Eucharist scripture challenge

[hmalley]

Spiritually. Everyone dies physically. Only some will attain eternal life.

Aye yi yi. I have read through much of the Bible. The Eucharist has so much support in the Bible that people would weep if they knew. If you really want a quick one, look at the original Passover in Exodus. God tells the Jews to slaughter the lamb and then eat it’s flesh. It’s not even a jump to Jesus the Paschal Lamb who was slain (see Revelation). So therefore Jesus being the lamb, we are to do as our Hebraic ancestors did and eat His flesh. John 6 backs it up quite well, what with Jesus saying gnaw on my body and drink his blood (which was abhorrent to the Jewish crowd, see Deuteronomy 12:23 for example). That would be why the crowd left.

Somebody needs to re-read their Bible.

John 6:56-58
6 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.Jesus is talking spiritually here not physically. Easy to understand, unless you are blinded to the truth. He wants us to eat on his word to grow from that. to desire the milk of the word as it saids in
John 6:56-58
6 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”

1 Peter 2:2-4
2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

 

[hmalley]

Well, go back and re-read John 6 very slowly and pay particular attention to these facts:

1. In the Bread of Life discourse of John 6 Jesus uses his imperative formula phrase “verily I tell you” (or “truly I tell you” or “I tell you the truth” depending on translation) not one time as he normally does when making a strong point but THREE SEPARATE TIMES! This is hugely important teaching that is unprecedented in all of scripture. The closest are single verse use of the double “verily verily”. This is VERY significant. I take this to mean that He is speaking in the total unity and authority of all 3 persons of the Trinity. God is essentially giving witness to this truth in each of His Three Divine Persons by Christ re-stating it 3 times. In the first case Jesus even refers to God the Father and invokes the imagery of Moses and manna in the dessert - this is Elohim/Yahweh. . The second case Jesus us using first person expressions of Himself - The Son - the 2nd person of The Trinity. The third case projects toward the future when all present are deceased and those who remain in Christ are raised up. This can be taken as a referral to the 3rd person of the Trinity who will be present after Jesus is gone from earth and being the breath of God will restore those who remained in Christ through His spirit to eternal life.
2. He keeps revealing progressively more specificity in response to doubts and incredulity of the audience. He transitions from an initial more mild “bread of life” imagery applied to the real physical person of Christ into two very specific “my flesh is real food” statements.

1. 
   ]John 6:32-35 …"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. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.” 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
   *] John 6:47-51 I 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."
   *] John 6:53-56 …"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.
   
   What other NT verses have so much redundancy and repetition in them? In all cases of parables or metaphors either the disciples ask for clarification and Jesus gives it or the gospel writer tells us what it means. If this was a metaphor or allegory or literary device this would be the single exception in the NT where Jesus did not further elaborate to explain what the imagery/symbolism meant. God is consistent in all things. This can not be an accident. This can not be a metaphor. And really, what Jew who was willing to die a horrible death for his faith would run away from a mere metaphor (ref. John 6:66). And how is it that 20,000 would run away from a mere metaphor after they just partook of the miracle of the loaves a short time earlier?
   
   To remain skeptical in the face of these facts is beyond mere skepticism - its just stubborn holding of new teachings never before heard in Christendom before the 1500’s.
   
   From the perspective of the Serpent in the Garden the lie has changed 180 degrees. It used to be “steal the forbidden fruit because God lies and the fruit will make you like God”. Now the lie is “don’t you dare take that free salvfific fruit from Jesus since its a lie. God surely is lieing and He can’t or won’t save you from the sins I talked you into before.” But this time the Serpent has nothing more to offer for a lie other than the status quo or a false security in a partial gospel that misses essential teachings. What’s that old adage? “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me”?
   
   BF

1. 
   You are very articulate, but you are even more wrong than you are articulate. Show me one place in the bible were they had mass.
   They went from synagouge to homes preaching and teaching the word. They didn’t spend 45 min. in ceremonies and 15 minutes sugar coating a verse or two. They preached the word, something your church don’t do. That is why 90% of catholics is ignorant of the Word. That is why I can read some of this garbage and cry aloud like Paul did, bc as the Jews was spiritually blinded so is the people that is under catholic teachings.

 

[hmalley]

Your assessment seems illogical. If the flesh of Jesus profits nothing then why did He lay his flesh down to be crucified and just how did his death profit us in our salvation?

