Is the "Real Presence" [catholic Holy Communion" Really REAL?

prodromos said:

Not unlike God telling Abraham to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him.

Click to expand...

So True; blind, faithful trust. An example of the faith that Jesus expects us to have in the Eucharist.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

So True; blind, faithful trust.

Click to expand...

Not true in so many ways, but mainly: Abraham trusted the Creator would keep His Promise. That is NOT blind faith nor blind trust - Abraham knew Who he trusted.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Not true in so many ways, but mainly: Abraham trusted the Creator would keep His Promise. That is NOT blind faith nor blind trust - Abraham knew Who he trusted.

Click to expand...

And we don't?; not logical reason to other than motivation by the Holy Spirit.

Major1 said:

LOL............You are still making comments to me that look like I am some kind of authority figure.

Click to expand...

Just because I am taking the Catholic Church's view over yours, that's supposedly making you some sort of "authority figure?" Now that's funny! Lol!

Lets be clear. #1. I do not care what you do my friend.

Click to expand...

Ha-ha.... Why would I think otherwise.

#2. I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me. I only read the Bible, pray about it and study it and if you and the rest of the world disagree with me, WONDERFUL!!!!

Click to expand...

Good to know.

I have NO authority over anyone!

Click to expand...

No argument here! By you admitting this, in the future, when you post your personal opinion/interpretation on Scripture passages, will you cite it has no authority over anyone, and is subject to error as you stated it could be back on post #365?

The facts are that there is NO Biblical Scriptures that substantiate Transubstaciation.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it state that everthing one has to know is contained in the Bible?

It is strictly a RCC concoction and nothing more.

Click to expand...

If thats what you believe, why stop there? Why not include the Trinity, The Incarnation, and Redemption? The Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.

To the revealed Word that there is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" the Church labeled the belief "Trinity."

To the revealed Word that the "Son of God became man" the Church labeled the belief "Incarnation."

To the revealed Word that the "blood of Christ spilled on Calvary saved us" the Church labeled the belief "Redemption."

To the revealed Word that "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" the Church labeled the belief "Transubstantiation."
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.

Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc. Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood. But like you said, it's your choice to take Jesus for His word or not.

Your comment that ALL the ECF's supported Transubstantiation is false to say the least.

Click to expand...

Lol!..... So this doesn't sound like your being a bit authoritative to you?

Check out this site ....(www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/) for rebuttal

That is began in the gospel of John 6 is also false.

Click to expand...

Again....this doesn't sound like your being a bit authoritative to you? Lol!

And would you admit that you could be in error claiming it is false?

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Yet Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and it's raising up in three days.
Likewise, Mary did not quite understand the Angel, yet she pondered those things in her heart.
Zachariah did not understand the message about John the Baptist, and was struck dumb until his birth came to pass.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.

But IMO, John 6 is not a simple statement; it is almost a debate in which Jesus goes on at some length, repeating himself several times, apparently intending to convince his listeners of his message--even though, and as I said before, there was no possibly of them connecting his words with a special ceremony that had never occurred and which, to the best of my knowledge, none of them ever was going to experience.

Albion said:

Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.

But IMO, John 6 is not a simple statement; it is almost a debate in which Jesus goes on at some length, repeating himself several times, apparently intending to convince his listeners of his message--even though, and as I said before, there was no possibly of them connecting his words with a special ceremony that had never occurred and which, to the best of my knowledge, none of them ever was going to experience.

Click to expand...

For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.

Fidelibus said:

Really Maj1? This source you're getting your information from (justforcatholics.org) is one of the top five anti-Catholic sites on the web, and not to be deemed credible when it comes to Catholicism. Posting their views on Catholicism is no different than going to the ISIS web-site and asking their veiw on Judaism and the State of Israel. Sorry. Let's see what The Catholic Education Resource Center (CERC) has to say:

"And what about Paschasius Radbertus? Was he the first to believe in transubstantiation?

