"Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you have no life..."
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you have no life
What this means is this, unless you are believing in Me, you have no life in you, in other words Life [Spiritual] must exist in us before we can believe or appreciate Him by Faith !
Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
July 23rd, 2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by beloved57
What this means is this, unless you are believing in Me, you have no life in you, in other words Life [Spiritual] must exist in us before we can believe or appreciate Him by Faith !
whatever happened to sola scriptura???
"Whatever you do to God's people, you do to God" - Mt 25:31
Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
July 23rd, 2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by beloved57
What this means is this, unless you are believing in Me, you have no life in you, in other words Life [Spiritual] must exist in us before we can believe or appreciate Him by Faith !
actually i think it means
whatever the reader wants it to mean
"Whatever you do to God's people, you do to God" - Mt 25:31
kill their children and then tell people "God told me to kill them"
You know, I think you mean well, but I wonder if you think about the effect that posts of this sort can have. You surely know that Catholics are as susceptible to psychotic delusions as Protestants are.
And it cannot have escaped your notice that you, too, must decide for yourself whether our not to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. And you must decide for yourself whether the support in scripture and tradition for the Church's claims to infallible authority is adequate. In that you are no different from any Protestant interpreting scripture.
It is dismaying to see how much energy on this site and others is used by Christians telling other Christians how to be Christians--or telling them that they aren't Christians.
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
July 24th, 2012, 08:35 PM
Dingo
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
The Catholic Church does not cling to a specific metaphysical explanation of the mystery of Transubstantiation. It can (and is) expressed differently through different metaphysical systems. In early Christian writings and even in scripture we see the Eucharist being referred to as the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:24 and the Gospel accounts). 1 Cor 11:27 is also particularly helpful in this regard. The oldest churches (Orthodox and Catholic) are of one mind when it comes to the Eucharist, as was the early church. This might be helpful.
Let's look at 1 Cor 11:24 "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
First, we must keep in mind that as these words were uttered, Jesus was right there in full bodily presence. Second, the words "this is My body which is broken for you" are immediately followed by "do this in remembrance of me."
I think that anybody present at the actual occasion of utterance would have understood these two juxtaposed statements to mean: This bread symbolizes my body, soon to be broken for you; and you should "do this", that is, re-enact this ritual, in order never to forget what is about to happen (crucifixion) and what it means. The very idea of a reminder is symbolic in nature. I think they would have understood that they were being given very important instructions, but I seriously doubt that it would have occurred to them that the bread and wine were being "mystically and ineffable" (as Alvin Kimel puts it) transformed into his body and blood.
That in itself is certainly not conclusive, of course. But I don't think it's a bad idea, when interpreting some language, to begin by thinking about what the people actually present might have understood by it.
I think you're precisely right when you say that you have to think about what the people present might have understood by it.
So first I'll say that if Christ were speaking to agnostic Americans at a convention in 2012 and he used the words from English Bible translations, then they would probably have understood his words in the way you have described.
But I don't think that is tenable given the fact that he was standing in a room 2000 years ago at the time of passover with 12 Jewish men. Once we understand the Greek anamnēsin which signifies the Hebrew zachar this idea of a simple remembrance becomes almost impossible. Again, 1 Cor 11:27 and the writings of the early church are further proof that Jesus' words were not interpreted so lightly. There are a number of other details, such as the fact that most Jewish sacrifice had to be consumed in order to be efficacious, especially in a covenantal sense, and that is precisely what Jesus was doing: initiating the new covenant.
(other points I have already mentioned include John 6, Jewish non-dualistic thought, and the existing metaphor for eating someone's flesh)
Quote:
The very idea of a reminder is symbolic in nature. I think they would have understood that they were being given very important instructions, but I seriously doubt that it would have occurred to them that the bread and wine were being "mystically and ineffable" (as Alvin Kimel puts it) transformed into his body and blood.
I think there is some truth to this. It would not surprise me if it took the Apostles quite a long time to understand what had happened in that room. It may not have made sense at the time, but the conclusion they came to is fairly clear (I think Biblical texts reflect this deepened understanding, such as John 6 and the centrality of the Last Supper). I would not generally expect someone to fully understand this enormous convergence of prophecy, OT practices, and revelation about God at first glance. I think that as individuals and as a Church we continue to grow in this understanding each day, and yet the Apostles and their successors already had a very firm belief about what happened there.
