Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God

  1. #26
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical. He only says that the food won't perish. We both know Catholics view John 6 as Jesus's prelude to the last supper where he intritutes the Eucharist. But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.

  2. #27
    RGS
    Guest

    Default verse 31

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical. He only says that the food won't perish. We both know Catholics view John 6 as Jesus's prelude to the last supper where he intritutes the Eucharist. But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.
    Tealblue: Ok but you ***ume that the food that doesn't perish isn't a phsical food. Jesus never says that the food that he is going to give you isn't physical.

    Yes, the food that doesn't perish is not a physical food. Do you know of any food that doesn't perish, any food that is not subject to the conditions of time, climate, weather, heat, cold, rain, etc.? In the context of the dialog He was drawing a comparison between food that perishes with food that does not perish. This means that He was contrasting the physical with the spiritual, metaphorically as He often did. In fact, He said it in Isaiah 55:1-2 many centuries ago.

    1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
    2Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

    As in John 6, the listener is being instructed that one needs water, wine, milk, bread, to feed their soul. But they spend their money on physical food and that physical food does not satisfy. It does not satisfy the soul. And it only temporarily satisfies the body. Soon the body will be hungry again and you will have to buy more food all over again and feed it. But if you feed your soul you can do it without money. After all, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

    In other words, the conversation of John 6, is not a new one. God has given us the information over and over again. And the comparison is always the same: stop worrying about your stomach and start concerning yourself with your soul.

    Tealblue: But I want to be respectful and not jump ahead. We can still move on to verse 30 but I don't want to give this impression that I agree on something when I don't.

    I appreciate your approach, but without a change in your understanding of verse 27 there is no reason for you to accept the remainder of what I share. I have given you many Scriptures and sound reasoning to support the fact that in verse 27 Jesus is offering spiritual food to us, not physical. What are the Scriptural references to support the RCC opinion of verse 27? I must admit, I will be amazed if you find any, because I have searched the Scriptures and I find no support for the RCC position on verse 27.

    Nevertheless, I will at least move onto verse 31 since I already addressed 30.

    31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

    This is a continuation of the mindset of the crowd. They are still not looking for spirituality or miracles. They are looking for physical food. "Hey, my daddy ate manna in the desert. If you're so great, like Moses, then prove yourself, give us bread or manna to eat." Once again, yesterday's miracles of plenty of bread to eat wasn't good enough for them. They were trying to manipulate Him into giving them more food again today. I would imagine that He did other miracles too, but they were not interested. This crowd travels on its stomach.

    This is getting too long. I don't believe in taking too big a bite. It takes time to chew, before moving on.

    RGS

  3. #28
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    The problem is that you are looking this in terms of only what you can understand in worldly terms. The eucharist does not perish. If you are looking at the terms of the communion wafer then ya it would eventually rot away. But jesus is not talking of the wafer itself but what the wafer becomes. You asked for a scriptural basis for this so here it goes.

    49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

    51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

    I highlighted a few important areas. In verse 50 he says that any man that eats it will not die. In verse 52 he then finally reveals what this bread is. HIS FLESH. In verse 53 the jews then acuse jesus of eating his very flesh. In verse 54 what does Jesus do? He repeats himself and expounds by adding "And drink my blood". Jesus continues to repeat himself over and over again. Finally in verse 56 Jesus says for my flesh IS FOOD INDEED and my blood REAL drink.

    Yes you are right in that the bread jesus is talking about is a metaphore. But the metaphore is his real flesh and blood not just believing in him. Many of the diciples who heard this left for good after hearing this saying this is a hard teaching. If the bread only meant believing in him then this would be an easy thing for them to understand.

    Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD

    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    Jesus never says that the bread is believing in him. He says that this bread IS HIS FLESH. Why would jesus replace a metaphore for another metaphore?
    Catholic have believed this for 2000 years and protestants have denied it for about 300. I'm sorry I can't come to your same conclusion but the language is clear and history is clear.

  4. #29
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    And yes I still agree with you that the people were looking for read food to eat. No denying that. But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him. It never syas that. He says that bread is his flesh.

