Eucharist scripture challenge

[mikeledes]

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

And in the Gospel of John, when there is something ambiguous, the evangelist explains it and there are numerous examples (John 2:20-21, 7:38-39, 8:26-27, 12:32-33, 21:18-19, etc.) If John the evagelist explains less controversial statements made by Jesus, why is it that he fails to provide one in one of the most controversial instances in the Gospel of John, and the only time Scripture talks about disciples leaving Jesus because of something He said? Because Jesus meant what He said. He was not speaking figuratively.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Brian_Culliton]

John is somewhat ambiguous when he says “the people” got into boats and came to Capernaum. I think it is evident that thousands of people did not do that, but some did just as Michael had indicated. However, Michael is telling me that those who sought Him were not the same people that later left Jesus, the ones John called Jesus’ disciples. But these disciples had to be among them that sought Jesus because they were not with the twelve when they departed the night before; that we know with certainty.

Jesus clearly said that those disciples who left Him did not believe in Him. But the disciples that departed by boat the night before encountered Jesus walking on the sea, and when He had entered the boat they all worshiped Him and declared Him to truly be the Son of God. We see the distinction when Jesus asked the twelve if they would leave too, but Peter answered, “We believe you are the Christ, the son of the living God.” That is something the other disciples could not say because they didn’t believe it.

The unbelieving disciples were not interested in what Jesus was preaching, they were interested in Him leading an insurgency against the Romans, entering Jerusalem and establishing the everlasting kingdom. That is what they expected Messiah to do, and that is why they attempted to make Him king the day before. Clearly this was their motivation for seeking Him in Capernaum.

Before the unbelieving disciples left, Jesus told them, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” Shortly after that, when Jesus and His disciples were in Philippi, He asked them two questions, “who do men say I am,” and “who do you say I am.” I think it was eye opening for the disciples when Jesus demonstrated how they understood who He is and others did not. When He told them that His Father in heaven revealed to them who He is, they understood the uniqueness of their calling.

The unbelieving disciples were not drawn to Jesus by the Father. Their hearts were not prepared to receive His teachings. Apparently, the only thing their hearts were prepared for was insurgency.

You are also telling me that these same disciples understood Jesus literally; they did not understand Jesus literally, and we know that because they said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” You assert that they understood Him correctly even though John tells us they didn’t understand Him at all, amazing! Would you apply that same reasoning to Nicodemus who asked Jesus, “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born again?” Do you think Nicodemus understood Jesus literally?

The unbelieving disciples did not leave Jesus because they understood him to be speaking literally; they left because Jesus wanted them to leave. He told them over and over that they must believe in Him, knowing that they did not believe in Him. He finally offended them with the metaphor. He never pleaded with them to believe because He knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not believe. Jesus did not come into this world to plead with non-believers; He came to seek and save the lost, that is, those sheep who belong to Him.

You Catholics have the cart before the horse. You dictate what the Scriptures teach based on what you already believe, rather than letting the Scriptures dictate what to believe.

 

[curlycool89]

You are also telling me that these same disciples understood Jesus literally; they did not understand Jesus literally, and we know that because they said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” You assert that they understood Him correctly even though John tells us they didn’t understand Him at all, amazing!

Maybe you’ve never been in one of those situations, but I’ve been in plenty. From personal experience, you understand it but you don’t. For example, I was alter serving at a mass and Father told me to take the tabernacle lid to one of our coordinators. I understood what he said (“take this there”), but I stood there and didn’t move because I didn’t understand. Something just wasn’t clicking in my brain. I got it but I didn’t.

It’s the same thing here. They got it (“drink my blood”), but their minds were conflicted. They’d been told for years they can’t drink blood. They just didn’t get the why. They got the literal, it just didn’t translate through their brain. I can get what they mean.

The main problem with your argument is that we’ve got more scripture to back up this scripture. The old Passover lamb which was eaten vs Jesus the Paschal lamb whose flesh we eat, and especially Paul in 1 Corinthians (It doesn’t really make sense for Paul to say you eat and drink judgement on yourself or that you’re profaning the body and blood of Christ if it’s symbolic. And if it’s not really important, why is Paul addressing it at all?).

