• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know that from the Roman Catholic perspective, the only correct interpretation is the official interpretation of the church. But then, the Mormon's say that and the Jehovah's Witnesses say that and ... and everyone in every belief group "believes" their religious leaders and experts .
The expression is but a hopeful dream of only some Protestants. As already demonstrated in this thread the belief by Christians in Holy Communion & what the Eucharist is, clearly predates the RCC by hundreds of years all the way to the first century.
So if there is an understanding or teachings to be taken up in refute, it is not with the RCC teaching, it would be with the teachings of the Apostles as expressed by the men that actually heard them teach it. They also received no condemnation from any still living Apostle when they wrote about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,190
4,185
78
Tennessee
✟476,152.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
my flesh is true food.../. my blood is true drink..... this does not sound like symbols or am I wrong? true food kind of sounds like he really means it is his food. when he says his blood is true drink what are you interpreting this to mean?



The only people in the early church that believed it was symbolic were the heretics of the day.

Question: What does the wine taste like once it is turned into the blood of Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sorry, I've been reading your posts and would invite you to say yet again how many authors have you consulted?
Would you like to say it again lest anyone is unclear or dares to question your point of view?
I suppose we need all the Catholic & Orthodox scholars who spent whole lives reading maybe 400 authors to dare challenge you?

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom"

I have consulted over 40 authors, some of whom were catholic.

And it is not my point of view. It is the view of scripture, written in the original Greek.

And no, what we need here are people who have the gift of teaching; are not rusted onto a particular denominational view; know their original Greek; are able to move beyond just their opinion; and/or are not just parroting what they have been told.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have consulted over 40 authors, some of whom were catholic.

And it is not my point of view. It is the view of scripture, written in the original Greek.

And no, what we need here are people who have the gift of teaching; are not rusted onto a particular denominational view; know their original Greek; are able to move beyond just their opinion; and/or are not just parroting what they have been told.
Who told Saint Ignatius or Saint Hippolytus what they were "parroting"?
 
Upvote 0

EmethAlethia

Newbie
Oct 5, 2014
404
107
63
✟36,133.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The expression is but a hopeful dream of only some Protestants. As already demonstrated in this thread the belief by Christians in Holy Communion & what the Eucharist is, clearly predates the RCC by hundreds of years all the way to the first century.
So if there is an understanding or teachings to be taken up in refute, it is not with the RCC teaching, it would be with the teachings of the Apostles as expressed by the men that actually heard them teach it. They also received no condemnation from any still living Apostle when they wrote about it.

Your argument is not with me but with Christ Himself. " 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine" He still calls it wine. You call it blood. Who should we trust. But then, if the word of God is untrustworthy, so are the statements about Peter. Either the word is authoritative or it isn't. We have to pick one, don't we. What's your pick?
 
Upvote 0

EmethAlethia

Newbie
Oct 5, 2014
404
107
63
✟36,133.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Who told Saint Ignatius or Saint Hippolytus what they were "parroting"?

By the way, there were many heresies present even when the word of God was being written. To quote opinions "after" the scripture was written could be merely to quote additional heresies. If there is no standard there is no way to judge anything before or after. If there is a standard, the Word of God is it. Your choice.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,629
5,515
73
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟585,567.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
1 Corinthians 11:23-30
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My friend, I was hoping that someone, just a single person, would actually do what God says and be noble minded, or be a workman and diligently labor in the word, seeking to cut straight all that the passages I mentioned said and meant... And then ... post what those passages actually do say and mean.

Alas, this was not the case.

As I understand it, having been a University student for 10 years, that studying a subject every day for two years IS diligently laboring in the word. If it is not, please give me your definition of those words.

And I have never said that the wine was turned into Jesus blood.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Incorrect. The correct answer is Jesus Christ.

Incorrect. The correct answer is that we might be nourished and assured of his presence for ever.

If that is what you want to believe be my guest.
 
Upvote 0

Panevino

Newbie
Sep 25, 2011
480
114
✟56,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Wrong! Profiteth nothing in so far as eating it (the context of Jn 6) not of all this you have written above.
flesh / spirit in v63 is the dichotomy of approaches to listening to Him

The flesh in John 6:63 is not a reference to the efficacy of Jesus flesh (if you think about it that's absurd when considering His flesh as the divine pascal lamb) the verse talks about the lenses with which we can listen to Him (through a mind of the flesh/worldly or through the spirit)

It's not a correction/clarification to a symbolic interpretation

For example
Romans 8:13

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I'm looking for where it states that it is a symbol. I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is your personal interpretation - which is subject to error.

It can't be literal, so it's symbolic. It's not that difficult. You are overcomplicating it. Why not ask if Jesus is a symbolic vine or a literal vine? How about a gate??? He did claim both of Himself without saying that it was symbolic.
 
