Thanks, Foo. But it don't settle for me the incongruity wherein a God who promises reward in our next life, based on OUR beliefs and action - and mitigated by the Mercy of His Son, if such is warranted - as opposed to the mere imposition of His Will. I don't argue God's ability or even wisdom to do so, but I assume that God - being The Word, The Truth and Perfect Love - would most certainly not ask of us what He declines to abide in by His own Word.

When I take my last breath, I'll be kneeling at the feet of My Lord (assuming such exists), who loves me and all. Once seeing the totality of the mysteries that are now "like seeing through a fogged glass"...I'll gladly pay whatever price is required. I'm no rebel, when it comes to Love.

But my idea of an ideal 'heaven' - like my un-religious Grandpa Gene...would be to come right back where I am now, and continue my journey of Love with the people, places and challenges that manifest in my current life. With the Good Lord's hand on my shoulder, of course. This is my fondest hope. Of course, I do realize that in the near future, things can happen which would cause me to reflect and perhaps refigure that dream. Lord have mercy on them who love.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41665 posts

Posted on 6/26/21 at 2:22 pm to Zephyrius

quote:
You're the one saying it was just a misunderstanding that you state Jesus was speaking symbolically.

Of course I believe they misunderstood what Jesus was saying, but that wasn't the reason why they walked away. They walked away--according to the Bible--because of their unbelief.

quote:
When Jesus emphasized "Amen, Amen!!" or "Truly, Truly" they knew Jesus was speaking literally. Amen Amen or Truly Truly is not symbolic language hence the reason they walked away.

Interestingly, this near exactly situation happened another time, just a few chapters before the one we've been discussing.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” -John 3:4-5

Here, Jesus uses the words "truly, truly" to talk about the truth of a statement, but talks about it spiritually, not literally. In this case, Jesus is talking about the doctrine of regeneration, or being "born again" by the Spirit of God. Nicodemus even thought Jesus was talking about the literal act of coming forth from a mother's womb, yet Jesus was speaking symbolically of the work of the Spirit. Also interestingly, Jesus, in John 6, talking about the very passage that we've been discussing, explains that it's the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." -John 6:63

Therefore I reject your assertion that Jesus using the words "truly, truly" denotes a literal meaning.

quote:
If Jesus was speaking symbolically why would the apostles/ disciples not understand until after the resurrection? The point of symbolism is to clarify or represent a meaning.

It's exactly the opposite, actually. As in the case of being "born again", it would have been more clear had Jesus talked about a changed heart by the Spirit and opened eyes and ears to understand who Christ was and His purpose. Nicodemus was thoroughly perplexed by what Jesus was saying, but Jesus was talking spiritually (about "heavenly things" - vs. John 3:12) and even chastised Nicodemus for being a teacher of Israel and not understanding (vs. 10). Jesus taught in parables so that He wouldn't be entirely clear and so the people would not understand but had to explain things privately to the disciples (Mark 4:10-12), but even then, not everything Jesus taught them was for them to understand fully at the time He taught it (John 13:7).

quote:
The true understanding was all brought home for the apostles and disciples with the last supper, Pentecost, and the "breaking bread" after the resurrection because the bread is His flesh and the wine is His Blood consecrated as a priest in the order of Malchezadek(sp?). The Catholic priesthood is a continuation of that order as ordained by Jesus to the apostles and the apostles/ bishops to the ordained priest today.

Jesus was certainly acting in His priestly duty by interceding for His people and sacrificing Himself on the cross to atone for the sins of His people, but He didn't give His blood and body to consecrate a continuation of the priesthood. On the contrary: His death opened the path directly to God. That's what the veil symbolized in the Temple that was ripped completely when Jesus died. It symbolized how Christ makes the Father accessible to the priesthood of the believer (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

ETA: I didn't address this part previously

quote:
Did the crowd walk away after Jesus proclaimed himself a vine, light, water? They knew he meant for believers must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

The followers of Jesus who left Him didn't leave because of a teaching on cannibalism. They left due to the hard message of following Christ and feeding on Him spiritually for salvation rather than desiring the physical bread He provided to fill their bellies.

