Hinting on the: "play nice please!" written on my note, I want to restate, that, no matter what the concussion of this topic is, you are still considered my brother in the faith! If I die tomorrow, I know without a shadow of a doubt, that I will feast with my Lord that night! Not by me, not by what I've done. but through Christ Jesus, and him crucified I know this. and as such I do believe that you have this knowledge too, you may not understand faith, as I do not understand it, but I believe that you know this as well.
so remember, as I will also remember; It's fun to talk about this stuff, to test our metal so to speak. but it has nothing to do with our eternal salvation, your still my brother, no matter what! and I will, as God will love you, no matter what. therefore, by my word, I will not send a message to you with hate intended, lest my sword break in my hand.

God's plan for Jesus Christ was that he would be crucified to attone for our sin. The "God can do anything" excuse does not work here. They were saved after Jesus attoned for them, and as we all know we are saved after we put our faith in Jesus Christ and believe in our heart that He died and rose again conquering death.

If Christ had left the earth before dieing for our sins, even the disciples would not have been saved by His symbolic blood and flesh because they would still have died sinners and would not have been blameless in the sight of God. However, they were saved after his literal blood and flesh were given for mankind.

"Sure someone who doesn't believe in God can be saved, God can do anything!" ....Right

Ddog, you act as if recieving Christ's body and blood once saves you for all time, and that simply is not true. It's part of the road of salvation, a very important part, but all the same, it is not a surefire way to be saved. One can recieve the body and blood and not be saved: 1 Cor 11: 27 - 29

The Eucharist does not save in and of itself, it only provides helpful sacramental grace that aides the salvation process, and if you take it unworthily, you are being condemned by your very actions.

As for being saved or spared before Jesus died, what about Moses? What about Elijah? What about all the good people who died in God's favor before Jesus was even born? Surely these people were saved before Jesus's death. Is this unjust?


Well, who's going to question Jesus when he looks you in the eyes and says, "This is my body." and "this is my blood." It's not like he says, "This is kind of like my body," or "this represents my blood." He says straight out that this is what it is. Why are we questioning the simple interpreation of His words?

hmm, sorry I guess, mmm (Idk how to spell that sound), but, which blood and body was He referring to in this passage? The blood that is suffered, or the blood which is drunk? you don't see a difference, I do. and for a few good reasons, here's one: the communion account appears in all the gospels except one, which one? the gospel of John.
now I heard you state earlier, that God gave us the formula to follow, but why, if it was something this important, (as it is) would He put the formula in two separate books? *unsure*




"Is it not unjust?" Does God not choose how much grace He bestows to each of us? For it is by grace that we are saved not by the law, by the law we are condemned.
Nevertheless, I do see your point, I've often wondered this. Far be it from God that he would condemn these men, and save me. but, he is just, and he showed mercy to them, He could not overcome His good justice, but He did show mercy, where did they go? to hell? certainly not, they went to a place called: "Abraham's bosom" to await the salvation of the world.





Right, well there's a lot of reasons, 1. it goes against the conscience to eat human flesh and blood. 2. it goes against what Jesus previously said: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." ok, now it's written in Leviticus (the law) "You shall not eat anything with the blood," (Lev 19:26a) (there's also another one, but Idk it's location.) So, For Jesus to command us to eat His literal body and blood would go in complete contradiction with one of the laws, but Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law. However observing the eating as metaphorical answers that problem, and it doesn't really go against Jesus to say that He did something as metaphor, does it?




ok, here's something else I wanted to add to this, but didn't really see the right point to do so. ok you ask earlier: why don't you just take it(John 6) for what it says? and here's my long awaited answer; because. lol, no ok, because; read the rest of the book of John, there have been other accounts where He did this, lets see how they match up: in (John 2)



next: in (John 3):



next:

Now in (John 4) He comes to a Samaritan woman, lets see what He does here:



so now that we come to (John 6) let's see if Jesus acts the same way:




I'm sorry, I gave you your reading for the week. I didn't mean it to be that long, I'll need to work on that.

your loving brother: Dan

So God in His omniscience would be unwise to do something He knows will only be good?



But there is a reason, if you would only read what I just said;





Do you remember all that Scripture I laid out with John 6, and my analysis of it? Did Jesus' statement "This is my body, take of it and eat, all of you" pass you by?



