Kenisyes,have u read how Mary was born?Do u know that her parents couldn't have childrens?By prayers to God,God gave them Mary,but they gave promice to God that they will take that child to Temple.But that all is God providence and wisdom.I don't get u very well.Send me mail with question,but short.
Mary the mother of my Lord (Heresy?)
- Thread starter Rock022
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Believe how you like, I have complete faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. For example sex today is seen like a "sin" every one wants to be naughty and keep God out of the bedroom [general statement] why is this, because we have been deceived that sex is of the devil. In fact this believe people have of sex is completely wrong, God made us man and woman, He gave us this amazing act to be shared with love. If we truly do as God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply we can share this beautiful act. However people use this mandate from God and twisted to their believe so they become promiscuous forgetting we are to be only with one.
The point I am trying to make is that the devil has done a great deal of work twisting God's word and God's church that the church has become a cultural thing, this view of God is very dangerous because it makes God a made up thing. This cultural view of God will eventually turn in to a fairy tale, and be forgotten. Look at how many people say I am a Christian but I do not believe the way they do with over 20,000 different churches and growing, we are not one we are divided. Divide and conquer.
Jesus began to be divided soon after "sola scripture" was made. In one side there was the Jesus of faith, and in the other was the historical Jesus. Both sides of the spectrum began to become further apart and thus has become so distant from each other that it is hard to see Jesus for who He really is.
To see the true Jesus we have to see Him for who He truly is, and that is to see His relationship with the Father. It is all about this relationship were we can truly see and understand Jesus.
But instead of looking for this in everything we chat about, even here in this thread. People look for that aha moment, were they see a flaw. How am I to learn from God and research atheist websites to show God being made up. The same goes for the church.
As you posted earlier quickfire about the king wanting to divorce and because the pope did not granted it, he made his own church. Many churches today do this, they do not like something and make their own, claiming infallibility. All claiming that the other church is wrong and they have the truth. This is inevitable because the devil works hard at this.
Look at how many times I have clarified some made up clown believe of the catholic church, what happens then, a new false believe opens up, clear that up and another one opens up. You know what keeps happening the same thing over and over, then they go to the very first thing that was cleared up and start all over again.
Key has said that St Peter would have never given the church to a Roman. What was St Paul? definitely not a Jew was he, and he was an apostle. What was all the ruckus about in the first council of Jerusalem, St Paul was doing what? Oh no he did't so they went to Jerusalem to clear that up.
The Roman empire was growing right, so St Peter guided by our Lord went to Rome to spread the good news. Also by becoming part of the Roman empire at a time when people killed you for having different gods pave the way for Christianity to continue.
When Jesus told the disciples that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, many left Him and went back to their old ways. Why because they did not have faith in Jesus Christ, and today many people still do not believe Him.
Have faith in Jesus.
Q
Rock22 ok look i will explain one last time to you.
When did jesus die.,? Answers 000 ad.
When was christianity excepted in rome,, 300 or so years later.
Who was in control of the world at that time.??
Answer the roman empire.
Why was there only one authorised church
At that time ie roman catholic church,.??
Anwser , because the roman empire ruled the world. And They wanted complete control.
Ok i explain some more what else happened between 000ad and constantine coversion to christian in 320ad.?
Answer is the appostles ane the jews travelled all over the world and spread the same word They did to romans.
Why was there no other other authorised churches formed anywhere else?.
Answer because the roman empire ruled the world.
You have herd the saying all roads lead to rome have you not.
You know rock when you understand this you will understand that jesus was not just about rome and the one so called true religion.
When did jesus die.,? Answers 000 ad.
When was christianity excepted in rome,, 300 or so years later.
Who was in control of the world at that time.??
Answer the roman empire.
Why was there only one authorised church
At that time ie roman catholic church,.??
Anwser , because the roman empire ruled the world. And They wanted complete control.
Ok i explain some more what else happened between 000ad and constantine coversion to christian in 320ad.?
Answer is the appostles ane the jews travelled all over the world and spread the same word They did to romans.
Why was there no other other authorised churches formed anywhere else?.
Answer because the roman empire ruled the world.
You have herd the saying all roads lead to rome have you not.