You are misapplying scripture. Jesus was talking about sinful man’s flesh not His Divine Flesh profits nothing.

BF

I am keeping it in context of John 6. He was not talking about eating his flesh physically,but spiritually. Jesus was not a cannibal and he wasn’t going to make us one. That is why the Jewish people left. Like you, they misunderstood him, then he explained to them the words I speak to you is spirit. it is quite simple to understand. But Jesus did say, “My sheep hears my voice.”

 

[hmalley]

Oh yes of course. You just have to ignore St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr then. Along with the other parts of Bible, especially the part where St. Paul says that if you eat or drink unworthily, you profane the body and blood of the Lord, and eat and drink judgement on yourself. Doesn’t really make much sense if it’s a symbol.

In the first place we are all unworthy. It is talking about if you are saved or not. Do you know what it means, being saved. It doesn’t mean you were baptize as an infant and kepted all the sacrements, it means you seen yourself as a sinner and you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins. e paid for all of your sins, past, present, and future. don’t worry yu can’t pay for any yourself in purgatory, no such place.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

The early church did not believe or practice this. JESUS WAS NOT PHYSICALLY TALKING ABOUT HIS BODY. He was talking spiritually not physically. read v63
John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Well, since Jesus just spent a very long time talking about his flesh (as life for the world, telling us to eat it, etc) I think he was talking about the spiritual vs the physical life. I don’t think he spent the whole time talking about how /his/ flesh is life for the world only to say it profiteth nothing. He is talking about flesh, as in worldly life (like “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”) as opposed to spiritual.

I really don’t understand how he could have been saying his flesh profiteth nothing after all of what came before it.

Oh yes, the early church did believe and practice it. All the way up until very, very recently (after Luther. I’m not positive, but from what I understand, Lutherans do believe in the real presence too.) What do you think about the quote I gave you from St Justin Martyr? I’ll find more.

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).

There’s plenty more quotes, if you want any. And of course, scripture, including John 6, and the lord’s supper in all of the other gospels.

May I see your historical evidence they did not believe this? When was this belief invented, and why do you think God let such insanity (If his flesh and blood are not in the bread and wine, it is indeed insanity to think so isn’t it) persist after it was created for hundreds of years until about the 16th century?

Sorry if I sound very brusque, I mean this with no personal malice.

 

[hmalley]

He would have had to have said “Do not take me literally. I am speaking symbolically.” in order for me to believe that He was in fact speaking symbolically.

Heres your answer to your challenge. He would have had to leave off verse 58 and 63 and the hundreds of verses that talks about being saved and being born again throughout the bible. Salvation is not in communion(or The Lord Supper). It is in faith in Jesus alone. Read all of Romans 4 then tell me how to be made righteous.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

You are very articulate, but you are even more wrong than you are articulate. Show me one place in the bible were they had mass.
They went from synagouge to homes preaching and teaching the word. They didn’t spend 45 min. in ceremonies and 15 minutes sugar coating a verse or two. They preached the word, something your church don’t do. That is why 90% of catholics is ignorant of the Word. That is why I can read some of this garbage and cry aloud like Paul did, bc as the Jews was spiritually blinded so is the people that is under catholic teachings.

That’s not what Catholic mass is like.

And randomly insulting us doesn’t make you more right

The canon of the Christian bible wasnt established until the 4th century AD. Here is a quote of what they did before then. This is almost exactly the same as a Catholic mass is today (You would know, because you know exactly what Catholic mass is like of course). So yes, in early Christian times, they DID celebrate mass.

(From Justin Martyr, written in 155 AD, to emperor Antoninus Pius).

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. (a)

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. (b)

Then we rise together and offer prayers for ourselves… and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain salvation. (c)

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss (d).

Then someone brings the bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the son and the holy spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying “Amen”.

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine, and water, and take them to those who are absent. (e) "

The letters added were mine, to correspond with how they are in Catholic mass today (same order. Some things are added now, like singing a psalm, and saying the Our father, but all of these things are present.)

A: The liturgy of the word (we read 3 passages from the bible during mass. Old testament, new testament, and a gospel verse)

B: The homily.

