This is my body - no metaphysical change required

pilgrim

Well-known member
Pilgrim;
Are you that desperate to defend the undefendable
that you revert to replies as that ???

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

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
They didn't understand what Jesus said. But they believed in Him.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Pilgrim;
Are you that desperate to defend the undefendable
that you revert to replies as that ???

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

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
The indefensible is the idea that Jesus, who desires that all be saved, would purposely offend people with "symbolism" when He could have easily picked a different symbol OR NONE AT ALL. Indefensible is the idea that Jesus would intentionally MISLEAD others and then watch them walk away for no real reason. IF the people understood symbols before (door, gate) with no problem, then they should have understood His meaning this time.

They did understand. ALL PRESENT HEARD JESUS SPEAK LITERALLY.
 

balshan

Well-known member
The indefensible is the idea that Jesus, who desires that all be saved, would purposely offend people with "symbolism" when He could have easily picked a different symbol OR NONE AT ALL. Indefensible is the idea that Jesus would intentionally MISLEAD others and then watch them walk away for no real reason. IF the people understood symbols before (door, gate) with no problem, then they should have understood His meaning this time.

They did understand. ALL PRESENT HEARD JESUS SPEAK LITERALLY.
That is a false statement. Jesus used symbolism to help people understand something spiritual. People were offended because they did not want to know the truth. It is indefensible to think Jesus would cause people to disobey God's commandments about consuming blood and human flesh.

You are deliberately bearing false witness with your false claims - no one has said Jesus purposely offended people, no one said Jesus intentional mislead others those are your words and those words are deliberately offensive and are intended to mislead others about what non RCs are posting.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
That is a false statement. Jesus used symbolism to help people understand something spiritual. People were offended because they did not want to know the truth. It is indefensible to think Jesus would cause people to disobey God's commandments about consuming blood and human flesh.

You are deliberately bearing false witness with your false claims - no one has said Jesus purposely offended people, no one said Jesus intentional mislead others those are your words and those words are deliberately offensive and are intended to mislead others about what non RCs are posting.
And then Protestants say they misunderstood Him. So yours is the false statement.
Too bad a Protestant wasn't there. It could have been so easily cleared up!
 

balshan

Well-known member
And then Protestants say they misunderstood Him. So yours is the false statement.
Too bad a Protestant wasn't there. It could have been so easily cleared up!
They say who misunderstood who or what? Your post is unclear.

No you make the false statement. The apostles and the disciples do not misunderstand Jesus.

Too bad for RCs they weren't there, it would have been cleared up for them.

Of course God had these written down because He knew we would not be there and we can understand when His son was speaking symbolically, if we are not spiritually blind like the RCC. They prefer to follow the pagan ways of eating gods. Obviously His son would not have us breaking His commandments about consuming flesh and blood which your RC false understanding does.
 

balshan

Well-known member
They say who misunderstood who or what? Your post is unclear.

No you make the false statement. The apostles and the disciples do not misunderstand Jesus.

Too bad for RCs they weren't there, it would have been cleared up for them.

Of course God had these written down because He knew we would not be there and we can understand when His son was speaking symbolically, if we are not spiritually blind like the RCC. They prefer to follow the pagan ways of eating gods. Obviously His son would not have us breaking His commandments about consuming flesh and blood which your RC false understanding does.
I see no answers.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
They say who misunderstood who or what? Your post is unclear.

No you make the false statement. The apostles and the disciples do not misunderstand Jesus.

Too bad for RCs they weren't there, it would have been cleared up for them.

Of course God had these written down because He knew we would not be there and we can understand when His son was speaking symbolically, if we are not spiritually blind like the RCC. They prefer to follow the pagan ways of eating gods. Obviously His son would not have us breaking His commandments about consuming flesh and blood which your RC false understanding does.
They = those who heard Jesus speak.

Scripture says "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Protestants say "This is an easy teaching. It's just a symbol."

Which should we believe?
 

bluedog1us

Well-known member
They = those who heard Jesus speak.

Scripture says "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Protestants say "This is an easy teaching. It's just a symbol."

Which should we believe?
Peter sums it all up in verse 69 of John 6. He and all the faithful disciples BELIEVED. Jesus was speaking of FAITH in Him. NOT literally eating His flesh and blood, but putting one's faith and trust in Jesus.

69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
 

balshan

Well-known member
They = those who heard Jesus speak.

Scripture says "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Protestants say "This is an easy teaching. It's just a symbol."

