B
BobCatholic
Guest
Welcome home, both of you!Congratulations, I hope we can welcome you home soon. I too am a protestant on my way home.
Shari
- Status
D
DougL
Guest
The shocking fact expressed in John 6 is that the Eucharist is Incarnate God feeding his human/divine flesh, blood, soul, and divinity to human disciples in a mystical rite. This Food is the sole source of Life in us, the summit of our faith.
I donât think thereâs anything in Judaism to prepare people to receive this teaching. Itâs more akin to some primitive animistic, cannabalistic religion in which the eater somehow ingests the spirit or life force of his adversary. Such a need for unity with the spirit world has to run deep in the human religious imagination. Since it involves killing, it also resonates with the idea of sacrifice. Of course many such primitive religious practices were an abomination to the Jews, who had been painstakingly weaned from gods like Moloch.
So the Eucharist fulfills beyond our wildest hopes the deepest human needs. In the unbloody re-presentation of Jesusâ once-and-for-all sacrifice of himself for us we have the privilege of receiving God within us in the most intimate physical/spiritual way. What an unspeakable gift to us! What humility and condescension on the part of God!
If the Jews were taken aback by Jesusâ offer of his flesh, how much more are modern people with our skepticism of all that is not verifiable, scientific. The truth is that we cannot take in this mystery, whether we believe it or not. I am so grateful that God has given me the grace to believe in the Eucharist. I wish it upon everyone. I pray that all will awaken to their hunger for Christ.
I donât think thereâs anything in Judaism to prepare people to receive this teaching. Itâs more akin to some primitive animistic, cannabalistic religion in which the eater somehow ingests the spirit or life force of his adversary. Such a need for unity with the spirit world has to run deep in the human religious imagination. Since it involves killing, it also resonates with the idea of sacrifice. Of course many such primitive religious practices were an abomination to the Jews, who had been painstakingly weaned from gods like Moloch.
So the Eucharist fulfills beyond our wildest hopes the deepest human needs. In the unbloody re-presentation of Jesusâ once-and-for-all sacrifice of himself for us we have the privilege of receiving God within us in the most intimate physical/spiritual way. What an unspeakable gift to us! What humility and condescension on the part of God!
If the Jews were taken aback by Jesusâ offer of his flesh, how much more are modern people with our skepticism of all that is not verifiable, scientific. The truth is that we cannot take in this mystery, whether we believe it or not. I am so grateful that God has given me the grace to believe in the Eucharist. I wish it upon everyone. I pray that all will awaken to their hunger for Christ.
T
tomkp
Guest
First a disclaimer, not all Protestants think alike. That being said, the problem with trying to understand the need for Protestantâs to force a sola spiritu meaning to John 6 is due to the implications that arise from accepting itâs face value meaning. The chapter shifts from the general subject of belief (which figuratively refers to bread), to the specific object of that belief (they must eat/phego/trogo his flesh), then returns to the subject of belief (the spirit vs THE flesh). If they admit the difference between THE FLESH that avails nothing and HIS flesh, that is required for the sacrifice on Calvary, they must as a matter of course accept the Eucharist as a sacrament. This entails accepting a sacradotal priesthood and a sacramental system of grace. (which they CANâT do due to their doctrine of sola fide.)
They will claim that Christâs statement in John 4 about worshiping in spirit and truth shows that the spiritual form of worship is the true worship. They force the context to equate spirit and truth as one and the same thing (which, when the text is closely examined, is not the case).
What they miss is that Christ fulfills, typological, the passover as the only true Phascal sacrifice for the sin of man. Only Christ, as perfect sacrifice and perfect Priest can give the TRUE worship (i.e. Himself, before the father as referenced in Rev.) This is why Christ was so adamant about the real presence in the Eucharist. In order for us to partake in the true passover, we must consume the sacrifice (i.e. the lamb of God) which sacramentally joins us with His physical presence here on earth and sacramentally joins us spiritually with Christ in heaven before the Father.
Only in this way can we truely participate in the the once for all offering that is present before God (who as the great I AM has no past or future, only the eternal now) which is the only true worship.
While various denominations hold different beliefs you can see that Protestant doctrines, in general, against the priesthood, the nature of our participation in the sacrifice of calvary, their concept of Sola Fide as the only means of grace and others precludes them from a plain sense acceptance of scripture and forces them to gerrymander different passages in an attempt to form a coherent arguement.
Pax TK
They will claim that Christâs statement in John 4 about worshiping in spirit and truth shows that the spiritual form of worship is the true worship. They force the context to equate spirit and truth as one and the same thing (which, when the text is closely examined, is not the case).