Quote:
Note, however, that the Jewish observance of Passover does not necessarily involve the participation of priests (as I understand it).
Originally it did, but a lot changed for the Jews after the destruction of the temple. Jesus takes the role of a priest by offering sacrifice. And without the Last Supper there is no sacrificial Calvary, it would have been merely an execution outside the walls of the temple. Even the last supper may not have looked like a proper sacrifice, being outside of the temple. It may have taken the disciples awhile to understand that as well. (Mt 12:6).
Quote:
Moreover, quoting page 102 of the document you cited, "To a group of Jews gathered together for the paschal dinner that celebrated the Exodus, the word 'blood of the covenant' could not but recall the blood that Moses poured upon the altar and sprinkled over the people to signify and effect the divine-human brotherhood of the covenant."
The words "signify and effect" are helpful. The Passover food both symbolizes (signifies) actual sacrificial blood and brings about (effects) the covenantal relationship. That, it seems to me, is just what those present at the Last Supper would have heard and understood.
Hahn is just elaborating on the convergence of the OT in the Last Supper. The first line of the next paragraph makes my point, "The Eucharistic action of Christ continues and fulfills, however, much more than the individual action of Moses on Sinai; it continues the whole OT history that was dominated by this Sinaitic covenant..." Exodus 24 is not even directly related to the Passover so much as God's covenant with Israel; Hahn was indicating the link between the two covenants.
Quote:
Yes, I agree that Jesus often went out of his way to express things in a manner that the Jews of his day would find off-putting or even repulsive, and John 6 is certainly a fine example of this. I'm not convinced, however, that these passages convey the meaning of transubstantiation. They were offensive, yes, in that Jesus was carefully choosing symbols that would offend on several levels. The symbolism of eating and drinking flesh and blood were (and still are, for many) deeply disturbing and taboo. The perceived blasphemy of "I am the manna sent down from heaven" and other intimations of divinity were even more offensive.
As I read it, Jesus is testing those who are within range of his words, to separate those who merely follow him for reasons of worldly gain-- be it political, healing, or whatever--from those willing to hear what he's really saying, which is about who he is. Let's not forget that these passages are immediately followed by the defining question of Christianity: "Who do you say I am?" Everything leads up to that.
Okay. It is fairly odd to me to say that Jesus was intentionally and falsely offensive as a means to this end. I don't think any Christian could accept that (including especially the early Christians). I don't think the writer is trying to convey that Jesus, Truth itself, told lies in order to offend Jews who were following for the wrong reasons. In any event, he had an infinitely better way of separating the sheep from the goats: the cross (Jn 8:28).
Quote:
Interesting. With that interpretation of sarx, the imperative "Eat (gnaw, chew on) my flesh" takes on yet another meaning: Take in, deal with, the fact that I am God incarnate. God is right here in front of you, in the flesh, to deliver the saving message (the words, which are spirit and life).
That is interesting. There are a number of interesting symbolic ideas that flow freely from this, and many things in the Bible, but that does not mean that that is the only meaning. Orthodoxy holds otherwise, and heresy has often been defined as picking out some truths at the expense of others. I don't think your RCIA program erred by teaching some of the symbols, but I think they erred by turning a blind eye to the ..."reality" for lack of a better word.
Quote:
Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word.
Then again, the persecution and assault were necessary to the atonement, without which there is indeed no eternal life. Few, if any, would have understood that, but few, if any, would have understood the "broken bread" symbolism at the Last Supper.
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here.
Again, I think it took the Apostles some time to work these things out, especially in the turmoil they were going through. As to your first point, Jews, especially ancient Jews, did not neatly divide divine and human action. It was not odd to them to understand God to be achieving his will through a human agent acting freely. This continues to hold in some theologies such as Thomism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingodile
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingodile
I'd say that the reason why the Eucharist was part of the church from the beginning is precisely because it gives believers a powerful way to renew their commitment to consume/internalize the words of Jesus.
If you look at the early church, it is Eucharist-based, not word-based.
