Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is why the Didache was such a great find. It agrees with my view! It was discarded and luckily found.

It really appears to be picking and choosing that which can be ‘interpreted’, or ‘misinterpreted’, to fit your view. The Didache is an unsigned document, believed to have been from the Apostles. It is believed to be the first writing. If it appears somewhat vague, they did not write specifically about what was being taught and was believed by all.

Over time, writings changed, became more specific to address ‘doctrinal errors’ and heresies.

St. Ignatius, that some would cast a doubt upon, or besmirch even, was a student of St. John’s and believed to have been ordained by St. Peter. He wrote the following, approximately the same time that St. John wrote ‘Revelations’.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

It’s easy to see Catholic doctrines in scriptures, for those willing to fit their theology to scriptures, as opposed to fitting scriptures to a theology.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s a link to a Protestant website that offers the writings of the early Church fathers.

It is where I copied and pasted that below.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(57)

Notice he doesn’t say, ‘there is what will be called the Catholic Church.’ He didn’t introduce the term, it was already in use. Where does the word ‘Catholic’ come from?

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

come to think of it, how do any of the Church fathers agree with your view? Peace.

It seems they would post the agreeing writings, so they could be discussed fully, rather than just saying, ‘…writings of the early Church fathers agree with my view.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s a link to all the free online courses offered by Scott Hahn.

Covenant Love: Introducing the Biblical Worldview

Genesis to Jesus: A Journey Through Scripture

‘He Must Reign’: The Kingdom of God in Scripture

Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God

Reading the Old Testament in the New: The Gospel of Matthew

The Lamb’s Supper: The Bible and the Mass

Here’s a link for a Bible study program online, from the same website. I haven’t enrolled in it yet, so I’m not sure exactly how it works.

Journey Through Scripture: A Parish Based Bible Study Program

Anna, I apologize if you feel I’ve strayed off topic by providing these links. If you have time to use the link to The Lamb’s Supper: The Bible and the Mass, I believe it would add to the Catholic view that’s been presented.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Rightlydivide,

In OP, I quoted John 6: 35; John 6:48-59; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; & 1 Corinthians 10:14-18; requested Baptist Comments re Eucharist; asked if we should accept Christ’s words as spoken/literally or symbolically; asked if these passages would cause you to consider the “real presence” of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist, etc.

I do appreciate your taking the time to comment on the issues, even though you are not Baptist.

Your questions are based upon presuppositons that I do not share.

Posts 141 & 142 to AmateurPianist:

. . . .I haven’t come to a conclusion regarding the “Real Presence.” I was taught the Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance of Christ, and that it has nothing to do with one’s salvation or eternal life.

I started looking at these passages more closely after a conversation with a good friend of mine, who drove down to visit me in the Fall of 2006. . . .

So, I’m not exactly moving at lightening speed on this issue. I’ve had a few years to think about it. As I question your responses, know that I am questioning the issue for myself as well. . . .

However I shall attempt. I will say I do not need to justify my beliefs to you of course.

Indeed, you do not have to justify your beliefs to me.

However, the purpose & intent of the Thread is to present one’s beliefs; and provide support for those beliefs. Again, you are under no obligation to do so.

Please do not feel pressured in any way to comment. My intention is not to pressure anyone. I am simply asking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the “Real Presence,” from those who wish to participate. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to comment on the issues.

I was saved from every form of addiction and sin known to anyone. My justification is to God alone who saved me a disgusting sinner.

I rejoice in your salvation.

I am also, a sinner, saved by the Grace of God–working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

When Christ said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55); is this literal?

The statement before answers it

To which statement are you referring?

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day

. . . .No the feeding on his flesh is believing in him. Those who believe will “abide” in him. That reflects our permanent state with Christ when we abide.

What does it mean to eat the flesh of Christ?

To believe in him.

How do we fulfill the requirement to “eat the flesh of Christ,” if not through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist

By believing in him. If the Eucharist does it,** then it does it. ** Case closed.

