One Mediator

[Catholica]

And Catholics do open their hearts to the Father but that doesn't preclude other things.



You probably get fed up with me keep saying "In your opinion" but that's what they are.

Frankly I get very irritated that Protestants constantly demand that Catholics prove things from the Bible but don't seem to think the same applies to them, or that their personal opinion is as good as a quote from the Bible.

In this thread there has been only one quote from the Bible from a Protestant, and that an irrelevant one, but dozens of personal opinions.

You choose to do battle with the ignorant as opposed to answering the more reasonable.

Yes, I probably should just ignore AVZ

No I meant some maybe are rude and blunt towards your beliefs. I think there are valid objections made, which are based on scripture.
It is very easy to be suspicious of Catholic methods, as you guys are not as transparent as Protestants, in my opinion  .

Not transparent?  We are like, the only church group that lays everything out in a big catechism for the whole world to see.  Save for maybe the Lutherans, but really no one cares what they believe anymore.

[FireSword]

When you guys call Mary the Queen of heaven and then build shrines, which in scripture  is denied by Jesus on the mount of transfiguration and only built by the Greeks, then suspicion arises about whether your trying to pull a fast one. 

[mclees8]

"Was Jesus insulted because Paul didn't go directly to him but asked others to pray for him?"

Ummmm, Jesus had already ascended....

We are forbidden to try to contact the spirits of those who are no longer in their bodies (is that the best way of saying it?).  So we ask Christian friends to join us in prayer.  This is Biblical.  Praying to a departed person is not.

The Bible speaks on terms of conjuring the dead, or necromancy, which the Church has always condemned- even put people to death for.

This is sort of the issue with not having proper priests explain the Bible for you, but I suppose that's another subject.

So then it is OK if I make a statue representing that person, say that he is in heaven, bend my knees and pray to him?

It's not any different then you kneeling to a cross and praying on a church bench. A Persian death stick- an object. When a Catholic kneels to a statue, it is simply an appeal to the person who is praying. It is not a lordship they are kneeling to, but a reverence to an elder brother.

You know, those such as yourself should just be ashamed of bearing false witness in that respect. Remember the Pharisees and how they went about others? They stood around pointing fingers, trying to find fault in anything that didn't uphold their irritating grandness. Well, lo and behold, you all demonstrate just that in regards to this.

I think it is different. We no the cross is just a symbol and when most protestants pray they do not kneel down to it as if it was Jesus. Praying at the alter or from a pew has nothing to do with A cross hanging on the wall. There could not even be a cross there because its not the focus for prayer. What Catholics do is all based on objects for prayer thinking it makes you more connected somehow. Do you ever pray alone in a room with no statues, rosaries,  or crusefixes with  Christ on it?  maybe your bedroom on your knees or anyplace alone on your knees .  Do you think you could be in the spirit with Christ praying only to Him right then.

Just curious

[Catholica]

Firesword, the Israelites were always building altars. Jesus didn't say to not build shrines.

[FireSword]

Firesword, the Israelites were always building altars. Jesus didn't say to not build shrines.

Altars to the Lord, not to people.

[BlackSepulcher]

"Was Jesus insulted because Paul didn't go directly to him but asked others to pray for him?"

Ummmm, Jesus had already ascended....

We are forbidden to try to contact the spirits of those who are no longer in their bodies (is that the best way of saying it?).  So we ask Christian friends to join us in prayer.  This is Biblical.  Praying to a departed person is not.

The Bible speaks on terms of conjuring the dead, or necromancy, which the Church has always condemned- even put people to death for.

This is sort of the issue with not having proper priests explain the Bible for you, but I suppose that's another subject.

So then it is OK if I make a statue representing that person, say that he is in heaven, bend my knees and pray to him?

It's not any different then you kneeling to a cross and praying on a church bench. A Persian death stick- an object. When a Catholic kneels to a statue, it is simply an appeal to the person who is praying. It is not a lordship they are kneeling to, but a reverence to an elder brother.

You know, those such as yourself should just be ashamed of bearing false witness in that respect. Remember the Pharisees and how they went about others? They stood around pointing fingers, trying to find fault in anything that didn't uphold their irritating grandness. Well, lo and behold, you all demonstrate just that in regards to this.

I think it is different. We no the cross is just a symbol and when most protestants pray they do not kneel down to it as if it was Jesus. Praying at the alter or from a pew has nothing to do with A cross hanging on the wall. There could not even be a cross there because its not the focus for prayer. What Catholics do is all based on objects for prayer thinking it makes you more connected somehow. Do you ever pray alone in a room with no statues, rosaries,  or crusefixes with  Christ on it?  maybe your bedroom on your knees or anyplace alone on your knees .  Do you think you could be in the spirit with Christ praying only to Him right then.