The passage opens with Jesus condemning those people who were seeking after Him after He had fed the 5,000 with the bread and fish (vv. 1-13). He said they weren't there for Jesus as the way to God and eternal life, but because they were hungry and wanted more (physical) food (vv. 26-27). Jesus tried to explain to them--much like He did with the woman at the well in chapter 4--that He was the spiritual bread that they needed (like He said to the woman at the well that He was the spiritual water that she needed) and they didn't understand and asked for the physical bread they thought He was offering (v. 34).

The people then grumbled in disbelief because He said He was the bread that came down from Heaven, and they didn't believe He came from Heaven (v. 42). Jesus repeats that believing in Him will result in eternal life (v. 47). The people still didn't understand what Jesus meant about being the source of eternal life, so He continued to talk about Himself as the (spiritual) food that they needed, rather than the physical bread that they were seeking. Because they didn't understand what He was saying, Jesus went into talking about those who the Father has given Him and belief vs. unbelief (v. 65) to explain why they didn't understand and were grumbling. That's why they left Him: they didn't believe in Him as the source of eternal life.

Just from a cursory reading of the text, if you take Jesus' words to mean something different than what He meant in the other passages (about water, vines, etc.) where He was talking about belief in Himself as the source of eternal life, you have a contradiction. If Jesus was saying all you need to do to live forever is eat His literal body and drink His literal blood, then belief is unnecessary, though He said right in the middle of the text that eternal life comes by belief in Him (vs. 47), not simply consuming flesh and blood. The reason Jesus used flesh and blood was for a few different reasons: 1) Because it was in contrast to the desire of the followers to have physical bread to eat after the miracle Jesus had just performed; 2) because Jesus was--as He did elsewhere--using physical symbols to illustrate a spiritual reality; and 3) because Jesus knew that they would not understand what He was saying due to their unbelief (which He calls out in the passage) and therefore spoke more cryptically so that they wouldn't fully understand it, thus separating the sheep from the goats, in a sense (Mat. 13:10-17).

This post was edited on 6/26/21 at 3:09 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41665 posts

Posted on 6/26/21 at 3:22 pm to RCDfan1950

quote:
Thanks, Foo. But it don't settle for me the incongruity wherein a God who promises reward in our next life, based on OUR beliefs and action - and mitigated by the Mercy of His Son, if such is warranted - as opposed to the mere imposition of His Will. I don't argue God's ability or even wisdom to do so, but I assume that God - being The Word, The Truth and Perfect Love - would most certainly not ask of us what He declines to abide in by His own Word.

When I take my last breath, I'll be kneeling at the feet of My Lord (assuming such exists), who loves me and all. Once seeing the totality of the mysteries that are now "like seeing through a fogged glass"...I'll gladly pay whatever price is required. I'm no rebel, when it comes to Love.

But my idea of an ideal 'heaven' - like my un-religious Grandpa Gene...would be to come right back where I am now, and continue my journey of Love with the people, places and challenges that manifest in my current life. With the Good Lord's hand on my shoulder, of course. This is my fondest hope. Of course, I do realize that in the near future, things can happen which would cause me to reflect and perhaps refigure that dream. Lord have mercy on them who love.

Please forgive me if I misunderstood. It seems that you are arguing for the concept of reincarnation. I don't believe that's a biblical concept but actually runs contrary to what the scriptures teach about the nature of man, salvation, and glorification in Heaven. I'd be happy to engage in a discussion about it with you, hearing the reasoning you have for what you believe.

Thank you for asking the question, as it is certainly one of the more unique questions I've been asked and something I haven't given a lot of thought.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bloodworth

North Ga

Member since Oct 2007

4000 posts

Posted on 6/26/21 at 3:45 pm to stout

quote:
This means they will refuse to serve him communion since he supports abortions

Hope they included that skank Pelosi too.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by RCDfan1950

United States

Member since Feb 2007

34891 posts

Posted on 6/26/21 at 5:24 pm to FooManChoo

Thank you, Foo. I come and go, but I’d love to explore this idea with you and people who are not afraid to step outside of the box in order to seek understanding. I know, got ‘Adam’ in trouble, but I let if you could ask him if he’d do it again - all things being as they were- he’d say ‘hell yeah’. Some things are worth the pain. And I do believe that this idea (“reincarnation “, for lack of a better word) is at the crux of the whole SJW movement. Not to mention that entire Religions are based on it. Minus us being the legit arbiter of our fate, I see that this could be used as an attempt to falsely portray God’s Judgment as unjust, and therein undermine his Earthly Cred. Marxism 101. Be well friend.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Zephyrius

Wharton, La.

