John 6 does not teach communion or a eucharist
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tealblue
But anyway so what if you can't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone?
take care
This is a very revealing statement by you Tealblue. You have admitted that you cannot find the doctrine of a eucharist in John 6, at least not absolutely without help from other sources. Your church would disagree with you. In one of my many conversations in person with an RC Priest, he concluded our conversation by saying, "So, you consider us idol worshippers?" I said, "Yes, but not because of the statues, because of the eucharist." (We had been discussing that very thoroughly too). And his reply, "But we don't get the doctrine of the eucharist from the Last Supper, we get it from John chapter six."
Anyway, onto to next post, which you will ignore too. We started with you saying that you wanted to know how to discern who was telling the truth about the Bible and who was not. I have been trying to show you, but thus far you have refused to shed RCC dogma long enough to take an honest look at the Scriptures (in this case, John 6).
John 6:51
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven:"
Christ identifies Himself and His meaning over and over again. Seven times from verse 27 through verse 51.
(1)He told them in verse 27, "Labour…for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." The "meat" He is talking about is Himself.
(2) In verse 29, "…believe on him whom he hath sent". In other words believe that He is God and believe His teachings because this "meat" will endure (give you, if you believe) everlasting life.
(3) In verse 32, "… my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." Now a third time He tells them that He is the "meat" or "true bread" that comes from heaven. Just because He says "meat" one time and "true bread" another time does not change His meaning. He is talking about Himself and the need to "believe" that He is the "meat" or "true bread".
(4) In verse 33 He tells them a again: "the bread of God (meaning Christ) is he (Christ) which comes from heaven."
(5) Verse 35, "I am the bread of life". He tells them again that He is the "bread of life".
(6) Verse 48, "I am that bread of life."
(7)Verse 50, "the bread which cometh down from heaven."
(8) Verse 51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven."
He has identified Himself these eight times as meat which gives eternal life; as him whom the Father has sent; as true bread from heaven; as the bread of God from heaven; as the bread of life; again as that bread of life; as the bread which comes down from heaven; and the eighth time as the living bread which came down from heaven.
After eight times there can be no mistaking that He is talking about Himself. And He calls Himself meat or bread or him, but they all come from heaven.
But there is not even a hint of teaching in here about communion or eucharist. These doctrines are not in John 6. In history, communion was not introduced prior to John 6, nor in John 6. These doctrines came later in time.
Continuing with verse 51: "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever."
How does one "eat" of this bread or meat or him. Easily enough understood from the context, you eat of Him by believing in Him as coming from heaven. Eat equals believe.
He never even used the word eat until verse 50 and now again in verse 51.
The result of believing (eating) in Him is that the way to eternal life may be available to you.
Continuing in verse 51: "and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
So, how does He give this flesh which is bread, which is meat, which is him, etc.? He preaches and teaches everyone to believe, not consume into the stomach, but to believe. But this part of the verse is more significant than this. HE IS PROPHESYING HIS OWN DEATH.
He was predicting the death of His body as an atonement for the sins of all. John 3:16 KJV, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
He is not instructing for everyone, everywhere, for all time to physically eat His flesh over and over and over. Not at all. God forbid. He is letting us know that He will do it all at the execution stake. And when He had paid the price for your sins and mine, and when He had fulfilled all the law and the prophets, He said, in John 19:30, "It is finished."
Predictably, as I've been saying continuously, the crowd did not understand Him any more now, than they have all along. They still thought, as RCC dogma teaches, that He was talking about physically eating.
Verse 52, "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
They were wrong and the RCC is wrong. Up through verse 52, no where, in no way, is there any teaching about communion or eucharist. It is not there.
Verse 53 and more later.
RGS's lack of knowledge fails him again
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Taken from a spiritual point of view Ignatius has only said what John the Beloved reported that Christ said. Show me where Ignatius said he wanted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, whether in wafer form or in physical form.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.
RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st & 2nd centuries
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted. It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers. The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Another EPIC FAIL from RGS
As expected, RGS failed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
More empty rhetoric, Vlad. You can quote all the early writers you want and their translations as we see them now are corrupted.
RGS, as an anti-Catholic, and poorly educated in all things about Christianity, is reduced to attcking me rather than dealing with what I posted. He is then dismissive about the evidence I posted because he can't refute it. This is what anti-Catholics MUST do to save face and protect their own wounded egos as they repeatedly fail to refute the evidence put before them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
It is not only the word "eucharist" that did not exist in the Greek of the time, but the word for "church" as used by the RCC now, did not exist then either. So any of these translations from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that have miraculously used 21st century meanings in their words of eucharist and church are just another deception. Besides, what need have we of the early writers.
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted, RGS is reduced to whining that the word Eucharist didn't mean THE Eucharist. This is a completely inept argument as anyone can tell since words naturally develop meanings when used in ***ociation with things. RGS, however, cannot admit this even though everyone knows it is how words organically develop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
The Biblical writers translations have not been corrupted. The plain Greek and their proper translations are available now as they were when first written. An RCC eucharist did not exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Clearly it did - as I posted and as RGS has now failed (again) to refute.
Vlad accuses others of the very thing he is guilty of
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vladimir998
See what I mean? Rather than actually deal with the evidence I posted,
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you. Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
RGS goas all paranoid again
RGS,
unable to actually deal with the irrefutable evidence I posted, went all paranoid:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Typical Jesuit approach: Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you.
You're simply being dishonest. I already refuted your opening thread in the very second post of the thread. On that issue you did not recover. You just kept making excuses. I specifically rejoined the thread because I was shocked at how poorly you understood St. Ignatius of Antioch. You were easily refuted on that point as well. You have not recovered at all from that. And now you're just embarr***ing yourself by falsely claiming I, "Accuse your adversary of the very thing your are guilty of and continue to refuse to address the evidence put before you."
No, it is you who refuses to address the evidence put before you. About St. Ignatius, you can only lamely say you need to see the Greek - that's the excuse you use to get out of dealing with evidence that destroys your points or claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Vlad, you are not equipped to address the evidence, you have not the education or the discernment. You are miserably failing in your ***ignment.
No, actually I am quite successful, while you are not only failing but post things that echo a disturbing paranoia common to poorly educated, sciolist anti-Catholics: "Typical Jesuit approach."
It will only get worse. As your failure here becomes more manifest, the person you really are will become ever more clear in your posts. The hatred of God, His Church and Catholics that you feel, the bitterness and frustration over your own failings in life and your inability to post even the most basic arguments or refute even the most basic of truths will cause you to lash out ever more irrationally. The paranoia you express is just the beginning.
And please note, you still have entirely failed to deal with the your utter and complete failure on St. Ignatius.