Just curious

Catholics enjoy the chivalry of Catholicism, it is really just that simple- Catholic belief is very big on that context. Kneeling to a statue is a way a Catholic enunciates their faith and desires in light of the saints, it doesn't need to be explained, it is whatever the feel is necessary to them. It does not merit anyone to question it further after having it explained that is not idolatry. The Church explains it, proves it, and so it should be let alone- if you don't find enough reverence in saints to speak to them, then you don't have to, it is not a requirement.

[mclees8]

"Was Jesus insulted because Paul didn't go directly to him but asked others to pray for him?"

Ummmm, Jesus had already ascended....

We are forbidden to try to contact the spirits of those who are no longer in their bodies (is that the best way of saying it?).  So we ask Christian friends to join us in prayer.  This is Biblical.  Praying to a departed person is not.

The Bible speaks on terms of conjuring the dead, or necromancy, which the Church has always condemned- even put people to death for.

This is sort of the issue with not having proper priests explain the Bible for you, but I suppose that's another subject.

So then it is OK if I make a statue representing that person, say that he is in heaven, bend my knees and pray to him?

It's not any different then you kneeling to a cross and praying on a church bench. A Persian death stick- an object. When a Catholic kneels to a statue, it is simply an appeal to the person who is praying. It is not a lordship they are kneeling to, but a reverence to an elder brother.

You know, those such as yourself should just be ashamed of bearing false witness in that respect. Remember the Pharisees and how they went about others? They stood around pointing fingers, trying to find fault in anything that didn't uphold their irritating grandness. Well, lo and behold, you all demonstrate just that in regards to this.

I think it is different. We no the cross is just a symbol and when most protestants pray they do not kneel down to it as if it was Jesus. Praying at the alter or from a pew has nothing to do with A cross hanging on the wall. There could not even be a cross there because its not the focus for prayer. What Catholics do is all based on objects for prayer thinking it makes you more connected somehow. Do you ever pray alone in a room with no statues, rosaries,  or crusefixes with  Christ on it?  maybe your bedroom on your knees or anyplace alone on your knees .  Do you think you could be in the spirit with Christ praying only to Him right then.

Just curious

Catholics enjoy the chivalry of Catholicism, it is really just that simple- Catholic belief is very big on that context. Kneeling to a statue is a way a Catholic enunciates their faith and desires in light of the saints, it doesn't need to be explained, it is whatever the feel is necessary to them. It does not merit anyone to question it further after having it explained that is not idolatry. The Church explains it, proves it, and so it should be let alone- if you don't find enough reverence in saints to speak to them, then you don't have to, it is not a requirement.

Chivalry of Catholicism ?   

I don't really think you answered the question. Enunciate is still somewhat vague. The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

[Catholica]

Firesword, the Israelites were always building altars. Jesus didn't say to not build shrines.

Altars to the Lord, not to people.

Altars were built on places where God did great things either directly or through his people. 
The altars in our shrines are altars to the Lord, not to people.

[winsome]

"Was Jesus insulted because Paul didn't go directly to him but asked others to pray for him?"

Ummmm, Jesus had already ascended....

We are forbidden to try to contact the spirits of those who are no longer in their bodies (is that the best way of saying it?).  So we ask Christian friends to join us in prayer.  This is Biblical.  Praying to a departed person is not.

The Bible speaks on terms of conjuring the dead, or necromancy, which the Church has always condemned- even put people to death for.

This is sort of the issue with not having proper priests explain the Bible for you, but I suppose that's another subject.

So then it is OK if I make a statue representing that person, say that he is in heaven, bend my knees and pray to him?

It's not any different then you kneeling to a cross and praying on a church bench. A Persian death stick- an object. When a Catholic kneels to a statue, it is simply an appeal to the person who is praying. It is not a lordship they are kneeling to, but a reverence to an elder brother.

You know, those such as yourself should just be ashamed of bearing false witness in that respect. Remember the Pharisees and how they went about others? They stood around pointing fingers, trying to find fault in anything that didn't uphold their irritating grandness. Well, lo and behold, you all demonstrate just that in regards to this.

I think it is different. We no the cross is just a symbol and when most protestants pray they do not kneel down to it as if it was Jesus. Praying at the alter or from a pew has nothing to do with A cross hanging on the wall. There could not even be a cross there because its not the focus for prayer. What Catholics do is all based on objects for prayer thinking it makes you more connected somehow. Do you ever pray alone in a room with no statues, rosaries,  or crusefixes with  Christ on it?  maybe your bedroom on your knees or anyplace alone on your knees .  Do you think you could be in the spirit with Christ praying only to Him right then.