It would be better for you to assume that I know what you're talking about here. Prophecy is of course not only necessarily only foretelling but it can also be forthtelling.

Anyhow, this tangent is entirely irrelevant. As a Catholic, of course I believe that the Scriptures are inerrant (they are not infallible; to be infallible you must be able to speak, which Scripture cannot do).

While Scripture may be trustworthy, your interpretation of them is not, and to act as if it is is just plain hubris.



Sure, if. But anyone can make the claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. You'll have to do better than to just claim inspiration, because Protestants have been doing that for the last 500 years.



"Who" is the Church will only give you half the answer. "What" is the Church will give you the full answer.

Those who are in the Church are those who are in communion with God via the Tradition (aka Apostolic Teaching) that has been passed down in the Church through the historical event of apostolic succession which secures Tradition in the Church.



To be infallible doesn't mean one is impeccable. There is a difference; to be infallible is to teach without error; to be impeccable is to be without sin. Your definitions are just wrong.



Well, you put your faith in your interpretation (or your ability to know that you've been inspired by the Holy Spirit), and you know you've sinned.



Your concept of justification is incompatible with the Catholic concept of justification. Hence your argument is based on a premise that I am not committed to. Remember, Catholics believe that justification is an ongoing process. The Apostles here were, so to speak, "started" on their journey of justification shortly before the Crucifixion by being united with Christ in body, blood, soul, and divinity, and so they were drawn fully into the mystery of the Trinitarian life as well as the events that Christ endured.



See? I'm not committed to this precise formulation of justification, hence you argument is irrelevant. Sure, salvation couldn't be until after Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection, but that doesn't make being united to God in body, blood, soul, and divinity an unhelpful thing, especially for the Apostles who would need to be given the courage to preach the Gospel throughout the world.

I don't think I quite understand your point. Are you asking me why the forumal for communion is not in the gospel of John? Well, obviously the writer wanted to report on things that the other three gospels didn't expound upon. John's whole gospel takes Jesus's life from a different point of view. He wrote his gospel in a different manner from the other three. That's why it's catagorized differently. It is echoed through all the other gospels, and John contains strong support of the Eucharist in the form of the verses that this thread was orignally created to discuss.


God does not choose how much grace to bestow, but we choose how much grace to accept. Grace is a gift from God, but it does nothing if we don't accept it. The sacramental grace that is poured out from the Eucharist and all other Catholic sacraments are always there, and offered to all men, but they do you no good if you do not believe it in or recieve it. Just like Christ's death is sufficent for all men, but only effective for some.


This is where you get into a very weird and unsure part of theology. You see.... after you die, you are no longer restrained by time. So, in theory, after death, they would have escaped time and outside of time, it is after Jesus' death. They could be saved by his death at that point. So where and how would they be waiting? At least, that's one theory. It's honestly very confusing, and I'd rather not think about the timeless nature of the afterlife. It gives me a headache.

More to my point though, if Abraham's Bosom is a place to await salvation, then wouldn't you say that these people are just as much saved as those of us who are on earth and claim to be saved? Why would God essentally save these men before Jesus died? How could he?

OK, this is for Bryce, sorry I'll get your's next Zabby.



did the scripture I quoted pass you by? He also said: "I am the vine (John 15:5)", "I am the good shepherd. (John 10:11)", "I am the light (John 8:12)", and my favorite: "I am The door. (John 10:9)" Just because He's making an absolute statement doesn't mean, He means it to actually mean what He says. (that's kind of confusing) here's it easier: "Just because He says: "This is my body" doesn't mean He's talking about His actually body"
in the same way: "Just because He says: "I am The door" doesn't mean He's actually a door".



lol I know, I thought you already knew that, I just wanted to state it because I thought it was cool! don't you think that's cool?


ok, so in recap; Transubstantiation, is correct if you put absolute faith in the church, made up of sinful man, and do not under any circumstances read the bible for yourself, you don't ask God about it, because you don't know what His voice sounds like, and you ignore your conscience, telling you not to eat flesh and blood, and you dismiss your God given senses of: Taste, touch, and smell.
Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, that's fine I'm good with that, sounds like I won to me. or do you want to give me a real argument? *unsure*