So you are saying we fulfill the requirement to "eat the flesh of Christ "by “believing in him,” and “if the Eucharist does it, then it does it. Case closed.”

Please clarify: Do you mean we fulfill the requirements by both believing in Christ and the Eucharist?

The case may be closed for you; but I still am not convinced by your argument.

But IS that what is actually believed?

Is that what is actually believed by whom?

This verse says that whoever eats the Eucharist will live forever. But Catholics do not believe that. It says that without this you cannot have eternal life. But Catholics do not believe that either. They do believe that people can go to heaven and live forever that have not taken the Eucharist.
Its a theme. Not different from the rest of John of course.

Setting Catholic beliefs aside for a moment; Do you believe that whoever eats the Eucharist will live forever? Is the Eucharist a part of salvation leading to eternal life?

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Look it up in John. Its all over the place.

I agree that that one must believe in the Son to inherit eternal life. I also believe that believing in Christ is the beginning point in understanding and experiencing the mysteries of the Gospel.

Basically, your believes were stated as follows:
(1) Feeding on Christ’s flesh is believing in him.
(1) If the Eucharist does it,** then it does it. ** Case closed.

If you wish to comment further (no pressure); it seems that you accept John 6:35-59 only to the point of the requirement “to believe,” when so much more is revealed as necessary for eternal life. If we are only to believe on Christ, why did Christ continue to give all these other requirements in John 6:35-59?

One must believe in the Son (You agree with this requirement)

What about these?
One must be drawn to Christ by the Father
Christ is the Bread of Life, the living bread that came down from heaven
Christ’s flesh is true food and His blood is true drink
Whoever feeds on Christ, will live because of Him
One must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, or one has no life in him
Those who eat His flesh and drink His blood have eternal life–and Christ will raise them up at the last day

It seems that equating “eating the flesh of Christ with believing on Him,” is combining requirements that Christ clearly separates as different things. Any further comments.?

Thanks for your comments,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Surely, stronger arguments exist in the Protestant Sector against the “Real Presence” during the Lord’s Supper. Baptists, are there none who will participate? I know we have some wonderful Baptist forum members. Please join the discussion.

I really would like to feel assured that my Protestant beliefs are supported by Scripture and supported historically by the practices of the early church; and that we partake of the “Lord’s Supper” solely in “remembrance” of Christ. Otherwise, I’ve gotten it wrong for the last 55 years.

Our Catholic brothers and sisters are making a very strong argument for the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I opened this discussion with an open heart to receive God’s truth. I may have to prayerful reconsider this Sacrament.

Much prayer and pondering to do,
Anna

 

[Rightlydivide]

I do not believe that taking the Eucharist leads to eternal life but something does.

What is it? Do you think that partaking of the Eucharist leads to eternal life? If so, you have not addressed that Catholicism believes that people can go to heaven and never have had the Eucharist. Please do.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day

Why is this the only literal metaphor of the seven (or thereabouts) in John involving the “I AM” statements? The words interpreted literally would mean nothing. Eating his flesh would accomplish nothing, he says so. The spirit of his words do which is belief in him. You see, Christ is not changing the topic to his crucifixion like Catholics will argue our view means. No Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about. He words are spirit and life.

“Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Also notice the very first thing he says in his elaboration to the disciples, what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? What is your view of what that means?
Thanks

 

[AmateurPianist]

Response to AmateurPianist–Part 1 of 2

AmateurPianist,

First, I really appreciate your taking the time to comment directly on these passages. Unless someone posts, while I’m working on this response; you are the only non-Catholic Christian to do so.

Secondly, I haven’t come to a conclusion regarding the “Real Presence.” I was taught the Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance of Christ, and that it has nothing to do with one’s salvation or eternal life.

A year or so back when I started questioning the Lord on this subject, He did not give me a theological or physical answer to my questions. He did seem to speak to my heart to approach communion as though it were the body and blood of Christ and to leave what actually does and/or does not happen up to Him.

