''Do this in memory of me''

[reteeks21]

Reiteration - Jesus stresses the point several times that his body and blood are trans substanciated.

Indeed - he uses this word here - my flesh is indeed food and my blood is indeed drink. In other words, it really IS food and drink, not a symbol. Nowhere else does he say I am INDEED a door. I am INDEED water.

Reaction - Jesus KNEW that all those assembled were taking him LITERALLY. WHY then would he not correct them. As he did many times through out the Gospel. No. He knew some would leave Him over this.

Now, think about this. Jesus KNEW these discpiles were leaving him over this issue - and we are told they would not return to His ways - therefore they were damned maybe? - but Jesus came to save ALL men. So you have to ask the quesiotn WHY would the saviour of mankind allow people to be damned to Hell forever over a misunderstanding of symbolism.

No - Jesus was speaking Literally, and it was ‘‘hard to hear’’, and it was a test of the disciples and our faith, so that those, like Peter, who would stay and believe, would have Life.

He says it nonetheless. Someone previously said that He explained all the other parables, but He never spent time explaining those comments. I am not saying that communion is not His body and blood! I am saying that some arguements used don’t cut the mustard, and that is true for both times. There has yet to be any reasonable explanation as to why He did not clarify the door and living water comments. They have been brushed over. I bring those up because you can’t say some Protestants are wrong in their interpretations but not be able to tell them why their arguements towards you are not correct. Time is spent refuting Protestant claims, but very little is spent explaining the comments we bring up.

 

[Ag_not]

He says it nonetheless. Someone previously said that He explained all the other parables, but He never spent time explaining those comments. I am not saying that communion is not His body and blood! I am saying that some arguements used don’t cut the mustard, and that is true for both times. There has yet to be any reasonable explanation as to why He did not clarify the door and living water comments. They have been brushed over. I bring those up because you can’t say some Protestants are wrong in their interpretations but not be able to tell them why their arguements towards you are not correct. Time is spent refuting Protestant claims, but very little is spent explaining the comments we bring up.

Im sorry. I didnt mean to come across as though I was refuting anything, You asked how do you draw the distinction and I was explaining to you in the post above how I draw the distinction. I didnt mean to sound like I was brushing aside anything, just elaborating on the distinction point. I accept what I said is just my personal thinking and did not mean to cause you any offense.

 

[reteeks21]

Im sorry. I dodnt mean to come across as though I was refuting anything, You asked how do you draw the distinction and I was explaining to you in the post above how I draw the distinction. I didnt mean to sound like I was brushing aside anything, just elaborating on the distinction point. I accept what I said is just my personal thinking and did not mean to cause you any offense.

Please don’t think I took offense! I am very sorry if that is how it sounded. I was just posing a question in response to your question. As far as I am concerned if it is a metaphysical transformation, great. If not, ok then as well.

 

[Ag_not]

Please don’t think I took offense! I am very sorry if that is how it sounded. I was just posing a question in response to your question. As far as I am concerned if it is a metaphysical transformation, great. If not, ok then as well.

Jesus’ style was to speak in parables to better assist understanding and to test the hearer. He also used metaphore a lot, like the door, and water you cite. Speaking in metaphore, depending on the audience can drive the point home well and truely. Also leaves the hearer with a powerful image, something to remember.

Jesus said, “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” John 10:9

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not **enter by the door **into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.” John 10:1

“Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6

Then in John: 26Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 **For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” **
46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

It seems like all the earlier metaphores were building up to this one catagorical statement of FACT - to have eternal life, we must eat and drink of the flesh and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

No one can come to the FATHER except through Christ. To remain in Christ and Him in us, we must eat his Flesh and drink his Blood.

It’s also interesting to note that the Mass, as celebrated by catholics, began to originate at this time, and none of the Church Fathers ever taught anything different other than the fact that the bread and wine BECAME the Body and Blood of Christ. And these people KNEW Christ, and passed his teachings on directly.

We are interpreting the words as written, but the disciples lived the words, and passed them on, and THEY believed without doubt in trans substanciation.