 

[bona_fides_1]

The main problem with your argument is that we’ve got more scripture to back up this scripture. The old Passover lamb which was eaten vs Jesus the Paschal lamb whose flesh we eat, and especially Paul in 1 Corinthians (It doesn’t really make sense for Paul to say you eat and drink judgement on yourself or that you’re profaning the body and blood of Christ if it’s symbolic. And if it’s not really important, why is Paul addressing it at all?).

Exactly - this was what I was going to bring up next.

As David Armstrong in his Book “The Catholic Verses - 95 Bible Passages that Confound Protestants” says:
We conclude, then, that all indications in John 6 points to a Real Presence, and not mere symbolism. The “realist” view alone consistently incorporates and explains cross-exegesis and the meanings of the words used.

"PARTICIPATION" IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST

1 Corinthians 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, it it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Luther:
The Bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken break he takes, therewith the body of Christ (ed: Luther showing his consubstantiation but real-presence perspective) [Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 178].

PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself. That is why many of you are so weak and ill, and some have died.”

Luther goes on to argue that it is pointless for St. Paul to speak of sin here (“Profaning” in the text) if Jesus “is not present in the eating of the bread” and that “the nature and character of the sentence requires” this “clear” interpretation. Luther sums up his exegetical arguments:

Luther:
It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks” (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 183-184).

I [Armstrong] prefer what is often called the “superstition” of Martin Luther (ed: by Luther’s fellow contrarian viewed Protestants and sarcastic Catholic apologists ) , St. Augustine, and the Fathers of the Church, as it seems to be far and away the most natural reading fo all these texts.

Augustine:
It is the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord even in those to whom the Apostle said: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself” (Baptism, 5, 8, 9; in Jurgens, III 68).

​

*

Augustine’s statement is a slam dunk since it means even non-believers sin in partaking unworthily. Eucharist is MORE than faith or symbol - its as bad as being a deaf man walking around in mucky boots on Mt. Sinai and not hearing God’s commandment “remove your shoes since you walk on holy ground”. The trespass is offensive in actuality of the dirty deed irrespective to the fact one does not believe a word he hears or is deaf to the trespass committed on high when treading on God’s Holy turf…

Final meditations:
*

Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread,Till you return to the ground,Because from it you were taken;For you are dust,And to dust you shall return."

Exodus 16:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction.

Exodus 23:25 But you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst.

Exodus 16:31 The house of Israel named it manna, and it was like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey.

Matthew 6:9-14 9"This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11Give us today our daily bread. 12Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

John 6:48 I am the bread of life.

John 6:53-38 Jesus 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. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
*

Peace.

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

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)

I am just now getting around to addressing this bit. This was new to me but not entirely surprising. You forced me to read all of the Paedagogus (newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm) to get the whole context. I must say I admire Clement of Alexandria’s integrative way of thinking and the man himself. I tend to think in a similar manner but he is DEEP and pulls in some amazing insights and even medical knowledge which was advanced for his day. An impressive man and mind. I kept wanting to discount his statements by the fact that he had a lot of early pagan influence that shaped his form of thinking and philosophy but his intellect more than compensates for it - yet its also clear that he had access to other non-canonical Christian books and may have gotten a little “out there” in some of his thinking. There is a definate gnostic or Docetism view of the world. In this sense Clement is very sensitive of the concept of metaphor and symbolism as an intricate part of how he views the world. In Docetism the belief is that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. I am not deeply studied on Clement of Alexandria so don’t know how deep he was into this world view. For him symbolism “was real” so we may have a semantic overload here where he thinks he is furthering the importance of the flesh and blood imagery by seeing how it is all intricately linked in nature to various spiritual “real” natures/substances (the frothing sea being the milk of the oceans as the mother’s milk is a product of the mother blood compacting toward life like God gives manna from heaven and milk and honey etc.). In other words from my speed-read I think I can say that Clement here is really saying that Christ really meant his real body and blood - but given Clements Philosophy He is also seeing that this is “symbolic” in how it mirrors the underlying nature of Christ Himself as a spiritual and symbolic representation of God (which if is his true belief is not Catholic). Thanks for exposing me to yet another new diversion I now can’t put down now since this man is intriguing to read…

But even if Clement did mean this “symbolically” with respect to conventional modern day Christology (e.g. true God and true man and not a mere symbolic image of God) as symbolic of real flesh and blood (which I don’t think he did) then there are still quite a few many more ECFs who greatly outweigh this opinion in the real-presence sense of understanding. I have not done a full survey to say how many for sure but I know that patristic acceptance of Real-Presence (the Catholic position and the church teaching for 2,000 years) is nearly unanimous.