It's both. There is no Eucharist without words, carefully chosen and uttered in the right way, at the right time. All of the sacraments involve specific language.
But the Mass centers around the Eucharist. The Incarnation, the Eucharist, Pentecost, Christ's miracles, etc., are more Word-based than word-based. Jesus enters into our lives, into our very being. If we stop short at "internalizing his words" then we are missing the essence of Christianity. The word is important, but it is not the Living Word, it is not the center.
Quote:
Quote:
In John 6 Jesus has ample opportunity to explain his meaning as symbolic to the Jews, but he doesn't. He amplifies it and repeats it 5 times! (Jn 6:53-57) Furthermore, the word that Jesus uses for eating is trogo, which means to chew or gnaw in an animalistic way. If he were speaking symbolically he would have used phago, the common word for eating. Jesus is leaving no room for misunderstanding.
Again, I see this as not so much as "amplification" as separating the true faithful from the rest, by using maximally disturbing symbolism.
That's an interesting idea that I've never heard before, probably because this conversation is generally had with Protestants. But as I said above, I don't think Jesus was lying. The point of much that I've shown is that Jesus' words were such that they could not be taken symbolically. And they weren't, by either the sheep or the goats.
Quote:
There is nothing to suggest that anyone understood him to be talking about the literal ingestion of flesh and blood through a supernatural transformation of elements.
In John 6 Jesus very clearly says, 6 times, that they must physically eat and drink his (divine) body and blood. That was my point. Clearly the Last Supper is still to come.
Quote:
But they did understand him to be claiming a divine status that would, if not true, be regarded as ultimate blasphemy. And that's exactly the understanding Peter's confession afterward registered.
True.
Quote:
Indeed. "You have the words of eternal life," not the flesh of eternal life.
Except his words said that he has the "flesh of eternal life," as you put it. Six times. Using trogo. As disciples fall like flies. Peter confirms those very words here.
Quote:
Quote:
I would be careful not to present the "Magisterium" as some sort of artificial, abstract entity. It is the deposit of faith, reaching all the way back to the first Apostles and Christ himself. It builds on the authenticity of the original teaching, and derives its authority precisely from the Apostles and therefore Christ.
As I understand it, the Magisterium is nothing other than the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As such, it is something akin to the accreditation of a university, only in the case of the Magisterium the "accrediting body" is the Holy Spirit, rather than a panel of pedants.
The deposit of faith is the curriculum.
If you think that the deposit of faith left by Christians reaching all the way back to the time of Christ, affirmed by Catholics and Orthodox and honored by Protestants, is a "panel of Catholic pedants," then I'd either do some more thinking or begin a dissertation with a thesis that does not yet exist.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
substance and form....... -
July 25th, 2012, 12:22 AM
~*~*~
Granted that these words attributed to Jesus are found only in John's gospel and are 'symbolic', meaning having reference to something 'spiritual' in essence, as far as the reception of such elements and their 'effects' (via faith and communion with Spirit), there is no reason to assume or believe that the RCC has exclusive ownership to the correct or proper translation of such, neither are they the sole custodians of an original 'Eucharist' necessarily although 'forms' and 'interpretations' of such go back to earlier times. Of course we could debate the earliest 'eucharistic' type rituals and assume some evolution of their customs.
Finally,....no matter what metaphysical system or application of faith we invest in a eucharistic-observance....it is at last the individual's faith that brings any positive effect anyways. Life is of the divine nature, born of Spirit, so only that original life-force is dynamic and has any power whatsover to affect anything, so it is that invisible source that we draw from, of whom 'Christ' is the vehicle thru which we receive of God. I draw from various esoteric, occult and gnostic forms of Christianity in understanding the Eucharist. The same universal truth is found in traditional/orthodox denominations, for there is only One Living Christ, whose body is One.
You receive of the Spirit of God or not at all, for only Spirit is Life. The elements or tokens that we partake of are only emblems, and even still...those possess the substance and infusion of Spirit as we invest them with such by our faith, to say nothing of His omnipresence. Substance and form are both important within a given context, but beyond concepts, forms and terms, the omnipresence of God is always available and infinitely so, no matter what finite limitations and dimensions 'appear' to be.