Which should we believe?
We should believe that Jesus would never tell others to break the commandments and consume blood for a start. I find it amazing that RCs keep going on about we must keep the commandments and then break them every Sunday.

It is easy to those who are saved, real followers of Jesus who have spiritual eyes and ears and a Christlike mind. It is hard for those who follow men.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Peter sums it all up in verse 69 of John 6. He and all the faithful disciples BELIEVED. Jesus was speaking of FAITH in Him. NOT literally eating His flesh and blood, but putting one's faith and trust in Jesus.

69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.

That's what they believed.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Matt.13:51
51 Jesus saith unto them,
Have ye understood all these things?
They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

52 Then said he unto them,
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven
is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.

That's what they believed.
Pilgrim;
Are you saying Peter had not been instructed
about the things of the Kingdom???

and when Christ instituted something New
a fufillment of the Old Passover

Peter did not understand

W-o-W is all I can say


Really
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
No, we do not almost always suppose that this change is the ONLY way possible for the bread to become the Body of Christ, anymore than we almost always suppose that the only way for Christ to redeem us was to die on a cross.

Oh really?

Then explain for us how the bread can be/become the true body of Christ apart from Transubstantiation.

We believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ becasue Christ said they do--not becasue that is the only possibility,

Okay, I can see that this went right over your head again.

Can you think of any other way besides Transubstantiation that they bread becomes the body of Christ?

just like we believe Christ died on the cross to redeem us---becasue that is what Christ did--not becasue it was the only way possible for Christ to redeem us.

What does what a bunch of dissenting theologians think have to do with anything?

Well the Pope and Magesterius were quite concerned about it weren't they?

If I pointed you to Protestant theologians who dissent on Biblical teaching regarding homosexuality--and argue that the Church misunderstood the commands against homosexuality--that homosexuality is never used in Scripture, rather the word should be translated effeminate, blah, blah, blah--would you go "Oh, well, I guess if a bunch of theologians are claiming this, we should re-examine our beliefs regarding homosexuality?"

You never addressed the point.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The Bread of Life discourse is not a parable or symbol. What is difficult about a symbol? Do Protestants have difficulty in understanding symbols? No. Neither did the Jews. And yet those present said it was a hard teaching. You do not understand what the bread of Life is if you think it is simply a symbol.

The Bread of Life discourse is where John 1:14 is completely explained.

Edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pilgrim

Well-known member
The Bread of Life discourse is where John 1:14 is completely explained.

It went right over your head.
That's right. The word "flesh" in John 1:14 and John 6:51 is the same word - "sarx".

The Word became flesh (sarx) and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh (sarx).”
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That's right. The word "flesh" in John 1:14 and John 6:51 is the same word - "sarx".

That's right.

The Word became flesh (sarx) and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh (sarx).”

This isn't helping you.

Go back to verse 4:34 and think about it a little bit.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Yes it is. Go back to John 6:51:
"this bread ...is My flesh (sarx)."

Yeah that's right.

He also said his flesh is the bread that came down from heaven.

It's still Edit per mod. It appears that you don't any idea that Jesus is explaining how the word became flesh in this discourse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Oh really? Then explain for us how the bread can be/become the true body of Christ apart from Transubstantiation.
I have no idea how that can happen, but you miss my point.
Can you think of any other way besides Transubstantiation that they bread becomes the body of Christ?
No, but then again, I can't think of any other way God could save us aside from the Cross either.

Could God save us another way? Well, I would think so. God is God. God can do anything He wants. Is there another way besides Transubstantiation that the bread and wine could be transformed into the Body/Blood of Christ? I would think so there too.

But we live in THIS universe that God has created--and in THIS universe there are no other possibilities.

Well the Pope and Magesterius were quite concerned about it weren't they?
?????
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
That's right.



This isn't helping you.

Go back to verse 4:34 and think about it a little bit.
John 6: 54 Whoever eats my flesh (sarx) and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh (sarx) is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh (sarx) and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I have no idea how that can happen, but you miss my point.

No I don't miss any point. The OP is the point and you obviously missed the point.

It is not necessary for a metaphysical change to occur for the bread to become the true body of Christ.

But Catholics assume otherwise as your posts in this OP have already proven.

No, but then again, I can't think of any other way God could save us aside from the Cross either.

Could God save us another way? Well, I would think so. God is God. God can do anything He wants. Is there another way besides Transubstantiation that the bread and wine could be transformed into the Body/Blood of Christ? I would think so there too.

But we live in THIS universe that God has created--and in THIS universe there are no other possibilities.


?????
 
Top