You know rock when you understand this you will understand that jesus was not just about rome and the one so called true religion.
I cannot agree with u,because at that time there were others Churches with equal authority,none of them were over others.Church of Rome had big reputation in Glory and without her nothing wasn't discussed.But climing that Church of Rome was over others will be very funny.Then we wouldn't have others Churches but only R Catholic.What point would be that?There r no sense in it.Church would be splited as that was happened,but 700years later.
Q
ok fine but why then do roman catholic church claim that there popes are direct predesessers of st peter.
geo round and round in circles is not me
the roman empire had complete power.
they even had authority over most of our churches in england.
untill the great protestent reformation in the 1300 ads.
you need to know your history geo.
geo round and round in circles is not me
the roman empire had complete power.
they even had authority over most of our churches in england.
untill the great protestent reformation in the 1300 ads.
you need to know your history geo.
Quickfire,i know facts of history.Holy Emperor Constantine was even born in present Serbia.This was Roman Empire in that time.Naisus(present Nis),Singidunum(Belgrade),Sirmium(Sremska Mitrovica) itc were great cities for that time.
I do not denie that Romans ruled over the known world,but that wasn't the case with Church.Present Roman Catholic Church and Early Roman Catholic Church aren't same Churches.Popes of Early Church were not represented as infalible!Canons of Early Catholic Church was same as Church of Antioch or Alexandria on example.U have to understand that.Present roman Catholic canons are changed,dogmas aren't same as it were to be!Take any book of Early Fathers of the Church and read,but then read some Roman catholic books,compare them please,read history of the Church.U won't understand what am writing here until u do not take books and read.If u wan't that,by the way.
I will tell u againg,until 1054year we all were 1 Church.
I do not denie that Romans ruled over the known world,but that wasn't the case with Church.Present Roman Catholic Church and Early Roman Catholic Church aren't same Churches.Popes of Early Church were not represented as infalible!Canons of Early Catholic Church was same as Church of Antioch or Alexandria on example.U have to understand that.Present roman Catholic canons are changed,dogmas aren't same as it were to be!Take any book of Early Fathers of the Church and read,but then read some Roman catholic books,compare them please,read history of the Church.U won't understand what am writing here until u do not take books and read.If u wan't that,by the way.
I will tell u againg,until 1054year we all were 1 Church.
Q
Ok geo explain this then
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages. Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the OnlyLanguage Allowed 600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
Any priest or any pastor etc who attempted to teach or preach scripture that was not latin was strongly admonished by the Pope
Even know geo that churches from around the world where telling the pope that there people did not understand the latin scripture.
Geo I will tell you why geo
Because knowledge is power, and the Catholic Church had all of both. For about 1,000 years,
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages. Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the OnlyLanguage Allowed 600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
Any priest or any pastor etc who attempted to teach or preach scripture that was not latin was strongly admonished by the Pope
Even know geo that churches from around the world where telling the pope that there people did not understand the latin scripture.
Geo I will tell you why geo
Because knowledge is power, and the Catholic Church had all of both. For about 1,000 years,
Last edited:
Q
Geo look are you just plain ignorant.? Or what.
500 ad bible scritures had been translated into 500 languages . "Do you understand this geo".
600 ad the catholic church made the ruling that only latin scripture was allowed ?
Why geo WHY. I will tell you again. Because knoledge is power and the pope had them both for about 1000 years They had the authority.
Lets go back to blooming rome again.
382ad the rome commisioned st jerome to translate the greek and hebrew scriptures into latin..
500 ad the scriptures had been translated into 500 languages
600 ad the catholic church gives the order that only latin scriptures where allowed in churches.
For the next One thousand years more or less any church found with scripture not in latin where in a whole lot of troulble with the pope. It has been said that They where even executed.
Even though geo the scriptures had been translated into 500 languages in 500 ad.
Geo people going to church did not understand the latin scriprure. In different catholic churches from around the world.
500 ad bible scritures had been translated into 500 languages . "Do you understand this geo".
600 ad the catholic church made the ruling that only latin scripture was allowed ?
Why geo WHY. I will tell you again. Because knoledge is power and the pope had them both for about 1000 years They had the authority.