Oh, btw, you never.. well you didn't answer a lot of my questions, but one of them being: so if you can't trust the Holy spirit (God) to lead you to interpret it correctly, then shouldn't you just throw out your bible? Because what good is it, once you start reading it and hearing it, you are interpreting it.

and it also begs the question what about the church's interpretation of it? Sure they may be infallible, but they're still interpreting the scriptures. Which you said is untrustworthy, and plus, you can't just learn, once you hear their interpretation, then you start to interpret what you hear. So, in all, what I'm doing is reading and asking God to interpret it for me, and trusting that. What you're doing is listening to the church's interpretation, and trusting yourself to interpret their interpretation, right? *unsure*

and Here's Zabby's:



No, I'm asking why the formula wasn't contained in one book? But why it's split 1/2 in John, and the other 1/2 in Mark, or Luke, or whatever?



right, I think it was Luke, and I'm not sure if it was Matt or Mark, but those two took care of the facts, What John primarily focused on is the parables, and in that case, why would his quote of Jesus talking about the blood and body have anything to do with fact? I already pointed out that up till now, all Jesus teachings have been in parable form, so why assume that, Jesus is now suddenly talking in literal form? *unsure*




OK, well first off common sense, if it's a gift, then the giver determines how much to give to each person, but there are some scriptures on it: like: (Eph 4:7) "But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it." plus even if your right:


then to believe, in it requires faith, and faith He does portion clearly: "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." (Rom 12:3)



uhh.. well exactly, How could He? but I don't think I really understand what you mean? *unsure* He didn't save them, no one was saved before Jesus's death, like I said, to us He gave grace through His Son. but to them, in order to uphold His Righteous nature, He gave them mercy, by sending them to Abraham's bosom to await the grace that was to be given.
If I misunderstood you, please restate your point, with a little more detail if possible.

There is an essential dissimilarity between these metaphors and Jesus' insistence on His being the "bread of life" in John 6. With those the Apostles understood Him metaphorically; with the bread, they wanted to understand Him metaphorically, but He closed that option by resolutely insisting that He really would be the bread of life, that they would have to eat His flesh.



Do you want to argue ecclesiology? Feel free to discuss with me on another thread, where I can explain my belief that the Catholic Church is infallible.

Further, I believe it is quite demonstrated that I do read the Bible for myself. The insinuation that the only way to be Catholic is to avoid reading Scripture is rather offensive and immature, and also just plain ignorant of history. You must remember that the Scriptures you hold sacred were defined by the Catholic Church herself.

I'm not making claims of divine inspiration on this issue because 1) that would be lying, 2) it wouldn't prove anything to you, and 3) I wouldn't know anyhow.

Moreover, I am not ignoring my conscience. God told me to eat Him, and so I am obliged to obey.

In consequence, I believe that transubstantiation occurs by faith, revealed not by the light of my own reason but through the Holy Spirit to the Church. "The flesh profiteth nothing, the Spirit fulfilleth" in regards to this teaching.



An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless. Seeing as I don't lack an infallible interpreter, then the Bible obviously isn't useless.



If the Church is infallible, then her interpretation can't be wrong. Infallibility = inability to teach with error.

Her interpretation is spelled out a lot more explicitly than Scripture would. That, and if I have questions, I can have the answer verified by her.

12 of them understood, like I said this is where He chose the 12, so He didn't reveal it to the others. and like I said before all of His teachings up to this point have been metaphorical, so why would you suppose He was talking literal?




Pick the board, I'm quite interested on that point, because if I can't trust God, God's Word, or God the Holy Spirit, then I better get to that church soon!! but, as I know, that will probably take a very long time, because I know that many hold that close to their heart, I would rather not go into that now, as I've said before, unless it's absolutely necessary.




my goodness, even Satan read the bible! It doesn't do any good to read it, you have to ask God about it. and btw, (I'm saying this in a laughing manner) Don't forget that it's God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not: God the Father, God the Son and God the Church.
I think you get my point?




uhh, no one said you were?




Was it God that told you that it was a literal eating, or was it the church that told you that?




Are you saying that church has NEVER lied? *unsure* because if so I hope we have a history major on here! and may God help us!




OK, it's clear that you have faith in the church, but do you also have faith in God? There is a difference you know.