  5. #30
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Th 1/7/10
    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    The problem is that you are looking this in terms of only what you can understand in worldly terms.
    Actually, I am looking at this from a Biblical point of view, not a worldly point of view or an RCC dogma point of view. Understanding godly things does not begin and end with RCC dogma.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    The eucharist does not perish.
    I was hoping you would wait, but you did not. We haven't begun talking about a eucharist yet, because in the Scriptures we have looked at so far a eucharist has not come up as a topic. Up through verse 31 where is a eucharist discussed or brought up as a topic either by Christ or the crowd? The answer, it has not been brought up. So, why are you jumping ahead?


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    If you are looking at the terms of the communion wafer then ya it would eventually rot away. But jesus is not talking of the wafer itself but what the wafer becomes.
    Once again, the subject of a wafer has not been brought up yet. So, I'm not concerned with its ability to rot. Christ has been talking about food thus far, not communion, or eucharist, or wafers.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    You asked for a scriptural basis for this so here it goes.
    49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

    51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

    I highlighted a few important areas. In verse 50 he says that any man that eats it will not die. In verse 52 he then finally reveals what this bread is. HIS FLESH. In verse 53 the jews then acuse jesus of eating his very flesh. In verse 54 what does Jesus do? He repeats himself and expounds by adding "And drink my blood". Jesus continues to repeat himself over and over again. Finally in verse 56 Jesus says for my flesh IS FOOD INDEED and my blood REAL drink.

    Yes you are right in that the bread jesus is talking about is a metaphore. But the metaphore is his real flesh and blood not just believing in him. Many of the diciples who heard this left for good after hearing this saying this is a hard teaching. If the bread only meant believing in him then this would be an easy thing for them to understand.

    Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD

    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    Jesus never says that the bread is believing in him. He says that this bread IS HIS FLESH. Why would jesus replace a metaphore for another metaphore?
    Catholic have believed this for 2000 years and protestants have denied it for about 300. I'm sorry I can't come to your same conclusion but the language is clear and history is clear.
    Christ is laying down a very important teaching and doctrine. It must be digested and sorted out linearly. You are using circular reasoning. You have ***umed that his teaching is going in a certain direction, without exploring where it is really going, and then you draw conclusions taken out of context and out of order with His teaching. I know you haven't done this on your own. You have merely brought forth the standard RCC dogma. I thought you wanted to know how to understand the Scriptures, when so many have so many different interpretations. That is where we started.

    BTW, the exegesis you've given here does not support your view of verse 27, because the info you've given is not what is being taught. I will attempt to continue with what is being taught, verse by verse, if you will permit it.

    32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

    In verse 32, Christ corrects the crowd again. They are claiming that Moses gave them "that bread" (meaning manna) from heaven and He tells them that Moses did not give them bread from heaven.

    Christ continues and states that His Father gives "the true bread" (meaning Christ) from heaven.

    33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
    Now Christ clearly identifies Himself as the "bread of God" which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. But the crowd doesn't hear him, because they do not have ears to hear. They are still looking for physical bread to eat and fill their stomachs with.
    34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
    The crowd thinks that this is some type of super energized bread, that will keep their physical bodies forever nourished and their stomachs forever satisfied. They had no clue that Christ was talking about spiritual bread.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him. It never syas that.
    Actually, it does say that in verse 29 (and He reinforces it in subsequent verses that we have not reached yet). But Christ often spoke in parables. Do I need to quote the Scriptures that He states that and the reason for it? And, predictably, the crowd did not understand what He said. That's why they continued to press Him for bread to fill their stomachs with.
    Last edited by RGS; 01-08-2010 at 08:16 PM.

  6. #31
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Yes it is true that I have been shown the meaning of the bread of life discourse. And I think thats true for everybody also when reading the bible. That in it self doesn't make it true or false. You had made the statement that verse 29 says that belief in him is the bread of life. In verse 29 it only says that" it is the work of God to belive in him." How do you come up with that verse to mean believing is the bread of life when Verse 52 is clear what the bread of life is. His flesh.

    52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, IS MY FLESH, for the life of the world.

    We both pretty much agree that the people were looking for food to fill their stomachs. And I think we pretty much agree that the bread of life is Jesus. BUT I think the real difference we have in this whole discourse is "What does jesus mean when he says EAT" I already agreed that the bread is a metaphore. I shown clear p***age in verse 52 that the bread is a metaphore for his flesh.