'God' is the only divine, absolute and eternal reality. This reality is not owned, organized or coordinated by any one human culture, institution or religion because it is prior to and transcending all human creation and conception. Of course you could assume it is, and the burden of proof is upon you,.....an unnecessary one to carry IMO.
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
Facts and Opinions -
July 25th, 2012, 08:11 AM
Free, our resident New-Ager and subjectivist
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelight
~*~*~
Granted that these words attributed to Jesus are found only in John's gospel and are 'symbolic', meaning having reference to something 'spiritual' in essence,
That's a fine opinion but it falls apart in light of the facts, many of which I've pointed out earlier.
Quote:
as far as the reception of such elements and their 'effects' (via faith and communion with Spirit), there is no reason to assume or believe that the RCC has exclusive ownership to the correct or proper translation of such, neither are they the sole custodians of an original 'Eucharist' necessarily although 'forms' and 'interpretations' of such go back to earlier times.
Like I've said earlier, all old Christian traditions (Orthodox and Catholic) hold the same thing here. You can tell the Apostles and their successors that they are wrong, but there is an enormous difference of authority between you and them.
Quote:
Finally,....no matter what metaphysical system or application of faith we invest in a eucharistic-observance....it is at last the individual's faith that brings any positive effect anyways. Life is of the divine nature, born of Spirit, so only that original life-force is dynamic and has any power whatsover to affect anything, so it is that invisible source that we draw from, of whom 'Christ' is the vehicle thru which we receive of God. I draw from various esoteric, occult and gnostic forms of Christianity in understanding the Eucharist. The same universal truth is found in traditional/orthodox denominations, for there is only One Living Christ, whose body is One.
You receive of the Spirit of God or not at all, for only Spirit is Life. The elements or tokens that we partake of are only emblems, and even still...those possess the substance and infusion of Spirit as we invest them with such by our faith, to say nothing of His omnipresence. Substance and form are both important within a given context, but beyond concepts, forms and terms, the omnipresence of God is always available and infinitely so, no matter what finite limitations and dimensions 'appear' to be.
'God' is the only divine, absolute and eternal reality. This reality is not owned, organized or coordinated by any one human culture, institution or religion because it is prior to and transcending all human creation and conception. Of course you could assume it is, and the burden of proof is upon you,.....an unnecessary one to carry IMO.
pj
I know, you are a New-Ager. But this modern talk isn't very relevant in a thread about the roots of Christianity--subjective opinion divorced from fact and authority doesn't hold much weight in my book.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
So first I'll say that if Christ were speaking to agnostic Americans at a convention in 2012 and he used the words from English Bible translations, then they would probably have understood his words in the way you have described.
But I don't think that is tenable given the fact that he was standing in a room 2000 years ago at the time of passover with 12 Jewish men. Once we understand the Greek anamnēsin which signifies the Hebrew zachar this idea of a simple remembrance becomes almost impossible. Again, 1 Cor 11:27 and the writings of the early church are further proof that Jesus' words were not interpreted so lightly. There are a number of other details, such as the fact that most Jewish sacrifice had to be consumed in order to be efficacious, especially in a covenantal sense, and that is precisely what Jesus was doing: initiating the new covenant.
I do understand the Greek anamnēsin as found in Plato (Meno, Phaedo), which involves the uncovering or unmasking of knowledge already present; I'm not familiar with zachar. The Shalom Zachar doesn't seem especially relevant.
In any case, I don't see anything "light" about my interpretation, which coincides with yours with respect to the initiation of the new covenant. It makes perfect sense to me that in the Eucharist, the participants are engaged in a very strong kind of remembrance: a rededication to that covenant. I reject the notion that this understanding of the Eucharist is "thin" or "mere symbolism." There's nothing "mere" about symbolism, if one is totally committed to it.