Radbertus was abbot of Old Corbie Monastery near Amiens. In 831 he composed a treatise that contained this ambiguous expression: "This is precisely the same flesh that was born of Mary, suffered on the Cross, and rose from the tomb."16 He narrated some Eucharistic miracles that gave the impression that Christ must be understood to be sensibly present in the sacrament, and another monk at his abbey, Ratramus, wrote a counter treatise noting that one must distinguish between the appearance of Christ in the Eucharist and the appearance of His body received from Mary, but he used language that might suggest Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist. Both Radbertus and Ratramus were orthodox; the trouble was that neither was precise in wording.

"The debate between these principals soon became a theological free-for-all", said historian Newman Eberhardt.17 Others entered the fray, sometimes proposing rectifying language that was even more confusing than what Radbertus and Ratramus wrote.

The dispute ended by 860, with no one denying the Real Presence. (Take special notice on the following Maj1) What should be noted is that, despite various attempts to phrase the doctrine of the Real Presence accurately, there was no cry from anyone that this was a new doctrine. It was taken as a given. Those who inadvertently implied the Presence might be symbolic only were considered the innovators, not those who presumed it was Real.

In the theological world there was no further controversy on the issue until Berengarius of Tours, who died in 1088. He had studied the dispute that began with Radbertus and Ratramus and concluded that Christ was indeed present only symbolically. He repeated signed recantations and then, safe at home, reiterated his original position. This theological seesaw went on for decades, until he finally subscribed to an unambiguous formula. Church historians say he apparently died reconciled.18 Whether or not he did, he is the first Christian, so far as we can tell from the records, who denied the Real Presence. Paschasius Radbertus and Berengarius of Tours are remembered to history only because the one seemed to doubt the Real Presence and the other actually did. What this tells us is that the accepted belief was the opposite of what they were understood to hold."

16aschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini.

17.Newman Eberhardt, A Summary of Catholic History (St. Louis: Herder, 1961), I:464.

18.Eberhardt, Summary, I:610.

So , as you can see Maj1. history disagrees with you and your anti-Catholic source "justforcatholics." Sorry.

Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term See, for example, the citation from Justin Martyr’s First Apology (A.D. 151): "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is compelling and unanimous. Again, facts and history show it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied.

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

Click to expand...

And you have a wonderful Easter.

Albion said:

Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.

But IMO, John 6 is not a simple statement; it is almost a debate in which Jesus goes on at some length, repeating himself several times, apparently intending to convince his listeners of his message--even though, and as I said before, there was no possibly of them connecting his words with a special ceremony that had never occurred and which, to the best of my knowledge, none of them ever was going to experience.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

~Cassia~ said:

For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.

Click to expand...

And that was AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit which gave them understanding and that was 1 year after John 6.

Major1 said:

And that was AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit which gave them understanding and that was 1 year after John 6.

Click to expand...

The bible is progressive wisdom, I don't believe that the wisdom attained at the conclusion can be added to or taken away from because the bible is complete wisdom. If it can't be proved from the bible it doesn't matter. If from outside of the bible a timeline of the wisdom gleaned from the apostles is sealed no matter what can be proved from the bible is ignorance.
I haven't read much more of the thread so I don't know what your stance is but I know what Albion's and Prodogamus' are and that is the ignoring that I refer to.

~Cassia~ said:

For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.

Click to expand...

I explained in the previous post why that approach is unconvincing. First, his questioners in John 6 were not his disciples, or even sympathizers. Second, it is almost impossible that they would later have any way of having it dawn on them what Jesus had meant.

Albion said:

I explained in the previous post why that approach is unconvincing. First, his questioners in John 6 were not his disciples, or even sympathizers. Second, it is almost impossible that they would later have any way of having it dawn on them what Jesus had meant.

Click to expand...

That's the point of biblical interpretation being personal learning lighting the way to your own road to eternal home.