Lets go back to blooming rome again.
382ad the rome commisioned st jerome to translate the greek and hebrew scriptures into latin..
500 ad the scriptures had been translated into 500 languages
600 ad the catholic church gives the order that only latin scriptures where allowed in churches.
For the next One thousand years more or less any church found with scripture not in latin where in a whole lot of troulble with the pope. It has been said that They where even executed.
Even though geo the scriptures had been translated into 500 languages in 500 ad.
Geo people going to church did not understand the latin scriprure. In different catholic churches from around the world.
Between all things i have read from Early Church,Church Fathers and history,for the 1st time i hear for this.It is impossible and i do not believe in that,i will research this statement,but i tell u again:It will be impossible if on example Russia or Greece proclaim that their language is above others,that would be greatest NONSENSE and Church of others countries would condemn and reject!
Again,i will research this.
Q
Originally Posted by kenisyes
Where does it say that Jesus made the bread and wine be His body and blood? The Greek (and Latin Vulgate) both use the neuter pronoun for "this" in "this is my body...blood". In both languages, bread, body, flesh, wine, blood, are all masculine or feminine. That's like calling Jesus a she, or Mary a he, or the Holy Spirit an it.
Furthermore, kenisyes, I let my priest friend look at this tonight (who is a seasoned bible scholar and seminary instructor). This is his response to your erroneous assertions;
_______
Here's the Greek of Mt 26:26:
λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.
The word for 'body' here is σῶμα, and it's neuter. The form of 'this' that's used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)... neuter.
Let's look at verse 28:
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
'This' (τοῦτο -- neuter) is my 'blood' (αἷμα -- neuter).
So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement... the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there's grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative ("this") matches the noun in the respective sentence ('body', 'blood'). No matter what he's attempting to say, the data just doesn't support his contention!
(OK: I can't resist -- I'll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where 'this' takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of 'this' is neuter... well, that's just silly! If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -- the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
______
There you have it, kenisyes.
God bless.
Maynard
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
maynard This is my understanding of holy communion, "the last super", I think that the way catholics teach the last super just does not hold up to scripture. For me communion it is just symbolic, and not carnal. it is just a remembrance.
Jesus took bread and said of it, "This is My body." When our Lord made that statement, He was very much in the flesh of His body and the blood was rushing through His veins. Yet He used the present tense of the verb in declaring, "This is My body." Now this question: if the bread thus became the very body of Christ, what became of the One whose hand held that bread? Remember, He has but one body. Jesus also said, "I am the door and I am the true vine," yet none of us have any difficulty understanding that Christ is not a literal door or vine. Why then should anyone have difficulty in under-standing that Christ, in the body, said of a piece of bread, "This is my body" that He did not literally become that piece of bread?
Paul tells us that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 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. (I Corinthians 11:23, 24). Notice, "Do this in remembrance of Me Christ. Now can the bread be, at the one and the same time, the memorial and the thing memorialized? Paul tells us that the Lord's Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ until He shall come (I Corinthians 11:26).
Usually the Catholic will strive to justify his position by turning to the sixth chapter of John and reading, "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 . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed' " (John 6:53, 55). Where is the Lord's Supper mentioned in that chapter? That was spoken before He instituted the Supper. To take a text from the context becomes a pretext. Continue to read the chapter and Jesus gives this meaning: "It is the Spirit who gives life the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life" (verse 63).
but cathloics will teach drink the wine, meaning blood and you will be saved, "Its complete and utter nonsense"
Furthermore, kenisyes, I let my priest friend look at this tonight (who is a seasoned bible scholar and seminary instructor). This is his response to your erroneous assertions;
_______
Here's the Greek of Mt 26:26:
λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.
The word for 'body' here is σῶμα, and it's neuter. The form of 'this' that's used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)... neuter.
Let's look at verse 28:
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
'This' (τοῦτο -- neuter) is my 'blood' (αἷμα -- neuter).
So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement... the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there's grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative ("this") matches the noun in the respective sentence ('body', 'blood'). No matter what he's attempting to say, the data just doesn't support his contention!
(OK: I can't resist -- I'll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where 'this' takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of 'this' is neuter... well, that's just silly! If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -- the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
______
There you have it, kenisyes.