    How do you know from this chapter that when Jesus says eat my flesh, drink my blood that it is not literal. The jews were very clear that they thought he was being literal. And Jesus was very clear to repeat himself over and over again. Even changing the word eat in verse 57 to trogon which means to chew or knaw. These words eat my flesh and drink my blood are the same language used in the last supper where Jesus broke bread and raised up the cup and says this is my body and blood.

    Yes jesus often spoke in parrables. Jesus didn't always speak in parables. And the crowd didn't always misunderstand what he was saying for instance when he says the word I AM. They all knew exactly what he was saying.
    Last edited by tealblue; 01-08-2010 at 11:07 PM. Reason: add more info

  7. #32
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Hey on a side note in verse 32 are you saying that moses didn't give them manna and it was actually something else because verse 31 is clear that moses did give them manna and they ate it. Jesus is only saying that the manna didn't come from heaven like the bread that he soon will.

    And on another note I apologise for jumping ahead but you kind of challenged me that I had no scripture support for why the food jesus was giving us is a phsical food. You are expecting me to change my exegesis of verse 27.You keep telling me that the food can't be physical just because he says this food won't perish or spoil. The fact is verse 27 doesn't tell us at all at this point what this food is. He never says this food is spiritual either. The only thing he says is that this food won't spoil. Thats it.

    Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

    Show me where in this verse where it says that the food(meat) is spiritual and not physical. How am I supposed to see your view of something that it doesn't say. Its fine if you say ok we will get to that part.
    Last edited by tealblue; 01-08-2010 at 11:25 PM. Reason: adding

  8. #33
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Hey on a side note in verse 32 are you saying that moses didn't give them manna and it was actually something else because verse 31 is clear that moses did give them manna and they ate it. Jesus is only saying that the manna didn't come from heaven like the bread that he soon will.
    I'll get to your previous post, probably tomorrow. But this is a short answer. Moses didn't give them "the bread from heaven". The words "from heaven" need to be included. But in actuality, Moses didn't give them the manna either. God provided the manna. Moses merely told the people about what God was going to provide.

  9. #34
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Yes it is true that I have been shown the meaning of the bread of life discourse. And I think thats true for everybody also when reading the bible.
    Your "everybody" leaves out a lot of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    That in it self doesn't make it true or false.
    I agree.



    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    You had made the statement that verse 29 says that belief in him is the bread of life.
    Tealblue quote: "But its still your asumption that the bread he is refering to is belief in him."

    RGS reply: "Actually, it does say that in verse 29."

    Your statement of "belief in him is the bread of life" is not what I was saying when I replied to your original statement. In verse 27, Christ said "Labour…for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you…". Christ was talking here about "meat" that He had to offer to the crowd. That "meat" was His teachings and belief in Him. In verse 29 He reinforces His verse 27 statement by saying, "believe on him (the Son) whom he (the Father) hath sent."

    This belief in Him is of extreme importance (believing that He is God and all that entails) and this crowd was not doing that. They were treating Him like He was another Moses. Christ was bringing the conversation to a point of recognizing Who He was, and pointing out at the same time that the crowd was not at that point of belief.



    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    In verse 29 it only says that" it is the work of God to belive in him." How do you come up with that verse to mean believing is the bread of life when Verse 52 is clear what the bread of life is. His flesh.
    Yes, it is the work of God for them to believe on Christ. This was a ministry of all the prophets, the Scriptures, and the teachings of Christ. All of this is God at work among men. And I've already pointed out immediately above that I did not say "believing is the bread of life". And since I haven't reached verse 52, I'll address that when I get there.



    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, IS MY FLESH, for the life of the world.

    We both pretty much agree that the people were looking for food to fill their stomachs. And I think we pretty much agree that the bread of life is Jesus. BUT I think the real difference we have in this whole discourse is "What does jesus mean when he says EAT" I already agreed that the bread is a metaphore. I shown clear p***age in verse 52 that the bread is a metaphore for his flesh.

    How do you know from this chapter that when Jesus says eat my flesh, drink my blood that it is not literal.
    By what He has said thus far; i.e., up through verse 34, which is all the further I have addressed at this point. Also, by taking a linear approach, with no preconceived ideas or notions about what He is teaching. I am taking it one step at a time, and thus far He is not teaching about communion, eucharist, or wafers. Nor is He teaching that is physical flesh is to be eaten. When and if that changes in this discourse, I will point it out.