C: I’m not sure what its called but we do offer prayers for various causes (look how Justin martyr described salvation, but thats a post for another day isn’t it…)

D: The sign of the peace.

E: Consecrating the bread and wine, everyone communing.

 

[windlessuser]

That’s not what Catholic mass is like.

And randomly insulting us doesn’t make you more right

The canon of the Christian bible wasnt established until the 4th century AD. Here is a quote of what they did before then. This is almost exactly the same as a Catholic mass is today (You would know, because you know exactly what Catholic mass is like of course). So yes, in early Christian times, they DID celebrate mass.

(From Justin Martyr, written in 155 AD, to emperor Antoninus Pius).

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. (a)

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. (b)

Then we rise together and offer prayers for ourselves… and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain salvation. (c)

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss (d).

Then someone brings the bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the son and the holy spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying “Amen”.

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine, and water, and take them to those who are absent. (e) "

The letters added were mine, to correspond with how they are in Catholic mass today (same order. Some things are added now, like singing a psalm, and saying the Our father, but all of these things are present.)

A: The liturgy of the word (we read 3 passages from the bible during mass. Old testament, new testament, and a gospel verse)

B: The homily.

C: I’m not sure what its called but we do offer prayers for various causes (look how Justin martyr described salvation, but thats a post for another day isn’t it…)
(This Is called the Prayers of the faithful)

D: The sign of the peace.

E: Consecrating the bread and wine, everyone communing.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

I can’t seem to quote you, but thanks windlessuser.

Well it seems as though our protestant brother hmalley has been banned. The discourse was fun while it lasted.

 

[JoeT777]

One important ecclesiastical observance in Judaism is the Pasch or Passover. It was a commemoration or a remembrance of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. The Church of God required an elaborate observance of sacrificial rituals, (Cf. Exodus 12, 13, seqq.). Paul refers to this Law in Hebrews 10; the blood of the goat or oxen cleanses, but not perfectly remitting sin. There are real and spiritual powers in the sacrifice of the meat and blood in the traditions of Moses. not beign perfect sacrifices, they can’t remove sin. They are only ritualistic or symbolic. That is, this sacrifice that leaves no sense of a “conscience of sin,” such an offering would not have pleased the pharisaic Jew. Christ offered himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. Christ’s sacrifice sustains eternal life similar to the way the manna from God sustained a temporal life in the wilderness. This sacrifice can never be repeated nor can it ever cease; the one in the same sacrifice of Christ done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It’s the same sacrifice done in loving obedience of that continual sacrifice; “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” Communion is a continuation of Moses’ sacrifice and a connection to Moses to a perfect lamb, The Real Sacrifice, with the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom,Homily 17 on Hebrews)

The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Part of the commemoration of Passover was the sacrifice of a lamb during special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. The household was cleared of common bread (i.e., leavened) representing a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn away the leaven (the representation of burning away corruption). “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened,” (1Cor 5). Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and His Twelve.

The first born ate the flesh of the sacrificial lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. This is called a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice when signified by the presence of ‘blood’. We know this because in Jewish sacrificial custom the presence of blood related to the meat.

Most of the Gospel of John, chapter 5 addresses preparation for a ritual spiritual cleansing as the Jew prepared for Pesach (Passover.) This period on Jewish yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim, a feast of atonement.

“If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me,” is Christ’s appeal to the intellect, not to their passions. The question at the end of this chapter is pivotal to understand salvation offered by His perfect sacrifice, “But if you do not believe his writings (Moses), how will you believe my words?”

The new Tradition found in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John is a renewal of the Kingdom of God, transforming it into the Kingdom of Christ. Speaking directly to Kingdom of Christ, (the Church of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) it’s her that feeds the intellect, the heart and the soul with real nourishment. Chapter 6 opens with preparation for Pasch. However, this particular year it was to be a perfect sacrifice, bleed then burnt on the God’s altar for atonement of our sins.

Why would Christ feed his bothers bread on the Mount when we all know that man does not live by bread alone? For, that matter, why would He feed the multitude manna, especially one that had a short shelf life? What value is a food like that for an eternal journey? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center; sweat to the taste, but of no real nutritional value. Christ reminds us that our Jewish “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Sounds like all bun to me; can shortbread take a man through an eternity without something more filling, like meat? The bread of Divine knowledge is a worthless burger without the meat of Divine Wisdom.