Good dig though to find a few last straws to support your very minority-view thesis. Are you sure you are arguing from an objective desire to know the truth or are you doing it from a protesting position that would rather fall where one stands than yield to a preponderance of evidence that is dressed in Catholic uniformity?

BF

 

[mikeledes]

You are also telling me that these same disciples understood Jesus literally; they did not understand Jesus literally, and we know that because they said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” You assert that they understood Him correctly even though John tells us they didn’t understand Him at all, amazing! Would you apply that same reasoning to Nicodemus who asked Jesus, “Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born again?” Do you think Nicodemus understood Jesus literally?

The unbelieving disciples did not leave Jesus because they understood him to be speaking literally; they left because Jesus wanted them to leave. He told them over and over that they must believe in Him, knowing that they did not believe in Him. He finally offended them with the metaphor. He never pleaded with them to believe because He knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not believe. Jesus did not come into this world to plead with non-believers; He came to seek and save the lost, that is, those sheep who belong to Him.

You Catholics have the cart before the horse. You dictate what the Scriptures teach based on what you already believe, rather than letting the Scriptures dictate what to believe.

And you don’t do the same? Now you said the following:

You assert that they understood Him correctly even though John tells us they didn’t understand Him at all, amazing!

Can you cite where John says that the *disciples that left *didn’t understand Him at all? There is a big difference between not understanding something and undestanding something and not believing. For example, Jesus earlier said that He was the Bread from Heaven and the Jews said:

**41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42They were saying, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?" **

Jesus said He came down out of heaven and the Jews understood what He meant, that He literally came down from heaven. They understood, but they did not believe, as evidenced by their response. They objected to a literal truth here just as they will reject a literal truth later, the eating of Jesus’s flesh and drinking of His blood.

And even if they did not fully understand, that does not take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking literally. There are several instances in Scripture where Jesus quite explicitly talks about His passion, death, and resurrection and yet His disciples did not fully understand. The fact that they did not understand the truth He revealed does not necessarily mean that His passion, death, and resurrection were not literal. But one thing is clear about Jesus’s and John’s modus operandi in the Gospel of John, namely, that when controversy arose over something said by Jesus, either Jesus or John explains the meaning of the statement. And this is done whether the audience consists of believers and/or unbelievers. Obviously, John explains it for the benefit of those reading his gospel.

God bless,
Michael

 

[RedBert]

So what did Jesus mean in John 6?
Read it in its entirety and answer this question :
What action produces eternal life?​

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“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.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him.

Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the SAME result - eternal life.

One verse (v54) is figurative and one verse (v40) is literal .

 

[RedBert]

From “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). Book 1, chapter 6

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.* The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit;** for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”*

Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time

And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?…* Elsewhere 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**, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
*
Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“‘I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which,* similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God.** Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.”*

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

 

[mikeledes]

Saint Irenaeus, who preceded Clement of Alexandria, states:

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Note that Ireneaus makes a clear connection between the Eucharist and the resurrection, an obvious reference to John 6. He also makes it clear that what is received in the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

**2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

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. 

 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. **

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

God Bless,
Michael

 

[bona_fides_1]

From “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). Book 1, chapter 6

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.* The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit;*** for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time

And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

Did you read my prior post? I was the one who linked to Clement of Alexendria’s text. I gave a credible statement about Clement that accounts for his apparent MINORITY view. Nearly ALL the ECF believed in real-presence. And Clement’s view reflects a very unique metaphorical/symbolic view of Christ Himself and also the rest of Creation. I understand some of this man’s tremendous insights and marvel at them. But you need to undertand that he is a very abstract thinker and has a world view that is formed from a combination of Greek and Gnostic and pagan philosophy, incredible first hand scientific/physiological knowledge, and has a very poetic literary expressive form that is also part of his world view. The man is amazing really. I am no expert on Clement but it seems very probable that he sees Christ most in terms of a hybrid gnostic/Docetism influence where he forms a view of Christ Himself as a symbol of God.