What they miss is that Christ fulfills, typological, the passover as the only true Phascal sacrifice for the sin of man. Only Christ, as perfect sacrifice and perfect Priest can give the TRUE worship (i.e. Himself, before the father as referenced in Rev.) This is why Christ was so adamant about the real presence in the Eucharist. In order for us to partake in the true passover, we must consume the sacrifice (i.e. the lamb of God) which sacramentally joins us with His physical presence here on earth and sacramentally joins us spiritually with Christ in heaven before the Father.
Only in this way can we truely participate in the the once for all offering that is present before God (who as the great I AM has no past or future, only the eternal now) which is the only true worship.
While various denominations hold different beliefs you can see that Protestant doctrines, in general, against the priesthood, the nature of our participation in the sacrifice of calvary, their concept of Sola Fide as the only means of grace and others precludes them from a plain sense acceptance of scripture and forces them to gerrymander different passages in an attempt to form a coherent arguement.
Pax TK
C
centuri0n
Guest
Iâm not sure that the argument that Jesus was using a didactic image is the argument âagainstâ John 6 â it is actually the strong case in favor of the security of the believer.
I think there is one good reason to think that Christ was speaking in didactic language in John 6:
The Jews who turned away from Christ in this passage understood Christ to mean the literal interpretation. If Christ was speaking literally, and in this very same passage He says that no one can come to Him except that they are taught by the Father (cf. Mt 18 and Peterâs declaration that Jesus is Christ), it is almost impossible to think that the Jews who did not have faith and were not taught by the Father were the ones who understood this teaching correctly.
There are two minor reasons to believe that Jesus was speaking in didactic images:
(A) He was revealing a core truth of the faith to people He knew were unbelievers; as with all teachings in parables, He used the didactic image to blind their eyes.
(B) The rest of the NT speaks of the Eucharist as a proclamation of Christâs death & resurrection, not a re-presentation.
Thatâs the less-than-5000 character skinny.
I think there is one good reason to think that Christ was speaking in didactic language in John 6:
The Jews who turned away from Christ in this passage understood Christ to mean the literal interpretation. If Christ was speaking literally, and in this very same passage He says that no one can come to Him except that they are taught by the Father (cf. Mt 18 and Peterâs declaration that Jesus is Christ), it is almost impossible to think that the Jews who did not have faith and were not taught by the Father were the ones who understood this teaching correctly.
There are two minor reasons to believe that Jesus was speaking in didactic images:
(A) He was revealing a core truth of the faith to people He knew were unbelievers; as with all teachings in parables, He used the didactic image to blind their eyes.
(B) The rest of the NT speaks of the Eucharist as a proclamation of Christâs death & resurrection, not a re-presentation.
Thatâs the less-than-5000 character skinny.
S
Servant1
Guest
I donât disagree with you. But there is a caveat to be observed in talkingabou the Greek that âJesus used.â Chances are very slim that he was speaking in Greek with his disciples. His discourse was much more likely in Aramaic. It was translated to Greek and written by the author of the Gospel. So it can be a slippery slope when you base an interpretation on a fine (or not so fine) point of Greek grammar when that was not the original language of the phrase being interpreted.
I was gonna say âPax Christiâ - but I think Iâll say âeirene pasi!â
T
tomkp
Guest
Itâs not so slippery if you take into the account of the fact that the âAuthorâ, unlike a translator, is operating under inspiration. If John wrote his gospel in Aramaic and it was then translated/transliterated into Greek by someone else you would have a point.
This is why scripture scholars review biblical translations on a regular basis with an eye to the latest archeological discoveries, so that they can ensure modern translation, such as English, reflect the meaning of the original languages.
Pax, TK
S
Servant1
Guest
TK -
In this case, the author is ALSO a translator.
No matter who writes the words, there is not always an exact translation that will always and forever transmit the original meaning absolutely. It is a good thing for scriptural scholars to do exactly what you describe. But even the author who was there, perhapos quoting directly (perhaps not), is lmited by the functional problems inherent in all translating.
An example with Aramaic and Greek is the old tired issue (into which Iâm not climbing at this point) about Jesus kinsmen - brothers or cousins? There is no Aramaic word meaning cousin. So loss in the translation is an inherent possibility in crossing from Aramaic to Greek or anything else.
Iâm not at all arguing that the meaning that the original poster to whom I replied is faulty. I think he has a point. But I still maintain that it can be a trail that CAN lead to error any time we talk in terms of hinging great theological points on pointing out grammar involved in the GREEK words Jesus spoke, when Jesus was speaking in Aramaic.