 

[NDfan]

The simple fact is that in John chpater six, after Jesus has commanded that we eat his flesh, many disciples left him. But Jesus did nothing to expalin it was only a parable. His other parables an metaphors are explained. What other conclusion can be drawn other than we are to drink his blood and eat his flesh? Where is the context that indicates that Christ was speaking metaphorically?

Sorry to barge in CW but Jesus most definitely clarified HIMSELF before the disciples left HIM. Vs 61-63.

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “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.

Jesus knows that if the Jews saw HIM ascend to Heaven they would believe. The whole discourse in John 6 is about believing in Christ. In vs 35 we are told that if we come to Christ we will never be hungry and if we believe we will never thirst. Christ sums it all up in vs 40 when HE tells us the will of the Father.

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Then Christ repeats HIMSELF in vs 47
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Then proceeds to use the bread of life analogy again and again. The quote in Vs 54 is a restatement of believing in Christ. Not an inference to literally eating a piece of HIS flesh and cup of HIS blood. But wanting physical bread to eat the Jews can’t get past the notion of eating literal flesh and blood because it is forbidden in Leviticus. Remember this whole discussion takes place right after Jesus feeds the 5 thousand.

Augustine said it best when he stated that if Jesus ever alluded to committing a crime HE must have been speaking figuratively. But even after Jesus clarifies HIMSELF many still left.

PEACE

 

[CWBetts]

Sorry to barge in CW but Jesus most definitely clarified HIMSELF before the disciples left HIM. Vs 61-63.

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “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.

Jesus knows that if the Jews saw HIM ascend to Heaven they would believe. The whole discourse in John 6 is about believing in Christ. In vs 35 we are told that if we come to Christ we will never be hungry and if we believe we will never thirst. Christ sums it all up in vs 40 when HE tells us the will of the Father.

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Then Christ repeats HIMSELF in vs 47
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Then proceeds to use the bread of life analogy again and again. The quote in Vs 54 is a restatement of believing in Christ. Not an inference to literally eating a piece of HIS flesh and cup of HIS blood. But wanting physical bread to eat the Jews can’t get past the notion of eating literal flesh and blood because it is forbidden in Leviticus. Remember this whole discussion takes place right after Jesus feeds the 5 thousand.

Augustine said it best when he stated that if Jesus ever alluded to committing a crime HE must have been speaking figuratively. But even after Jesus clarifies HIMSELF many still left.

PEACE

Jesus was most definitely speaking literally. Novody denies that what we eat becomes part of us through digestive processes. Why can’t you believe that through the power of God, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. There is substantive context that would indicate that he is speaking metaphorically, yet “bible only” Protestants continue to cling to the errors of the reformation

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps you could give me a decent explanation of why Jesus said "It is the Spirit that quickeneth;** the flesh profiteth nothing:**

Right after Jesus says in several different ways that unless you eat MY flesh, you don’t have life in you, and by implication, He won’t raise that person up on the last day… He doesn’t then undo what He just taught saying the flesh profits nothing? He’s NOT saying eating HIS flesh profits nothing. He’s saying THEIR flesh profits nothing.
brkn:

the words that I speak unto you you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)?

IOW, my words cover ALL realities, the seen and unseen, the physical and the spiritual… There is NOTHING His words don’t cover. It’s not either/or but both
brkn:

Jesus said this during the time everyone was trying to understand what He meant by eating His flesh as the “living bread”.

What is the Spirit quickening and how does eating the living bread result in eternal life? v.54

It is a matter of faith and obedience to faith.

When the Isrealites were told to eat the lamb and sprinkle the blood of that lamb over the door post, and the angel of death would passover that house, they did what they were told or the first born male in that family would die that night. Those who were obedient and did what God told them to do, lived. Those who didn’t, died.

The passover meal is a prefigurement to the Eucharist.

BTW, it takes a valid ministerial priesthood to confect the Eucharist.

 

[TomaszA]

And He also said He was a door for us to enter through, but He isn’t cedar, oak, or pine (or is He? ) And as I said before He also said He was the living water, but He wasn’t water. So how do you draw the distinction?