Because unlike all of Jesus' other metaphors, He didn't let believers leave Him over an apparent misunderstanding or contentiously insist that He wasn't speaking metaphorically, but literally.



My point is that you can't trust your interpretation. Let me get the link for the thread tomorrow.



Saying the Church is infallible is not equating the Church with God.



It was the Church, just like the Church has told me many other things.



The Church has never erred on teachings of faith or morals. If it isn't a matter of faith or morals (like whether its right or wrong to have sex before marriage, or that Jesus is both God and man), then the Church doesn't have infallibility in that area.



I have faith in the Church because I have faith in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.

It's not His fault His disciples at the time weren't smart enough to figure it out.
and that may be true, however what about the passage in: (John 2) where He's talking about the temple. That's one of the things that got Him killed! Why, didn't He say anything then? Because this was a point where He had to choose something, unlike the other passage where He chose His disciples, in this passage He's choosing to give His life.




like I said, I want to discuss that with you! but also, like I said, can we try and finish this discussion before starting another one, if at all possible?




Then what's it equating it with? What else is infallible? *unsure*




Is this a teaching of faith or morals? p.s. That's nice that you told me that! Because I was getting the opinion that you were saying it was infallible in all areas, But you're just saying it's infallible in certain areas, that helps alot! thanks.




What does that have to do with anything? Please excuse I don't see the relation, would you mind explaining? *unsure*
(always kind, all powerful, and all knowing; God)

So it also wasn't His fault God let Scripture be very, very confusing?



What does this have to do with John 6?



All discussions on a matter of Catholicism run into the matter of authority. Here's the latest thread I could find.



To be infallible is to be able to teach authoritatively without error. Lacking error doesn't make you God.



Yes.



An omnibenevolent God doesn't abandon the children He set out to save, right? Well, He isn't doing a very good job if His "Church" encompasses Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, considering all three (and Protestants even between themselves) can't agree on how to be saved or what one needs to believe to be saved or what Jesus taught or what the Scriptures teach or who God is or what the condition of man is or what is sin or what is marriage or whether there are sacraments or whether transubstantiation happens or doesn't happen or whether there must be apostolic succession or what it takes to be in the Church or what the Church is or who is in the Church or whether there's a Hell or whether there's a Heaven or what love is or what justice is or what good is or what the Scriptures are or... *takes a breath* or the purpose of the Holy Spirit or the composition or lack of composition of God or what the Trinity is or what the Trinity means or whether there even is a Trinity or whether God exists or whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus is man or whether works are necessary to be saved or whether we're predestined or whether synergism or monergism is true or whether we are justified at once or if its a process or whether we can ask the Saints to pray for us or whether God hears our prayers or whether all are saved or whether very few are saved or whether one must be baptized or whether one must be confirmed or whether one must take Communion or whether one must confess their sins to a priest or to God or even not at all or whether one can sin once they're saved or whether one can lose their salvation or whether salvation isn't gained in this life and only after this life and etc et al ad nauseum et infinitum.

Surely God could do better than that. What's the point of God's omnipotence if He won't exercise it to prevent His Church teaching error? If the Lutheran church is the one true Church that stands in continuity with the teaching of the Apostles, doesn't that place me outside of the Church? What if its the Presbyterian? What if its the Anglican? The Orthodox? The Catholic? The Old Catholic? The Metropolitan?

My point is that, quite simply, we wouldn't expect that sort of mess if there was a God who was supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent and omniscient. God knew there would be false prophets, so why didn't He make sure His Church had the authority to prove the false prophets were wrong simply for being discontinuous with the teachings of the Church that had succeeded authority from the Apostles who had succeeded authority from Christ who is God?

I'm sorry they're confusing to you, they're a mystery sure enough, but then if they weren't could they have been written by our God? I find enjoyment in reading them, and trying to understand the mystery that He put in them for each of us. but, if you're trying to go somewhere you're looking in the wrong place, you won't find that in the scriptures, or even in the church, the only place you'll find that is with God. The scriptures point you in the right direction, that's all. Do you want to go somewhere, the only place you'll find which way, to go, is go into your room, in your closet and shut the door, and when in there, pray to God, and ask Him, through Christ through Christ alone, where to go.