    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    The jews were very clear that they thought he was being literal. And Jesus was very clear to repeat himself over and over again. Even changing the word eat in verse 57 to trogon which means to chew or knaw. These words eat my flesh and drink my blood are the same language used in the last supper where Jesus broke bread and raised up the cup and says this is my body and blood.
    I will be glad to discuss verse 57 and trogon when I get to verse 57. And, as far as the Last Supper goes, that hasn't happened yet, so no one that He is talking to knows anything about communion, eucharist, wafers, etc. This is very important to keep in mind. No one knew anything at all about these doctrines. It's best to pretend that you don't either. Take it as it comes, otherwise, as is happening now, you are drawing conclusions with information that has not been given yet. Please, don't be a seer, learn it in the chronological order that it was given. Christ builds upon His teachings, and He will in John 6 also. That's why I referred to the Old Testament, Isaiah 55:1-2. This information was available to those who had been read and preached to, and one can use this information to help understand the current teaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Yes jesus often spoke in parrables. Jesus didn't always speak in parables. And the crowd didn't always misunderstand what he was saying for instance when he says the word I AM. They all knew exactly what he was saying.
    Continuing on with verse 35.

    35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

    The crowd wanted evermore bread to physcially eat. Christ gave a better answer. He plainly said that He was the bread of life. He said "come" to me and never hunger, "believe" on me and never thirst. With what He has spoken up to this point (and realizing that the Last Supper has not yet occurred) one cannot possibly think that He is talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He very plainly said "come" and "believe". Coming and believing are a far cry from cannabalism.

    36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

    These people had seen miraculous signs and wonders. People they had known their wholes lives were healed of visible maladies right before their very eyes. They had seen five thousand fed with five loaves of bread and two fish. Yet, they did not believe in Him. The stubbornness and unbelief of some boggles the mind. And Christ makes the comparison again between Himself and bread. He even calls Himself the Bread of Life. He is saying that the bread that fills your stomach only gives you life here and now. The Bread of Life, that is, Christ, gives you life forever. Christ is not saying He is a piece of bread of higher quality which will go into your stomach and sustain your physical body forever. Rather, He is comparing bread made by human hands to be consumed for food, with Himself, the Bread of Life, that must be consumed in your spirit for eternal life.

    In verses 37-40, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

    They have just been told that He holds the keys to eternal life, because He can raise them up on the last day. Please, people, listen to Him.

    But, incredibly, they do not listen, just as people do not listen today. They actually start complaining in verses 41-42:

    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’?”

    More than enough for one entry.
    Last edited by RGS; 01-09-2010 at 07:40 PM.

  10. #35
    RGS
    Guest

    Default No eucharist in John 6 up through verse 50.

    M 1/11/10

    Tealblue,
    As you can see, without going into the future, from the point in time that Christ was teaching the crowd in John 6 (up through verse 42 only at this point), there is absolutely nothing that He has taught that speaks of communion, or eucharist, or wafers. Therefore, nothing He has said up to this point can be explained in those terms. But the Biblical exegesis I have given, does explain His teachings up to this point.

    In verses 43-48, “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.” He says it again. He says, “I am the bread of life.” Also, He just told them again the key to eternal life, “he who believes has everlasting life.” Once again, Christ saying that He is the Bread of Life is in no way related to communion, eucharist, or the taking of wafer, or the drinking of wine. It isn't there. When one doesn't have the Last Supper to draw upon, then you do not have any support for John 6, up through verse 48, to mean anything other than what Christ has stated and what I have stated. You must believe in God to have eternal life. Participating in a communion memorial or participating in a eucharist ceremony is not even in the picture up through verse 48.

    Verse 49: "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." Once again, Christ is stressing the same point over and over. Manna, will not sustain one's life forever. It is only physcial food for the stomach. We need spiritual food. What is that spiritual food? He immediately tells us, yet again (over and over), in the next verse, that it is belief in Him (Christ) and His teachings that are spiritual food.

    Verse 50: "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." This is the bread (Christ Himself and His teachings) which cometh down from heaven (He was in heaven aforetime and has now come down to Earth to us), that a man may eat thereof (not even a hint of cannabalism, it is crystal clear that He is speaking of believing in Him and His teachings) and not die. And not die. He has reforced His teaching over and over again, eat physical food (and this would include cannabalism) and you die. But believing in Christ and His teachings can give you eternal life.