~Cassia~ said:

The bible is progressive wisdom, I don't believe that the wisdom attained at the conclusion can be added to or taken away from because the bible is complete wisdom. If it can't be proved from the bible it doesn't matter. If from outside of the bible a timeline of the wisdom gleaned from the apostles is sealed no matter what can be proved from the bible is ignorance.
I haven't read much more of the thread so I don't know what your stance is but I know what Albion's and Prodogamus' are and that is the ignoring that I refer to.

Click to expand...

I am of the understanding that the Communion service is totally symbolic.

The point that the RCC teaches is that John 6 is the directions of the sacraments of Lords Supper where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation. Those of a Catholic belief use this passage to support the idea that the Eucharist actually becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.

My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.

John 6 is NOT about communion. When Jesus talks about “eating His flesh”, He is tying it back to the idea of Him being “the bread of life” (John 6:35). Many in John 6 were asking Jesus to perform a physical sign such as raining down bread from heaven like the manna in the Old Testament or at least replicate the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:26,31). Jesus informs them that they should not be seeking physical bread which perishes, but a food that “endures to eternal life” (John 6:27).

When one believes in Jesus and abides in His Word, it is as if they are consuming Jesus. If you consume Jesus you will receive spiritual nourishment that results in everlasting life. Jesus’ spiritual nourishment is everlasting, He states:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). If one abides in Jesus they will never lack spiritual nourishment. One abides in Jesus by hearing and learning His teachings. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

Jesus makes it very clear that He is not talking about physical food at all (like the communion), but spiritual food that results in spiritual nourishment.
The Bible Answer Show: Is John 6 talking about the Lord’s Supper or Communion when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?

Major1 said:

I am of the understanding that the Communion service is totally symbolic.

The point that the RCC teaches is that John 6 is the directions of the sacraments of Lords Supper where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation. Those of a Catholic belief use this passage to support the idea that the Eucharist actually becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.

My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.

John 6 is NOT about communion. When Jesus talks about “eating His flesh”, He is tying it back to the idea of Him being “the bread of life” (John 6:35). Many in John 6 were asking Jesus to perform a physical sign such as raining down bread from heaven like the manna in the Old Testament or at least replicate the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:26,31). Jesus informs them that they should not be seeking physical bread which perishes, but a food that “endures to eternal life” (John 6:27).

When one believes in Jesus and abides in His Word, it is as if they are consuming Jesus. If you consume Jesus you will receive spiritual nourishment that results in everlasting life. Jesus’ spiritual nourishment is everlasting, He states:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). If one abides in Jesus they will never lack spiritual nourishment. One abides in Jesus by hearing and learning His teachings. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

Jesus makes it very clear that He is not talking about physical food at all (like the communion), but spiritual food that results in spiritual nourishment.
The Bible Answer Show: Is John 6 talking about the Lord’s Supper or Communion when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?

Click to expand...

Humankind shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, yet He still turned stones into bread able to edify others. Taste and know that God is good. Spirit of the law or letter of the law. That is the question.

Major1 said:

I am of the understanding that the Communion service is totally symbolic.

The point that the RCC teaches is that John 6 is the directions of the sacraments of Lords Supper where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation. Those of a Catholic belief use this passage to support the idea that the Eucharist actually becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.

My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.

John 6 is NOT about communion. When Jesus talks about “eating His flesh”, He is tying it back to the idea of Him being “the bread of life” (John 6:35). Many in John 6 were asking Jesus to perform a physical sign such as raining down bread from heaven like the manna in the Old Testament or at least replicate the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:26,31). Jesus informs them that they should not be seeking physical bread which perishes, but a food that “endures to eternal life” (John 6:27).

When one believes in Jesus and abides in His Word, it is as if they are consuming Jesus. If you consume Jesus you will receive spiritual nourishment that results in everlasting life. Jesus’ spiritual nourishment is everlasting, He states:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). If one abides in Jesus they will never lack spiritual nourishment. One abides in Jesus by hearing and learning His teachings. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

Jesus makes it very clear that He is not talking about physical food at all (like the communion), but spiritual food that results in spiritual nourishment.
The Bible Answer Show: Is John 6 talking about the Lord’s Supper or Communion when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?