Some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect by the Church. In Clement’t very integrative world and theological view he fuses nature, God, language, religion, philosophy in a very complex expression of God revealing to us divine truths through many channels (I love his view actually). But in this view Christ’s real existence is seen as a living symbol and so its not wrong for Him in this view to liken his body and blood as just another component-symbol serving the greater symbol if you follow me. Its not really an orthodox view since he essentially skirts the dual nature of Christ as true God and true Man. So His statements need to be taken with respect to how he categorizes and thinks rather than in how we categorize and think in modern western society. Our view of Christology is much different than His since He is a product of his times and drawing on the best philosophy and insights available from scholastic education of the time. So when Clement says “the flesh is figurative” he means it in way that relates to Christ being a symbol or figure for God also.

Further, in spite of all that, other of Clement’s statements directly support real-presence.

To wit:
*
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
*

I invite you to read more of the other ECF’s who all beleive in real-presence:
Read:
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).
John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370).
Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).
Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).
Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).
Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, 2 (A.D. 451).
Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).
John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

See quotes here:
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-II

BF

 

[RedBert]

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. 

 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.

Really? Some could also point out that Jesus often moves from the natural , easy to understand , real world to the harder to understand spiritual world :

For example the women at the well: Jesus moved the conversation from natural well water to spiritual “water.”

Now following the complete context of John 6

Jesus feeds the 50000 with real food
The next day when the crowd found Jesus again, he says
“"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….”(still talking about natural food)

And now just like the conversation at the well Jesus moves from the natural to the spiritual
“…Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

Then the crowd says “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
The woman at the well said “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

In John 6 Jesus says “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…”
At the well Jesus says “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

In John 6 Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

At the well Jesus says “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The point of the quotes above is that the same literary standards should apply.
Jesus was not literally talking about drinking spring water at the well and he was not literally talking about eating his flesh and drinking blood.

**After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life? **
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?
Or is one figurative and one literal?

So what is Hebrews 6:6 referring to ?
“For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened … and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding Him up to contempt”.
OBVIOSLY they are not putting Jesus of Nazareth back on a cross …. So what does the writer mean?

 

[bona_fides_1]

So what is Hebrews 6:6 referring to ?
“For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened … and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding Him up to contempt”.
OBVIOSLY they are not putting Jesus of Nazareth back on a cross …. So what does the writer mean?

I think its more than safe to say it has nothing to do with real-presence. I don’t know why you linked it here.

I would say this is referring to the fact that one can only be baptised a single time into Christ’s death by baptism. This is very Catholic. But this does not operate to diminish in any way God’s infinite mercy for those who came back for repentance as many as 7 times 70 times just as Christ commanded us to release our trespassers their debts! Thought God will most certainly not be mocked, God’s mercy is inexhaustible and certainly unfathomably greater than His creatures which operate under divine commandment to forgive without hesitation and without limit!

Here is the Haydock commentary on the verse (veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Hebrews_6 ):
*
But then we must take the word impossible, to imply no more than a thing that is very hard to be done, or that seldom happens, as when it is said, (Matt. xix. 26.) that it is impossible for rich men to be saved: and (Luke xvii. 1.) it is impossible that scandals should not come.** For it is certain that it is never impossible for the greatest sinners to repent by the assistance which God offers them, who has also left the power to his ministers to forgive in his name the greatest sins.** But others (whose interpretation seems preferable) expound this of baptism, which can only be given once. The words here in the text very much favour this exposition, when it is said, who were once enlightened. For baptism in the first ages was called the sacrament of illumination. See S. Denis de cælesti Hierar. c. iv. S. Greg. Naz. &c. The following words also agree with baptism, when they are said to have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; all which signify the interior graces, the miraculous gifts, and power of working miracles, which they who were baptized frequently received in those days. — They cannot be renewed again unto penance. That is, they cannot be renewed again by baptism, which is also called a renovation. Tit. iii. 5. Their sins may indeed be forgiven them in the sacrament of penance, but this is not a renovation like that in baptism, in which both the guilt, and all pain due to past sins, is remitted; whereas in the sacrament of penance (apostolic absolution), though the guilt, and the eternal punishments due to sins be remitted, yet many times, temporal punishments, to be undergone either in this world or the next, still remain due to such as have been great sinners, to them who by relapsing into the same sins, have crucified again to themselves the Son of God, making a mockery of him; i.e. who, insensible of the favours received, have ungratefully renewed sin; to take away which Christ suffered, was mocked, crucified, &c. Wi. — Macknight observes that Beza, without any authority from ancient MSS. hath inserted in his version Si, If they shall fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the Calvinistic doctrine of the assurance of salvation. The English translators have followed Beza. The biblical student will be glad to find Dr. Wells, in his elegant edition of the New Testament, frequently restoring and preferring those readings which agree with the Latin Vulgate. The same just tribute is paid to the Vulgate by Walton, Mills, Gerard, Griesbach, Harwood, and others. Indeed the Vulgate has been declared authentic in a general council, and probably expresses more of the true reading of the original or autograph, than any Greek edition that is now to be found, and certainly much more than modern versions, which are stained more or less by the preconceived sentiments of the translators. — For the earth that drinketh in the rain, &c. He bringeth this comparison, to give them a horror of abusing God’s graces and favours, and of making themselves guilty of hell fire. Wi.
*