It’s not that hard to distinguish, even if you reject Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

How do you do so? By looking at the context, the wording, and using reason.
**
“For my flesh is real** food and my blood is real drink.”
John 6:55

Whats your explanation for this verse?

 

[Hisalone]

Jesus was most definitely speaking literally. Novody denies that what we eat becomes part of us through digestive processes. Why can’t you believe that through the power of God, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. There is substantive context that would indicate that he is speaking metaphorically, yet “bible only” Protestants continue to cling to the errors of the reformation

Are you contradicting yourself or jst an error in typing.

God can do all things if He wanted but he doesnt turn bread into the flesh of Christ nor the wine into the blood of Christ. The whole of the Gospel of John is speaking spiritual realities in a worldly context.
From Nicademos and “you must be born again” to the women at the well “you will never thirst again” to the I AM statements to “you must eat my flesh”
Christ is speaking to the spirits of men about spiritual realities not of fleshly things.

You have missed the whole teaching and thus miss out in the deeper secrets of Christ.

 

[Ag_not]

You have missed the whole teaching and thus miss out in the deeper secrets of Christ.

I think this highlights beautifully the peril inherent in everyone interpreting the scripture for themselves. It can’t be done. well it can. But it results in tens of thousands of interpretations. That’s why a magisterium is required. The Church came before the Bible. And the church of the apostles taught the Eucharist. And handed it down through the apostles. Negating the need for individual divine revelation and fallible interpretation. That’s how you KNOW if your understanding is corect. It won’tt contradict Scripture, and it Wont contradict the Magisterium, and it won’t contradict Sacred Tradition.

 

[Hisalone]

It’s not that hard to distinguish, even if you reject Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

How do you do so? By looking at the context, the wording, and using reason.
**
“For my flesh is real** food and my blood is real drink.”
John 6:55

Whats your explanation for this verse?

\

What is the flesh of Christ.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…
and the word made flesh and dwelt amoung us.

In him we have redemption through His blood.

all things are purified with is blood

Do a word search on eating and drinking and see the numerous times that it is used metaphorically.
Many, many times.

 

[JonNC]

And He also said He was a door for us to enter through, but He isn’t cedar, oak, or pine (or is He? ) And as I said before He also said He was the living water, but He wasn’t water. So how do you draw the distinction?

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems the distinction is this:
Jesus never was a literal door, or literally water. But He was flesh and blood.
He said I am a door, but He never held a door and said, this door is me. Same with water.
He was flesh and blood, and He actually held bread and wine and said, “This is My body,…”.
Figuratively, He says, “I am a door”. Literally He says, “This (bread) is My body”.

Jon

 

[Ag_not]

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems the distinction is this:
Jesus never was a literal door, or literally water. But He was flesh and blood.
He said I am a door, but He never held a door and said, this door is me. Same with water.
He was flesh and blood, and He actually held bread and wine and said, “This is My body,…”.
Figuratively, He says, “I am a door”. Literally He says, “This (bread) is My body”.

Jon

That is so simple and obvious (now you mention it) - it’s BRILLANT

 

[TomaszA]

Peace Hisalone,

From Nicademos and “you must be born again” to the women at the well “you will never thirst again” to the I AM statements to “you must eat my flesh”

Let’s take a look at the Nicodemus scene and see how it differs from John 6.

Nicodemus asked:
"How can a man be born when he is old?"
"Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!"

Jesus replied,
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

When Jesus says a man must be born again, and Nicodemus asks how this is possible, notice how Jesus responds. He responds by clarifying that “rebirth” does not refer to a physical birth, but the spiritual birth brought by baptism. Thus, it’s clear rebirth is a metaphor for spiritual renewal.

Now lets take a look at John chapter 6 verses 52 through 55:

The Jews said,
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus replied,
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you… For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Look how different this is from the previous example. Here Jesus affirms the literal understanding of His statement, and further emphasizes this by saying His Blood is REAL drink, and His Body REAL food.