Member since Dec 2004

7935 posts

Posted on 6/27/21 at 11:44 am to FooManChoo

quote:
Therefore I reject your assertion that Jesus using the words "truly, truly" denotes a literal meaning.

You can reject all you want but you are rejecting the truth of it. After verses 51 and 52 Jesus didn't go the symbolic or explain 'hey I'm not talking about really eating my body',

Jesus doubles down and uses more graphic language hence 'this is hard' and they walk away after the "Amen, Amen" or "Truly, Truly".

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Jesus then doubling down...

[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Lets face it your interpretation somehow took 1500yrs after Christ to reveal itself.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Revelator

Member since Nov 2008

57898 posts

Posted on 6/27/21 at 12:43 pm to Zephyrius

quote:
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

If this is literal, you are out of luck, because the Eucharist doesn’t become the actual body of Christ because a priest says some magic words over it.
Did you notice how Jesus never went into detail about how his body was to be eaten. The RCC invented the entire process of how they turn a wafer into Jesus’ body.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Revelator

Member since Nov 2008

57898 posts

Posted on 6/27/21 at 4:29 pm to Zephyrius

John 6:26
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed

Jesus says don’t seek the physical bread that perishes,
but spiritual bread won’t.

35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus is this spiritual bread that is everlasting. Just as Jesus told the woman at the well to drink of him and she would never thirst again, he wasn’t pretending that he’d turn into literal water.

47:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life

Again, Jesus here is talking about belief and faith and not a physical act like eating which satiates for a while and then a person gets hungry again.

51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 ¶ The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat

The reasons the Jews were so confused is because they make the same mistake Catholics make by thinking Jesus was speaking of a physical act and not a spiritual one.
Over and over in the scripture, Jesus puts more emphasis on the spiritual and not the physical.
Again, he told the woman at the well he could give her everlasting water which she could drink and never thirst again, and she thought he was talking about real water and didn’t understand the spiritual application.

63[/b]: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus again reenforces it’s the spiritual that matters and the flesh or physical doesn’t profit man and is temporal.

[b]68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Lastly, Peter further cements that Jesus’ words are the things that bring life and not any physical actions like eating or drinking.
To pretend that a physical act like eating the Eucharist or drinking wine gives eternal life is absurd.
If Catholics literally believed it was the Eucharist and wine ingested that gave them eternal life, why did the RCC withhold the wine cup from the parishioners for hundreds of years from 1416 AD to 1970?
Certainty, if drinking the blood is necessary for salvation, the church wouldn’t have withheld this soul saving act from their congregants!

This post was edited on 6/27/21 at 8:27 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41665 posts

Posted on 6/28/21 at 7:57 am to Zephyrius

quote:
You can reject all you want but you are rejecting the truth of it. After verses 51 and 52 Jesus didn't go the symbolic or explain 'hey I'm not talking about really eating my body',

I’ve already gone through this passage in detail.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus talked about Himself and belief in Himself metaphorically like this many times throughout His ministry.

You also seem to be ignoring the context of the miracle of feeding of the 5,000 that happened right before and Jesus’ comments to the followers immediately preceding the talk about being the bread of life.

You also are ignoring that in the middle of this teaching, Jesus says belief saves, and the flesh doesn’t profit anything, both contradictory statements to the literal body interpretation.

And no, the true presence view wasn’t the only view until the 1500’s.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Zephyrius

Wharton, La.

Member since Dec 2004

7935 posts

Posted on 6/28/21 at 9:14 am to FooManChoo

quote:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus talked about Himself and belief in Himself metaphorically like this many times throughout His ministry.

How can one bring judgement upon himself eating or drinking a metaphor? Because it is not a metaphor it is the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wind.

St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians Chapter 11:

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

quote:
You also seem to be ignoring the context of the miracle of feeding of the 5,000 that happened right before and Jesus’ comments to the followers immediately preceding the talk about being the bread of life.

You are not reading what I have posted. I have said they were ready to make Him king because of the multiplication of the loaves and the realization of him crossing the lake without a boat. Yet you believe after they wanting to make Him king they turn on him because of a metaphor which is not logical or would not even be charitable on Jesus' part.

quote:
You also are ignoring that in the middle of this teaching, Jesus says belief saves, and the flesh doesn’t profit anything, both contradictory statements to the literal body interpretation.