Eirene soi, anagnostikos!
P
Pro_Iesu
Guest
Hurray for Eucharistic miracles! not only have the species changed to a human heart and blood they are ALIVE scientists have tested and studied samples and I recall that the heart cells are still beating and the blood has not coagulated(clotted) Whyâs that a miracle in itself well many happened in the 8th century AD WOWSERS!
You can visit the miracles too I know there are a couple in Italy so if you have some time over there check them out!
Peace and God bless
You can visit the miracles too I know there are a couple in Italy so if you have some time over there check them out!
Peace and God bless
A
A.Long
Guest
Pro Iesu:
Some day I hope to visit.
G
Gobleonian
Guest
I will give an argument put forth by Martin Luther in a book I have called Three Treatises. âThe sixth chapter of John must be exluded from this discussion, since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable, Not only because the sacrament was not yet institutedâŚâ. He goes on to explain how Christ was speaking of faith in the incarnate Word, and how the sacrament was instituted later.
It is a very lengthy explanation and I have only given a bullet point.
Gobleonian
J
JohnDeP
Guest
A good, âCatholic laymanâsâ explanation of John 6 and the Eucharist can be found at:
brocs.org/articles/Eucharist.htm
It has to do with Jesus being willing to lose souls because the Truth was hard to hear vs. just being misinterpreted.
-JohnDeP.
brocs.org/articles/Eucharist.htm
It has to do with Jesus being willing to lose souls because the Truth was hard to hear vs. just being misinterpreted.
-JohnDeP.
M
Mystagogy
Guest
Hi Cephas.
Can I propose that your question presumes the authority of John 6. I would ask where that authority comes from.
As we get into invincible ignorance, some people will say âfrom Godâ and thatâs enough. I donât really know how to deal with them. In a sense they are right, but how, exactly did God do that?
But it seems to me that we have a philosophical question to deal with⌠âCan the creation be greater than the creator?â Can the Bible be greater than the Church whose members wrote it, preserved it, authoritatively decided what should be in it, and reliably passed it on to future generations? If that Church could do all that (It DID do all that), how and why does a philosophy, or a variant of a philosopy from some 1500-2000 years later acquire the right to define and interpret it?
I think the big problem has been outlined in previous responses. Persons rejecting the Catholic/Orthodox position tend to hear "I am the vine, ⌠" and âI am the bread of life,â and project that analogy onto âThis is my bodyâŚâ
I like Marcus Grodiâs question âhow does one âabideâ in Christ?ââŚ
âTruly, trulyâ Jesus says to you. Unless you drink His blood and eat His flesh, you do not abide in HimâŚ"
I like applying the idea of it âonly being symbolicâ to a couple of other passages. If the bread and wine at the Last Supper are only symbolic, then can we presume that Jesus only symbolically gave them at the crucifixion? He said, âThis IS my body and blood which I will give up for you.â That sure looks like they equate, directly.
And, from Paul, how does one âdiscern the body and bloodâ of Jesus at the Eucharist, (to take it worthily) if itâs not really there?
Can I propose that your question presumes the authority of John 6. I would ask where that authority comes from.
As we get into invincible ignorance, some people will say âfrom Godâ and thatâs enough. I donât really know how to deal with them. In a sense they are right, but how, exactly did God do that?
But it seems to me that we have a philosophical question to deal with⌠âCan the creation be greater than the creator?â Can the Bible be greater than the Church whose members wrote it, preserved it, authoritatively decided what should be in it, and reliably passed it on to future generations? If that Church could do all that (It DID do all that), how and why does a philosophy, or a variant of a philosopy from some 1500-2000 years later acquire the right to define and interpret it?
I think the big problem has been outlined in previous responses. Persons rejecting the Catholic/Orthodox position tend to hear "I am the vine, ⌠" and âI am the bread of life,â and project that analogy onto âThis is my bodyâŚâ
I like Marcus Grodiâs question âhow does one âabideâ in Christ?ââŚ
âTruly, trulyâ Jesus says to you. Unless you drink His blood and eat His flesh, you do not abide in HimâŚ"
I like applying the idea of it âonly being symbolicâ to a couple of other passages. If the bread and wine at the Last Supper are only symbolic, then can we presume that Jesus only symbolically gave them at the crucifixion? He said, âThis IS my body and blood which I will give up for you.â That sure looks like they equate, directly.