Just curious

Catholics enjoy the chivalry of Catholicism, it is really just that simple- Catholic belief is very big on that context. Kneeling to a statue is a way a Catholic enunciates their faith and desires in light of the saints, it doesn't need to be explained, it is whatever the feel is necessary to them. It does not merit anyone to question it further after having it explained that is not idolatry. The Church explains it, proves it, and so it should be let alone- if you don't find enough reverence in saints to speak to them, then you don't have to, it is not a requirement.

Chivalry of Catholicism ?   

I don't really think you answered the question. Enunciate is still somewhat vague. The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

Of course we can and should have a close relationship with Christ without "these acts" as you put it. How much more intimate can you get than receiving him in Holy Communion?

However Mary and the Saints are part of our family. When we are received into the new covenant we join a family - those who have gone before; those who have have run the race to the finish and received the crown of righteousness (2Tim 4:7- 8). They are our ancestors in faith. We honour them.

The writer of Hebrews uses the image of running a race with those who have gone before us cheering us on. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us." (Heb 12:1).

We are all part of the one Body of Christ.

[BlackSepulcher]

"Was Jesus insulted because Paul didn't go directly to him but asked others to pray for him?"

Ummmm, Jesus had already ascended....

We are forbidden to try to contact the spirits of those who are no longer in their bodies (is that the best way of saying it?).  So we ask Christian friends to join us in prayer.  This is Biblical.  Praying to a departed person is not.

The Bible speaks on terms of conjuring the dead, or necromancy, which the Church has always condemned- even put people to death for.

This is sort of the issue with not having proper priests explain the Bible for you, but I suppose that's another subject.

So then it is OK if I make a statue representing that person, say that he is in heaven, bend my knees and pray to him?

It's not any different then you kneeling to a cross and praying on a church bench. A Persian death stick- an object. When a Catholic kneels to a statue, it is simply an appeal to the person who is praying. It is not a lordship they are kneeling to, but a reverence to an elder brother.

You know, those such as yourself should just be ashamed of bearing false witness in that respect. Remember the Pharisees and how they went about others? They stood around pointing fingers, trying to find fault in anything that didn't uphold their irritating grandness. Well, lo and behold, you all demonstrate just that in regards to this.

I think it is different. We no the cross is just a symbol and when most protestants pray they do not kneel down to it as if it was Jesus. Praying at the alter or from a pew has nothing to do with A cross hanging on the wall. There could not even be a cross there because its not the focus for prayer. What Catholics do is all based on objects for prayer thinking it makes you more connected somehow. Do you ever pray alone in a room with no statues, rosaries,  or crusefixes with  Christ on it?  maybe your bedroom on your knees or anyplace alone on your knees .  Do you think you could be in the spirit with Christ praying only to Him right then.

Just curious

Catholics enjoy the chivalry of Catholicism, it is really just that simple- Catholic belief is very big on that context. Kneeling to a statue is a way a Catholic enunciates their faith and desires in light of the saints, it doesn't need to be explained, it is whatever the feel is necessary to them. It does not merit anyone to question it further after having it explained that is not idolatry. The Church explains it, proves it, and so it should be let alone- if you don't find enough reverence in saints to speak to them, then you don't have to, it is not a requirement.

Chivalry of Catholicism ?   

I don't really think you answered the question. Enunciate is still somewhat vague. The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

Yes, the chivalry of God's Kingdom. As in, it is a *kingdom*, with Christ as king and us as the people, and the Church holds to the archaic values of such. In a broad sense, the Church simply keeps that real- we honor the saints the same way God honors us, it is an aspect of participation in which Christ delights in.
Hence, the Kingdom of God.

In reality, it's really the other way around- when you pray only to Jesus, you are dismissing yourself from part of the working. It is sufficient, no doubt, but it is also good to go that extra mile and approach the saints. In that, you are pouring yourself into the holy workings collectively.

It really isn't that hard to understand, it's just alien to Protestants because, as I have stated before, there is only a focus on essentials. The Church greatly encourages a relationship with Christ specifically, it is still a Christian church no matter how much it may differ from denominations.

[Catholica]

The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

One would have to redefine "close connection" to do so.  That is, they would have to lower the bar as to what a close connection would be.  The better question would be "do Catholics feel that we can have a close connection at times where we are not partaking in the sacraments, and the answer is "absolutely yes". 

