"The Nolalu Barn Owl"
<gordie@nolalu.on.ca>
wrote in message news:994h511hjo7qglfp8svj42n5sb43h00hde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:47:06 -0600, "Thaddeus" <No mail!> wrote:
>
>>Cardinal Francis Arinze - Pope Benedict XVI?
>>
>>http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article41.htm
>>
>
> I came across this page myself just the other day.
> As an ex-Evangelical Protestant it makes me feel funny reading it.
> This gentleman names dates. He also seems to follow the end times
> scenario that those like Grant Jeffery, Hal Lindsay, etc. are
> constantly chirping about.
> I am not sure of how inspired this information is.
>
> --
> Gordie
>
> Question: A Baptist friend put a new twist on John 6. He said that the
> disciples who left when
> Christ spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood took him
literally
> while the others who
> stayed knew he was being symbolic. He Jesus didn't explain himself
> because He knew that
> saying "This is my body and blood" would make the unfaithful leave,
which
> they did.
>
> Answer: Two words: Judas Iscariot. He didn't leave. But beyond this,
> the fact remains that your
> friend is arguing from silence. We don't know what the apostles who
> stayed thought because the
> text doesn't say. We do, however, get the strong impression that their
> faith was shaken. Peter,
> after all, does not say "We knew you were just kidding around." He
says,
> with a sort of
> desperation, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal
> life." Peter stays,
> not because he knows Jesus is being "symbolic" but because, whatever
Jesus
> means and no
> matter how weird and frightening it is, there's no place else to go.
>
> The problem with your friend's theory is that it takes the whole passage
> out of the context of the
> rest of the life and faith of the early Church. Jesus doesn't just say
> this weird thing. He says
> other weird things which the disciples don't understand, such as "The
Son
> of man will be crucified
> and rise from the dead" and "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees." Mark
> tells us (Mark 4:34) that
> Jesus always explained his figures of speech to his apostles. The only
> time he doesn't is when
> he's not using a figure of speech. Significantly, neither in John 6 nor
> when he predicts his death
> does he tell his apostles what he "really" means. Instead, he follow up
> his strange words in John 6
> with equally strange words at the Last Supper: "This is my body." His
> disciples strain to
> understand both his words about his death and resurrection and his words
> about the Eucharist.
> When he dies and rises, is it so strange to think they concluded his
> words were meant literally
> about the Eucharist, just as they were meant literally about the
Passion?
> Especially since there is
> not a shred of evidence from the New Testament that the later Church
took
> them as "symbolic".
> Paul says the bread and cup are a participation in the body and blood
of
> Christ (1 Cor. 10:16).
> He says we can sin against the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23). The later
Church
> follows suit and
> repeatedly emphasizes that the Eucharist is not merely a symbol but the
> flesh and blood of Christ.
> In fact, nobody for the first thousand years of the Church speaks of it
> as merely a symbol.
> It is passing the bounds of credibility that the whole of the Church
> could have, to a man, so
> badly misunderstood the apostles on such an elementary point. Imagine
> yourself, for instance,
> hearing somebody describe the Bible as the "word of God" and concluding
> that, since John calls
> Jesus the "Word", then the Bible must be Jesus Christ. Now imagine
> everybody in the whole
> Church making the same dumb error of logic. Now imagine no teacher in
the
> whole Church
> stepping forward to say, "That's not what I mean when I call Scripture
the
> 'word of God.'"
> That is something like the stupidity alleged of the early church, if
they
> really did confuse a
> "simple symbol" with the Incarnate God himself. The burden of proof is
> not on the Catholic
> here, but on the innovator who must show why the whole of the early
Church
> formed the
> distinct impression that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus
> Christ himself.
> http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?quest=243
The burden of proof is not on the Catholic
here, but on the innovator who must show why the whole of the early
Church
formed the
distinct impression that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ himself.
the above is absurd you mean the Constantine Pagan god mithra sun god
wor****p combined with the word of God making a "polluted mixed religion"
started to make this a literal.
Jeremiah 16;
19. O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of
affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth,
and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things
wherein there is no profit.
Take your views with the satanic abomination called the Catholic church
and
dung them together!!
and continue to ignore the commandments of the true GOD YHVH.. and be
deceived by whatever it is the catholic pagan abomination teaches.
I wonder how many priests at this moment are still molesting young boys?
|