Upvote 0

Panevino

Newbie
Sep 25, 2011
480
114
✟56,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As p
It can't be literal, so it's symbolic. It's not that difficult. You are overcomplicating it. Why not ask if Jesus is a symbolic vine or a literal vine? How about a gate??? He did claim both of Himself without saying that it was symbolic.
Per previous post this ignores the bigger biblical narrative of the pascal lamb and what happens on the night of Passover and the ongoing Passover memorial feasts. Nothing like that exists for the door,vine etc, and neither of them have the same insistence from Jesus
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
As p

Per previous post this ignores the bigger biblical narrative of the pascal lamb and what happens on the night of Passover and the ongoing Passover memorial feasts. Nothing like that exists for the door,vine etc, and neither of them have the same insistence from Jesus

Cannibalism is of the table, as it violates God's law, so we have symbolic meaning.

At the Last Supper, He didn't roast His body and command all of it be eaten. He rather gave them bread and wine. He gave them bread and wine, and that is so clearly spelled out, there can be no questioning of it. Bread and wine.

Also, looking back at the first passover, it was the painting of blood on the doorpost which was salvific, not the eating of the lamb. The death angel passed over homes where the blood was on the door frames.

We don't literally paint Christ's blood on our doorways. We don't literally eat His flesh, and we don't literally drink blood. Circumcision was symbolic. Baptism is symbolic. . . It's all symbolic. Taking up our cross is symbolic. I could go on if you need more.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your argument is not with me but with Christ Himself. " 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine" He still calls it wine. You call it blood. Who should we trust. But then, if the word of God is untrustworthy, so are the statements about Peter. Either the word is authoritative or it isn't. We have to pick one, don't we. What's your pick?
Actually no. Am not going to argue against Christ, or the men He taught or the men they taught....etc. I am following those 1st century teachings. The men who the Apostles taught clearly believed the same things I do today about that Bread and Wine, as well as that understanding of His Words in the Gosples. Those teachings are not originating with me or the RCC.

If we look at the single verse taken out of context after He just said wine is His Blood, bread is His Body, a verse shown in 3 of the four Gospels (must be important) and compare those words with the much longer (hint very important) Bread of Life discourse on the same topic in the remaining Gospel perhaps we might have a better idea who we should trust about these Words. Jesus did not say they were never going to drink of His Blood and eat His Body again in this life. He told the truth; that particular night would be the last time they did it with Him, until they all meet again in Heaven.

The single verse given in a failed attempt at a rebuttal is an interesting thought though. Since the first Adam had to also consume (that is eat BTW) something in his Paradise, and many theologians (not just Catholics) have associated that "Tree" with Jesus and with the idea of God sustaining Adam's existence with something SPECIAL he ATE. The Israelite's existence is sustained by God in a seemingly unlimited source of FOOD for them to EAT. Jesus breaks bread and fish into seemingly unlimited supply to sustain people who have come to listen to in faith. (is there a repeating theme here about a food that sustains us in our faith)
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can I suggest you do your own homework like I have done?
Well I know who those Christian men in the first century are parroting so apparently my homework already covered that lesson unlike the study of others.

I only quoted two, there are more. Many of those men died parroting those things rather than denying it all. Apparently the 40 sources you read did not include this information, just a claim that anyone saying this today is parroting. I guess I really do not see the value of a claim of having "knowledge" about people parroting something if one does not even know where the parrot heard what is being repeated.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Cannibalism is of the table, as it violates God's law, so we have symbolic meaning.

At the Last Supper, He didn't roast His body and command all of it be eaten. He rather gave them bread and wine. He gave them bread and wine, and that is so clearly spelled out, there can be no questioning of it. Bread and wine.

Also, looking back at the first passover, it was the painting of blood on the doorpost which was salvific, not the eating of the lamb. The death angel passed over homes where the blood was on the door frames.

We don't literally paint Christ's blood on our doorways. We don't literally eat His flesh, and we don't literally drink blood. Circumcision was symbolic. Baptism is symbolic. . . It's all symbolic. Taking up our cross is symbolic. I could go on if you need more.
No, far be it from me to have to ask any Christian to imagine Jesus doing a miracle. Oh wait.:doh:

So since it does not say Jesus performed a miracle, did they leave out the part of the story where they told the boy to run back to town and get wagon loads of more bread and fish for Jesus to break up into pieces to sustain the faithful?^_^
:idea: Gee maybe it is about sustaining Christian faith by having God's Grace applied in a very special way. A way that has nothing to do with needing to eat human flesh and drink human blood for nutritional support. It is a spiritual food for an application of Supernatural Grace to help sustain our faith.
From the 6th chapter of the Gospel of Love (shortened and my bolding added):

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

"Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."

They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.