BF

 

[mikeledes]

Really? Some could also point out that Jesus often moves from the natural , easy to understand , real world to the harder to understand spiritual world :

For example the women at the well: Jesus moved the conversation from natural well water to spiritual “water.”

Now following the complete context of John 6

Jesus feeds the 50000 with real food
The next day when the crowd found Jesus again, he says
“"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….”(still talking about natural food)

And now just like the conversation at the well Jesus moves from the natural to the spiritual
“…Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

Then the crowd says “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
The woman at the well said “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

In John 6 Jesus says “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…”
At the well Jesus says “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

In John 6 Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

At the well Jesus says “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The point of the quotes above is that the same literary standards should apply.
Jesus was not literally talking about drinking spring water at the well and he was not literally talking about eating his flesh and drinking blood.

**After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life? **
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?
Or is one figurative and one literal?

So what is Hebrews 6:6 referring to ?
“For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened … and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding Him up to contempt”.
OBVIOSLY they are not putting Jesus of Nazareth back on a cross …. So what does the writer mean?

And how do you know He wasn’t talking about literal spring water of that specific well? Because he clarified it AFTER the woman asked Him the question. That reaffirms the point I’m making. That Jesus begins with an ambiguous statement that leads to a question or challenge that leads to a calrification or development of what He said. He moves towards greater clarity.

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

1 Corinthians 10:16

**16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I think its more than safe to say it has nothing to do with real-presence. I don’t know why you linked it here.

I would say this is referring to the fact that one can only be baptised a single time into Christ’s death by baptism. This is very Catholic. But this does not operate to diminish in any way God’s infinite mercy for those who came back for repentance as many as 7 times 70 times just as Christ commanded us to release our trespassers their debts! Thought God will most certainly not be mocked, God’s mercy is inexhaustible and certainly unfathomably greater than His creatures which operate under divine commandment to forgive without hesitation and without limit!

Here is the Haydock commentary on the verse (veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Hebrews_6 ):
*
But then we must take the word impossible, to imply no more than a thing that is very hard to be done, or that seldom happens, as when it is said, (Matt. xix. 26.) that it is impossible for rich men to be saved: and (Luke xvii. 1.) it is impossible that scandals should not come.** For it is certain that it is never impossible for the greatest sinners to repent by the assistance which God offers them, who has also left the power to his ministers to forgive in his name the greatest sins.*** But others (whose interpretation seems preferable) expound this of baptism, which can only be given once. The words here in the text very much favour this exposition, when it is said, who were once enlightened. For baptism in the first ages was called the sacrament of illumination. See S. Denis de cælesti Hierar. c. iv. S. Greg. Naz. &c. The following words also agree with baptism, when they are said to have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; all which signify the interior graces, the miraculous gifts, and power of working miracles, which they who were baptized frequently received in those days. — They cannot be renewed again unto penance. That is, they cannot be renewed again by baptism, which is also called a renovation. Tit. iii. 5. Their sins may indeed be forgiven them in the sacrament of penance, but this is not a renovation like that in baptism, in which both the guilt, and all pain due to past sins, is remitted; whereas in the sacrament of penance (apostolic absolution), though the guilt, and the eternal punishments due to sins be remitted, yet many times, temporal punishments, to be undergone either in this world or the next, still remain due to such as have been great sinners, to them who by relapsing into the same sins, have crucified again to themselves the Son of God, making a mockery of him; i.e. who, insensible of the favours received, have ungratefully renewed sin; to take away which Christ suffered, was mocked, crucified, &c. Wi. — Macknight observes that Beza, without any authority from ancient MSS. hath inserted in his version Si, If they shall fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the Calvinistic doctrine of the assurance of salvation. The English translators have followed Beza. The biblical student will be glad to find Dr. Wells, in his elegant edition of the New Testament, frequently restoring and preferring those readings which agree with the Latin Vulgate. The same just tribute is paid to the Vulgate by Walton, Mills, Gerard, Griesbach, Harwood, and others. Indeed the Vulgate has been declared authentic in a general council, and probably expresses more of the true reading of the original or autograph, than any Greek edition that is now to be found, and certainly much more than modern versions, which are stained more or less by the preconceived sentiments of the translators. — For the earth that drinketh in the rain, &c. He bringeth this comparison, to give them a horror of abusing God’s graces and favours, and of making themselves guilty of hell fire. Wi.

