 73 books belong in the Bible we have today. How did Christians worship before this? To answer this question we have to go back to Justin Martyr in the first century:
stevedixon29 2 years ago
truefaithalone??? - yes Jesus indeed used metaphors, similes etc. "I am the vine..." - no one walked away... "I am the gate..." - no one walked away BUT " I am the living bread ... my flesh is real food, my blood real drink... he who eats my flesh..." They knew as we do it was no metaphor . "and they followed him no longer." Hmmm must have meant exactly what he said!
Girl1018BG 2 years ago
you are forgetting that Christ also said that if one eats or drinks unworthily, then they do so to their CONDEMNATION. If it were merely bread and wine then His words would not make sense. The TRUTH is that the Catholic church is THE church that Christ established. It is an HISTORICAL FACT. Read the writings of the church Fathers. I pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes.
Girl1018BG 2 years ago
" Satan is caught in his own devices."
I can't believe that the devil would do something that would bring so many TO the church. These miracles draw people from around the world. I just can't give satan the credit for these miracles.
DollyHot 2 years ago
"I can't believe that the devil would do something that would bring so many TO the church"
It may bring people to the RCC, but it doesn't bring people to Christ.
thrufaithalone 2 years ago
The author claims to be a neonatal ICU doctor, but he has lots of time to spread his vitriol all over the internet. He's a goofball.
tjttzcspplt 2 years ago
I study scripture on a daily basis, in fact I taught religion for many years until a bad accident left me dead, yes, dead, evidently the Lord was not done with me I still had work to do here. The church also teaches us that we do not live by scripture alone but through acts and deeds. I still stand by my comment that HE (in the Eucharist) is the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of our Lord no matter how badly put or out of context or the really bad english that I use. God bless you.
catbelieves 2 years ago
catbelieves- I am sorry if you think I was being critical of your english (I wasn't)
Again, all I am trying to get you to see is that those rules we learned also apply to Scripture; Jesus used metaphores, similes and other figures of speech. If the rules are not consistently applied, it results in confusionand contradiction.
thrufaithalone 2 years ago
Who taught you our doctrine? In the catechism of the Catholic church page 342 section V. #1357 We carry out the command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of His sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what He Himself has given us...creation, bread and wine, which by the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT and the words of JESUS CHRIST, have become the BODY & BLOOD of CHRIST. CHRIST is thus really and mysteriously made PRESENT.
catbelieves 2 years ago
catbelieves-'Who taught you our doctrine?'
I was a cradle Catholic; the RCC did.
thrufaithalone 2 years ago
thrufaithalone , Thankyou and God bless you for sowing the seed of trurh. HE will give the increase!!!!!
steve2746 3 years ago
yes they did...are you trying to put me down? then I shall have to pray for you
catbelieves 3 years ago
catbelieves-no I am not trying to put you down. I am trying to get you to make the connection that the literary devices (metaphors, idioms, similes, etc) we learned in school apply equally to Scripture.
thrufaithalone 2 years ago
When we recieve the Eucharist we are recieving the body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as it was commanded in the bible.. to have everlasting life
catbelieves 3 years ago
May I ask if you went to Catholic School?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
sure can, as a matter of fact I did for the first 8 grades, may God bless and keep you
catbelieves 3 years ago
They taught grammar and literature, right? (rhetorical question - but necessary)
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Galations 1:7
"Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ."
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
So Saint Paul warns us against Heretical (false) teachings, Protestant, evangelical etc.. which is not the same as those accepted by the Church which Jesus founded from the Apostles.
PeterMansour 3 years ago
Firstly nothing is beyond God.
In the miracles of the Eucharist the veil of the apperances were lifted after Transubstantiation not because people were asking for a miracle but to confirm the True Church not the Protestant Heretics who were threatening the Church. These Miracles do not decieve but confirm the true teaching of Jesus John 6. but just as his disciples who could not accept such a doctrine, so to today many people e.g. followers of Matin Luther the false prophet do not believe!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
Do you think the grammatical rules that we use for other literature don't apply to the Bible? It is no less figurative when Jesus uses such terms. Consider 2Sam23:17 when David refers to the cup of water his men risked their lives to get for him: "is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?"