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

[Helen]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

[winsome]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

What has Romans 8 got to do with it? This is just another personal opinion dressed up with a vague reference to try and give the impression of a biblical argument

Suppose I reply - You are wrong! The Bible

Can Protestants not put together a structured argument? Do they even know what one is?

[Helen]

You evidently do no know what Romans 8 says.  Here are the first 17 verses:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.  For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,  that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.  For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.  So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.  And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.  But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.  For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."  The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,  and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

So, again, how much closer can one get to Christ than if His Spirit is living within one?  I find it terribly sad that Catholics do not read, or seem to know, the Bible on their own.  After all, if fishermen could understand Scripture, we certainly should be able to, without any "authority" explaining it to us.  It's pretty clear. 

In addition, while I m here -- if Christ is in us through His precious Holy Spirit, why pray to Mary or any other departed person?  That's really quite an insult to Christ.

[Catholica]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.  John 6:53. 

[Catholica]

if fishermen could understand Scripture, we certainly should be able to, without any "authority" explaining it to us.  It's pretty clear. 

I find it strange that people who are smart like you seem to be don't see the contradictions to this statement, played out in all of reality.  If the scriptures are so easy to "understand" without any authority explaining it to us, then why are there so many varied opinions about what scriptures says?

These fishermen didn't figure out the gospel from scripture.  They received the true teaching of the gospel from God, and then some of them composed scripture.  And in fact Jesus interpreted every prophecy of the OT to them that pertained to him.

The apostles, in short, received true teaching first, and then produced both scripture and correct interpretation of that on to their disciples.  Very unlike what you propose.

In addition, while I m here -- if Christ is in us through His precious Holy Spirit, why pray to Mary or any other departed person?  That's really quite an insult to Christ.

Is asking your neighbor to pray for you an insult to Christ as well?

[FireSword]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.  John 6:53.

That scripture must be harmonized with the others. The conclusion must be to accept Jesus as Lord and saviour to have life eternal. John 6:53 makes no sense without this context.

[Catholica]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.  John 6:53.

That scripture must be harmonized with the others. The conclusion must be to accept Jesus as Lord and saviour to have life eternal. John 6:53 makes no sense without this context.

It makes sense to me, and it harmonizes to me.

[FireSword]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.  John 6:53.

That scripture must be harmonized with the others. The conclusion must be to accept Jesus as Lord and saviour to have life eternal. John 6:53 makes no sense without this context.

It makes sense to me, and it harmonizes to me.

No, its just something you were taught to do. If the scripture was taken at face value then what the catholic teaches about salvation through baptism is wrong and so is the Protestant based churches. Taken literally the verse says if you don't drink the blood and eat the body of Christ you abide in death, this statement contradicts the other verses that speak of accepting Christ with mouth is the key to eternal life and being baptized.

[Catholica]

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot get any closer.  Sacraments are totally unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is within you.  Romans 8

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.  John 6:53.

That scripture must be harmonized with the others. The conclusion must be to accept Jesus as Lord and saviour to have life eternal. John 6:53 makes no sense without this context.

It makes sense to me, and it harmonizes to me.

No, its just something you were taught to do. If the scripture was taken at face value then what the catholic teaches about salvation through baptism is wrong and so is the Protestant based churches. Taken literally the verse says if you don't drink the blood and eat the body of Christ you abide in death, this statement contradicts the other verses that speak of accepting Christ with mouth is the key to eternal life and being baptized.

The answer is simple: which is that Jesus was using hyperbole to emphasize the importance of this doctrine.  This is a common method in rabbinic teaching.  For example, Paul says "all have sinned" and "there is no one righteous, no not one".  Both of these are in contradiction with scriptures unless you consider them hyperbole to prove a point.  For example, the Bible calls St. Joseph a "righteous man".  And also babies in the womb are incapable of sin.  Also Jesus did not sin.

Jesus uses the hyperbole of "no life" to emphasize how very important it is to receive the Eucharist in order to finally persevere to life everlasting, and to renew that life in our soul in the here and now.

That is not to say that the teaching on baptism is also true, that baptism brings life to the soul and regenerates us and makes us worthy of eternal life.  The Eucharist is a supernatural sustenance that refreshes us on the journey, when received in the state of grace we enter through baptism and through repentance.

[Catholica]

Firesword, also the words for "eat" are progressively more explicit that he means to physically eat.  While phago means in general to eat food, the last instance translated as "eat" is trogo, which is always used in scripture to mean to chew or gnaw, like an animal.  And then the disciples turn away and Jesus doesn't stop them.

