Hath Everklasting Life?

[larry2]

John 6:54   He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

What does this mean in the Catholic Church?

[LightHammer]

On my way to the gym.

Quick response: By participating in the Eucharist we receive grace. Grace is the uncreated energy of God (Life). Basically the Eucharist is the nourishment of our born again persons.

My understanding of the Catholuc position. Subject to error. Will provide a more official answe later.

[mclees8]

On my way to the gym.

Quick response: By participating in the Eucharist we receive grace. Grace is the uncreated energy of God (Life). Basically the Eucharist is the nourishment of our born again persons.

My understanding of the Catholuc position. Subject to error. Will provide a more official answe later.

So then who is a born again person? Born again of the spirit. Catholic take that is.

[forklift]

On my way to the gym.

Quick response: By participating in the Eucharist we receive grace. Grace is the uncreated energy of God (Life). Basically the Eucharist is the nourishment of our born again persons.

My understanding of the Catholuc position. Subject to error. Will provide a more official answe later.

So then who is a born again person? Born again of the spirit. Catholic take that is.

Born again is not really a term that we use, though there is nothing wrong with it. To answer your question, a person that is born again would be someone that has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Someone that has accepted Jesus into their lives and is trying to live their life in a way that would honor him.


To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

[larry2]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

[mclees8]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Definately the catholic take.

Let me ask you when you partake the Eucharist do you use wine or grape Juice? You say the priest blesses it and it is changed to his real blood. What does it taste like when you drink it. What does the wafer taste like when you eat it? Like flesh or a wafer of bread?

[LightHammer]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Definately the catholic take.

Let me ask you when you partake the Eucharist do you use wine or grape Juice? You say the priest blesses it and it is changed to his real blood. What does it taste like when you drink it. What does the wafer taste like when you eat it? Like flesh or a wafer of bread?

It should tatse and look the same obviously.

[mclees8]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Definately the catholic take.

Let me ask you when you partake the Eucharist do you use wine or grape Juice? You say the priest blesses it and it is changed to his real blood. What does it taste like when you drink it. What does the wafer taste like when you eat it? Like flesh or a wafer of bread?

It should tatse and look the same obviously.

I would ask why? is it not changed?

Obviously  of course because it is not changed to blood or the wafer to flesh at all. This is false teaching. Even at the last supper when we read it we can see clearly it is a symbolic remembrance. Jesus did not bless the bread and wine to make it change into his own flesh and blood. I believe if it did the apostles would clearly have known it. This is common sense. We remember Jesus by the ordinance respecting Jesus sacrifice for us. This is clearly the one tradition that we must show our love and respect through out the age.

[LightHammer]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Definately the catholic take.

Let me ask you when you partake the Eucharist do you use wine or grape Juice? You say the priest blesses it and it is changed to his real blood. What does it taste like when you drink it. What does the wafer taste like when you eat it? Like flesh or a wafer of bread?

It should tatse and look the same obviously.

I would ask why? is it not changed?

Obviously  of course because it is not changed to blood or the wafer to flesh at all. This is false teaching. Even at the last supper when we read it we can see clearly it is a symbolic remembrance. Jesus did not bless the bread and wine to make it change into his own flesh and blood. I believe if it did the apostles would clearly have known it. This is common sense. We remember Jesus by the ordinance respecting Jesus sacrifice for us. This is clearly the one tradition that we must show our love and respect through out the age.

Christ changed the substance of the bread and wine into His flesh and blood but it retained the accidents therein.

The mystery is not entirely unique in the Bible. God manifested Himself as a blazing fire enveloping a bush in yet the bush was not burned up. By your faulty logic because the fire did not act as fire does and consumed the bush it was not fire at all. Because the transformation of the elements does not present body and blood as it is then its not body and blood at all.

Seeing how Christ walked on water and is fully God and fully man at the same time, I would imagine that something as trivial as retaining the accidents of bread and wine after being consecrated into body and blood should be easy to deal with.

[mclees8]

To the op, are you speaking of the blue part of the scripture, or the scripture as a whole?

You may address the entire verse if you want to, but I have in mind the words "Hath everlasting life." Does that mean eternal life, or conditional life. To limit the safety suggested in the word "Everlasting" would seem to diminish the quality of the remainder of the scripture.

I do have the following expounding referring to the verse:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 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. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Definately the catholic take.

Let me ask you when you partake the Eucharist do you use wine or grape Juice? You say the priest blesses it and it is changed to his real blood. What does it taste like when you drink it. What does the wafer taste like when you eat it? Like flesh or a wafer of bread?

It should tatse and look the same obviously.

I would ask why? is it not changed?

Obviously  of course because it is not changed to blood or the wafer to flesh at all. This is false teaching. Even at the last supper when we read it we can see clearly it is a symbolic remembrance. Jesus did not bless the bread and wine to make it change into his own flesh and blood. I believe if it did the apostles would clearly have known it. This is common sense. We remember Jesus by the ordinance respecting Jesus sacrifice for us. This is clearly the one tradition that we must show our love and respect through out the age.

Christ changed the substance of the bread and wine into His flesh and blood but it retained the accidents therein.

The mystery is not entirely unique in the Bible. God manifested Himself as a blazing fire enveloping a bush in yet the bush was not burned up. By your faulty logic because the fire did not act as fire does and consumed the bush it was not fire at all. Because the transformation of the elements does not present body and blood as it is then its not body and blood at all.

Seeing how Christ walked on water and is fully God and fully man at the same time, I would imagine that something as trivial as retaining the accidents of bread and wine after being consecrated into body and blood should be easy to deal with.

I don't usually argue about this even though I don't believe transubstantiation. Let all be done in purity of heart. I was just courious as to your answer. However I don not believe that catholic should say that believeing it is symbolic should be criticized  believerse that they are not obeying Christ by what they believe. As already said let all have purity of heart.