It's like those people who call a marriage certificate a "piece of paper" in a dismissive way. Yes, it's a piece of paper, but it's also laden with meaning. It's binding. Similarly, the Eucharist, as I see it, isn't "mere remembrance"; it too is binding. And this is perfectly consistent with the gravity of the admonition in 1 Cor 11:27
Quote:
I think there is some truth to this. It would not surprise me if it took the Apostles quite a long time to understand what had happened in that room. It may not have made sense at the time, but the conclusion they came to is fairly clear (I think Biblical texts reflect this deepened understanding, such as John 6 and the centrality of the Last Supper). I would not generally expect someone to fully understand this enormous convergence of prophecy, OT practices, and revelation about God at first glance. I think that as individuals and as a Church we continue to grow in this understanding each day, and yet the Apostles and their successors already had a very firm belief about what happened there.
It's not clear to me that the apostles ever came to believe that what happened in that room was the initiation of a system of supernatural transformation of elements. That they did come to understand it as the initiation of a vitally important, central element in the formation of a congregation or assembly (Gr. ecclesia) is not in doubt. Yes, eventually the distinctive metaphysical interpretation of the Eucharist was settled on, but I am not persuaded that this interpretation was guided by any supernatural influence.
Quote:
Okay. It is fairly odd to me to say that Jesus was intentionally and falsely offensive as a means to this end. I don't think any Christian could accept that (including especially the early Christians). I don't think the writer is trying to convey that Jesus, Truth itself, told lies in order to offend Jews who were following for the wrong reasons. In any event, he had an infinitely better way of separating the sheep from the goats: the cross (Jn 8:28).
It's only falsely offensive if taken literally. I do not believe that Jesus literally expected anyone to understand him to be commanding cannibalism. Nevertheless, the symbolism of "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" is suggestive of both cannibalism and ritual impurity, and was thus offensive. In no way am I suggesting that he was lying.
Quote:
That is interesting. There are a number of interesting symbolic ideas that flow freely from this, and many things in the Bible, but that does not mean that that is the only meaning. Orthodoxy holds otherwise, and heresy has often been defined as picking out some truths at the expense of others. I don't think your RCIA program erred by teaching some of the symbols, but I think they erred by turning a blind eye to the ..."reality" for lack of a better word.
I wouldn't ever claim that my interpretation is the only one possible. It's just the one that makes the most sense to me, at this point in time. I also don't want to give the impression that I think the Catholic interpretation is preposterous. I don't.
The trouble with the RCIA program is that it accommodated the modern mind by systematically ignoring everything supernatural. That's why I said there was little, if anything, that a Unitarian might disagree with. I think the people involved would have been proud of that fact.
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here.
The atonement couldn't occur without the persecution and execution of Jesus. If he had choked to death on a chicken bone instead, there would be no atonement. The atonement is a difficult doctrine (for me anyway) but that's how I see it.
Quote:
But the Mass centers around the Eucharist. The Incarnation, the Eucharist, Pentecost, Christ's miracles, etc., are more Word-based than word-based. Jesus enters into our lives, into our very being. If we stop short at "internalizing his words" then we are missing the essence of Christianity. The word is important, but it is not the Living Word, it is not the center.
I agree that Mass centers around the Eucharist. I simply don't agree that this centering must be understood as ingesting the miraculously delivered flesh and blood of Jesus. I agree that "internalizing his words" is a pathetically thin and cerebral way of getting at it. It would probably be better to talk about completely taking on board the fact of Jesus as God incarnate. The Incarnation is the message, and it's the hardest thing for anyone--not just first-century Jews--to really accept wholeheartedly. The Eucharist, as I see it, is meant to bring people back to that, again and again. Like baptism, it's a physical act, fraught with meaning, making it more powerful than words. I don't find anything "unworthy" in this understanding of it.
But then, I'm not baptized nor do I receive Communion in any Christian church, so what do I know?
[/quote]If you think that the deposit of faith left by Christians reaching all the way back to the time of Christ, affirmed by Catholics and Orthodox and honored by Protestants, is a "panel of Catholic pedants," then I'd either do some more thinking or begin a dissertation with a thesis that does not yet exist.
[/quote]
I think all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, are doing their best to preserve and understand that deposit of faith, using the fallible resources of the human mind.
Plato scholars struggle to distinguish between the actual ideas of Socrates, who wrote nothing, and those of Plato, even though most of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato. There is consensus on certain points, but much is perennially disputed, because there simply isn't enough information to reach decisive conclusions. I think we're in a similar situation with respect to Jesus and the various authors of the New Testament texts. I don't think this is a bad thing, either.
