Does john 6 certainly prove the eucharist?

[po18guy]

Jesus does not only speak of his flesh and blood i John 6, he also speaks about his life giving spirit.

What God has joined, let not man rend asunder. It is not either this or that, it is both this and that. We need not choose! If it was spirit alone, the last supper is incoherent, irrational, meaningless.

 

[PJM]

Hello,

I had a conversation with my Protestant friend Jason. In his interpretation of John 6 he says that Jesus was referring to how intimate the relationship was supposed to be between Him and them, not the Eucharist. The Jews turned this into an issue of eating a human but Jesus kept insisting on the intimate relationship and thought “if they don’t except my hyperbole, they don’t trust me.” How would you respond to that. Right now I have no counter to Jason.

Here for those who may not be familiar with it is John 6: 47-58 [the entire chapter is clear, & precisely worded

John.6 Verses 47 to 58

[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

NOW LOOK AT THE FINAL FEW VERSES OF THIS CHAPTER below: verses 64-69

[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] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT DOES TAKE PLACE IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION

[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [god cannot Lie; yet this is a conditional PROMISE

[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

**[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” ** [MEANING TRUE FAITH & ITS RIGHT UNDERSTANDING IS A GIFT OF THE HS]

[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

**[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” ** … JESUS DID NOT ARGUE WITH THE DEFECTORS; THE UNBELIEVERS

[68] Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

AMEN!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Paul also speaks of it in this passage:

The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ? (Douhay-Rheims 1Cor10:16)

Most Protestants won’t see it unless they are open to where the Holy Spirit is drawing them. Ask him if he is open to learning something other than what he already knows. You can suggest that the entire Church believed what you do for the majority of Christian history and the vast majority of the Church still believes it.

Good luck.

 

[jcrichton]

I have debated the interpretation of John 6 several times. Every time it (the response) has been the same:
“Eating Jesus’ flesh is coming to Him, and drinking His blood is believing in Him”

Which, on the surface, *seems * like a decent interpretation. The first half of the Bread of Life discourse is concerning Jesus’ heavenly origins and believing in Him, after all. As I started dissecting it (to prove the figurative interpretation false), one person I was debating said, “Jesus couldn’t have been literal because the bread and wine don’t look like Jesus’ body and blood!”

I usually point to the Last Supper accounts, where Jesus (as we all know) says over the bread, “This is my body”, and over the wine, “This is my blood”. If Jesus was being literal, as we believe, then the fact that the bread and wine don’t look like His body and blood is meaningless. The authors didn’t note that the bread and wine appeared to be flesh and blood. They wrote about what it looked like and what Jesus said it was. The appearance remains the same, it’s the substance that is changed. Still, I often point to Eucharistic miracles. Unfortunately, they kept insisting that the literal interpretation is false.

So, as I said, I dissect (bold is me):
"The Israelites truly ate manna in the desert, correct?" “Yes.” So Jesus is talking about an actual event?" “Yes.” “And Jesus truly came down from heaven, correct?” “Yes…” And the Jews understood him literally here?" “Yes, because they mentioned his parents.”

So we establish that everything being spoken about thus far is to be understood literally. This is where things get dicey.

"When Jesus says that he is the bread that came down from heaven, the Jews understand him literally again?" “Yes.” “Yet you say they’re wrong to take Him literally when He says to eat His flesh and drink His blood (which is true food and true drink)?” “Of course”
"You believe that coming to Jesus is bread and believing in him is blood. Do you think by “coming to Jesus” and “believing in Jesus”, you will be raised up on the last day?" “Yes.” “But later, Jesus asks the disciples if they will be offended if they see him ascend to where he was before. Isn’t this talking about Jesus’ ascension into heaven?” “Yes, but the disciples couldn’t have known that was what he was talking about.” "It doesn’t matter. They didn’t know what Jesus meant when he said he would be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, killed, and on the third day rise from the dead. But he was speaking literally when he said this."

My observation is this: they take everything at the beginning and end at face value, but understand the middle as a figure of speech.

Hi, Thom!

…it’s selective reasoning… they themselves determine when Scriptures are being literal or figurative… even when Jesus Himself makes the statement, they have the need to put “meaning” into Jesus’ mouth!

…it’s like the issue of the Holy Spirit–they have determined that the Holy Spirit left the Church on her own and the Church apostatized; then they claim that the Holy Spirit speaks through them (all the various conflicting religious sects–with the exclusion of the Catholic Church, which is, to my estimation, the only point of Unity for them)… again, selective reasoning!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PNEUMA]

PNEUMA;14719538:

Jesus does not only speak of his flesh and blood i John 6, he also speaks about his life giving spirit.

What God has joined, let not man rend asunder. It is not either this or that, it is both this and that. We need not choose! If it was spirit alone, the last supper is incoherent, irrational, meaningless.

If it was his flesh and blood alone, the spirit is incoherent.

 

[PJM]

I think the argument is that the Jews did really understand that He was speaking in figure and accused him of speaking literally

On John 6:
Douay Catholic Bible
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [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.