This is a hard teaching, especially hard for the Jews, who were expressly prohibited from drinking animal blood, as "the life is in the blood".  Jesus' life is also in his blood.  And the blood of Jesus continues to wash us clean through the Eucharist.

[Catholica]

Why is there so much pride among people to think that just because some Catholics don't know their faith, and have no clue how to explain it, to think that in fact there might be a very good explanation which some Catholics actually understand and can justify and explain?

[Helen]

The Catholics are taking John 6:53 out of context.  Let's start at the beginning of this teaching:

25 And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?"

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.  27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"

29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?  31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.  33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always."

35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.   36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.  37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.  38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.  39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.  40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Rejected by His Own

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."  42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.  44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.  45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.  46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.  47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.  48 I am the bread of life.  49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.  50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.  51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"

53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.  54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.  56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.  58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?  62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?  63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.  64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

The little crackers are not Jesus flesh.  He is not crucified over and over.  They do not magically become Jesus' flesh.  The wine or grape juice does not magically become His blood.  They are symbols and used as reminders, and that is all.  It is Spirit that gives life.  Nothing you take into your body by way of your mouth can do that or maintain it spiritually.

Jesus told us to partake of the bread and wine "in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)  That's all.  That's enough. 

[Helen]

Firesword, also the words for "eat" are progressively more explicit that he means to physically eat.  While phago means in general to eat food, the last instance translated as "eat" is trogo, which is always used in scripture to mean to chew or gnaw, like an animal.  And then the disciples turn away and Jesus doesn't stop them.

This is a hard teaching, especially hard for the Jews, who were expressly prohibited from drinking animal blood, as "the life is in the blood".  Jesus' life is also in his blood.  And the blood of Jesus continues to wash us clean through the Eucharist.

Jesus defined what he meant in John 6:35:  "I am the bread of life.  He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

He equates the eating with coming to Him and the drinking with believing in Him.  Bible explains Bible, and the Lord explains Himself. 

[Helen]

That is not to say that the teaching on baptism is also true, that baptism brings life to the soul and regenerates us and makes us worthy of eternal life.  The Eucharist is a supernatural sustenance that refreshes us on the journey, when received in the state of grace we enter through baptism and through repentance.

Absolutely false.  God and only God brings life.  NOTHING a man can do will ever alter that.  Nor does baptism make anyone worthy of anything except perhaps a towel to dry off with.  Eternal life is a gift from God because of the worthiness of Christ.  We, on our own, regardless of anything we could ever do, could ever, ever be counted worthy on our own. 

Grace is through Christ and through Him only. 

[mclees8]

The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

One would have to redefine "close connection" to do so.  That is, they would have to lower the bar as to what a close connection would be.  The better question would be "do Catholics feel that we can have a close connection at times where we are not partaking in the sacraments, and the answer is "absolutely yes". 

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

I f you had that connection which is a vital and personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit being born again you would not even have to ask about clearer definition, you would simply know what it means. Since then you posed this it is evident you don't.

To tell you the truth John chapter six is not addressing the Last Supper. Truly  Christ was speaking of being one with Him, and yes this is vital to our faith. He said to the disciples does this ( eat his flesh and drink His blood) offend you. Then he explains. It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, which clearly tells us it was a spiritual thing that he was speaking to test those who were following Him. You can partake of the Eucharist and believe you are eating and drinking his flesh and blood, and be  no more one with Him then a fly. But if you are of the spirit then you have true life and Christ is in you and you in Him. As has already been explained  you don't need to believe transubstantiation if Christ is already in is you and you in Him by the giving of His holy Spirit. Transubstantiation is carnal fleshly thing.

[Catholica]

The Catholics are taking John 6:53 out of context.

Your emphasis fail to demonstrate that the teachings are taken out of context.

Let's start at the beginning of this teaching:

25 And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?"

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.  27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"

29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?  31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.  33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always."

35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

Yes, who believes in Jesus shall never thirst.  But that doesn't mean that we just believe that He existed and died and rose, but that everything He taught was true, including the Eucharist.  There is no loss of context here.

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.  37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.  38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.  39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.  40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Rejected by His Own

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."  42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.  44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.  45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.  46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.  47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.  48 I am the bread of life.  49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.  50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.  51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"

53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.  54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.  56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.  58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?  62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?  63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.  64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. [/i]

When Jesus says "the Spirit gives life" it doesn't take away from what he already taught, as to negate it.  The Spirit is in the spiritual (note, not "symbolic") understanding of the reality of the Eucharist, that it is not simply bread and wine, but that it is Jesus whole and entire, body, blood, soul and divinity, sacramentally present in the Eucharist.  "The flesh profits nothing" refers to trying to get to heaven without Jesus.  What Protestant would argue that Jesus' flesh on the cross profited us nothing?  Jesus' flesh isn't simply a piece of meat, it is the very person of God himself.