Because, It's so you know you can take Him metaphorically, it's true He said 'this is' not 'this in symbolic of', but He didn't have to, because He's spoken in parables like that before. and it's also true that, when His disciples left, He didn't speak up, telling them it was just metaphorical, but nether, did He speak up, when they misunderstood Him talking about the temple. It didn't mean He was speaking literal, it just meant He was making a choice.




That didn't really answer my question did it?




why?




.. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... You have a bible don't you? Pick it up and read it, you'll find the answers to the questions that I recognized in there. You know what, just pray to God, and then read these scriptures:

"nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith." (1Tim 1:4)

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col 2:8)

I love those two.

What if God gave me a way that I can recognize already in the Catholic Church?

Further, if God has given such a way, then wouldn't it be potentially redundant for God to illumine something to me that I've already seen and rejected?



I know I can take Him metaphorically; what is less clear is whether I should.



Then what was your question?



It's a matter of the Christian faith.



Do you see the words underneath my avatar? "Geen ketter sonder letter?" It is Dutch for "No heretic without his Scripture." What do you think I mean by that?



"I can't figure out how to defeat your arguments, so I'm just going to retreat and say you're wrong and act as if these verses apply to you."

Because, of course, I as a Catholic couldn't do the same exact thing to you! [/sarcasm!]

Sure I can, like this: No quotes except the bible for this message.


I ask what your reason for taking it literal was, all you could tell me is that the church told you so. but the scripture itself says many times, that false teachers will come, how do you know they're not one of them? Beside the point, there is no scripture reference that you can give that will point to transubstantiation, why? Because there's no such thing. here's your reason for believing it's symbolic:

First, it's true that Jesus said "this is my body" but He also said "I am the vine" and "I am the door".

second, some people use the passage in John 6, to point to a need for the communion, but John 6 had nothing to do with communion, fun fact: the communion account appears in all of the gospels but one, which one? John, I think God wanted to make a point that you shouldn't combine the two.

third, in all of the communion accounts, you take notice that they all say: "do this in remembrance" read the account in Corinthians carefully:


Take notice that He says in remembrance after the bread and the cup.

forth, Some say that the account, in John 6 is referring to a literal eating, However Jesus said something interesting that should be taken notice of, in the same passage:

"not as your fathers ate the manna"? Well how did they eat the manna? they stuck it in their mouth, they chewed it, then swallowed it, right?

fifth, all of Jesus's teachings up to this point, have been metaphors, why would it even occur to you that He was speaking literal?

sixth, it written clearly in the law, that you should not eat human flesh, or eat it's blood. Now Jesus said:
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." For Jesus to have commanded an actual eating and drinking of blood, would be unlawful.

seventh, It's written in John 6 (54) that whoever eats and drinks His blood and body, will have eternal life. This is not a going to have, but an already posses. So if the communion was the actual blood and body referred to in John 6, then when the disciples ate and drank at the last supper, they were saved, BEFORE Jesus had been crucified.


I think seven's enough.

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I've been uber busy recently.


Well, why is Nicodemus only in John? Why is it that Matthew is the only one who stresses baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? I don't know why it is streched out like that, but the fact of the matter is that you can not take a single book of the bible and pretend it is in a vaccum. I'm pretty sure that connection is supposed to be made, and my only guess (and this is only a guess) that they're split up is that John though that the literal flesh and blood teaching was too important to leave out of his account of Christ, but knew it would disrupt his telling of Jesus' death if he put it in as the last supper.


As I said ealier John is the only one of the books that conatins Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus. Should we then assume that he is talking in parable form here as well because it is the book of John and most of Jesus's teachings in the book of John are in parable form?



I don't think that Eph is refering the the amout of grace given to a man, but rather it is refering to the habitual grace that a man has that helps him live in life. In Catholicism, there are three distinct kinds of graces. There is habitual grace, which is the grace that you gain at your baptism and is constant through your whole life. It is akin to your cosicence in the fact that it helps you live your life with God and follow in his ways (although as far as I'm awear it is neither the cause nor the same thing as ones cosicence). There is acutal grace, which is grace given at a moment of time to strengthen a believer. This is grace for example at a conversion experence or when you are going through a really rough time and need to get along. God bestows a gift of acutal grace, and the last kind of grace is sacrament grace, which is grace found only through the sacraments. It is grace that God chose to give us in a certain manner to help us both believe in him and do many other things, but it depends upon the scrament. So back to the vers you gave me, due to the context later on Eph 4: 11, I'm pretty sure the grace that is being refered to here is habitual grace.