    Please tell me, Tealblue, what in John 6 up through verse 50 says anything at all about communion or a eucharist? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

  11. #36
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Ok I'm getting a little ahead of myself so I'll try not to get ahead. Getting back to verse 27-30.

    27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

    I feel we have a double standard here. Its ok for you to say Jesus says nothing of communion wafers or anything but its ok for you to make this leap and say the bread is spiritual because for no other reason than he says this bread is unperishable. Unperishable doesn't mean spiritual. It only means unperishable Verse 29 only answers verse 28. They do not ask what is the bread of life in verse 28. They only ask what the work of God is. The only time jesus says what the bread of life is in verse 52. But I will wait till you get there.

  12. #37
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    M 1/11/10

    Tealblue,
    As you can see, without going into the future, from the point in time that Christ was teaching the crowd in John 6 (up through verse 42 only at this point), there is absolutely nothing that He has taught that speaks of communion, or eucharist, or wafers. Therefore, nothing He has said up to this point can be explained in those terms. But the Biblical exegesis I have given, does explain His teachings up to this point.

    In verses 43-48, “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.” He says it again. He says, “I am the bread of life.” Also, He just told them again the key to eternal life, “he who believes has everlasting life.” Once again, Christ saying that He is the Bread of Life is in no way related to communion, eucharist, or the taking of wafer, or the drinking of wine. It isn't there. When one doesn't have the Last Supper to draw upon, then you do not have any support for John 6, up through verse 48, to mean anything other than what Christ has stated and what I have stated. You must believe in God to have eternal life. Participating in a communion memorial or participating in a eucharist ceremony is not even in the picture up through verse 48.

    Verse 49: "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." Once again, Christ is stressing the same point over and over. Manna, will not sustain one's life forever. It is only physcial food for the stomach. We need spiritual food. What is that spiritual food? He immediately tells us, yet again (over and over), in the next verse, that it is belief in Him (Christ) and His teachings that are spiritual food.

    Verse 50: "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." This is the bread (Christ Himself and His teachings) which cometh down from heaven (He was in heaven aforetime and has now come down to Earth to us), that a man may eat thereof (not even a hint of cannabalism, it is crystal clear that He is speaking of believing in Him and His teachings) and not die. And not die. He has reforced His teaching over and over again, eat physical food (and this would include cannabalism) and you die. But believing in Christ and His teachings can give you eternal life.

    Please tell me, Tealblue, what in John 6 up through verse 50 says anything at all about communion or a eucharist? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
    Yes belief in God is the key to eternal life. But when Jesus makes those statements about believing in him and eternal life he is not making reference to eating bread, eating his flesh or drinkin his blood. You are also drawing a conclusion that if the manna bread God gave them AND THEY DIED was phsical that this bread must be spiritual because if the bread they ate was phsical and they died this bread now MUST BE SPIRITUAL. The text never says its spiritual you only draw the conclusion because the manna was phsical and they died. Jesus only says that this new bread if you eat it you will not die. Nothing more nothing less.
    Last edited by tealblue; 01-11-2010 at 09:09 PM. Reason: more info

  13. #38
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Ok I'm getting a little ahead of myself so I'll try not to get ahead. Getting back to verse 27-30.

    27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

    I feel we have a double standard here. Its ok for you to say Jesus says nothing of communion wafers or anything but its ok for you to make this leap and say the bread is spiritual because for no other reason than he says this bread is unperishable.
    Actually, there is more than one reason to say verse 27 is spiritual. Reason (1): "Labour not for the meat which perisheth." Meat in Greek is brosis. Brosis is not only bread, it is any food. In verse 26 the word loaves is used and in verse 27 it is called meat/brosis. This shows us that the significance of the type of food they ate is not important. After all, they ate fish too. Reason (2): They need food/brosis that will endure to life everlasting. Once again, there is no food which can sustain one forever. So, the p***age must be talking about something other than physical food. Reason (3): Only the Son of man can give them this food that doesn't perish. Others can give them the same teachings by repeating what He has said. But the words alone cannot make them believe that the Son of man is God. This is what Christ is calling them to, to believe in Him.