And, from Paul, how does one âdiscern the body and bloodâ of Jesus at the Eucharist, (to take it worthily) if itâs not really there?
M
Maccabees
Guest
To me its really simple John 6 is teaching that is ironically taken by faith and understood by the spirit and not the flesh. But the words that are given here are to be taken literally (by the spirit) and not the flesh or carnal understanding aka eating merely human flesh. The exact opposite understanding protestants have to this text.
They think to understand by the spirit is some new age kind of term that cannoes symbolic. But no where in the Bible is spirit understood as symbolic. God the father is spirit. Is he symbolic? Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead is that symbolic? No God the father and God the Holy Spirit are to be understood in literal terms. THis to me is a major stumbling block for them. In the end it is a question of supernatural faith as opposed to carnal faith. You are asking people to go the extra mile on this hard to understand teaching. Obviously some disciples could not accept this teaching and this continues to this day. Which is really sad becuase to have faith in Jesus as teh God man the triune God the Messiah that takes away the sins of the world and asceneded into heaven after his resurrection from the dead is the hard part. You just have to go a little extra with JOhn 6 surely if Jesus is all of that he can produce the miracle that occurs during the mass.
Itâs about supernatural faith and if you have it or not.
They think to understand by the spirit is some new age kind of term that cannoes symbolic. But no where in the Bible is spirit understood as symbolic. God the father is spirit. Is he symbolic? Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead is that symbolic? No God the father and God the Holy Spirit are to be understood in literal terms. THis to me is a major stumbling block for them. In the end it is a question of supernatural faith as opposed to carnal faith. You are asking people to go the extra mile on this hard to understand teaching. Obviously some disciples could not accept this teaching and this continues to this day. Which is really sad becuase to have faith in Jesus as teh God man the triune God the Messiah that takes away the sins of the world and asceneded into heaven after his resurrection from the dead is the hard part. You just have to go a little extra with JOhn 6 surely if Jesus is all of that he can produce the miracle that occurs during the mass.
Itâs about supernatural faith and if you have it or not.
J
jc_escobar
Guest
I think you really got it there.
I think itâs just the same thing that happened then: Some of the disciples didnât believe what Jesus was telling them and left. The twelve staid and eventually were given the Holy Eucarist. In the 16th century as well as now, some Christians didnât believe Jesus and left. We have stayed and receive him in the Holy Eucarist just as the 12 did it for the firs time in Jerusalem. Thanks and Glory to Him for his infinite Love and eternal company.
J.C.
T
the_geezer
Guest
The major problem with this interpretation of John 6 is the verb in Jesusâ quote, which is best translated as âto munch or grind or gnawâ. His listeners were appalled, of course, since He seemed to advocate cannibalism; He made no effort to correct their âmisunderstandingâ, letting them walk away, becasue they had understood Him correctly: one must eat His flesh and blood. And that is what the Holy Eucharist is.
G
Gobleonian
Guest
Geezer, the original question from Cephas was what proof is there that he was speaking symbolicly in John 6. I was only giving an example of someone elses interpetation of John 6.
The Jews and those surrounding Jesus would have been just as offended if Jesus had said, you need to read and study my Word and make it apart of your everyday life. That is exactly how the world is today if you start talking about matters of Christ and salvation, you are shunned and called weird.
Luther did believe in the real presence, but not instituted in this passage of scripture.
I believe for some one to say the body and blood are only symbolic in communion, is incorrect.
Gobleonian
The Jews and those surrounding Jesus would have been just as offended if Jesus had said, you need to read and study my Word and make it apart of your everyday life. That is exactly how the world is today if you start talking about matters of Christ and salvation, you are shunned and called weird.
Luther did believe in the real presence, but not instituted in this passage of scripture.
I believe for some one to say the body and blood are only symbolic in communion, is incorrect.
Gobleonian
S
Sirach14
Guest
OK, Let me make friends with the Devil.
When Jesus said âThis is my Bodyâ and âThis is my Bloodâ He wasnât speaking literally, but metaphorically.
Jesus also said he is the â door" and the âVineâ. Do you really believe that Jesus was a real door and a real vine?
S
Sirach14
Guest
D
DrDave
Guest
I have heard it argued that the passage John 6:35 ââŚhe that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.â indicates that when Jesus is speaking about eating he is symbolicly talking about coming to him and likewise drinking refers to believing in him.
What I havenât heard however is an explanation of why coming and eating or believing and drinking should be mutually exclusive.
Regards,
Dave
What I havenât heard however is an explanation of why coming and eating or believing and drinking should be mutually exclusive.
