for Christians & Messianic Jews

Forum index page

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Pro Rege (For the King)


Log in | Register
Forgot your password?


Who is Babylon (One world religion?) (Islam Danger)

posted by fezik82(R), Ohio, 09.21.2014

No, take your time... I get busy and can't always respond too quickly. Thanks for responding, you made some very good points... and I'm doing pretty well, thank you! How have you been?

I thought that you meant that the idea of transubstantiation wasn't introduced until much later. It was a doctrine that was understood by the early Church... because of this, cannibalism was a Roman charge against the Christians. This was my point with "hocus pocus"... it was a mockery of the Christians whose bishops clearly taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The teaching was not only "vaguely" held by some, St. Ignatius (who was taught firsthand by the disciple John) argued with the Gnostics about the physical Presence of Christ saying:

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat It with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the Passion has been revealed to us, and the Resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

That is painstakingly similar to what Paul (who also argued against the Gnostics) said:

1 Corinthians 11:29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of
Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

It was not a vague teaching before St. Ambrose. St. Ignatius took over for John as the Bishop of many of the Churches of Asia Minor and it was a prominent teaching aside from his writings.

I could be wrong, but in my learning, it was not generally until an item of faith was disputed within the Church that a Council was conducted to define that topic as an article of faith (not that there have been none beforehand that misinterpreted the Scriptures here). Being a later date on transubstantiation as one of the articles of faith just reinforces my conviction that the writings of the Church fathers were persuasive on the Church in this regard because the bishops of the Church taught and believed it to be the Real Presence throughout history. This is something that's easy enough to look up, so I won't bombard you with more quotes.

In John 6, I think that you're right that it was spiritual food and drink... but I don't feel that this necessarily means that it was not physical. When Jesus was raised from the dead, He was raised in His flesh... but there was something different about His flesh, it was able to pass through walls and transform into something unrecognizable to Mary Magdalene at the tomb.. she only saw a gardener. He was walking and talking to His disciples after the resurrection and they didn't recognize Him, not until the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:31). But, was He physically present with them even before they recognized Him? The reason that they didn't recognize Him, though He stood right there with them, can only be understood by faith... it's only spiritual reasoning that can explain this away. The same can be said for His Presence in the Mass. We don't see a stranger, as the disciples did... or a gardener, as Mary did.. or to go even farther, a fire, as Moses did at the burning bush... but those examples that He gave us prove (at the very least) that not seeing Him as we would expect to does not demand that He is not present.

Re: your comment on Jn 6:35 where you said that coming to Christ satisfies our hunger and so He can't be talking about a physical hunger, it's worth pointing out that we only receive a small wafer... that would hardly satisfy physical hunger. We don't view it as a physical meal, only a spiritual one. If Christ is being misunderstood by anyone in this discourse, I would say that it is by the ones who seek to simplify God... underestimating His Almighty power and breaking His teaching down to that which can easily be understood by human logic.. or by the flesh. Not to mention that there are different words for "eating" in Greek, but Jesus specifically used a word that means literally to "gnaw"... grind and tear apart... His body in order to receive life. The word chosen there was the most powerful one that could be used for Catholic interpretation. In regard to the drink, you have a good point... but we are told that if we do not drink His blood, we have no life in us.

You said:

Allowing scripture to interperet scripture (in light of) we can’t go wrong. No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life!

I feel that you misinterpret this Scripture. If "flesh profits nothing" was to be taken as though flesh cannot be a component in something spiritual... then the sacrifice had no effect as it was the sacrifice of His "body" (Hebrews 10:10) that saves us. By saying, "the flesh profits nothing", I believe that He means it in the same terms that flesh is usually described in in the NT... wordly, rather than Godly. For example, Matthew 26:41, He says, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"... the spirit is contrasted from the flesh in terms of contrasting that which comes from God from that which comes from human thought and desires. Paul makes the same point in Gal 5:17 and 6:8 (for example), but may make this point most clearly in Romans 8:9 when he tells his listeners that, "you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit". This cannot mean "flesh" as you are understanding John 6:63. In other words, interpreting Jesus' discourse in John 6 according to the flesh rather than according the Spirit profits nothing. Do you disagree with my interpretation of John 6:63?

When you say, "Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people"... I'm just having a hard time thinking of when this happens in John's Gospel, would you mind giving a few examples?

You said:

The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements.

That is another good point, but Jesus was also preparing them for the Paschal Lamb for the Passover. The Paschal Lamb did not sway the angel of death unless it offered by the High Priest and then eaten by the people. For Christ to be considered our Paschal Lamb, as 1 Cor 5:7 claims, then the events of Passover have to take place. The sacrifice of the lamb alone didn't protect anybody... what protected them was the blood on the doorposts along with obeying the command to eat the lamb. Every morsel was to be eaten along with unleavened bread.

You said:

John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He did not entrust himself to his listeners.

That kind of goes back to what I said above about the disciples not recognizing Christ after the resurrection until the breaking of the bread. He is a gentleman, He doesn't force Himself on anybody. He doesn't want anything discerned by human wisdom, or simply word of mouth... which is likely a part of the reason that He charged His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ. He wants each of us to answer the question He posed to Peter, "who do you say I am"? He wants us to answer in the same way that Peter did... through spiritual understanding. He commended Peter for His answer and said, "flesh and blood didn't reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven". . . in other words, the "flesh profits nothing".

You said:
Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all.

I strongly feel that John looked more toward what the disciples did after the Last Supper... and what the Last Supper means to us now. In Revelation, he has the most lengthy description of Christ as the Paschal Lamb. On the Lord's Day (which was Sunday even then, according to the Didache), he saw Christ standing as a slain Lamb in heaven on our behalf. According to Scott Hahn and many early writings of the Church, Revelation offered a description of the Mass from the angels perspective... complete with prayer and incense, song and even the sign of the cross (which early writers were convinced was the sign on the foreheads of the sealed). That this was an early perspective can be seen in the Church's decision to hold the slain beneath the altar. The Last Supper is re-presented every week, and this began with the apostles... but wasn't recorded until Paul came (1 Corinthians 11:23). I believe as the Church fathers... that John's "Revelation" is just a more descriptive view of the Lord's Supper.

I asked The Lord how much He loved me

He stretched out His arms and said, "this much"

Then He died for me


Complete thread:

for Christians & Messianic Jews | Admin contact                   
14069 Postings in 4309 Threads, 163 registered users
[ Home ] [ Rules ] [ Gospel ] [ World News ] [ Israel News ] [ Online Bible ] [ Gays ] [ Abortion ] [ Masons ]

[ Jesus ][ Islam ][ Miracles ][ Near Death ][ Creationism ][ Bible Codes ] New Age ][ Israel ]

Christian Music ] [ Israel Video News ] [ [ Funny clips ] [ Games ]

other interesting sites:

(Apocalypse Board) (Answers in Genesis) (Spirit Daily) (Mallett Blog) (Parable of Lazarus) (23 min video in Hell) (Amil Imani) (1 hr Video on Hell) (Israel Travel Guide)  ( ( (Israelitybites) [Jesus paid for our debt] [26 End times signs]

Above hits since 19 April 2011
(red dots show where visitors are from)