That has changed everything.

I no longer do the mental translation from “This is My body” to “This represents my body”. I leave it at “This is My body” and leave it up to God as to how it actually works.

Since that time I have been relatively not that concerned about the actual thelogy of comm
I started looking at these passages more closely after a conversation with a good friend of mine, who drove down to visit me in the Fall of 2006 (I remember the year, because I was diagnosed with cancer a few months after her visit.) My friend is an Evangelical Christian who finds the idea of the “Real Presences” quite disturbing and disagrees completely.

So, I’m not exactly moving at lightening speed on this issue. I’ve had a few years to think about it. As I question your responses, know that I am questioning the issue for myself as well.

As an evangelical Christian myself, I don’t get what is so disturbing about the Real Presence. It is not just the Catholics and Orthodox. It is also Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. Historical Protestants such as John Wesley and Martin Luther agreed with some type of Real Presence.

I guess I just don’t get Christians doing Holy wars over communion. To me it is the approach to it more than the theology that matters. My one concern with “remembrance only” is that this can really become a dead ritual, and you have to ask why do it?

Beliefs that I am quite convinced about are.

• The commands to God concerning believers are (1) to observe it (2) do not partake of it unworthily (in a state of sin). There is nothing I have read that indicates God requires us to understand it or be theologically correct concerning it.
• Whatever God does do in communion He does for all of His people in all Christian organizations (provided they are not in a state of sin). Yes and that includes organizations whose understanding of communion may not be correct. There are no favorite organizations that God gives special communion blessings that He denies to other organizations.

You’ve identified a critical aspect in the discussion of the “Real Presence”: eternal life.

… I have paired down due to length limitation …

This seems to be much more than “remembrance.”

Continued—See Next Post for Part 2

First let me say right off the bat that it is possible (1) to believe in the Real Presence and (2) not believe that John 6 supports it.

Second of all, arguing Scripture makes me very uncomfortable. I can explain why I believe what I do fro Scripture, but getting into debating makes me quite uncomfortable for some reason or another.

I have always read John 6 eating His flesh and drinking His blood in the same vein as I have read John 4:14 “drink of the water that I shall give Him.” John 4 starts with a perfectly natural event concerning drinking water that Jesus draws upon and relates to Himself. John 6 starts with a perfectly natural event concerning eating food that Jesus draws upon and relates to himself. In both chapters the subjects are told to drink and eat.

So the proposal on the table is that I am reading John 6 wrong and that I should read it as relating to communion. What gives me pause though is Christ relating eating His flesh and drinking His blood to eternal life.

One nonNegotiable as far as I am concerned is how I received eternal life through Jesus Christ. Communion had nothing to do with it.

So we have a great big disconnect already in this proposed new reading of this passage to how I know Jesus has worked in my life. So, thank you very much but for now I will stick with how I have always read it.

But you know, I am not going to pretend I always get things right. So, let me say I am wrong and this proposed reading is correct. Well then, I do eat His flesh and drink His blood when I observe communion (now the Quakers would be in trouble with this reading though). So as long as I am not receiving the elements unworthily (in a state of sin) I am still good.

So I guess if you are looking to me to argue against the Real Presence, you are looking at the wrong place because I really do not care that much about the theology of communion. My big disagreement is a Real Presence that limits itself to only certain Christian organizations.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Surely, stronger arguments exist in the Protestant Sector against the “Real Presence” during the Lord’s Supper. Baptists, are there none who will participate? I know we have some wonderful Baptist forum members. Please join the discussion.

I really would like to feel assured that my Protestant beliefs are supported by Scripture and supported historically by the practices of the early church; and that we partake of the “Lord’s Supper” solely in “remembrance” of Christ. Otherwise, I’ve gotten it wrong for the last 55 years.

Our Catholic brothers and sisters are making a very strong argument for the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I opened this discussion with an open heart to receive God’s truth. I may have to prayerful reconsider this Sacrament.