Christ tells these first-born of His Kingdom, ‘eat meat’. He’s definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee’s cows who want moo miracles. Moses bread didn’t save; why? The bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity; the intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He’ll provide the beef, he says, “I am that bread of life”; that is to say He is the meat that an eternal death will pass over, the meat of everlasting life, flesh for the nourishment of life; a meat for the first-born of His Kingdom. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you;” a sacrificial meat given to all of us so that eternal death will pass over.

As Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” Christ tells us where and flat out too, and it ain’t a Wonder, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). The blood signifies a ‘REAL’ sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch (the time of renewal) Communion is the only meal we consume that in turn consumes us, bite by bite.

JoeT

 

[mikeledes]

I am keeping it in context of John 6. He was not talking about eating his flesh physically,but spiritually. Jesus was not a cannibal and he wasn’t going to make us one. That is why the Jewish people left. Like you, they misunderstood him, then he explained to them the words I speak to you is spirit. it is quite simple to understand. But Jesus did say, “My sheep hears my voice.”

And it is precisely because we hear His voice that we believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. When Jesus said that His words are spirit, He did not mean that he was speaking figuratively. In fact, a careful reading of the Gospel of John demonstrates that Jesus was speaking literally. I explain this in the link I posted above. But just in case it has been overlooked…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Well, go back and re-read John 6 very slowly and pay particular attention to these facts:

1. In the Bread of Life discourse of John 6 Jesus uses his imperative formula phrase “verily I tell you” (or “truly I tell you” or “I tell you the truth” depending on translation) not one time as he normally does when making a strong point but THREE SEPARATE TIMES!
2. He keeps revealing progressively more specificity in response to doubts and incredulity of the audience. He transitions from an initial more mild “bread of life” imagery applied to the real physical person of Christ into two very specific “my flesh is real food” statements.

Actually He stated no less then seven times in the discourse that those who believe in Him will have everlasting life – all before He ever said anything about eating His body and drinking His blood.

Compare:

“Whosoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (54)

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (40)

What’s the difference between these two verses? In verse 40 He says if we believe in Him He will raise us unto eternal life. But in verse 54 He says we must eat His body and drink His blood. Was he saying two different things, or was He saying the same thing two different ways? If He is saying the same thing two different ways then it cannot be true that we must eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood. This is exactly how Clement of Alexandria understood it:

“The Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Now compare this:

"He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” (Jhn. 6:56)

John, the author of this gospel, explained this saying in his first epistle:

“And this is his commandment that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keeps his commandments dwells in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.” (1 Jhn. 3:23-24)

In all cases of parables or metaphors either the disciples ask for clarification and Jesus gives it or the gospel writer tells us what it means. If this was a metaphor or allegory or literary device this would be the single exception in the NT where Jesus did not further elaborate to explain what the imagery/symbolism meant. God is consistent in all things. This can not be an accident. This can not be a metaphor.

“"Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” (Jhn. 4:13-14)

Where is the explanation? Is it in John 4:23-24?

“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Compare that to the explanation Jesus gave in John 6:63:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Hmm, interesting correlation wouldn’t you say?

And really, what Jew who was willing to die a horrible death for his faith would run away from a mere metaphor (ref. John 6:66). And how is it that 20,000 would run away from a mere metaphor after they just partook of the miracle of the loaves a short time earlier?

If you have to ask why they left then you really do not understand the discourse or the atmosphere surrounding it.

To remain skeptical in the face of these facts is beyond mere skepticism - its just stubborn holding of new teachings never before heard in Christendom before the 1500’s.

That’s a pretty bold statement; are you sure you want to go there?

From the perspective of the Serpent in the Garden the lie has changed 180 degrees. It used to be “steal the forbidden fruit because God lies and the fruit will make you like God”. Now the lie is “don’t you dare take that free salvfific fruit from Jesus since its a lie. God surely is lieing and He can’t or won’t save you from the sins I talked you into before.” But this time the Serpent has nothing more to offer for a lie other than the status quo or a false security in a partial gospel that misses essential teachings. What’s that old adage? “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me”?

That reminds me, I still need to fertilize my yard.

 

[mikeledes]

Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. This goes against Jesus’s established teaching method in which the metaphor or parable usually precedes the explanation, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares.