I did not ignore; you are not reading or comprehending. Jesus was rebuking their unbelief because they were thinking worldly(from follower to walking away/ denial) and not thinking/ believing spiritually.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41665 posts

Posted on 6/28/21 at 10:54 am to Zephyrius

quote:
How can one bring judgement upon himself eating or drinking a metaphor? Because it is not a metaphor it is the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wind.

St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians Chapter 11:

The judgement comes from profaning a sacrament of the Lord, not partaking by faith but partaking to satisfy carnal wants at the expense of others.

Let's look at the context of 1 Cor. 11:

In verse 21, Paul says that they weren't eating/sharing together but eating their own meals. At the time, it was common to have a communal feast, in the light of the Passover meal that Jesus had reconstituted, but as the food and drink was brought from the houses of the rich, they would show disdain to the poor and not share, profaning the sacrament by mixing it with traditional feasts that abused those who couldn't afford to participate. "One goes hungry, another gets drunk." In this he means that those who brought their food and drink were treating the sacrament like a traditional feast, caring for their own needs by bringing their own food and eating and drink until they had their fill. Paul is condemning the people for turning the holy sacrament into an opportunity to eat and drink as part of a feast, and as as individuals, rather than remembering Christ's sacrifice (v. 24) as a full body of believers, caring for one another and showing Christ's sacrificial love towards those brothers and sisters who went hungry.

Paul confirms this by asking a rhetorical question: "Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" Of course those who were feeding themselves and getting drunk (or at least being well drunk, that is having a good amount of wine) had their own houses to eat and drink in, and they humiliated the people of God who had nothing to contribute, using the meal as an opportunity for individual satisfaction rather than corporate remembrance. The sacrament was a corporate remembrance and the people were using the mixing of it with feasts as an opportunity to have their own supper rather than the Lord's Supper.

Then at the end of the section, Paul repeats the concern he had: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment." (vv. 33-34). Here Paul is reiterating the offense that was given and the remedy for it. He says that if anyone is hungry (seeking their own physical satisfaction) that they should eat at home so as to not mix or confuse a individual feast with the corporate sacrament of the Lord's Supper. In doing so, they will be in obedience to Christ's command, and therefore they won't bring judgement upon themselves. The context, both before and after the passage you quoted, shows the concern Paul had and provides the basis for our interpretation.

So now let's address what you quoted specifically: Verse 26 explains the purpose of the sacrament, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." The remembrance of Christ's sacrifice is part of the gospel message. We are continuing to proclaim the reality of the Lord's death until He returns and to recall the act as applied to our own salvation. In other words, the Lord's Supper is a tangible, physical symbol that helps remember the very real death of Christ on the cross.

What does "discerning the body of the Lord" mean? It means recognizing Christ's work on the cross in the elements, not just eating and drinking as if the sacrament is a common meal without spiritual meaning and purpose. This fits with the context of people not observing the Lord's Supper as intended but eating and drinking to fill their stomachs in a mixing of a feast with the sacrament.

What does it mean to "be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord."? It's to be guilty of profaning Christ by profaning the symbol of His death that He gave to us. By not taking seriously the sacrament, or by not remembering the Lord in it, or by abusing the brothers in Christ during it would the same as not taking seriously the death of Christ and remembering His sacrifice for us.

quote:
You are not reading what I have posted. I have said they were ready to make Him king because of the multiplication of the loaves and the realization of him crossing the lake without a boat. Yet you believe after they wanting to make Him king they turn on him because of a metaphor which is not logical or would not even be charitable on Jesus' part.

Jesus' own words provide the reason why they followed after Him:

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” -John 6:26-27

Jesus knew they weren't following Him because they wanted Him and the life that He provides. They were excited by the miracles because of what the miracles could provide. They cared not for the miracles pointing to Jesus as Messiah, and that's why Jesus went on to talk about feeding on Him and believing in Him for eternal life. Jesus is the source of life, not the miracles or the results of those miracles (like the bread).

quote:
I did not ignore; you are not reading or comprehending. Jesus was rebuking their unbelief because they were thinking worldly(from follower to walking away/ denial) and not thinking/ believing spiritually.