    So, I do not see this a any leap at all, but merely a logical progression and conclusion of what is being said to them. BTW, they did not understand what was being said to them. And, today, neither do you. Maybe tomorrow you will. They thought He was talking about super food that would not perish. In a way, this too is what you are thinking. But you are thinking the food is Him, because you have future information. They are thinking that He has food that will keep them from being hungry, or else is will keep coming and coming and they will always be filled.




    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Unperishable doesn't mean spiritual. It only means unperishable
    Can you tell me of a food that is unperishable and yet still physical? The point is that when He says unperishable, He is not talking about food. He is merely making a comparison of food that is comsumed into the stomach, and something else that is consumed into the soul and spirit, which is belief in Him as God.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Verse 29 only answers verse 28.
    In verse 27 He says, "Labour…for that…which endureth unto everlasting life." I left out meat between "that" and "which" because maybe it will make it easier to understand that He is not talking about food. Then is verse 29 He says again, "the work…[is]…believe on him." So, what is believing on Him going to benefit a person? One of the benefits is to receive eternal life. But merely believing does not do the *** all by itself, but it is a good starting point. After all, James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."



    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    They do not ask what is the bread of life in verse 28. They only ask what the work of God is. The only time jesus says what the bread of life is in verse 52. But I will wait till you get there.
    They didn't ask what the bread of life is in verse 28, because Christ had not yet identified Himself as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Yes belief in God is the key to eternal life. But when Jesus makes those statements about believing in him and eternal life he is not making reference to eating bread, eating his flesh or drinkin his blood. You are also drawing a conclusion that if the manna bread God gave them AND THEY DIED was phsical that this bread must be spiritual because if the bread they ate was phsical and they died this bread now MUST BE SPIRITUAL.
    The meat/brosis which Christ offers, at this point in the dialogue, is not even food at all. The crowd thinks He is talking about food, that is their whole error. I don't think He is talking about food at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    The text never says its spiritual you only draw the conclusion because the manna was phsical and they died. Jesus only says that this new bread if you eat it you will not die. Nothing more nothing less.
    At this point in the dialogue, that is true. But He will say it before we are finished.

  14. #39
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Your whole argument is based on unperishable food being spiritual based only on personal understanding. Your basing your argument on a sola scriptora basis but you are going beyond what is said. Your even speculaing on what the crown was thinking and not what they said. Yes I agree that the jews around him were confused and most likely were confused when they departed but they were confused for different reasons.

    Verse 34 the jews say give us this bread. At this point I think we agree to some point that they were looking for a phsical bread to eat just to fill their stomachs.

    Verse 41 They questioned him about Jesus saying he was the living bread. I think even at this point we can agree on the principal that Jesus in some way is the living bread. And I think we also agree that they questioned him about How can he come down from heaven.

    Up to verse 50 I see no reason besides speculation to why the bread that he was about to give was only spiritual in nature. If you read john 6 with the idea he was talking about the eucharist it does make sense.

  15. #40
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Your whole argument is based on unperishable food being spiritual based only on personal understanding.
    I disagree. I have shown, over and over again, that this is not based on personal understanding. ****yzing what was being said, and by whom, can lead to no other conclusion than the one I have presented. If a different conclusion is reached, it is not based on the Scripture, it is based on ulterior motives - one of which is to fantasize that a eucharist is being spoken of. But one can only reach that conclusion once they have bought the RCC dogma hook, line, and sinker. And then, they must use circular reasoning. Thus far, through verse 50, there is nothing that even remotely hints at a eucharist or even communion - it just is not there! And you haven't shown where it is up through verse 50. I realize how hard it is to grapple with facts that totally contradict a deeply ingrained dogma. I have faith in Christ, in God, but I have no faith in man made doctrines and man made organizations. Men's hearts cannot be trusted. Jeremiah 17:9 KJV, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" It is better to trust the Scriptures that have been written by the Holy Ghost. 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."


    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Your basing your argument on a sola scriptora basis but you are going beyond what is said. Your even speculaing on what the crown was thinking and not what they said. Yes I agree that the jews around him were confused and most likely were confused when they departed but they were confused for different reasons.
    I haven't even come close to going beyond what is written. I have supported every thing by the very words that are written. The eucharist goes way beyond what is written - it goes completely out of the ballpark (the Bible). Where did I speculate on what they crowd was thinking? They reveal their thoughts by their words, and Christ also reveals their thoughts by what He says about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    Verse 34 the jews say give us this bread. At this point I think we agree to some point that they were looking for a phsical bread to eat just to fill their stomachs.