**DOUAY EXPLANATIONS OF VERSES 63 & 64

[63] “If then you shall see”: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

[64] “The flesh profiteth nothing”: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.
[64] “Are spirit and life”: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.**

[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. [67]** After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him**. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

The errant understanding you reference is directly and precisely refuted by Jesus Himself & the response of Peter on behalf of the Apostles.

GBY

 

[PJM]

Hi!

…the problem with Jason, and most non-Catholics, is that they live in complete seclusion… their understanding is glued to their forefather’s (creators) and what they believed… they are disengaged from the Church that Christ founded and refuse to understand the very Sacred Scriptures that they claim to obey outside of their founders stipulations ('if it’s Catholic, it is wrong).

Let’s look at the passage (paraphrased):

Jesus: eat my flesh
Jews: say what?
Jesus: unless you eat my flesh you can’t have part of Me (Salvation)
Jews: wait, eat your flesh… hey, we are not cannibals… no way no how will we do that!
Jesus: unless you chew/gnaw my flesh and drink my blood there’s no Life in you for my Flesh is Real Food, and my Blood Real Drink
Jews: aw, come on! …we can’t follow you… see you!

Did Jesus change His Teaching on the eating of His Flesh? Was Jesus so limited that He could not understand that they were taking Him literally? If Jesus was being metaphorical (using hyperbole/exaggerated language) why did He not change His “presentation” or run after them to explain that He was not being literal? Why did the Twelve remain? Why did they not ask for clarification? Why did Jesus not break it down to the Twelve as having been misunderstood?

Finally, why did St. Paul teach that Breaking of the Bread is in deed an Ordination from Christ and that it is not a symbolic practice:

Let’s break this passage down:

• St. Paul Receives Christ Delegation about the Eucharist, which he then, as the rest of the Apostles, pass down to the Believers
• Jesus Institutes the Sacrament of the Eucharist which must remain permanent until His Parousia (Second Coming)
• St. Paul correctly relates Jesus Salvific Act on the Cross to His Body and Blood–as Celebrated in the Catholic Mass, around the world, daily
• St. Paul then makes the connection: anyone who Receives the Sacrament unworthily acts unworthily towards the Body and Blood of Christ
• Finally, St. Paul, ups the ante: anyone that does not recognize (Believe and Accept) that Christians are in deed Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ receive it (through the act of consumption or through rejection–this is my personal intimation) for his/her own condemnation!

Could “Christians,” fifteen hundred years removed, know and understand better than Christ’s own Apostles His Commands and Delegations?

If the Church, obedient to Apostolic Teaching, Taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine for over two thousand years, how can divergent teachings that came fifteen hundred years after the Institution of the Eucharist be the correct Apostolic Teaching?

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks ANGEL

Nicely done:thumbsup:

 

[Ernie07]

Hello,

I had a conversation with my Protestant friend Jason. In his interpretation of John 6 he says that Jesus was referring to how intimate the relationship was supposed to be between Him and them, not the Eucharist. The Jews turned this into an issue of eating a human but Jesus kept insisting on the intimate relationship and thought “if they don’t except my hyperbole, they don’t trust me.” How would you respond to that. Right now I have no counter to Jason.

Hi,

You’ve received so many great responses and I can’t really add anything to what has already been written so I’ll just provide maybe a different approach/perspective. My short version recommendation is to avoid getting into a “my interpretation is better than yours” type debate because in my experience it just isn’t very effective and ends in agreeing to disagree at best. Focus more on having him prove that his interpretation is correct and I’d do this by focusing on what the Church believed when the Christian Church was one rather than the divided “church” of today.

We get caught up in interpretation debates because there are multiple versions of the “truth” today (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists, Non-denominational, etc.). Not so in the Church of the first 800 years when there was just a single Christian Church. Single universal Church that had a single set of beliefs (with the unquestioned authority to excommunicate those that didn’t agree)…a Church that Jesus built and said He would protect. What did that Church believe? The fact is that they believed in the Eucharist and you have evidence to back that up. Avoid quoting individual Church Fathers because then Jason will do the same on questionable quotes and you’ll be back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” game.

Know your Church history and explain to Jason that the Christian Church organized Councils to address issues of faith, morals, or church discipline. The first one in Nicaea in 325 A.D. is where they convened and decreed the first formal belief around the Trinity. It was also at this Council where 3 separate canons addressed the Eucharist: one describes the Eucharist as the body of Christ and another discusses the reverence required in distributing the Eucharist. That is clear evidence that the early Christian Church believed in the Eucharist.

This single Christian Church of the first 800 years either got it right or Jesus failed to protect His Church as there was no other group even pretending to be the Church that Jesus founded. That is why we believe in the Eucharist…because they believed in it. We don’t trust our own interpretive powers, but we do trust what Jesus said: that He would build His Church and protect it.

We can go deeper, but I’ll leave it at that for now. Hope this helps. Thanks.

-Ernie-