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Part 1
thru faith alone?? That is not in the bible were did you get that from?
Rather: "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
This passage was meant literally, was understood literally, and as a result many of His disciples left him. He did not water down the doctrine of the Eucharist which He emphasized repeatedly.
PeterMansour 3 years ago
Part 2
"NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
We are to understand that truly, truly it is his body and blood but they didn't like it one bit. If it was mean to have some metaphorical meaning then Our Lord would have stopped them and explained as on many other occasions.
PeterMansour 3 years ago
"Our Lord would have stopped them and explained as on many other occasions"
He didn't explain to everyone: Mark 4:11 says
"He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
He only explained to a select few.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
And Why then did he not explain "to the select few" that he was speaking figurativly. Instead Jesus asked the apostles "Do you also want to leave?" Think about it.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
And He did explain: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
What are you saying here ? that Jesus was saying his flesh profits nothing? Please tell me that is not what you are saying.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
"What are you saying here ? that Jesus was saying his flesh profits nothing?"
Jesus was saying that eating his flesh in the carnal sense would profit nothing. The only way His flesh profits us is in believing and trusting His finished work on the Cross.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
No Jesus does not contradict Himself, He cannot say Eating his flesh and drinking his blood will give the person Eternal Life and at another time say it would not profit him?
This cannot be ! and it prove you misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
The flesh notice he did not say His flesh!
refers to Our flesh (our own power). That is to say without God we are nothing! Which is true.
PeterMansour 3 years ago
PeterMansour-One of the following verses is a metaphor. Which one?
"Most assuredly I say to you he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Jn 6:47
"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." Jn 6:53
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Both are true. To bleieve in Him means to believe in all that he said( including the Eucharist), and to do as he said, not only some of the things. You cannot believe in him, do the contrary (or ignore things) and say I believe? this cannot be. Then you would be like those who left Him.
The life we get is Eternal life.
If it was metaphorical they would not have left. He said "does this offend you?" but he did not water it down!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
This is what Saint Paul has to say about receiving Jesus's Body and Blood (The Most Holy Eucharist)
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
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.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Saint Paul takes this very seriously indeed!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
PeterMansour- Watch the video "Eucharist: Pauls Teaching in 1st Corinthians"
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
we ignore your youtube beliefs, but rahter we accept the teachings of the apostles. Remember, the belief of the Eucharist came ebfore your belief. Meaning, you adopted a man-made teaching. Your faith alone doctrine came from Martin Luther (your pope) our belief in the true presence came from Peter (our Pope). You see the difference?
"do you also want to leave?".
kiddo500 3 years ago
kiddo500-Christ alone is the "the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Col2:19
Luther, a mere mortal, never claimed to be anything else and my faith is a gift from God.
Jesus knew of and frequently used figurative language. "I AM the bread of life" "I AM the door" "I AM the light". These are every bit as much absolute statements as "This is my body". Why do you not take them literally?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
you should be asking, why did the only Christian church at existence (save Orthodoy) for 1500 years take it literally. These are the teachings from the Aposlts. Also, Jesus HIMSELF said, my body is REAL food, my Blood is REAL dring. What else do you want?
kiddo500 3 years ago
kiddo500-"My flesh is real food"
You might want to rethink the implications of saying they took this literally.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Part 3
God is obliged to tell the truth and not deceive or confuse us. If it was metaphorical then then the phase to "eat his body and drink his blood" does not make any sense. It would mean to hate him and how could hating him give us eternal life?
PeterMansour 3 years ago
"As the Hebrews represented knowledge and wisdom by meat and drink, they made use of the phrases eating and drinking, to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, so as to be strongly moved thereby."
"...our fathers...all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
"It would mean to hate him"
To be consistant, you would have to apply that to the following passage as well.
1Cor 10:3-4 says "our fathers...all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."