So whereas being “born again” was a metaphor for spiritual renewal brought about by Baptism, in this case eating the Flesh of Christ is literally the consumption of His Body which is made available through the Mass.

The Real Presence is the universal teaching of the Church of God from West to East since the beginning.

Hope this helps,

God bless,
Tomasz

 

[TomaszA]

What is the flesh of Christ.

His Body.

Do a word search on eating and drinking and see the numerous times that it is used metaphorically.
Many, many times.

Consumption in Biblical language is used metaphorically to indicate destruction (see my previous posts). This is why a metaphorical understanding of the passage is inappropriate.

Jesus doesn’t say He is a real door, but He does say His Body is real food!

 

[Hisalone]

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems the distinction is this:
Jesus never was a literal door, or literally water. But He was flesh and blood.
He said I am a door, but He never held a door and said, this door is me. Same with water.
He was flesh and blood, and He actually held bread and wine and said, “This is My body,…”.
Figuratively, He says, “I am a door”. Literally He says, “This (bread) is My body”.

Jon

Actually it is more simple than that
63 ****It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ****

 

[Hisalone]

Peace Hisalone,

Let’s take a look at the Nicodemus scene and see how it differs from John 6.

Nicodemus asked:
"How can a man be born when he is old?"
"Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!"

Jesus replied,
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

You missed the point that flesh births flesh and Spirit births Spirit exactly what Jesus says in verse 63 how can you not see something so plain
When Jesus says a man must be born again, and Nicodemus asks how this is possible, notice how Jesus responds. He responds by clarifying that “rebirth” does not refer to a physical birth, but the spiritual birth brought by baptism. Thus, it’s clear rebirth is a metaphor for spiritual renewal.

Now lets take a look at John chapter 6 verses 52 through 55:

The Jews said,
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus replied,
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you… For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Look how different this is from the previous example. Here Jesus affirms the literal understanding of His statement, and further emphasizes this by saying His Blood is REAL drink, and His Body REAL food.

So whereas being “born again” was a metaphor for spiritual renewal brought about by Baptism, in this case eating the Flesh of Christ is literally the consumption of His Body which is made available through the Mass.

verse 63 is the key

The Real Presence is the universal teaching of the Church of God from West to East since the beginning.

Hope this helps,

God bless,
Tomasz

 

[JonNC]

Actually it is more simple than that
63 ****It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ****

I don’t believe He was speaking of His own flesh. His flesh profited us everything. It was abused and broken and hung on the cross for our salvation. And in His own words on the night that He was betrayed, be broke bread and gave to them, saying, take and eat this is my body.

It is my flesh that profits nothing.

Jon

 

[Hisalone]

His Body.

Consumption in Biblical language is used metaphorically to indicate destruction (see my previous posts). This is why a metaphorical understanding of the passage is inappropriate.

Jesus doesn’t say He is a real door, but He does say His Body is real food!

Consumption in biblical language is not used for destruction it is used for “experience”
many of the verses are an experience of destruction but many are not.

Taste and see the goodness of the Lord
Now that you have tasted that the Lord is good
who have tasted the goodness of the word of God
How sweet are your words to my taste.
She watches over the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness.
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.
A man shall eat well by the fruit of his mouth, But the soul of the unfaithful feeds on violence
You will drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts. Then you will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

 

[Reuben_J]

“For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink.”
John 6:55

If Jesus says it’s real, it’s real! Furthermore verse 54 uses a Greek word which means chewing and gnawing, indicating that Jesus is referring to His flesh as real food!

The reaction of the listeners also indicates a literal interpretation. Previously if a crowd erred Jesus would correct them, examples include: John 3:3-6, 4:32-34; Matthew 16:6-12. In the case of John 6, Jesus does not correct their understanding but affirms it!

I like that. If Jesus says it’s real, it’s sure is.

Did not Jesus says," Amen, Amen, I say to you … " for emphasis? There is certainly no doubt that verse meant to be taken literally.

The only point left for contention is whether this saying is for the disciples only at that moment and should not be translated to the present day Holy Eucharist.