BF

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kepha1]

Really? Some could also point out that Jesus often moves from the natural , easy to understand , real world to the harder to understand spiritual world :

OK, but the “harder to understand spiritual world” does not exlude the natural physical either.

For example the women at the well: Jesus moved the conversation from natural well water to spiritual “water.”

Jesus is not talking about spiritual water being his Flesh and Blood.

Now following the complete context of John 6

Jesus feeds the 50000 with real food
The next day when the crowd found Jesus again, he says
“"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….”(still talking about natural food)

Jesus has the power to multiply natural food but has no power to multiply His Body and Blood under the appearances of Bread and Wine? Your missing the point of the Feeding of the Multitudes. Much like the raining of manna, it is a foreshadow of his power to multiply Himself to nourish His people.

And now just like the conversation at the well Jesus moves from the natural to the spiritual

No, He does not. You are drawing a parallel with two unrelated verses where there is no parallel. It is obvious that “living water” is not physical H20, and it is obvious that Jesus has a real physical body, which He clearly and explicity and repeatedly says we are to eat. The Isrealites did not sacrifice and eat a spiritual lamb.

“…Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

Then the crowd says “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says FOUR TIMES: “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. How you take this to mean spiritual or metaphorical or figurative is beyond me.

*The woman at the well said “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” *

Provide one verse where Jesus explicitly says His Flesh and Blood that we must eat is purely spiritual. There isn’t one. Notice I did not say what Jesus gives us to eat is not spiritual, It is, so lets not get that confused. But the physicality is as real as the physicality of his death on the cross. It is not just spiritual.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

 

[kepha1]

In John 6 Jesus says “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…”

*At the well Jesus says “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. *

Jesus is not talking about the Bread of Life with the Samaritan woman. Bread and wine are physical, the water the Jesus gives is living water, with physical “water” being metaphorical or spiritual to living water. Obviously Jesus is talking about spiritual water in John 4, but He is the Bread that come down from heaven. It is a different discourse, unless you want to argue that Jesus came from heaven only spiritually. That would be Docetism which really underscores your argument. Respect for God’s transcendence and Christ’s divinity excludes his commonality with us is the final conclusion to this line of thinking. Jesus is like Clark Kent, or the Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager. We are ONE BODY, united by ONE BREAD.

In John 6 Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

There is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” The use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

At the well Jesus says “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The point of the quotes above is that the same literary standards should apply.

Literary forms used in the Bible are not freeze dried. When Jesus speaks metaphorically and the Apostles don’t understand his parables, they ask him and he explains himself. See Mark 4:34. It is quite obvious when Jesus is speaking literally and when he is speaking metaphorically. It should be anyway.

If the disciples were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.
Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

Jesus was not literally talking about drinking spring water at the well and he was not literally talking about eating his flesh and drinking blood.

Your equation has been proven false.

**After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life? **
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?

They are false when taken in isolation from it’s context. They are true when read in context. Text without context is a pretext. The bible without the Church is just an excuse.
RedBert;6584341:

So what is Hebrews 6:6 referring to ?
“For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened … and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding Him up to contempt”.
OBVIOSLY they are not putting Jesus of Nazareth back on a cross …. So what does the writer mean?