 If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then why the controversy? :shrug:  Didn't He just explain that eating His flesh and drinking His blood means to believe in Him?  And if they were already *disciples*, then what would be the problem with accepting  that they must believe in Him?  In fact, there was no real controversy when He said earlier about believing in Him in order to receive eternal life.  The first objection was *not* to Christ being the object of faith, but to His claim regarding His origin (i.e. from heaven). 

 And as I have stated in previous posts, the established pattern in Jesus's method of teaching/preaching in the Gospel of John is one of progressive revelation.  He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, *not* from clarity to greater ambiguity.  So it would  be odd and out of character for Him to start with the literal meaning *first *(i.e. faith) and then use the metaphor.

Moreover, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

The Greek word translated “abiding” is “meno,” which means to continue, stay, remain, etc. Thus the assumption is that the person who abides in Christ has already come to faith in Him and has already been incorporated into Christ. Hence, abiding occurs subsequent to coming to Christ in faith and incorporation. What is being decribed here is an act rooted in faith, but not identical to faith.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who have a living faith can subjectively benefit from receiving the Eucharist. And those who remain in Christ will be raised by Him on the last day and not suffer eternal damnation.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. This goes against Jesus’s established teaching method in which the metaphor or parable usually precedes the explanation, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares.

 If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then why the controversy? :shrug:  Didn't He just explain that eating His flesh and drinking His blood means to believe in Him?  And if they were already *disciples*, then what would be the problem with accepting  that they must believe in Him?  In fact, there was no real controversy when He said earlier about believing in Him in order to receive eternal life.  The first objection was *not* to Christ being the object of faith, but to His claim regarding His origin (i.e. from heaven).

Let me ask you something; what do you know about these disciples that left? What was there motive for following Jesus? Did they believe in Jesus? And what were they expecting from Him?

All those questions can be answered from John, chapter 6. But you must start at the beginning of the chapter.

BTW, the first objection was as soon as they caught up to Jesus in Capernaum: “"What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?” (30)

What sort of “disciples” do you suppose would ask such a question, especially after witnessing the miracle of feeding 5000 men and their families with five loaves and two small fishes? What do you suppose they were after?

 

[mikeledes]

Let me ask you something; what do you know about these disciples that left? What was there motive for following Jesus? Did they believe in Jesus? And what were they expecting from Him?

All those questions can be answered from John, chapter 6. But you must start at the beginning of the chapter.

BTW, the first objection was as soon as they caught up to Jesus in Capernaum: “"What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?” (30)

What sort of “disciples” do you suppose would ask such a question, especially after witnessing the miracle of feeding 5000 men and their families with five loaves and two small fishes? What do you suppose they were after?

You’re right. In order to understand, we have to start from the beginning and when we do start from the beginning, we find out that those that asked for a sign were not his disciples. It was members of the 5,000 men and their families. The Gospel of John makes a clear distinction between “the multitude” or “people” and Jesus’s “disciples.”

John 6:24-26

24 when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

The context demonstrates that the question asked in verse 29 came from the “people” and not His disciples. Members of this great multitude (the 5000 mean and their families),after having realized that Jesus and His disciples had crossed the lake, decided to get on boats and follow them.

So John 6:60-61,66 is not referring to those who asked Him that question.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you?
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more

And whatever their motive motive may have been, it doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[bona_fides_1]

I am keeping it in context of John 6. He was not talking about eating his flesh physically,but spiritually. Jesus was not a cannibal and he wasn’t going to make us one. That is why the Jewish people left. Like you, they misunderstood him, then he explained to them the words I speak to you is spirit. it is quite simple to understand. But Jesus did say, “My sheep hears my voice.”

So you just admitted what I just said that 5,000 eye witness Jews all believed that Jesus was speaking literally of His real body and blood and that was too difficult a teaching and why they rejected His teaching. This confirms beyond a shadow of doubt about what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years - that Christ was speaking about His real Body & Blood.

But I see that you managed to get yourself banned by breaking the forum rules and now can’t respond. Pity.

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

Actually He stated no less then seven times in the discourse that those who believe in Him will have everlasting life – all before He ever said anything about eating His body and drinking His blood.