Regards,
Dave
M
Maccabees
Guest
[Sirach14]
Your little article doesnât deny anything that Catholicism denies we conider the mass the be an unbloody and voluntary sacrifice represented of the one sacrifice. You have a faulty understanding of the mass we do affirm the joyful aspects of the mass the greek eucharist means thanksgiving.
You claim that Evangelicals also celebrate this joyful sacrifice.
WEll that would be impossible since no Protestants outside of Anglicans even have altars and all deny even this ascpect of sacrifice. if you contineu to deny this ask yourself where is the altar in your church? Lutherâs classical exegesis on which all protestantism is built affirm no sacrifical aspect in the last supper, by faith alone and by the bible alone. A protestant that denies these thingsare going aginst the teachings of thier fathers the protestant reforemrs. Only when presented with the overwhelming evidence will evangelicals backtrack and mix and match classical protestant teaching and classic catholicism. You canât have it both ways as Luther and Calvin though its either a sacrifice or its not. Whether what type of sacrificed is incidental sice the catholic church teaches a ployvalent aspect of this sacrifice as joyful and propitiatory sacrifice. As we see the cross today we rejoice for its the cause of our salvation but weep that by his stripes we and our sins are healed. We caused his pain. Paul and the catholic epistles make this very clear that we preach Christ crucified and that its the cause of our salvation but an evil that our sins have caused. THe cross and Jesus is a sign of contradiction to all. That being said the protestant mindset is not on the same page as protestantism we are brought to calvary in the mass Jesus is not dying again but we in our humanity need to participate in the crucifixion something the movie THe Passion has brought to protestant world for the first time since the reformation. It brought protestants to the mass at Christ Calvary sacrifice. Did they kill Christ again by experiencing this sacrifice. No they didnât neither do Catholics when we go back to Calvary at every mass. In Revelation Christ is seen as the lamb that is still slain not a white lamb without scars. WHy becuase John was seeing the mass being represented all over again. The church fathers are unanimous that there is a sacrifice taking place at the mass. Some present differnet aspects of this sacrifice just at the present cathechism presents the differnt ways the mass is seen as a sacrifice. Classic protestantism has denied both aspects. Now you come accroos an article that partly denies protestantism and partly denies catholicism since you canât reconcile yourself to either postion. Well I will give you a hint one is right.
Your little article doesnât deny anything that Catholicism denies we conider the mass the be an unbloody and voluntary sacrifice represented of the one sacrifice. You have a faulty understanding of the mass we do affirm the joyful aspects of the mass the greek eucharist means thanksgiving.
You claim that Evangelicals also celebrate this joyful sacrifice.
WEll that would be impossible since no Protestants outside of Anglicans even have altars and all deny even this ascpect of sacrifice. if you contineu to deny this ask yourself where is the altar in your church? Lutherâs classical exegesis on which all protestantism is built affirm no sacrifical aspect in the last supper, by faith alone and by the bible alone. A protestant that denies these thingsare going aginst the teachings of thier fathers the protestant reforemrs. Only when presented with the overwhelming evidence will evangelicals backtrack and mix and match classical protestant teaching and classic catholicism. You canât have it both ways as Luther and Calvin though its either a sacrifice or its not. Whether what type of sacrificed is incidental sice the catholic church teaches a ployvalent aspect of this sacrifice as joyful and propitiatory sacrifice. As we see the cross today we rejoice for its the cause of our salvation but weep that by his stripes we and our sins are healed. We caused his pain. Paul and the catholic epistles make this very clear that we preach Christ crucified and that its the cause of our salvation but an evil that our sins have caused. THe cross and Jesus is a sign of contradiction to all. That being said the protestant mindset is not on the same page as protestantism we are brought to calvary in the mass Jesus is not dying again but we in our humanity need to participate in the crucifixion something the movie THe Passion has brought to protestant world for the first time since the reformation. It brought protestants to the mass at Christ Calvary sacrifice. Did they kill Christ again by experiencing this sacrifice. No they didnât neither do Catholics when we go back to Calvary at every mass. In Revelation Christ is seen as the lamb that is still slain not a white lamb without scars. WHy becuase John was seeing the mass being represented all over again. The church fathers are unanimous that there is a sacrifice taking place at the mass. Some present differnet aspects of this sacrifice just at the present cathechism presents the differnt ways the mass is seen as a sacrifice. Classic protestantism has denied both aspects. Now you come accroos an article that partly denies protestantism and partly denies catholicism since you canât reconcile yourself to either postion. Well I will give you a hint one is right.
- Status