Click to expand...

And we all know that your understanding is a misunderstanding from the POV of Scripture, History, and orthodoxy.

Major1 said:

My dear friend. I know from our past conversations that you are a well entrenched RCC member.

Click to expand...

So you should also know/remember that for most of my life I was a well entrenched Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, non-Denominationalist, and member of just about every other non-Catholic Christian sect. That is until The Holy Spirit opened my eyes and led me to the truth of God's Holy Catholic Church.

Good for you. You have learned their doctrine at the expense of everything else and you represent the RCC well, if not incorrectly.

Click to expand...

At the expense of everything else? I don't think finding the truth is an expense of anything. Thank you for the compliment of representing Christ's Church well.

Having said that, I am sure that you are aware
The catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, according to YOUR catechism.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am very aware of The Catholic Church's seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, and what the Catechism say's about them.

If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!-----The Sacraments Do Not Save

Click to expand...

Really Maj1, useing another anti-Catholic web-site for your information? (Come Quickly Lord, Jesus!) If you believe and support what this site teaches, enough to copy/paste as you did above, you must also believe what the site also states that you failed to share about Catholics and the Sacraments. Allow me. From the same site and same page you copy/pasted from:

This means that anything good that we try to do for God appears like a filthy rag to God

Click to expand...

Speaking about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Wait, theres more:

"Nothing we can do is clean enough of God’s eyes. Can’t you see that? Notice how Isaiah says that all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags? This means that anything good that we try to do for God appears like a filthy rag to God. This means that praying a thousand rosaries, attending mass every day, or even working at a nursing home to help the elderly will be of no benefit to you."

Click to expand...

And

"Just reading this description is disgusting to me. When we look at the difference between this disgusting type of blood and the precious blood of Jesus Christ, we can see a vast difference."

Click to expand...

And

"Just reading this description is disgusting to me. When we look at the difference between this disgusting type of blood and the precious blood of Jesus Christ, we can see a vast difference. If you read in Leviticus 15:19-33 and 20:18, you will see what was required when dealing with this type of blood – the cleaning ceremonies were intense. The leper was also linked with this type of uncleanness (Leviticus 13:45) and his rags were considered just as filthy. I once heard a sermon about lepers. The preacher said that before the leper could enter a city, he had to take a rag from the top of a post (that other lepers had used) and rub hard over his leperous sores. He would then return the filthy rag back to the top of the post for the next leper to use. Is this not disgusting to you? Isaiah says that God views our good works in the same manner He views this filthy rag!

God compares our own works to this putrid type of filthy rag! There is nothing that we can do that will even come close to the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

Everything you do in order to get closer to God will fall short of what God requires of us. This includes the sacraments required by the catholic church."

Click to expand...

And finally:

"No amount of keeping the sacraments, praying a thousand rosaries, going to confession daily, doing daily penance, repeated flaggellations, climbing the stairs of a cathedral on your knees, wearing rough clothing against your skin, working in the soup kitchen, – NOTHING can cause God to view your good works in any other way than as that putrid dirty bloody rag mentioned in Isaiah 64:6.

Click to expand...

So Maj1, since you posted from this clearly anti-Catholic web-site, do you also share/agree with these views that you failed to post?

Major1 said:

How then can you as a catholic say that obeying the sacraments assures salvation? The Bible says:

~Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!
The Sacraments Do Not Save

Click to expand...

Well Maj1, lets see. what the Bible say's.

"Are the Seven Catholic Sacraments Biblical?

A Baptist once asked me "Are the seven Catholic Sacraments biblical?". My response is "Absolutely!". First let's look at what those seven sacraments are. They are Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing the Sick (Extreme Unction), Holy Orders and Matrimony. Now let's discuss what a "sacrament" is.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1084 (in part) "...The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify." And #1116 "Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant."