Which makes more sense, "hating him" or "using the phrases eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctriine or insturction"?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Part 4
"NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
again His followers that left him because of the "intolerable language" did not assume as you do that this is metaphorical. they were there, they herd it in the same language our Lord spoke and understood it that way. Jesus didn't say "hey guys wait you misunderstood me I was only speaking symbolically" NO!! He let them go away with that understanding because it is True!! and his apostles stayed with him because they believed him!!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
Unfortunatly for you, you do not have an infallible church to guide you throught the bible for the correct interpretation and help you discern when Jesus is speaking figurativley and when he is speaking literally. What a joy it is for Catholics to know that our church was established by Jesus and not by a fallible man.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
Where does God's Word tell us to look for understanding?
"...when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth..." John 16:3
"the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie" 1John2:27
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
The fact is the apostles believed, the Early Church Fathers believed in the Body, Blood Soul and divinity of Jesus (The Most Holy Eucharist).
for 1,054 years the Church was one and believed in the Eucharist. All apostolic churches still hold this true belief.
Saint Paul wrote on the Most Holy Eucharist and didn't say it was a symbol. Again and Again and again our lord said the Eucharist is his body and blood, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. It is very clear. No parable explainations were given!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
St Augustine says in another place: "[Christ has healed us Gentiles.] We did not know him in the flesh, yet we have deserved to eat his Flesh and to be his members in his Flesh." "He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it and we sin by not adoring"
OCmaronite 3 years ago
"Not what is said in v 55: "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is "drink indeed' For he is the true food; but of the mind, not of the stomach; of the heart and of faith, not of the mouth. Thus it denotes the truth of the similitude between corporeal food and spiritual and celestial food as to the efficacy of nutrition, but not as to the mode of eating. As "Why do you prepare teeth and stomach, believe and thou hast eaten," (cont'd)
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
"as Augustine says on John 6* (Tractate 25, On the Gospel of John* [NPNFI, 7:164; PL 35.1602]). Thus he is called "the true light" (Jn. 1:9), i.e., far truer than the visible light. Therefore he is called the true food, but spiritually, not corporeally"
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
You need to consider that Augustine was using "eat" as a metaphor as well.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
St Augustine cont....."Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: This is my Body. Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands".
OCmaronite 3 years ago
John 6:45-59, Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. The Jews understood literally and questioned such a teaching. Jesus became even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. John 6:66, it says that many of Jesus' disciples left Jesus because they could not accept such a teaching. Did Jesus say "Come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!" No he didn't. That is because they understood Him correctly, and that was literally.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
So you prefer to ignore Christ's explanation in John 6:63? Have you watched my video on Hebrew metaphors and idioms? We still use such metaphors; we "eat up" or "consume" newspaper articles; we "devour" books.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
True....Eucharistic Miracles are not Transubstantiation....they arejust that....Miracles!!!! And Why is Jesus allowing these Eucharistic Miracles to occur? Answer: for Prostestants and other non believers who do not believe the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Chrisr and deny christs Teaching that his Body is "real food" and his blood is "real drink" John6:55
OCmaronite 3 years ago
"I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Jesus here tells us that the "food that endures to eternal life" has nothing to do with physical bread; it's spiritual in nature. Please watch the video on Hebrew metaphors and idioms.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
The early Church fathers were unanimous in their view that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Many of these Fathers lived during apostolic times (Ignatius, Polycarp). All the Fathers claimed to be handing on what they received from the apostles. The history is very compelling,and this poses a real problem for Protestant theology. Just because Jesus speaks symbolically at the beginning of John 6 doesn't mean that He is not speaking literally in John 6:51-66.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
Augustine didn't
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Learn your history when you comment on St Augustine....there are quotes of his that can seem like he didn't beleive in the real presence...but when questioned he clarify's himself... and clearly the church would not have named him a saint had he held to the belief that christ was not present in the Eucharist.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
""Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure"
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Your analysis fails to admit that sometimes Jesus speaks literally, and sometimes He speaks metaphorically. The glaring problem in your exegesis is that the crowds understood Jesus literally in John 6 and HE DID NOT CORRECT THEM. He let them remain with that understanding. This is distinguishable from situations where Jesus speaks metaphorically, and the disciples understand Him as such. For example, when Jesus calls Himself "the door" or the "true vine"."Jesus, are you really a door? Or a vine?
OCmaronite 3 years ago
"the crowds understood Jesus literally in John 6 and HE DID NOT CORRECT THEM"
Those that took him literally were unbelievers and scoffers: "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?""