And there is still no loss of context here, just the same old polemic that every knowledgeable Catholic has heard before.

The little crackers are not Jesus flesh.

Ours are.

He is not crucified over and over.

This is true and we don't believe that.

They do not magically become Jesus' flesh.  The wine or grape juice does not magically become His blood.

It is not magic, but by the very Word of God, the same Word that created the universe, that causes the elements to become Jesus sacramentally present.  No magic involved.

They are symbols and used as reminders, and that is all.

It is completely unscriptural to say that.  And in fact, it is anti-scriptural, as Paul asserts that receiving the bread unrighteously causes people to become sick.  That makes no sense if they are just symbols.

It is Spirit that gives life.  Nothing you take into your body by way of your mouth can do that or maintain it spiritually.

Except the Eucharist which is not only flesh and blood but soul and divinity of Jesus.

Jesus told us to partake of the bread and wine "in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)  That's all.  That's enough. 

Zikkaron.  Google it.  Anamnesis.  Not just a calling to mind, but a making really and truly present.

[Helen]

Once you are actually indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you have Jesus internally.  That makes nonsense out of thinking a cracker and a bit of wine turn into Him. 

You receive Communion unrighteously only if you are not a believer, since Christ IS our righteousness.

[Catholica]

The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

One would have to redefine "close connection" to do so.  That is, they would have to lower the bar as to what a close connection would be.  The better question would be "do Catholics feel that we can have a close connection at times where we are not partaking in the sacraments, and the answer is "absolutely yes". 

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

I f you had that connection which is a vital and personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit being born again you would not even have to ask about clearer definition, you would simply know what it means. Since then you posed this it is evident you don't.

Judge not lest ye be judged.  Where did I ask for a "clearer definition"?

Protestants are so funny, no offense mclees.  But sometimes they have such a hard time reading words!  I said that "one would have to redefine 'close connection'".  Not "someone please define 'close connection'.  And you jump to judge me from that.  Tsk tsk!

To tell you the truth John chapter six is not addressing the Last Supper. Truly  Christ was speaking of being one with Him, and yes this is vital to our faith. He said to the disciples does this ( eat his flesh and drink His blood) offend you. Then he explains. It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, which clearly tells us it was a spiritual thing that he was speaking to test those who were following Him. You can partake of the Eucharist and believe you are eating and drinking his flesh and blood, and be  no more one with Him then a fly. But if you are of the spirit then you have true life and Christ is in you and you in Him. As has already been explained  you don't need to believe transubstantiation if Christ is already in is you and you in Him by the giving of His holy Spirit. Transubstantiation is carnal fleshly thing.

You have to understand what he is saying spiritually, not symbolically.  They are not the same concept; the words have different meanings. 

People cling to this wrongly interpreted verse because in their heart they have no other way of justifying the passage is not the Eucharist, because the core teaching of this passage, emphasized over and over, is abundantly clear, it just doesn't sound right to our ears if we don't understand (or have rejected) the spiritual, literal meaning.  It makes no sense that Jesus allowed people to walk away without clarifying himself.  He even asked the apostles if they would leave as well.  They trusted, and not because they thought that he must be talking about a symbol, but because they had faith.

[Catholica]

Once you are actually indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you have Jesus internally.  That makes nonsense out of thinking a cracker and a bit of wine turn into Him. 

God is omnipresent. Does that mean that everyone has Jesus internally?  No. 

There are different levels of presence.  I am present here on Earth.  But I am not near you, but I am still present.  You read my words on a forum.  That makes me more present to you.  I come home from work, and greet my kids.  I become very present to them.  My wife and I are one flesh, I am more present to her than anyone else.

Jesus also is present in many ways.  One is the divine life, the Trinity, alive in our heart.  But their presence is limited in effect by how open our heart is to God, even when we are believers.  The Eucharist is a different presence.  A tangible, real, intimate presence.  Jesus knew the human condition.  We crave that presence in the senses.  So he decided to humble himself and become present through the Eucharist to us.  And that, my friends, is intimacy.  Yes we have the holy spirit in our hearts too, and that is a great gift.  But I tell you from experience, there is nothing like having the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

You receive Communion unrighteously only if you are not a believer, since Christ IS our righteousness.

You get sick by receiving a cracker if you don't examine yourself?  Why does receiving the cracker make the liable for judgment if they are not believers?  Aren't they already liable for the judgment?  Why would Paul say that?