The sacraments are gifts from God and all were instituted by Jesus Christ. No man on earth, not even a Pope can change a sacrament because he has no authority to do so. Christ instituted them and so they stand until He comes again exactly how he founded them. To alter them would make it invalid. For example, a valid baptism is done with water. If the water element was changed to orange juice it would invalidate the Sacrament of Baptism. Christ instituted the element of water for Baptism and man cannot change that. Time to get back to the original question from the Baptist "Are the seven Catholic Sacraments biblical?". Yes, they are and while there are many scriptures for the sacraments I will give a few for each but these are by no means the only scriptures available for each of the sacraments.

Baptism:
-Matt.3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him."
-Matt. 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
-Mk 1:8 "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
-John 3:5 "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
Confirmation-John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—"
-Acts 2:4 "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."
-Heb.6:2 "instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Eucharist:
-Matt.26-29 "26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
-Luke 24:35 "Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread."

-John 6: 51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
-John 6 "53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."

Penance:
Matt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
-John 20:21-23 "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Anointing the Sick (Extreme Unction)
-John 5:14:15 "Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." 15The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well."
-James 5:14 "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord."

Matrimony-Matt.19:10-11 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
-Eph. 5:31-32 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."

Holy Orders
-Acts 13:2-3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off."
-1 Tim. 4:14 "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you."
-1 Tim. 4:16 "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."

There is my answer to the Baptist about the Seven Biblical Sacraments of the Catholic Church. All found in Holy Sacred Scripture, all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior."

(source: The Connecticut Catholic Corner)

Major1 said:

My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.

Click to expand...

I'd be most interested in seeing what Scripture passage say's this.

Fidelibus said:

I'd be most interested in seeing what Scripture passage say's this.

Click to expand...

Easy. Begin reading chapter #6 and then continue on to chapter 18.

Or you can read Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapter Six-
"After these things" refers to the events of Chapter 5 which occurred about a year before when Jesus was in Jerusalem in the second year of His ministry.


Then Dr. John Piper states that...............
"According to Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:15, the Last Supper was the Passover meal, a yearly celebration of Israel’s escape from Egypt (cf. Exodus 12-15). But according to John 18:28 and 19:14, the Passover meal had not yet been eaten on Friday so that the Last Supper in John is not the Passover meal (13:1)".
The Chronology of the New Testament


Chapter 10 is actually 3 months after Chapter 9 all by itself.
Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapter 10-
"This shows this message followed His confrontation with the Jews in Chapter 9. The second part of John 10:22-42 occurs two or three months later at the Feast of Dedication.


Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
John 7:6..........
"Then Jesus said to them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready".
(6) My time is not yet come.—Comp. Here, as there, He regards the events of life as marked out by divinely-ordered seasons. There is for Him a time for solemnly entering Jerusalem with a throng of pilgrims going up to a feast, and in a few months it will have come; but it has not come yet. It is at the feast of the Paschal Lamb, already set apart, and not with the joyous shouts of harvest-tide.

Major1 said:

Easy. Begin reading chapter #6 and then continue on to chapter 18.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I did read Chapters 6-18 and couldn't find where it specifically say's as you stated here,

My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.

Click to expand...

that Jesus gave the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6. I was hoping you, an adherent of the doctrine sola scriptura (IOW) the bible alone could show specifically in Scripture it say's this.

Or you can read Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapter Six

Click to expand...

Okay.... but you would agree that the author of this commentary Cooper Abrams could be in error, correct? As well as author's John Piper in his "The Chronology of the New Testament" , and Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers? Would you also agree they too could be in error?

Again, I was hoping you would show specifically from the bible in fact Jesus gave the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later.

I was also looking forward Maj1 to your honest response to my post's # 544 and 545. Would you at least consider it?


Have a Blessed Lenten Season!