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
"Those that took him literally were unbelievers and scoffers" What are you talking about? Did u even read john 6? Jn6:60 "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" also jn6:66 "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him". These don't look like scoffers and unbelievers...they were some of his disciples...only the 12 apostles remained. This teaching is so clear, yet you cloud it.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
Verses 28-36 make it clear they did not believe in Him. Jesus said so.
"...they said to Him, 'What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?'"
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.'"
Notice they did not believe; they wanted a sign:
"So they said to Him, 'What then do You do for a sign, SO THAT WE MAY SEE, AND BELIEVE YOU? (cont'd)
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
We have to believe Jesus is the Eucharist with our spiritual eyes !! Why? because Jesus said so and I believe in every word! I do not call Jesus a Liar! People can walk away but I remain with Him !!
PeterMansour 3 years ago
What work do You perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'"
"Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.'"
"Then they said to Him, 'Lord, always give us this bread.'" (cont'd)
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.'"
vs 36: "but I said to you that you have seen me,and yet DO NOT BELIEVE."
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
"NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
PeterMansour 3 years ago
God bless you marouni
PeterMansour 3 years ago
God bless you marouni. and may God bless all our brothers and sister, open their eyes, ears, mind and heart.
PeterMansour 3 years ago
God bless you too Boutros......Keep defending the Chruch Jesus Christ established.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
What makes you think Jesus is speaking figurativley here? 2000 years of church teaching guided by the holy spirit says he's speaking literally. He wasn't using parables here...he was speaking matter of factly.
qwest25 3 years ago
Jesus says "this IS my body" and "this IS my blood" he doesn't say this represents my body and blood.
qwest25 3 years ago
You've never seen "is" used figuratively?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Jesus made it fairly clear in John 6 that His Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist. O well, believe what you think, but it's your loss.
leegwalker 3 years ago
5.The Passover lamb was equally as representative of Christ in the OT as bread is in the NT
6.Why not take the following literally:
Jesus IS the door
Jesus IS the true vine
Jesus IS the light
Jesus IS the Lamb John1:29; Rev13:8
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."
qwest25 3 years ago
And "is" can be used figuratively or literally. It literally applied to His physical body to be given the next day and figuratively to the bread.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
So you agree that he is talking literally applied to his physical body. Fortunatly he never mentioned the bread figuratively...He held up the Bread and said This IS my body. Finally we agree. Now just ask yourself "Is the church I go to THE church that Jesus Christ himself established? Or is my church established by a fallible man?" If your church is not 2000 yrs old...we know the answer. Come home to Christ's church.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
You are twisting what I said and completely ignoring the fact that Jesus was present. "Take and eat" refers to the bread; "This is my body which will be given for you" applies to His physical body.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
OH come on! Read the very next verse! "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." He is saying his bloo is in the cup he just handed them! Your argument just went up in smoke. There is just too much evidence that the eaucharist is the reall body and blood of christ. All the writing of the early church Fathers in the first 300 yrs of christianity believed it too...why don't you? I can send u the evidence if you like.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
OCmaronite-"This is my body which will be given for you" - Was the bread nailed to the cross?
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
I see...just ignore the next verse I pointed to above. protestants make me laugh...we throw verse after verse at them and they argue the same verse over and over. Instead of taking out the meaning of a verse, you inject a meaning to the verse to siut you.
OCmaronite 3 years ago
I will also add that it is quite presumptuous of you to think that you know what Jesus intended to teach when everyone in the early Church disagrees with you. Do you know better than the Fathers? Do you know better than those who were taught directly by the apostles? Or where all these men who lived in apostolic times deceived? Was there a great apostasy in the early Church that we are only discovering today due to the scholarship of Protestant interpretation 20 centuries removed?
OCmaronite 3 years ago
Unfortunately for you, you cannot find one single witness in the early Church to support your interpretation. And more so, the entire patristic witness of the first ten centuries of the Church disagrees with you. I have found that, instead of honestly investigating what the early Church believed, many Protestants rather persevere in their erroneous opinions because of pride, ignorance or prejudice against the Catholic Church. I hope that is not the case with you.
OCmaronite 3 years ago