Much prayer and pondering to do,
Anna

Anna
I would imagine that most Baptists are like me and do not understand how people can view these passages this way. Likewise, Catholics view this their way and certainly are incredulous that we do not see it that way. Even more so really because it is so much at the core of Catholicism.
But seriously, I read your first posts, you have been open to Catholicism long before you came to this forum by your own admission as you studied. If you join, join. There are six billion people in the world and the vast majority are not Christians. Talking a person out of becoming Catholic is probably quite low on their list…dont you think?
Good luck though.

 

[benidict]

Anna
I would imagine that most Baptists are like me and do not understand how people can view these passages this way. Likewise, Catholics view this their way and certainly are incredulous that we do not see it that way. Even more so really because it is so much at the core of Catholicism.
But seriously, I read your first posts, you have been open to Catholicism long before you came to this forum by your own admission as you studied. If you join, join. There are six billion people in the world and the vast majority are not Christians. Talking a person out of becoming Catholic is probably quite low on their list…dont you think?
Good luck though.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am confused that you are confused!

 

[hillsteven]

Anna,

First, I thank you for this post, though I am sad for you that you have not seen the posts that you had hoped for from your [former?] Baptist brethren. I have read many good insights, however, which I do appreciate, as I have been on/off discussing the differences between the Catholic Church and Baptist beliefs with my neighbor, and this has been most helpful.

One other verse of scripture that points to the nature of the Eucharist as true sacrifice can actually be found in the Old Testament in the book of Malachi, Chapter 1:

10: Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands.
11: For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

This, I think, is worthy of note in context with the question (though I’m not Baptist, it is at least relevant to the question of whether or not Scripture points to the Eucharist…)

First , it should be noted that many of the writings of the early Church Fathers point to this scripture as evidence of the real Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The question becomes “Why?”

I included verse 10 primarily for context. Malachi is talking to the Jews at a time right after their return from exile in Babylon. In this verse, the author (unknown, the word “Malachi” means “My Messenger”, so was essentially a pseudonym.) is chastising them for offering blemished sacrifices.

In verse 11, we see the prophet conveying God’s message, that His name is/will be great among the nations. In context, we must recognize that to Jews, all other nations were Gentiles. This insight is why the Church Fathers saw, and indeed the Church today sees, this verse as a relevant prophecy. Substituting “Gentiles” in place of “nations” and for clarity’s sake, the referential article “they”, we could safely re-write this to say:

“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles; And everywhere [the] Gentiles bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the Gentiles, says the LORD of hosts.”

Now, given that the prophet is speaking to the Jewish Priests, it is interesting (and prophetic) that he would show the Gentiles as bringing sacrifice to the LORD. First, in order to bring sacrifice to the LORD, you must have a priest. How could it possibly be that the Gentiles would have priests? What other reason would there BE for a religion to even have priests, if not to offer sacrifice? While Protestants may rail against the Catholic Church for the presence of priests, we must recognize the real fact that we see priests as early in the history of the Church as the Apostolic Age, even in the Scriptures! Though the term we see in the Bible is “presbyter”, there were, even in the Scriptures, three levels of ecclesiastic rank, Bishops, priests, and deacons. That tradition has been maintained to the current day. Again, it is worth posing the question, “why have priests, if not to offer sacrifice?” If there is no further need for a sacrifice to be offered, there would be no further need for a priesthood, yet it has been often said that “without priests, we would have no Eucharist.” This is true because in the Catholic Church, (again, going back to antiquity), only a consecrated priest or bishop may consecrate the Eucharist. Said another way, only a validly ordained and consecrated priest or bishop may preside over and offer up the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Also curious is this use of the term “pure offering”. There is no offering that could be more pure than the one our Lord Jesus offered on the Cross at Calvary. In that most pure offering, Jesus was at once High Priest, and Perfect Sacrifice. he remains so at the High Altar of Heaven, as we see in the book of Revelations. (An interesting side-light would be that this book has the same author as the Gospel of John that has been in such dispute in this thread.) We as Catholics believe, as has been taught in unending succession since those early beginnings, that we are to continue to offer this sacrifice, thus entering in some mystical way, the continuous unbloody sacrifice of our Lord.

Hope this helps, Anna, and good luck in your search. The journey you are on may be a long one, as indeed it seems that it has already been, but in the end, wherever it takes you, you will be more confident than the vast majority of believers that you are indeed where the LORD wants you to be. I am confident that the journey will take you “across the Tiber” into the “fullness of the Catholic Church”, but even if it does not, you will have a sense of profound peace having searched and studied as few have the temerity to do.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Anna,

Malachi comment

incense is offered: Verbal and nominal forms based on the root qtr, like muqtar [H6999] here, have to do with any kind of offering which gives off smoke, but in postexilic texts precise enough to let us see what is being offered they have to do with incense or other aromatic substances. The ptc. muggas can be used of bringing any type of offering before God.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Response to AmateurPianist Continued—Part 2 of 2

You’ve made a good point in saying, “Whatever the audience had in mind when Jesus spoke these words, it would not have been communion.” This is a reasonable assumption; but I would not necessarily see this as ruling out the “Real presence.”

One reason being: Christ told the Disciples many things they did not fully understand, until Christ’s death and resurrection; and more was given through the Holy Spirit, after the Ascension of Christ.

I agree.

Must we have the words of the Apostles, in addition to the words of Christ—in order for Christ’s words to be true?

But remember where I am coming from. I have one the one hand the way that I have always read John 6 in a way that I have always been comfortable with. Now I have a new proposed way of reading this chapter that I have never thought of.

Whenever anybody comes to me with new ideas relating to Scripture, one response I always have is to ask as many stupid questions as I can and see where the disconnects are. As I have said before, my big disconnect with this new proposed reading is Jesus relating this to salvation and eternal life. Since I have not adopted this new reading yet, I notice first this new reading not only affects how I view communion but how I view how one comes to eternal life in Jesus Christ.

This is a biggie change and I am going to ask a zillion questions before I change how I view eternal life through Jesus Christ happens. In my own life how I came to eternal life in Jesus Christ had absolutely nothing to do with receiving communion.

As far as I know, Paul is still believed to have written 1 Corinthians (Bible scholars-please correct me if I’m wrong.)

In this passage, Paul does not limit the Lord’s Supper to “remembrance.” He speaks of the participation in the body and blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

See earlier comment re the Disciples lacking the full understanding of Christ’s words, while He was still with them.

Would you clarify? You spoke earlier re the verb “is” and if “is” means “equivalence” or “symbolic.” Are you still referring to I Corinthians 10:14-17?

There is much to ponder, here. I welcome further comments.

Anna

Well now you are back to “Remembrance only” versus “something more”.

You know, as I recall having read WikiPedia, my closest match was the Wesleyan traditional Methodist understanding of the real presence. As I recall, they do believe in it but make no attempt to explain or understand it. When I look at how the Lord seemed to me to approach it as though I am receiving the blood and body of Christ, that seems to be a close match to Mr. Wesley (who happens to be one of my favorite early Protestants).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Rightlydivide,

Appreciate your comments.

I do not believe that taking the Eucharist leads to eternal life but something does.

Noted.

What is it? Do you think that partaking of the Eucharist leads to eternal life? If so, you have not addressed that Catholicism believes that people can go to heaven and never have had the Eucharist. Please do.

The purpose of this Thread, is to explore the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper, and the passages that seem to point to the “Real Presence.” I haven’t come to a conclusion yet regarding the “Real Presence” and the role, if any, in eternal life. Though, at this point, the Catholics make a strong case.

Why is this the only literal metaphor of the seven (or thereabouts) in John involving the “I AM” statements? The words interpreted literally would mean nothing. Eating his flesh would accomplish nothing, he says so.

Many assumptions here. Please cite the Scripture, in which Christ said eating His flesh would accomplish nothing.

Christ actually said the opposite:
John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, **"Truly, truly, 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 feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. **

The spirit of his words do which is belief in him. You see, Christ is not changing the topic to his crucifixion like Catholics will argue our view means.

Again, not asking you for the Catholic view or arguments. You and I are discussing Protestant to Protestant.

No Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about. He words are spirit and life.

Please cite the Scripture that says, “Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about.”

Also notice the very first thing he says in his elaboration to the disciples, what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? What is your view of what that means?
Thanks

The topic question is not, “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” Trying to stay on topic.

Thanks for your comments,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Great posts coming in; but I’ve gotta sign off for the night. Will be back to the discussion tomorrow.

Nite all, :sad_bye:
Anna

 

[hillsteven]

incense is offered: Verbal and nominal forms based on the root qtr, like muqtar [H6999] here, have to do with any kind of offering which gives off smoke, but in postexilic texts precise enough to let us see what is being offered they have to do with incense or other aromatic substances. The ptc. muggas can be used of bringing any type of offering before God.

pure offering: Hebr tahor [H2889] in a cultic context means “pure” in the sense of being free from all that ritually defiles; the contrast with the blemished animals sacrificed by the priests of Jerusalem is thus clear. The word minha [H4503] as a technical cultic term designates a cereal offering (Lev 2); of itself, the word means a pleasant “gift” (and is so translated in the NEB, perhaps unfortunately).

It will be noted that none of these cultic terms has to do with animal sacrifice, although the practice they describe is being compared with contemporary Israelite practice of animal sacrifice. This verse has received the most attention through the centuries. Many have taken it as referring specifically to the future Christian eucharistic sacrifice, or to the sacrifice on the cross, or to the quality of sacrifice less specifically in the future messianic era. It is difficult to take the literal sense as having reference to the future. It is made up of nominal clauses, without any finite vb., and the ptc. muggas, “offered” cannot by itself give these clauses future reference any more than do the ptcs. in v 12, whose time reference is clearly present. …

Taken at face value, this verse contrasts the offensive sacrificial abuse (involving animals) in Jerusalem with the pleasing oblatory practice (even without sacrificial animals) everywhere else in the world. Pagans at least show the right disposition; Judeans cheat Yahweh. To the objection that so favorable a view of worship among all nations is not consonant with Mal’s particularism one may reply that the direct purpose of this view is not that of praising pagan worship but rather that of shaming the priests of Judah by contrasting the quality of offerings to divinity everywhere else. That pagan offerings are everywhere ritually pure and that pagans everywhere give worship to the name of Yahweh are, in context, less statements of fact than they are rhetorical exaggerations meant to shame the Judeans. They move a step further than the universal acknowledgment of Yahweh enunciated in v 14.

Source: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, published and copyrighted by Prentiss Hall, 1990 and 1968, ISBN 0-13-614934-0, bearing the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Catholic Church, page 360.

Very interesting, Rightly Divide, though that fails to address a few items of note in my post. This is a problem that often occurs when one copies/pastes the words of others as a complete rebuttal.

1. One can find reference to this exact verse in many of the writings of the early Church Fathers, so my post is by no means new exegesis, though it is in my own words. I was not proposing new theology, but offered it as referencing the fact that this has been a significant argument made by the Church since Her earliest beginnings.

While your quote may indeed be from a source bearing the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur (I didn’t verify, but do trust you to be representing it faithfully), it should be noted that this precise verse is referenced on three separate occasions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraphs1330, 1350, & 2643 if anyone cares to look them up), so I stand on my statement.

1. I mentioned, and expounded on to some small extent, the role of the priest in sacrifices, noted that Christians have had priests since the earliest beginnings of the Church, including in the time of the Scriptures, and the fact that there is, in fact, a church that still exists today which maintains the continuous practice of ordaining consecrated priests. If the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, and has NEVER been a sacrifice, then why the need for priests?

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we enter into the perpetual and unbloodied sacrifice of the unblemished Lamb. This is not possible without a priest, so yes, we, the Gentiles, do in matter of fact, both past and present,indeed have priests offering sacrifice, and due to the nature of that sacrifice, it is indeed pure. Again, I stand on my statements.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am on topic! How can quoting the very first part of his elaboration be considered off task. To quote Sen. Bentsen

Anna, I know Protestants, some of my best friends are Protestants, Anna you are not a Protestant. If so, you are a PINO (Protestant in Name Only).

But seriously and back to the topic. These are Christ’s last words; once again they sum everything up.

Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You see, Catholics like to argue about the crucifixtion and change the topic at this time…usually. Christ says the spirit gives life. The flesh is of no avail. Now why would he say that if He literally just means to eat his flesh?
Now Catholics would say he was speaking about their inability to understand. But NO. Christ does NOT say this is because of their not understanding it is because they are shocked. **They would love it if it said “the spirit gives understanding”. Thats their most common interpretation but that is not what it says. ** It says the spirit gives life and that flesh is of no avail. This is just as important as the verses before. Right?
What IF you were to see the Son on Man ascending to where he was before? It is spirit that gives life. This eating of the flesh, in my view, is of no avail. The words I have spoken are spirit and life. They are not in reference to actual eating of the flesh.

I know Catholics do not see it this way but He does elaborate…man does He elaborate.
And I will bring the Catholic understanding into it. You want it to be Protestant to Protestant but you keep saying the Catholics make the better points. In order to understand the Protestant point, you have to understand the implications of a literal understanding of the Catholic view.
Praise be to God!!
I do get excited about His teachings.

 

[benidict]

I am on topic! How can quoting the very first part of his elaboration be considered off task. To quote Sen. Bentsen

Anna, I know Protestants, some of my best friends are Protestants, Anna you are not a Protestant. If so, you are a PINO (Protestant in Name Only).

But seriously and back to the topic. These are Christ’s last words; once again they sum everything up.

You see, Catholics like to argue about the crucifixtion and change the topic at this time…usually. Christ says the spirit gives life. The flesh is of no avail. Now why would he say that if He literally just means to eat his flesh?
Now Catholics would say he was speaking about their inability to understand. But NO. Christ does NOT say this is because of their not understanding it is because they are shocked. **They would love it if it said “the spirit gives understanding”. Thats their most common interpretation but that is not **what it says. It says the spirit gives life and that flesh is of no avail. This is just as important as the verses before. Right?
What IF you were to see the Son on Man ascending to where he was before? It is spirit that gives life. This eating of the flesh, in my view, is of no avail. The words I have spoken are spirit and life. They are not in reference to actual eating of the flesh.

I know Catholics do not see it this way but He does elaborate…man does He elaborate.
And I will bring the Catholic understanding into it. You want it to be Protestant to Protestant but you keep saying the Catholics make the better points. In order to understand the Protestant point, you have to understand the implications of a literal understanding of the Catholic view.
Praise be to God!!
I do get excited about His teachings.

i do like you rightly divide. and at times you amuse me. your alright.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is this the only literal metaphor of the seven (or thereabouts) in John involving the “I AM” statements? The words interpreted literally would mean nothing. Eating his flesh would accomplish nothing, he says so. The spirit of his words do which is belief in him. You see, Christ is not changing the topic to his crucifixion like Catholics will argue our view means. No Christ is literally saying that eating his flesh is not what he is talking about. He words are spirit and life.

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

The Lord certainly is not saying His flesh profiteth nothing. He is talking about man’s perceptions.

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Also notice the very first thing he says in his elaboration to the disciples, what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? What is your view of what that means?
Thanks

You’re ‘piece milling’ one verse from a passage with repeated instructions to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Joh 6:57 (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
Joh 6:62 (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64 (6:65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
Joh 6:66 (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 (6:68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

Doth this scandalize you? (Do you not believe me?) If then, you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? (Would you not believe me then?) But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.

Then Jesus asked the 12 Apostles, “Will you go away also?”