God bless.
Maynard
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
maynard This is my understanding of holy communion, "the last super", I think that the way catholics teach the last super just does not hold up to scripture. For me communion it is just symbolic, and not carnal. it is just a remembrance.
Jesus took bread and said of it, "This is My body." When our Lord made that statement, He was very much in the flesh of His body and the blood was rushing through His veins. Yet He used the present tense of the verb in declaring, "This is My body." Now this question: if the bread thus became the very body of Christ, what became of the One whose hand held that bread? Remember, He has but one body. Jesus also said, "I am the door and I am the true vine," yet none of us have any difficulty understanding that Christ is not a literal door or vine. Why then should anyone have difficulty in under-standing that Christ, in the body, said of a piece of bread, "This is my body" that He did not literally become that piece of bread?
Paul tells us that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 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. (I Corinthians 11:23, 24). Notice, "Do this in remembrance of Me Christ. Now can the bread be, at the one and the same time, the memorial and the thing memorialized? Paul tells us that the Lord's Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ until He shall come (I Corinthians 11:26).
Usually the Catholic will strive to justify his position by turning to the sixth chapter of John and reading, "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 . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed' " (John 6:53, 55). Where is the Lord's Supper mentioned in that chapter? That was spoken before He instituted the Supper. To take a text from the context becomes a pretext. Continue to read the chapter and Jesus gives this meaning: "It is the Spirit who gives life the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life" (verse 63).
but cathloics will teach drink the wine, meaning blood and you will be saved, "Its complete and utter nonsense"
Last edited:
Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.
Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.
Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.
Last edited:
Real Presence, continued from previous post....
The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, th Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.
(John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.)
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle BETRAY HIM.
Concerning "symbolism"...
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”
to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”
Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.
Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.
The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, th Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.
(John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.)
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle BETRAY HIM.
Concerning "symbolism"...
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”
to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.
Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.
Q
Maynard your last to quotes you made, !there is on actualy a couple of verses that relate to the last super.
Maynard you know when the christian movement began to grow and thread the word, the only reason Why the romans became the One true religion was because They ruled the known world, "do you see what im saying".
The word was being spread every where it was just fortunate at that time the romans ruled, it could of been the germans ruled the world at that time,perish the thought , can you just imagine a One true german religion,
Even though the romans where pagon They where pretty tolerant towards other faith. They even use to except Gods from different country. As One of there own.
So we have to be thankfull for that.
But are you getting my message ?
But Maynard Why you have to bring protestants into this in your last 2 posts
Your only looking for troulble i guess.
Why you have to see this as a war between catholics and protestants.
Your religion is not the One true faith.
Popes do not have the right to say there religion is the One true religion or that They are the direct predecessor of peter.
.
Maynard you know when the christian movement began to grow and thread the word, the only reason Why the romans became the One true religion was because They ruled the known world, "do you see what im saying".
The word was being spread every where it was just fortunate at that time the romans ruled, it could of been the germans ruled the world at that time,perish the thought , can you just imagine a One true german religion,
Even though the romans where pagon They where pretty tolerant towards other faith. They even use to except Gods from different country. As One of there own.
So we have to be thankfull for that.
But are you getting my message ?
But Maynard Why you have to bring protestants into this in your last 2 posts
Your only looking for troulble i guess.
Why you have to see this as a war between catholics and protestants.
Your religion is not the One true faith.
Popes do not have the right to say there religion is the One true religion or that They are the direct predecessor of peter.
.
I have gone for a little wile and you guys got busy.
Why do you tell Maynard he is wrong for seeing this as a war, then you tell him catholics are fake?
Quickfire, you began a great journey a few weeks ago then you turn all against catholics and call us fake. Have you been deceived? I recommend you get the roman catholic side of the story before you completely make up your mind. Wikipedia is not the best source of information.
Q
Rock i have never called ou a fake or catholics , what i have said is the stuff you are getting teached is wrong.
Christ did not make peter a pope .
And the pope is not the vicar of christ. there is only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and is worded as follows: "Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God."
Christ did not make peter a pope .
And the pope is not the vicar of christ. there is only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and is worded as follows: "Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God."