I'm not sure you're interpreting that verse correctly. Are you telling me that God deiceded that someone else was going to have more faith then me and there's nothing I can ever do to change that? That sounds really close to calvinism there. It is a choice of free will to have faith in something. God can not ration my free will.

As for the point I'm trying to make here, let me see if I can explain that better. God's grace is infinate (2 Corinthians 9:8). As humans, we can not contain something that is infinate. So there are two options either God limits his own grace, or we somehow limit it ourselves. I don't see why God would limit his own grace. That, in my opinion, doesn't make sense with my understanding of God. In the bible it refers to God giving more grace to people (James 4:6, 2Peter 3:18 I could keep going, but it is rathe late), so I don't see how there can be a grace limit if God will give you more grace if you trust in him, so then we must somehow limit ourselves. We must somehow not accept some grace. Whether this be in the form of not praying or not listing to what God wants us to do, or simply sinning. We limit our grace. Just like when someone gives you a gift, but you refuse to take it because you simply don't want it.


My point is very confusing, I doubt I could explain it well, but let me try again. The afterlife is timeless, correct? So this means that there is no sequince of events after one dies. So how could these people, after dieing await Christ's death if there is now way to wait after one dies. They must have been saved (not here on earth) but before they reached the afterlife. I don't know how better to explain it. Just thinking of the afterlife itself hurts my head.

Meaning this will just be your interpretation.



Jesus didn't insist that His flesh was the door or the vine. Jesus didn't say "This is my body, take and eat" and then ask the disciples to pray. He gave them bread which they understood to be His body.



Or maybe John was written rather later than the other three Gospels were, and so John added in what hadn't already been said and didn't need to repeat what had already been stressed well enough?



But as we know "Do this in remembrance" doesn't actually exclude the reality. You can have transubstantiation and remembrance at the same time. They can both exist, one doesn't exclusivate the other.



What is this point meaning?



Because actually many of His teachings were metaphorical, such as that God is the Father.



It's not cannibalism. We are not consuming merely flesh and blood, but Christ's soul and divinity. It's rather more, and not cannibalism.



Except that Catholics don't believe that once you eat and drink you're fully justified; you are pulled into the mystery, and sanctification/justification works in the person in this way, but it isn't "Oh, I ate Jesus' body, now I'm good to go." Don't think to confuse Protestant novelties with historic Catholic teaching on justification.

Zabby


Because the story of Nicodemus was a metaphor for being born again in Christ, and John is a metaphor book, if it occurred in any of the other ones, God would risk being interpreted as a literal birth.




True enough, however, I'm describing that the book of John was written primarily with parables, and metaphors. So if it matched up with other books, it would actually be harder to say that it was written in that way. However again, I will quote one other scripture: "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old," (Psalm 78:2)




Soo, basically God has different kinds of grace that He gives to different people according to what they do. is that correct? If so I think you total don't get what grace is, grace is giving something to someone who doesn't deserve it. but if His grace is given according to what we do, then we deserve grace, in which case it's no longer grace that's being given. We can't do anything that earns grace, otherwise, it's not grace.




You're going into some deep stuff. To answer your question; yes, and at the same time no, yes because the statement is true, and no because of how you're thinking of it. You have free will, however no matter what you choose, God already knows it, that's going into that whole fate stuff. God's not making you do anything, so you don't have a fate right? but at the same time, God knows what you're going to do, so technically you don't have free will, right? Well, like I said that's deep, and I would rather not go into it, I'd just ask God about it and make up your mind.




But that's just it "In the bible it refers to God giving more grace to people (James 4:6, 2Peter 3:18 I could keep going, but it is rather late)" Why would He be giving "more grace" if He had already given all of it? Hence He gives in certain amounts depending on how much He wants to give.




Right, I'm figuring that when we die, it's almost going to feel as if it's instantaneous, as we come to the judgement day. however, was it instantaneous? or did it just feel that way, kind of like when you sleep for too long, and wake up hours later, it feels like you've only been asleep for 15minutes.