[FireSword]

Why is there so much pride among people to think that just because some Catholics don't know their faith, and have no clue how to explain it, to think that in fact there might be a very good explanation which some Catholics actually understand and can justify and explain?

Ok you seem knowledgeable on this issue and testify of some kind of experience. I have a tendency to think of Catholics as just been brought up in certain traditions and don't have much to say when it comes certain beliefs and just say, "have faith in what Jesus spoke", or more likely "have faith in the church fathers (I.e Catholic perspectives)" etc

[winsome]

Firesword, also the words for "eat" are progressively more explicit that he means to physically eat.  While phago means in general to eat food, the last instance translated as "eat" is trogo, which is always used in scripture to mean to chew or gnaw, like an animal.  And then the disciples turn away and Jesus doesn't stop them.

This is a hard teaching, especially hard for the Jews, who were expressly prohibited from drinking animal blood, as "the life is in the blood".  Jesus' life is also in his blood.  And the blood of Jesus continues to wash us clean through the Eucharist.

Jesus defined what he meant in John 6:35:  "I am the bread of life.  He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

He equates the eating with coming to Him and the drinking with believing in Him.  Bible explains Bible, and the Lord explains Himself. 

The Bible does not explain the Bible.

People explain a text in the Bible by selecting other texts in the Bible that they think are relevant. They are making an interpretation of the second text to explain the first, just as you have done.

[mclees8]

Firesword, also the words for "eat" are progressively more explicit that he means to physically eat.  While phago means in general to eat food, the last instance translated as "eat" is trogo, which is always used in scripture to mean to chew or gnaw, like an animal.  And then the disciples turn away and Jesus doesn't stop them.

This is a hard teaching, especially hard for the Jews, who were expressly prohibited from drinking animal blood, as "the life is in the blood".  Jesus' life is also in his blood.  And the blood of Jesus continues to wash us clean through the Eucharist.

Jesus defined what he meant in John 6:35:  "I am the bread of life.  He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

He equates the eating with coming to Him and the drinking with believing in Him.  Bible explains Bible, and the Lord explains Himself. 

The Bible does not explain the Bible.

People explain a text in the Bible by selecting other texts in the Bible that they think are relevant. They are making an interpretation of the second text to explain the first, just as you have done.

Then why do you not understand what she said?  There is this though that one can be a great scholar of the Bible and not even know what it says, yet one who walks in the spirit knows more than him. It is truly the Spirit that teaches and aluminates our understanding but many who believe they are of the spirit are not but are of worldly understanding.   

[mclees8]

The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

One would have to redefine "close connection" to do so.  That is, they would have to lower the bar as to what a close connection would be.  The better question would be "do Catholics feel that we can have a close connection at times where we are not partaking in the sacraments, and the answer is "absolutely yes". 

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

I f you had that connection which is a vital and personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit being born again you would not even have to ask about clearer definition, you would simply know what it means. Since then you posed this it is evident you don't.

Judge not lest ye be judged.  Where did I ask for a "clearer definition"?

Protestants are so funny, no offense mclees.  But sometimes they have such a hard time reading words!  I said that "one would have to redefine 'close connection'".  Not "someone please define 'close connection'.  And you jump to judge me from that.  Tsk tsk!

To tell you the truth John chapter six is not addressing the Last Supper. Truly  Christ was speaking of being one with Him, and yes this is vital to our faith. He said to the disciples does this ( eat his flesh and drink His blood) offend you. Then he explains. It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, which clearly tells us it was a spiritual thing that he was speaking to test those who were following Him. You can partake of the Eucharist and believe you are eating and drinking his flesh and blood, and be  no more one with Him then a fly. But if you are of the spirit then you have true life and Christ is in you and you in Him. As has already been explained  you don't need to believe transubstantiation if Christ is already in is you and you in Him by the giving of His holy Spirit. Transubstantiation is carnal fleshly thing.

You have to understand what he is saying spiritually, not symbolically.  They are not the same concept; the words have different meanings. 

People cling to this wrongly interpreted verse because in their heart they have no other way of justifying the passage is not the Eucharist, because the core teaching of this passage, emphasized over and over, is abundantly clear, it just doesn't sound right to our ears if we don't understand (or have rejected) the spiritual, literal meaning.  It makes no sense that Jesus allowed people to walk away without clarifying himself.  He even asked the apostles if they would leave as well.  They trusted, and not because they thought that he must be talking about a symbol, but because they had faith.

Perhaps I should have said close  intimate  rather than close connection.  What is there to redefine?  Perhaps you are confused. redefine what ?