Slogan/motto:
Success is a journey, not a destination. So stop running.
Reputation:
July 25th, 2012, 10:41 AM
Hi dingodile and zippy. Just wanted to say that I'm enjoying your conversation. I think it's obvious where I come down on the topic but I'm happy to see a good, reasoned discussion on it.
Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
July 25th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
Christ is in heaven.. sitting at the right hand of the father.
the way people hate ea other and etc... i WOULD say this must be true...if i didnt know better however, i, unlike you, have spent time in the Real Presence found ONLY in the Catholic Churches...
Quote:
The Holy Spirit was sent in his stead to comfort us during his absence.
you are right 2 say he is absent for YOU and protestants... but Catholics have the RP
Quote:
If you think you are felling the presence of Christ.. I would submit that it isn't him.. its something else.
i would submit you dont know what you are talking about since u apparently have never spent any (or much ) time there
"Whatever you do to God's people, you do to God" - Mt 25:31
Turning again to the passage upon which this thread is based, John 6:53,
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Let's assume that "Eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood" means to ingest the host and wine that have been duly consecrated by an ordained Roman Catholic priest, as TruthSetsFree and others assert. The word "unless" is logically equivalent to "if not", so the first sentence gives us,
If you don't take Catholic Communion, you have no life in you.
The second gives us,
If you do take Catholic Communion, you will have eternal life.
Let's assume that "you have no life in you" means you will not have eternal life, since it's not believable that it could mean you are organically dead at the time of utterance. Jesus wasn't addressing corpses.
Putting the two together, we get the biconditional:
You have eternal life if and only if you take Catholic Communion.
So my question is: Is this believable? Are we really meant to believe that Jesus was telling us that all who do not take Catholic Communion are denied eternal life? What then, are we to make of Luke 10-25-28, where Jesus is asked straightforwardly, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus's answer, equally straightforward, makes no mention, literal or metaphorical, of taking Catholic Communion. His interlocutor offers the two great commandments and Jesus simply says, "“You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
These two passages can't both be true, if we interpret John 6:53 in the way I've suggested. If it's true, as that interpretation of John 6:53 entails, that taking Catholic Communion is a necessary condition for eternal life, then merely following the two commandments cannot be sufficient, which is what Jesus says in Luke 10:28.
The unavoidable conclusion is: Either the assumed interpretation of John 6:53 etc. is wrong or Jesus is inconsistent on the question of eternal life.
the Roman Catholic Church is not the first or only to celebrate "communion"
but the Catholic Church is the only one that has
Transubstantiation
...
which means that the bread & wine are actually turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus
Sorry. It just seems that some Protestants are trying too hard to get around this.
They also must stumble upon the sacrament of reconciliation in the Bible, the establishment of Jesus' Church in Matthew 16, and of course, purgatory.
But by no means are Protestants denied the gift of salvation, nor are there good works not to their merit. Same goes for the whole world for that matter.
Sorry. It just seems that some Protestants are trying too hard to get around this.
They also must stumble upon the sacrament of reconciliation in the Bible, the establishment of Jesus' Church in Matthew 16, and of course, purgatory.
But by no means are Protestants denied the gift of salvation, nor are there good works not to their merit. Same goes for the whole world for that matter.
If chrys were here, he'd say "Oh no, another Catholic."
It is fairly odd to me to say that Jesus was intentionally and falsely offensive as a means to this end. I don't think any Christian could accept that (including especially the early Christians). I don't think the writer is trying to convey that Jesus, Truth itself, told lies in order to offend Jews who were following for the wrong reasons. In any event, he had an infinitely better way of separating the sheep from the goats: the cross (Jn 8:28).
There are a number of interesting symbolic ideas that flow freely from this, and many things in the Bible, but that does not mean that that is the only meaning. Orthodoxy holds otherwise, and heresy has often been defined as picking out some truths at the expense of others. I don't think your RCIA program erred by teaching some of the symbols, but I think they erred by turning a blind eye to the ..."reality" for lack of a better word.
substance and form....... -
July 25th, 2012, 12:22 AM
but I'm happy to see a good, reasoned discussion on it. 
Linear Mode