I actually agree with you here, but not in how I assume you meant. It wasn't Jesus' carnal flesh and blood that they didn't believe in, but what they pointed to or would do. Jesus was chiding those followers for seeking those things He provided in miracles (such as the bread) instead of seeking Christ, Himself, who is the source of eternal life.

In a previous post, I listed several other metaphors Jesus used for Himself, and in all those examples, Jesus was explaining that He was the Messiah that came to provide eternal life. The metaphors were illustrations or pictures to provide a spiritual truth. Jesus was doing the same thing here. The focus, therefore, isn't on physical blood and flesh, but on belief in Christ's role through the Spirit. It's why the flesh doesn't provide life, but the Spirit. Jesus even said it's His words that are spirit and life (as opposed to His literal flesh and blood being ingested) in verse 63.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Freauxzen

Utah

Member since Feb 2006

37258 posts

Posted on 7/21/21 at 2:36 pm to Freauxzen

I'm going to go ahead and bump so people see the actual connection that some want to ignore. We were doing this in a few threads, if people don't get the connection to homosexuality in the church(and in general) and pedophilia in the church, well here you go. These are not, and have never been, separate things:

LINK

quote:
I’m going to guess that other people have already sent this to you, but the General Secretary of the USCCB resigned today in disgrace, over allegations of sexual misconduct, “not with a minor.” This guy was on Grindr, going to gay bars, and bringing rent boys to pieds-a-terre, in multiple locations, and even whilst traveling on USCCB business. And this has demonstrably been going on for years.

This priest has been a high official of the USCCB since 2016. And the evidence says that he has been engaging in this behavior since almost the beginning. Which almost certainly means it was going on before he went there.

Rod, this is HUGE. In articles he is described as being “responsible for sex abuse cases“ and being a sort of administrator. But he was the equivalent of the CEO of the United States’ bishops’ official organization. In some respects he had more power than many bishops.

quote:
Furthermore, priest employees of the USCCB are supposedly subject to very intense vetting. I know of this both first and secondhand. Mostly what the Conference is looking for is what has been termed “French-cuffed moderates.” These are priests who have learned to be smooth, work the system, never say anything that will create controversy, etc. But they also supposedly look into a priest’s background to make sure that he is “suitable” and won’t turn into a source of scandal. Obviously that sort of vetting failed in this instance.

Or perhaps “failure“ is not the correct term. Given that this priest had been engaged in this sort of behavior for so long and so comprehensively (even whilst traveling on USCCB business, for God’s sake!) there’s no way that some of his confreres and even some bishops didn’t know about this. This guy was groomed and prepared and protected to get to his position. Make no mistake. If the church is fortunate, he or someone who know will spill the beans, and other shoes will drop. God send that that will happen!

quote:
Do you remember who was put in charge of the USCCB’s initial 2002 response to the Catholic sex abuse scandal? Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

quote:
This was a lie for the press to consume, and to distract the Catholic faithful. We have learned in recent years that the Vatican knew about McCarrick’s molestation of seminarians even before 2002. Nobody in authority cared!

Nineteen years since McCarrick made these statements, we now find out that the top administrator at the USCCB is a gay sex freak priest who regularly used hook-up apps to arrange sex for himself.

quote:
Sipe, who is now dead, told me in an interview back in 2002 that gay men should not be admitted to seminary, for their own protection. Sipe was an old church liberal. I don’t know what his views were on the suitability of gay men for ordination in theory. His argument was that they were in danger of sexual predation if they entered the seminary. Why? Because, said Sipe, the Catholic seminaries (at the time) were often hothouses of gay sex, and were run by priests who kept them that way on purpose. Sipe told me that a young man with same-sex desires would be constantly hit on in seminary. If he succumbed even once, he would have compromised himself within the lavender mafia, and even if he never fell again, he would be known throughout the national network as tamed. This also explains, said Sipe, why so many gay priests who did not molest children or minors didn’t report it: because they knew that because they were sexually active gay men, and known to be so, they were vulnerable to blackmail by sexual abusers.

And so, in the Year of Our Lord 2021, nineteen years after Boston, and three years after the Church moved against Theodore McCarrick, it fell to faithful Catholic journalists to reveal that the top administrative official at the USCCB, the man in charge of leading the US bishops’ response to sex abuse, is in fact a sexually compulsive closet case.

This post was edited on 7/21/21 at 2:40 pm

Page First 41 42 43