Compare:

“Whosoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (54)

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (40)

What’s the difference between these two verses? In verse 40 He says if we believe in Him He will raise us unto eternal life. But in verse 54 He says we must eat His body and drink His blood. Was he saying two different things, or was He saying the same thing two different ways? If He is saying the same thing two different ways then it cannot be true that we must eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood. This is exactly how Clement of Alexandria understood it:

I am very glad you brought up John 6:40. What’s the difference? Well in verse 40 there is a double injunction to BOTH see AND believe! :Let’s look at it in 4 translations:

*John 6:40 (kjv) 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:40 (NIV) 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who** looks to the Son** and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:40 (NASB) For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will (C)raise him up on the last day."

John 6:40 (DRB) And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Let’s not forget that (Acts 2:39) The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." We are far off from the time of the apostles and Jesus’ time here on earth. Yet we are those called who are spoken of as (John 20:29b) blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

But I think there is something here in John 6:40. We are called to discern the Lord, to SEE HIM, in Eucharist AND BELIEVE. Ask yourself - who do those who do not discern the Lord in Eucharist more closely resemble? Are these more like those in John 6:66 (interesting chapter verse tuple) or are these more like those who stayed with Christ and trusted in Him when they could not fully comprehend His “hard” teaching that was never explained any further than Jesus does in John 6? Just how is a metaphor “hard” to understand for parable-hardened veteran disciples who have been hearing almost nothing but parables and explanations ever since they knew Christ?!

Here I could use Martin Luther’s arguments to further the case for real-presence:

*This word of Luke & Paul is clearer than sunlight and more overpowering than thunder. First, no one can deny that He speaks of “the cup”, since He says, “This is My cup”. Secondly, he calls it the cup of the new testament. This is overwhelming, for it could not be a new testament by means and on account of wine alone (Against the Heavenly Prophets in Matter of Images and Sacrament, 1525; LW, 40, 217).
*

Here’s another of Luther’s arguments that serve the Catholic position by proving to the non-believers who can’t see The Lord in Eucharist that they would make the sacrament of The Lord turned into a futile work of man rather than a grace and blessing from God:
He thinks one does not see that our of the word of Christ he makes a pure commandment and law which accomplishes nothing more than to tell and bud us to remember and acknowledge him. Furthermore, he makes this acknowledgement nothing else than a work that we do, while we receive nothing else than bread and wine. (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525;LW, 40 206)
*

By the grace of God even a worm from the grave of a heretic can be put on Peter’s hook and tasked to the labor of catching fish and perform the works its host swore were unnecessary.

I have a lot more to tell you later but have to run for now.

So “gnaw” on that a bit while you are walking your new pet dogma on the front lawn.

BF

 

[curlycool89]

Let me ask you something; what do you know about these disciples that left? What was there motive for following Jesus? Did they believe in Jesus? And what were they expecting from Him?

I’m really feeling broken record-ish. One of the main reasons the disciples left is because Jesus said “drink my blood”. Jews were forbidden to eat or drink blood (see for example Deuteronomy 12:23). The reason is because (in the Eastern tradition) the blood is everything; it is your life and soul (so for Jesus, His blood contains His humanity, divinity, and soul). It was too sacred to for people to consume. That is the gravity of that gift.

Obviously, if this had been symbolic or metaphorical, then Jesus could have said that and they would have come back.

 

[bona_fides_1]

If you have to ask why they left then you really do not understand the discourse or the atmosphere surrounding it.

The reason they left is because it was too provocative to Jewish sensibilities to drink blood since this was forbidden and because this was an expression of speech that was used to signify doing someone grievous injury. But as provocative as it was, if it has been a mere trope or rhetorical expression then there would be no reason to immediately turn on Jesus and reject these teachings but rather to listen more attentively since it was so provocative. No, its clear from the Jewish reaction that they knew that Jesus was forcing them to trust Him completely and cast off some of their old Jewish aversions and to take Him literally. This was more provocative than Moses ordering the Jews to slaughter a large number of Pharaoh’s sacred lambs (considered a god by the Egyptians) and put the evidence of the crime (blood ) on the door lentil and trust completely and irrevocably in God to not have Pharaoh slaughter them to a man the next morning when the Egyptians discovered all their sacred divine lambs missing and the evidence of the lamb blood on every Jewish hut in the slave’s district! The Jews in Jesus time knew exactly what Jesus was asking. Jesus was provoking them and challenging them to to abandon the Old Jewish Covenant and step up to a New Covenant in the Suffering Messiah Son of Joseph and never again look back to the old ways like before in Exodus. Christ was calling for a radical departure with no chance of going back. All except the apostles failed that call and so rejection set in motion the unfolding of God’s plan for Christ, Lamb of God, to be sacrificed and salvation being opened to the Gentiles. But this time the blood is on the hands of the Jews who refused to drink it but will slaugher the lamb vicariosuly through a Roman proxie to skirt the law.