Spiritually literal?    These two words appose each other. Its either spiritual or it is literal but since  Jesus said the flesh profits nothing then we must know that it was symbolic spiritual metaphor for  oneness with Him which speaks of the close connection (intimate relationship) as with man and a wife yet it is a spiritual marriage as he in us and we in Him. Do you eat your wife? That is literal and not spiritual.

[Catholica]

The question do Catholics feel or are they even taught that we can have a close connection with Christ Himself with out these aids?

One would have to redefine "close connection" to do so.  That is, they would have to lower the bar as to what a close connection would be.  The better question would be "do Catholics feel that we can have a close connection at times where we are not partaking in the sacraments, and the answer is "absolutely yes". 

But to live life without the sacraments, while a connection can be made, it cannot be as close a connection as the life lived with also the sacraments. What person who loved Jesus would not want to be as close to him as possible?

I f you had that connection which is a vital and personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit being born again you would not even have to ask about clearer definition, you would simply know what it means. Since then you posed this it is evident you don't.

Judge not lest ye be judged.  Where did I ask for a "clearer definition"?

Protestants are so funny, no offense mclees.  But sometimes they have such a hard time reading words!  I said that "one would have to redefine 'close connection'".  Not "someone please define 'close connection'.  And you jump to judge me from that.  Tsk tsk!

To tell you the truth John chapter six is not addressing the Last Supper. Truly  Christ was speaking of being one with Him, and yes this is vital to our faith. He said to the disciples does this ( eat his flesh and drink His blood) offend you. Then he explains. It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, which clearly tells us it was a spiritual thing that he was speaking to test those who were following Him. You can partake of the Eucharist and believe you are eating and drinking his flesh and blood, and be  no more one with Him then a fly. But if you are of the spirit then you have true life and Christ is in you and you in Him. As has already been explained  you don't need to believe transubstantiation if Christ is already in is you and you in Him by the giving of His holy Spirit. Transubstantiation is carnal fleshly thing.

You have to understand what he is saying spiritually, not symbolically.  They are not the same concept; the words have different meanings. 

People cling to this wrongly interpreted verse because in their heart they have no other way of justifying the passage is not the Eucharist, because the core teaching of this passage, emphasized over and over, is abundantly clear, it just doesn't sound right to our ears if we don't understand (or have rejected) the spiritual, literal meaning.  It makes no sense that Jesus allowed people to walk away without clarifying himself.  He even asked the apostles if they would leave as well.  They trusted, and not because they thought that he must be talking about a symbol, but because they had faith.

Perhaps I should have said close  intimate  rather than close connection.  What is there to redefine?  Perhaps you are confused. redefine what ?

Redefine the meaning of "close connection".  To use another example, some might say that Duluth is close to Minneapolis.  And some would say that St. Paul is close to Minneapolis.  Are they equally close?  No.  St. Paul is much closer.  And when you live in Minneapolis, Duluth doesn't seem close at all.

I live with a close connection with God, both when I receive the Eucharist and when I am not.  But would I consider a relationship with God that doesn't receive the Eucharist close?  No.  It may be a beneficial relationship that seems close, but it is not as close as can be.  When you are as close as can be, then other relationships don't seem close.

Spiritually literal?    These two words appose each other. Its either spiritual or it is literal but since  Jesus said the flesh profits nothing then we must know that it was symbolic spiritual metaphor for  oneness with Him which speaks of the close connection (intimate relationship) as with man and a wife yet it is a spiritual marriage as he in us and we in Him. Do you eat your wife? That is literal and not spiritual.

"Spiritual" in this case, means "of the spirit".  Literal, in this case, means "what the author intended when he wrote it".  If the author intended to convey something of the spiritual realm to us, then that is Spiritual and literal.  And those are (again) the words I wrote, not "spiritually literal" but "spiritual, literal meaning". 

Nowhere does the text imply that this is a metaphor.  Metaphors are used in scripture sometimes, but here Jesus three times reiterates it, even upping the rawness of the word eat.  Eat, in this case, because of his use of the word "trogo", should not be understood metaphorically.  When the people question his teaching, he becomes MORE literal, more physical: trogo means to chew, to gnaw.

I don't eat my wife, nor do I have marital relations with God.  But through the Eucharist, I can become physically AND spiritually intimate with God, just as through marital relations I become physically AND spiritually intimate with my wife.  Would you consider a merely spiritual relationship with your wife a "close relationship" if you never could be with her physically?  Possibly that could be managed.  But if you add the physical relationship of marital relations, which is also deeply spiritual, then your relationship becomes that much closer.  That is a decent metaphor for the Eucharist.  Except the Eucharist is even better.