    Verse 41 They questioned him about Jesus saying he was the living bread. I think even at this point we can agree on the principal that Jesus in some way is the living bread. And I think we also agree that they questioned him about How can he come down from heaven.

    Up to verse 50 I see no reason besides speculation to why the bread that he was about to give was only spiritual in nature. If you read john 6 with the idea he was talking about the eucharist it does make sense.
    The opposite is true. Reading John 6 with the idea that a eucharist is being talked about is pure lunacy. The whole idea of a eucharist is not taught anywhere in the Bible. It is a total fabrication. And John 6 is as good a place as any to expose it.

    I will continue with verse 51 and more, next time. Because we are going to be entering into the verses that some think cannot be explained in any way except via RCC dogma.

  16. #41
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Your last post you pretty much addmitted that he doesn't specify a spiritual bread up to 50, but he will. If you listen to what I'm saying I'm not even saying that Jesus specifies the eucharist either. but you do keep on asking what kind of food doesn't perish that you eat? So I answered. I'm trying not to keep bringing up the eucharist because I know that you really couldn't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone. Atleast give me the courtacy to admit that you couldn't come up with a spiritual bread either up to verse atleast 50 Because you can't. Your only argument is what food is there that won't perish? But anyway so what if you can't come up with the eucharist by john 6 alone? You can't come up with the trinity by one chapter alone either. Anyway you can go on to verse 51 because we won't agree up to this point.

    take care

  17. #42
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    I keep on hearing the same thing from protetants about how the Church's doctrines are man made and how they only go by the scriptures.Well isn't your doctrine man made also? It was a man who came up with it. Just because someone reads the bible and says hey I read the bible and this is what it says, so what. Your views are just as read into as ours. two protestants, one believes you can lose your salvation and one believes that you can. Both can't be right. Both have read into the bible and claim the holy spirit led them. One is man made and the other isn't. But which one? Obviously its the doctrine that you hold because the other is most certainly reading it with tainted eyes. Ever thought that you could be misunderstanding what jesus is really saying? Maybe not but was just a thought.

  18. #43
    RGS
    Guest

    Default John 6 does not teach communion or a eucharist

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  19. #44
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Yes I said that by John 6 alone we don't come up with the Eucharist. You also have to take into account what Jesus says in the last supper. Its perfectly ok to use other scripture to interpret john 6 right? The priest was probably going on the notion that john 6 more describes that the bread we consume is the flesh of our lord and saviour. The last supper more describes the phsical act of breaking bread and drinking wine. So yes he is right from a different viewpoint. Anyway back to john 6.

    Yes jesus over and over again says " I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE " Ok what does Jesus mean when he says I am the bread of life. Does he mean he is spiritualy the bread of life or something else. I'm still waiting for scripture to prove that Jesus is the bread spiritualy and eat simply means to believe. Kind of like "hey chew on this idea for awhile" So far just ***umption that he is contrasting phsical food and spiritual food. Nothing in scripture proves this is the case. He plainly says for my flesh is REAL food and my blood REAL drink.

  20. #45
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    In verses 53-59, Jesus said to them,
    "53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
    54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
    55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
    56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
    57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
    58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

    59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

    Christ continues to reinforce everything He has said since verse 26. He continues to make the comparison of consuming bread made by human hands as only being temporary (temporal), and referring to Himself as the bread that came down from heaven (spiritual). In verse 54, His switch from
    His usage of eat/esthio to eat/trogo is of little consequence. I know that RCC dogma tries to make a big deal of trogo to have a mastigating connotation - as if that is of some import - rather than a simple chewing. Simple fact is, some lexicons of that period show that esthio and trogo are identical in meaning and one can be subs***uted for the other with no change in the meaning. In fact, most of the lexicons I researched did not even use the definition of mastigate, but rather indicated that it was the chewing function of herbivorous animals, including man.