Gee wiz, you like dragging out this interpretation thing don't you? Don't you understand, ofcourse I have to interpret it, if I don't, then I'm not listening to what it says, I have to interpret it so that I can understand it, and I have faith that the Holy spirit, will lead me in the right interpretation. What do you got, the church's teachings? Hmm, so someone speaks, and you listen, and form an interpretation of what he says, based on yourself? yeah that sounds like a lot better resource, I interpret God's word through faith in His Holy Spirit, while you interpret the interpretation of someone else interpreting that bible. Yeah I don't see the problem with that.




That, had nothing to do with my point. my point was; even though Jesus makes an absolute statement it doesn't mean, that He means absolutely that.




He was writing later than the other three gospels. and that's an interesting theory, but so is the theory that the earth is flat, however it has no support, whereas mine does.




No doubt! If I took a bite out of my savior, I certainly would be remembering something! But not that something that was supposed to be remembered, it would cause my mind to stray from the actual meaning.




Well the fathers ate the manna (literal bread from heaven), by sticking it in their mouths, chewing it, and then swallowing it, so should we eat it as they ate it? read the passage again: "This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."" (58)




I'm getting sarcasm, however, would you mind stating your point clearly, please.




Again, that has nothing to do with my point, my point was; eating flesh and blood is against the law of moses, for Jesus to have commanded it, would be unlawful.

But my curiosity is sparked, so I will answer your point. "We are not consuming merely flesh and blood" listen to what you just said, you basically said: "we are not consuming only flesh and blood, we are consuming flesh and blood..*pause* (What? we're not consuming flesh and blood we're consuming flesh and blood, and something else, so this makes it less cannibalistic?) continue... but Christ's soul and divinity."
ok this second part doesn't make sense to me; what do you mean by us consuming His soul and divinity? Do you mean we become divine like Him..? *unsure*





So? That didn't really deny anything I stated. That just means you don't believe Him when He says; "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" (54a) "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life" (KJV)

Why should I reach for a stick when I have a rocket launcher?



So you're just assuming you're right?



It doesn't require any extensive amount of interpretation, plus if I have questions (and I do) I can ask them and get an answer such that I do understand. I can't ask the Bible to interpret itself for me to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly.



I know. That doesn't mean He wasn't. So we haven't really gotten very far, have we?



Uhm what?



Not necessarily. Only if you have the mind of a hyper ADHD 5 year old.



"My flesh is the bread of Heaven."



Not everything Jesus said was metaphorical.



The Levitical law has been fulfilled in Christ.



It's a sacramental form of the Real Presence. In Catholicism we call it a Mystery; something we participate in that we can't fully enumerate.

As to us gaining the divinity of God? Actually, I would answer in a resounding yes, but understand this; I'm not saying we become God. God is God, and God cannot become God. We enter into the life of the Trinity, and that is how we are, in a sense, "divinized."



Jesus didn't say "Whoever has eaten my... has eternal life," He said "Whoever eats [continuously, present tense, without ceasing]... has eternal life." There's quite a subtle difference that you should notice. There's a difference between "having eaten" and "eats."

See this statement;

"Whoever has eaten will be full."

and

"Whoever eats will be full."

The first is true but for a limited period of time. The second is true unconditionally. It is a similar difference (though not the same, don't mistake me here).

DDOG059, do you believe it's wrong for a Christian to eat a rare steak?

So do I! Those verses remind me of Protestantism.

This thread is very long. Has anyone mentioned that the founding fathers of Protestantism believed the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (among other Catholic teachings)?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

- Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

For those who disagree with the Transubstantiation, I am curious to know on who's authority you are basing your opinion on?

Mind stating how?

We base our beliefs off of what the Bible says (or our interpritation of it) Any Catholic beliefs that Protestant's hold as true can be found in the Bible by both parties. I take communion all the time, this doesn't make me Catholic this makes me a Christian. I continue to preach the name of Jesus Christ and spread the Gospel. I will stay stedfast in prayer and look to Christ in all things, refrain from sin etc etc...


Based on whether Jesus was talking metaphorically or literally. Some say "Do this in remembrance of me" means that we are suppose to do it in remembrance of Him. However others will argue that doing something in remembrance of someone does not change the fact that it's literal. We do not have a great leader telling us whats true and whats not. Luther is not our pope and we wouldn't need him to be an authority.