**Examples of similar expressions of speech to signify doing somone grievous injury. **
*
Job 19:22 "Why do you persecute me as God does,And are not satisfied with my flesh?

Psalm 27:2 When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell

Ecclesiastes 4:5 The fool folds his hands and consumes his own flesh.

Isaiah 9:20 They slice off what is on the right hand but still are hungry, And they eat what is on the left hand but they are not satisfied; Each of them eats the flesh of his own arm.

Isaiah 49:26 I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh, And they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine; And all flesh will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

Micah 3:1-3 And I said, “Hear now, heads of Jacob And rulers of the house of Israel Is it not for you to know justice? 2"You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones, 3Who eat the flesh of my people, Strip off their skin from them, Break their bones And chop them up as for the pot And as meat in a kettle.”

Revelation 16:6 for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it."
*

From the above we can affirm with confidence from the hermeneutical context of the Jewish culture at the time of Jesus (rather than post-reformation context) that Jesus was speaking literally.

Further, it is more than obvious from the similarity of the formula used in the undeniable “miracle of the loaves and fishes” and the formula used at the Last Supper that there is a Divine parallel conveyed for the purpose of instruction. In the multiplying of the loaves and fishes we have a confirmed miracle as witnessed by the crowd of 5,000 who were fed. This is meant to confirm to the faithful familiar with NT scripture that the events in the Last Supper are ALSO a divine miracle. Compare the passages:
Matt 15:36 and He took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks, He broke them and started giving them to the disciples, and** the disciples gave them to the people**.

Mark 8:6 And He directed the people to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, He gave thanks and broke them, and started giving them to His disciples to serve to them, and they served them to the people.

John 6:11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had **given thanks **“eucharisteo”], he **distributed them **to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted.

---

Matthew 26:27-28 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

Luke 22:17;19 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;…
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (cf Matt 26:26; 1 Cor. 10:16. 11:23-24; Acts 2:42, 20:7)
more to come…

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

Further adding yet more credence that there is a difference between what happened with the loaves/fish and the Bread and Wine at the last supper is the distinction Jesus makes between physical food and Eucharistic/sacramental food (divine body). From there He progressively gets more explicit (see Jhn 6:35; Jhn 6:51) that He is that food literally and the Jews “get it” and start quarreling among themselves and even explicitly say in scripture:

** (John 6:52) “HOW can this man give us His flesh to eat”? NO METAPHOR HERE! The Jews KNOW Jesus is talking about HIS REAL FLESH AND ARE DISTURBED BY IT!.**
John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.27 “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”
*

The pattern we see in scripture is that when Jesus uses parables he always explained them. When they still did not understand He always explains more fully (e.g. Matt 19:24-26, John 11:11-14,8:32-34; cf 4:31-34, 8:21-23). But when they refused to accept some teaching, Jesus merely repeated it with more emphasis (e.g. Matt 9:2-7; Jhn 8:56-58). THIS latter is what Jesus does in John’s Bread of Life discourse - he simply repeats with progressively more emphasis - 3 times. Those who rejected Jesus in John 6:66 was an instance of WILFUL REJECTION (see Jhn 6:63-65; cf. Matt 13:10-23).

Summarizing:

1. The parallels between the miraculous mass feedings and the Last supper & the formulas used support real presence viz a miracle.
2. The use of “eucharisteo” in the descriptions of both instances links the two.
3. Christ’s repeated reference in John 6 to His Body (eucharistically;sacramentally) giving life to the recipients is a clear case that its no mere symbol. If Christ meant meant only faith then it would be superfluous to reference His Body and Blood. There is more here - than faith in Jesus - there is Christ personally. Otherwise Jesus could say simply He who believes in me has eternal life and not introduce a new way of saying the same teaching on faith that was taught long before this incident.

It’s time to “get real”…

BF