    The most important point of trogo, however, is the total contradiction and hypocrisy that it exposes in the RCC when they try to use it to support their doctrine of the false eucharist. Having been a Catholic myself in the past, I am privy to many things first hand that others are not. And it is also why I can see right through the other hypocritical rantings of the Jesuits on this site. (I am not accusing Tealblue of being a Jesuit). Catholics are taught never to chew the wafer god, do not even put your teeth to it. It would be disrespectful and repugnant to bite a god. But it is okay for them to falsely exegete a p***age and claim that Christ is teaching us to really chew out and chop down big time so that you can eat flesh. The RCC is a monster of hypocrisy! "Oh, it is a bloodless sacrifice," they will tell you. Blashphemy! Blashphemy! Christ died a torturous and bloody death as payment for your sins and mine. It was anything but a bloodless sacrifice!

    In verse 60, On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"They continue in their unbelief and, therefore, are unable to understand. Just as you are not able to understand, Tealblue, you do not believe in Christ and His teachings. You believe in the RCC.

    In verses 61-63, Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, [Yahoshua] said to them,

    61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
    62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
    63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

    Christ continues, yet another time, to stress that He is speaking spiritually about eating His flesh, not physically. He stresses that eating His flesh means that you are taking Him and His teaching into your spirit so that you may receive eternal life.

    There it is Tealblue. For the last time and screaming off the pages of Scripture, right in your face.

    Verse 63: THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.

    There it is, as plain as day. Christ is talking spiritually about Himself and His teachings, He is not teaching cannibalism. He is not even teaching communion.

    Tealblue, I have started a new thread on this subject, with explanations that have not been covered in this thread.

  21. #46
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

    Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.

  22. #47
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

    Verse 64 is not talking about the bread of life being spiritual. Its talking of christs spirit giving life and our flesh profiting nothing. he's not referencing the bread of life because if he was he would be saying that his flesh profits nothing. Jesus would never say that his flesh profits nothing and that my friend would be blasphemous. You can't just rearange words and make them say anything you want. St ignatius in 110 AD confirmed the belief that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of jesus.
    You said these are the words of Ignatius: Ignatius of antioch who was a diciple of john had this to say in 110 AD

    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    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.

  23. #48
    vladimir998
    Guest

    Default RGS's lack of knowledge fails him again

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post

    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.

  24. #49
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vladimir998 View Post
    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.
    If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees. The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek. If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates. Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.

  25. #50
    vladimir998
    Guest

    Default RGS - WRONG as usual

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    If I were interested in doing more study of Ignatius, I would need the Greek texts that had not been handled or interpreted by RCC employees.
    Uh, RGS, those same letters were translated by a Protestant. They read the same, for instance, in Cyril Richardson's translation.

    CR trans:

    "They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. "

    What I posted:

    " 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."

    It's almost EXACTLY the same.

    How about the next quote? Well, let's see shall we?

    CR's trans:

    "You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes.  2Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

    What I posted:

    "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."

    It's almost EXACTLY the same.

    Next one.

    CR's trans.:

    "Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God's will."

    What I posted:

    "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."

    Almost exactly the same. Imagine that. So, a real Protestant scholar, who knew more than you ever will, effectively translated just as I posted it.


    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    The word Eucharist, as used by the RCC, has nothing to do with the Greek word eucharisteo/ia/os that is translated into gladness/thankfulness/thankful in the New Testament. The use of the word "Eucharist" by the RCC has taken on a new meaning from its original meaning in the Greek.
    Protestants - who aren't sciolists about Christianity as you are - recognize "Eucharist" in its literal Greek meaning and in it's relation to THE Eucharist.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    If an RCC employee has made a corrupt translation of Ignatius' writings, that would be in line with their other deceptions. So, I can't take your word for what Ignatius said as your translation relates.
    RGS, you are making the saddest excuses I have seen on the part of an anti-Catholic in quite some time. Congratulations. You have entered the realm of anti-Catholic irrelevancy. Protestants translate the relevant quotes the same way as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do.


    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    Because in 110 AD, the RCC definition of "Eucharist" did not exist in the Greek language of that era. So, if Ignatius only had the word eucharisteo (which means gladness) available to him in the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods, how could he use it to describe the current day RCC "Eucharist"? Simple answer, he could not.
    Uh, RGS, as CR makes clear, the work Eucharist already meant THE EUCHARIST when St. Ignatius was writing. You lose. How embarr***ing.


    St. Justin Martyr wrote:


    "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

    St. Irenaeus wrote:

    "[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
    St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

    "So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.

    "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •