Disciples Doubts

[R_C]

In Leviticus 3:17, God told Israel they shall not eat blood forever.

I’m sure you don’t think God is a liar.

I am amused by your remarks on “our catechism”. “Our catechism” is a summary of the Sacred Tradition that the Church has followed not for a few decades - like some modern communities - but for centuries, back to the times of the Apostles.

If you read the earliest writings on the Lord’s day, you will realize how silly that argument is. Let me give you an example:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?

One of the earliest Fathers of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the apostle, who lived between the 35 and the 98, spoke about the Docetist heresy in one of his epistles, saying:

They abstain from the Eucharist, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Another Church Father, Iraeneus, in his writing “against heresies” (180 A.D.) clearly wrote:

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ …] how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God …] flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord

One more: Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the year 350:

For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

I could go on for a while, from east to west, but it is evident that from the Apostles to the Fathers of the Church, from the Early Church to nowadays, the Church has acknowledged that the Bread and Wine become the Lord’s flesh and blood. And it is not as clever as you may believe to be scandalized in the idea that the Lord commanded this to us.

You clearly do not have an understanding of the economy of salvation and of the New Covenant. Rather than clinging yourself to the teachings of whatever community you follow, you should perhaps learn more of the history and teachings of the Church before the Reform.

If you do not believe in my advice, then read the following passage carefully:

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Why are Christians no longer circumcised? After all, the Lord did say that this was the covenant that we were to keep for the generations to come.

 

[William_C]

I am amused by your remarks on “our catechism”. “Our catechism” is a summary of the Sacred Tradition that the Church has followed not for a few decades - like some modern communities - but for centuries, back to the times of the Apostles.

If you read the earliest writings on the Lord’s day, you will realize how silly that argument is. Let me give you an example:

I’m amused by your response to my post. It is a non sequitur.

My reference to your catechism had nothing to do with your response to me, but was used only to cite when the institution of the Eucharist occurred; namely, at the Last Supper with the Lord’s words pertaining to what the elements represented. I hope that helps your understanding of my reference to your catechism.

R_C:

You clearly do not have an understanding of the economy of salvation and of the New Covenant.

I don’t understand how you can make such an assertion regarding me when you and I have had no discussion regarding the “economy of salvation and of the New Covenant,” and when you don’t even understand the reason for my citing your catechism.

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Why are Christians no longer circumcised? After all, the Lord did say that this was the covenant that we were to keep for the generations to come.

The command to be circumcised in the passage you cite is a command to the Jews, just as the command in Lev 3:17 is.

The church is not commanded to be circumcised.

 

[R_C]

I’m amused by your response to my post. It is a non sequitur.

My reference to your catechism had nothing to do with your response to me, but was used only to cite when the institution of the Eucharist occurred; namely, at the Last Supper with the Lord’s words pertaining to what the elements represented. I hope that helps your understanding of my reference to your catechism.

I don’t understand how you can make such an assertion regarding me when you and I have had no discussion regarding the “economy of salvation and of the New Covenant,” and when you don’t even understand the reason for my citing your catechism.

The command to be circumcised in the passage you cite is a command to the Jews, just as the command in Lev 3:17 is.

The church is not commanded to be circumcised.

I am giving you a general response. I realize I took it too far when I said that you had no understanding - forgive me for that. Sometimes I mean to say one thing yet I write another one. It is very unfortunate when that happens.

What I truly meant to say is that in the context of the economy of salvation there is a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant; everlasting does not mean that we should do it forever. The command to be circumcised, by the way, is just like the commandment on blood, and it is not to the Jews, but to the chosen people of God - which with the New Covenant is the whole of humanity, redeemed by Christ. Another, more simple example - should have mentioned that one instead - is the prohibition against eating certain animals. At the time of the New Covenant God clearly told St. Peter that the prohibition was no longer in effect - not only with regards to the food, but at a higher level, to the Gentiles.

I am always very disturbed when I see a fellow Christian not acknowledging that the consecrated Bread and Wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ. I understand when those from other communities receive this teaching they then transmit it and defend it, but to take a stance like yours, that is, not really open to the possibility that you may have received an incomplete or imperfect teaching, is disheartening.

I have had serious issues with another community that has the same erroneous belief on the prohibition of blood - something relegated, like circumcision and many other things, to the old covenant - but they apply it in a way that causes innocents to suffer and sometimes even die. Thus please understand that I find it disturbing how a Christian - I do not know the name of your Church, protestant includes thousands of communities - can still discuss about the blood prohibition, or even use this old commandment to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Anyways I feel sorry for having moved the topic in another direction. I apologize and please feel free to PM me if you would like to further debate this with me. Here is the original post that begun the thread:

How could the disciples not believe that Jesus would be with them in the form of bread and wine when shortly before they had witnessed the miracle of loaves and fishes? It wasn’t like a magic trick but a true miracle.

 

[William_C]

I am giving you a general response. I realize I took it too far when I said that you had no understanding - forgive me for that. Sometimes I mean to say one thing yet I write another one. It is very unfortunate when that happens.

OK.

R_C:

What I truly meant to say is that in the context of the economy of salvation there is a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant; everlasting does not mean that we should do it forever. The command to be circumcised, by the way, is just like the commandment on blood, and it is not to the Jews, but to the chosen people of God - which with the New Covenant is the whole of humanity, redeemed by Christ.

You’re wrong, R_C.

Those commandments regarding the blood and circumcision were given to the Jews. They are not given to the church which is a separate entity from Israel.

R_C:

Another, more simple example - should have mentioned that one instead - is the prohibition against eating certain animals. At the time of the New Covenant God clearly told St. Peter that the prohibition was no longer in effect - not only with regards to the food, but at a higher level, to the Gentiles.

I know that, however, you are not understanding my point, which is, at the time of John 6, the new covenant is still future, and the old covenant is still in effect. Therefore, Jesus cannot mean that His literal flesh and blood must be eaten because that is sin under the old covenant law. Whether or not that is lifted later has no bearing on what is being said in John 6. The fact is, Jesus cannot lead anyone to deliberately sin, and if He meant that the Jews were to eat His flesh and blood, He ***would be ***leading them into sin. Therefore, Jesus could not have meant that His literal flesh and blood were to be consumed, at any time. That would be sin under the old covenant in existence at the time of John 6.

R_C:

I am always very disturbed when I see a fellow Christian not acknowledging that the consecrated Bread and Wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ. I understand when those from other communities receive this teaching they then transmit it and defend it, but to take a stance like yours, that is, not really open to the possibility that you may have received an incomplete or imperfect teaching, is disheartening.

I’m sorry you’re disturbed about my position.

R_C:

I have had serious issues with another community that has the same erroneous belief on the prohibition of blood - something relegated, like circumcision and many other things, to the old covenant - but they apply it in a way that causes innocents to suffer and sometimes even die. Thus please understand that I find it disturbing how a Christian - I do not know the name of your Church, protestant includes thousands of communities - can still discuss about the blood prohibition, or even use this old commandment to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Anyways I feel sorry for having moved the topic in another direction. I apologize and please feel free to PM me if you would like to further debate this with me. Here is the original post that begun the thread:

Thanks for your explanation.

 

[R_C]

Thank you for your kindness and understanding.

I may as well be mistaken on that point. However Jesus did say and do things while still alive that seemingly contradicted those laws. He spoke with and even healed people that were considered to be impure - famous the case of Matthew, who would become one of the apostles. He seemingly disobeyed the law of the Shabbat, calling Himself “lord of the Shabbat”. He upset the teachers of the law because He called Himself Son of God and made Himself equal to God not just by these words, but by forgiving sins and underscoring that it was He who was forgiving them - something only God could do. He even personally spoke of the Commandments with words similar to these: “you have heard it was said…yet I tell you…”. Many of the actions of the Lord were in that sense a scandal - which is why many walked away from Him and why He did say that “He did not come to abolish the Scriptures” - as it seemed - “but to fulfill them”.

 

[William_C]

Thank you for your kindness and understanding.

I may as well be mistaken on that point. However Jesus did say and do things while still alive that seemingly contradicted those laws. He spoke with and even healed people that were considered to be impure - famous the case of Matthew, who would become one of the apostles. He seemingly disobeyed the law of the Shabbat, calling Himself “lord of the Shabbat”. He upset the teachers of the law because He called Himself Son of God and made Himself equal to God not just by these words, but by forgiving sins and underscoring that it was He who was forgiving them - something only God could do. He even personally spoke of the Commandments with words similar to these: “you have heard it was said…yet I tell you…”. Many of the actions of the Lord were in that sense a scandal - which is why many walked away from Him and why He did say that “He did not come to abolish the Scriptures” - as it seemed - “but to fulfill them”.

OK.

When Jesus tells the disciples in John 6 they must eat and drink His literal body and blood where does He tell them He’s abrogating the law given Lev 3:17?

 

[Faithdancer]

Ah, the fun of encountering the sola scriptura fundamentalists…relying on just a few verses, often taken out of context, always with the goal of denying the teachings of the Magisterium. Of course, this also means denying the apostolic succession which Jesus Christ Himself instituted.

Anyway, back on point- the apostles doubted, even after they witnessed miracles with their own senses. Can modern Catholic Christians be condemned for occasionally having doubts? Our Catholic Christian faith, however, buttressed by both Scripture and the teachings of our saints, doctors, popes, etc, is an exquisitely intelligent faith, grounded as it is in both faith and reason. Fides et ratio, these are the two wings on which we fly to the beatific vision. Deo gratias!:getholy::angel1:

 

[TimothyH]

OK.

When Jesus tells the disciples in John 6 they must eat and drink His literal body and blood where does He tell them He’s abrogating the law given Lev 3:17?

William, my comments are not to you but to other Catholics who are reading this. I will not convince you, and so my comments are not directed to you. My comments are for Catholics.

Scripture is crystal clear that Jesus does not abrogate the law. There is absolute clarity that Jesus does not abolish the law.

**Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ** (Matthew 5:17)

He elevates the law, perfects it, gives the fullness of revelation about it, and and fulfills it.

The Levitical law was given to the Jews by God to prepare them for the comming of the Messiah. The Levitical law was not a full revelation of God’s law, but a partial revelation. It was a preperatory step. The author of the Book of Hebrews tells us that the revelation of God in Old Testament was preperatory and only partial.

***In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors *through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, (Hebrews 1:1-2)

The Jews had just come out of 400 years of bondage in Israel and had forgotten how to worship God, forgotten how to be faithful to God, so God gave them a law to re-teach them how to worship and follow God, and to prepare them for the fullness of revelation which would come later in Jesus. When Jesus comes, he takes the partial Levitical law and fully reveals it in light of his coming. Jesus raises the bar. Jesus perfects the law. Jesus fully reveals the law, and explains it in light of himself. We see this with absolute crystal clarity in the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus the Rabbi uses a rabbinical teaching formula, stating some aspect of the Levitical law, and then introduces his clarification and elevation, fully revealing the old laws intent. The formula is "You have heard that it was said (insert Levitical law here), but I say to you (insert new teaching here)."

***You have heard that it was said **to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, (Matthew 5:43-44)*

These are just a few examples from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. In each case, he takes some aspect of the Levitical law (you have heard that it was said) and he clarifies, perfects it, and fully reveals it (but I say to you).

Jesus is God. He is the same God who gave the Law to Moses. He has the right to do whatever he wants with the law because he made it. The Levitical law is of divine origin, and Jesus is divine. Jesus is fully revealing what was only partially revealed in the past.
Jesus does the same thing with Levitical law about drinking blood.

You have heard that it was said to your ancestors of old, “You shall not drink blood because the life of every creature is in the blood”, but I say to you, you will drink my blood and live my divine life, because my life is in my blood and you will drink my blood and live.

This is effectively what Jesus said in John 6. It is the essence of the whole Bread of Life discourse. God’s revelation about consumption of blood was only partial in Leviticus 17:3. God left out the part about his son taking on fless and coming to be our savior, and our drinking the live giving blood of his son so that we could have the life of God. The part about animals was given to Moses, but the part about drinking the blood of God was not given to Moses. That would come later, and Christ would explain it.

In John 6, Jesus takes the Levitical Law about drinking blood and clarifies it, elevates it, perfects it, and gives the full revelation of it to the Jews, and to the whole world.

-Tim-

 

[R_C]

OK.

When Jesus tells the disciples in John 6 they must eat and drink His literal body and blood where does He tell them He’s abrogating the law given Lev 3:17?

In Matthew 9:11, the Pharisees ask the apostles: "Why does your master eat with publicans and sinners?” And we know - even from Peter when he tells the Roman - that “it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him”. Where does Jesus tell them He is abrogating that law, or any law? Jesus does not abrogate, He fulfills and explains in a better language, more understandable, and more appropriate for the New Covenant, centered on mercy and forgiveness.

 

[Faithdancer]

William, my comments are not to you but to other Catholics who are reading this. I will not convince you, and so my comments are not directed to you. My comments are for Catholics.

Scripture is crystal clear that Jesus does not abrogate the law. There is absolute clarity that Jesus does not abolish the law.

***Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. *** (Matthew 5:17)

He elevates the law, perfects it, gives the fullness of revelation about it, and and fulfills it.

The Levitical law was given to the Jews by God to prepare them for the comming of the Messiah. The Levitical law was not a full revelation of God’s law, but a partial revelation. It was a preperatory step. The author of the Book of Hebrews tells us that the revelation of God in Old Testament was preperatory and only partial.

***In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors ***through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, (Hebrews 1:1-2)

The Jews had just come out of 400 years of bondage in Israel and had forgotten how to worship God, forgotten how to be faithful to God, so God gave them a law to re-teach them how to worship and follow God, and to prepare them for the fullness of revelation which would come later in Jesus. When Jesus comes, he takes the partial Levitical law and fully reveals it in light of his coming. Jesus raises the bar. Jesus perfects the law. Jesus fully reveals the law, and explains it in light of himself. We see this with absolute crystal clarity in the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus the Rabbi uses a rabbinical teaching formula, stating some aspect of the Levitical law, and then introduces his clarification and elevation, fully revealing the old laws intent. The formula is "You have heard that it was said (insert Levitical law here), but I say to you (insert new teaching here)."

***You have heard that it was said ***to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, (Matthew 5:43-44)

These are just a few examples from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. In each case, he takes some aspect of the Levitical law (you have heard that it was said) and he clarifies, perfects it, and fully reveals it (but I say to you).

Jesus is God. He is the same God who gave the Law to Moses. He has the right to do whatever he wants with the law because he made it. The Levitical law is of divine origin, and Jesus is divine. Jesus is fully revealing what was only partially revealed in the past.
Jesus does the same thing with Levitical law about drinking blood.

You have heard that it was said to your ancestors of old, “You shall not drink blood because the life of every creature is in the blood”, but I say to you, you will drink my blood and live my divine life, because my life is in my blood and you will drink my blood and live.

This is effectively what Jesus said in John 6. It is the essence of the whole Bread of Life discourse. God’s revelation about consumption of blood was only partial in Leviticus 17:3. God left out the part about his son taking on fless and coming to be our savior, and our drinking the live giving blood of his son so that we could have the life of God. The part about animals was given to Moses, but the part about drinking the blood of God was not given to Moses. That would come later, and Christ would explain it.

In John 6, Jesus takes the Levitical Law about drinking blood and clarifies it, elevates it, perfects it, and gives the full revelation of it to the Jews, and to the whole world.

-Tim-

And again, Scott Hahn has made a very cogent argument that the relevant passages in John 6 indicate that Christ initiates the Eucharist and the New Covenant, right then and there, with His words. The notion that the New Covenant was only initiated with Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is theologically in error; this sacrifice sealed the New Covenant, it did not initiate it!:byzsoc::heaven:

 

[TimothyH]

And again, Scott Hahn has made a very cogent argument that the relevant passages in John 6 indicate that Christ initiates the Eucharist and the New Covenant, right then and there, with His words. The notion that the New Covenant was only initiated with Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is theologically in error; this sacrifice sealed the New Covenant, it did not initiate it!:byzsoc::heaven:

This shows a great understanding of how covenants work. Thank you. This is an important post.

The Blood of the Sacrifice sealed the covenant.

Thanks you.

-Tim-

 

[pete_29]

Weren’t all the things that Jesus taught part of the new Covenant?

 

[fisherman_carl]

There is an interesting dissonance in the scriptures between the apparent fact of the miracles said to have happened, and the willingness of people to not believe that Jesus was anything special because of them. The dead rising, the miracle of the loaves, the tearing of the veil of the temple, the mass resurrections after the passion and Christ’s rising, and so on. yet the scriptures also record widespread unbelief. One explanation is that the miracles were in fact the sort of miracles we see reported today - fine if you belief, not if you don’t, and the the scriptures have exaggerated the physical facts of what happened. If the NT miracles happened as claimed, almost everyone would certainly, and with good reason, believed that Jesus had supernatural power. Yet they did not. The most likely explanation is that they did not see the miracles as reported.

I understand what you are saying. Sometimes the gospels seem to make the disciples look rather daft. However, it reflects our human nature. We can experience something quite profound and then later get lost in our daily affairs almost forgetting our previous experiences. But, the fact remains that the disciples kept believing in Christ and kept following him. That is all that was required. Peter said, ‘where else can we go?’.

The other thing is that the gospels were written by first century journalists. Back then ‘journalists’ did not feel the need to give equal weight to all of a person’s life or to write in all the details when writing about them. Instead they would include what they considered the most important parts or events in a person’s life along with their teachings that they wanted to convey. Thus, you see in the gospels the stories of Jesus that they considered the most important as well as the events they considered to be the most important especially the crucifiction and Ressurection. So it would not be surprising to see a disconnect between events since they did not feel the need to write chronologically or in the order that the events actually occured. For more info see Lee Strobel’s ‘Case for Christ’.

 

[fisherman_carl]

How could the disciples not believe that Jesus would be with them in the form of bread and wine when shortly before they had witnessed the miracle of loaves and fishes? It wasn’t like a magic trick but a true miracle.

That’s a good question. However, if you read the gospels it says the crowd believed that Jesus was the Christ because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. So there was a consequence to the miracle. Now, we don’t know how much time transpired between that miracle and the teaching that we must eat Christ’s body and blood. And, because of the way that they wrote the gospels it was intended not so much as an autobiographical writing or blow by blow play of events but as a teaching that was meant to convey a message to us.

First you have the multiplication of bread. Then you have Jesus saying he is the bread of life. And an invitation to believe in him. And then Jesus speaking of eating his body and blood. And this language of eating someone’s flesh and blood would be offensive to anyone not just Jews I would think. The people could not understand what he was saying because their minds were on earthly things but Jesus was speaking of spiritual things.

One could almost sympathize with the crowd for thinking these things when Jesus was saying we must eat his flesh and blood in order to have life. After all the crowd doesn’t have the benefit we have of aftersight to see that he was talking about the Eucharist or about his Sacrifice on the cross. To them Jesus may have appeared to be a mad man or lunatic.

Jesus’ only defence against them was that his words were spirit and life and the flesh counts for nothing. This was not said for the benefit of the crowd but for us reading the passage by the authors themselves. The point is that the story was written to convey a message or teaching and not necessary a detailed discriptions of events.

Ultimately, I think Jesus was inviting them to believe in him. I don’t think Jesus expected them to fully understand what he was saying at that time, just to believe and trust in him that it was true. The 12 disciples also had trouble with Jesus’ teaching but they chose to still follow him. Peter said, ‘You have the words of eternal life, where else can we go?’ So they didn’t understand what Jesus was saying either. How could they? I think the moral of the story here is that the disciples that left Jesus didn’t really believe in him and this showed when they were challenged by Jesus or didn’t understand him. It shows that faith is supernatural and of the Spirit. The flesh can not come to faith on its own. It needs supernatural help from God. Now these disciples that left Jesus in the flesh may have at a later time come to faith in him. We don’t know.

You can come to many different conclusions from reading those passages as can be seen in the various sects of Christianity we have today. Therefore to me it makes sense that there is a Church that exists besides the bible that gives us guidance based on Tradition on how to read those texts. Since the texts themselves can be understood in different ways or are often incomplete in details. And, I believe this Church to be the Catholic Church.

 

[Faithdancer]

Weren’t all the things that Jesus taught part of the new Covenant?

Well spoken, Pete. The miracle of the loaves and fishes, for example, immediately precedes the passage in question in John 6. Some theologians have realized that there is a connecting thread between every passage in the Gospels where bread is involved. Jesus’ ministry is not a series of disconnected, isolated incidents- it is one seamless whole, just as God is one seamless whole- and Jesus is true God. He knew exactly what He was doing and where He was going, at all times.

In John 6: 63 Jesus says, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” [1] He doesn’t say, “the words that I have spoken to you are metaphors for Spirit and life.” He doesn’t say, “the words I have spoken to you will become or will be life, in the future.” The verb is present tense. The words are life. Those who read the Bible from a sola scriptura interpretation, in particular, must accept them exactly so, at face value. He promises that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will live forever…and a promise is a covenant.

1. Hahn, Scott; Mitch, Curtis; Scott Hahn; Curtis Mitch (2010-06-14). The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (Kindle Locations 10088-10089). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Faithdancer]

That’s a good question. However, if you read the gospels it says the crowd believed that Jesus was the Christ because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. So there was a consequence to the miracle. Now, we don’t know how much time transpired between that miracle and the teaching that we must eat Christ’s body and blood. And, because of the way that they wrote the gospels it was intended not so much as an autobiographical writing or blow by blow play of events but as a teaching that was meant to convey a message to us.

First you have the multiplication of bread. Then you have Jesus saying he is the bread of life. And an invitation to believe in him. And then Jesus speaking of eating his body and blood. And this language of eating someone’s flesh and blood would be offensive to anyone not just Jews I would think. The people could not understand what he was saying because their minds were on earthly things but Jesus was speaking of spiritual things.

One could almost sympathize with the crowd for thinking these things when Jesus was saying we must eat his flesh and blood in order to have life. After all the crowd doesn’t have the benefit we have of aftersight to see that he was talking about the Eucharist or about his Sacrifice on the cross. To them Jesus may have appeared to be a mad man or lunatic.

Jesus’ only defence against them was that his words were spirit and life and the flesh counts for nothing. This was not said for the benefit of the crowd but for us reading the passage by the authors themselves. The point is that the story was written to convey a message or teaching and not necessary a detailed discriptions of events.

Ultimately, I think Jesus was inviting them to believe in him. I don’t think Jesus expected them to fully understand what he was saying at that time, just to believe and trust in him that it was true. The 12 disciples also had trouble with Jesus’ teaching but they chose to still follow him. Peter said, ‘You have the words of eternal life, where else can we go?’ So they didn’t understand what Jesus was saying either. How could they? I think the moral of the story here is that the disciples that left Jesus didn’t really believe in him and this showed when they were challenged by Jesus or didn’t understand him. It shows that faith is supernatural and of the Spirit. The flesh can not come to faith on its own. It needs supernatural help from God. Now these disciples that left Jesus in the flesh may have at a later time come to faith in him. We don’t know.

You can come to many different conclusions from reading those passages as can be seen in the various sects of Christianity we have today. Therefore to me it makes sense that there is a Church that exists besides the bible that gives us guidance based on Tradition on how to read those texts. Since the texts themselves can be understood in different ways or are often incomplete in details. And, I believe this Church to be the Catholic Church.

Very well stated indeed, FishermanCarl. I just read your post, after I made the one following. It seems we are in synch, and you point out 6:63 as well, which I think is key. Good show!

 

[Faithdancer]

This shows a great understanding of how covenants work. Thank you. This is an important post.

The Blood of the Sacrifice sealed the covenant.

Thanks you.

-Tim-

thanks Tim- God bless you, Brother!

 

[kkollwitz]

I had a look at occurrences of the English word perpetual in the OT. A few other uses of the word:

Ex 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Lev 24:9 And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute.

Num 19:21 And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.

1Kings 9:3 And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Perpetual? Not if God decides otherwise.

 

[William_C]

In Matthew 9:11, the Pharisees ask the apostles: "Why does your master eat with publicans and sinners?” And we know - even from Peter when he tells the Roman - that “it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him”. Where does Jesus tell them He is abrogating that law, or any law? Jesus does not abrogate, He fulfills and explains in a better language, more understandable, and more appropriate for the New Covenant, centered on mercy and forgiveness.

Where does God command the Jews not to associate with Gentiles?

I mean, God saved Ruth, and Rahab, and allowed many other non-Jews to be brought into the midst of Israel as slaves.

 

[William_C]

And again, Scott Hahn has made a very cogent argument that the relevant passages in John 6 indicate that Christ initiates the Eucharist and the New Covenant, right then and there, with His words. The notion that the New Covenant was only initiated with Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is theologically in error; this sacrifice sealed the New Covenant, it did not initiate it!:byzsoc::heaven:

That’s not what your catechism says. Your catechism says the eucharist was instituted at the last supper (para 1365), and scripture says the new covenant was instituted at the Lord’s death (Heb 9:16ff).