It means those who have fallen away are recrucifying the Son of God, it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[kepha1]

From “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). Book 1, chapter 6

“But …message truncated…. ”

Although I want to stress they ALL took the Real Presence and Eucharist institution (Matt 26:26ff; Luke 22:19ff; 1 Cor 11:23-29) literally as the Body and Blood of Christ. NONE of the Fathers or early Christian writers denied the literal interpretation in order to adopt a purely “symbolic” one. This realist and literal interpretation was not denied until Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century. Concerning the Alexandrian allegorical interpretations, Catholic scholar Ott says
“The Alexandrinians, St. Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen, attest the general belief of the Church that the Lord offers us the partaking of His Body and His Blood. However, due to their penchant for allegory, passages are also found in their writings, in which they use the words body and blood to signify the teaching of Christ, by which our spirits are nourished [Origen is quoted from Contra Celsum VIII,33 cf. In Num hom 7,2; In Exod hom 13,3; In Matt comm ser 85]. As, according to the usage of the Alexandrinians, the same scriptural passage can be variously interpreted, an allegorical interpretation DOES NOT EXCLUDE the possibility of a more fundamental meaning.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 376)
**BJ> **CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 202)
**BJ> **“Eat my flesh,” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children. (Paidagogos 1:6; 43:3)

This passage is in the Jurgen’s set (volume 1, page 178). The reference should be to Paidagogos (or The Instructor of Children) 1:6:42:3. While it is true St. Clement of Alexandria at some points takes these words literally as referring to the Eucharist, other times a strong allegorical teaching can be found in his writings. Darwell Stone, the Anglican scholar I have quoted often, cites the above passage…
“Clement explains that the Lord feeds Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds her infant child from her own body: ‘The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye My flesh,” He says, “and drink ye My blood.” This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.’ Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38)
To quote Darwell Stone again –
"In discussing our Lord’s teaching at Capernaum about the spirit and the flesh * in connection with the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, Tertullian writes:

‘Making His spoken word life-giving, because that word is spirit and life, He also described his flesh in the same way, because the Word became flesh; therefore, to obtain life, we ought to long for Him, and to devour Him with our hearing, and to ruminate on Him with our understanding, and to digest Him by our FAITH.’ Tertullian, De carn res 37]
​

*

 

[kepha1]

“This kind of expression is more fully developed in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Clement writes:
‘The Lord expressed this by means of symbols in the Gospel according to John when He said, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” depicting [Greek word given] plainly the drinkable character of FAITH and the promise by means of which the Church, as a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows and is welded together and compacted of both, of FAITH as the body and of HOPE as the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood.’ Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:38]

’[After the more explicit passage cited above] But you are unwilling to understand it thus [referring to John 6:51ff], but perhaps more generally [Greek given]. Hear it also as follows: The Holy Ghost uses flesh as a picture [Greek given] for us, for by Him was the flesh created. Blood signifies [Greek given] for us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been poured into our life.’ Clement of Alexandria, ibid 43]
'The blood of the Lord is twofold. In one sense it is fleshly, that by which we have been redeemed from corruption; in another sense it is spiritual, that by which we have been anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of the Lord’s immortality; and the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood of flesh.
'As then wine is mixed with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture, nourishes to faith; and the other, the Spirit, guides to immortality. And the mingling of both – of the drink and the Word – is called Eucharist, renowned and beauteous grace; and those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in both body and soul, since the will of the Father has mystically united the divine mixture, man, by the Spirit and the Word.
‘For in truth the Spirit is joined to the soul that is moved by it, and the flesh, for the sake of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.’” Clement of Alexandria, Paed II:ii:19,20] (Stone, volume 1, page 25-26)
​

And for a slightly different translation of the above, see Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 1, page 179. Stone continues quoting Clement –

'The food is the mystic contemplation; for the flesh and blood of the Word are the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ” [see Psalm 34(35):8] it is said; for so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner, when now the soul nourishes itself, as says the truth-loving Plato. For the eating and drinking of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine essence." Clement of Alexandria, Strom V:x:56 or Miscellanies]
​

Darwell Stone comments on the above –
"Thus, of one aspect of Clement’s teaching it is true to say – ‘The flesh and blood of the Logos are the apprehension of the divine power and essence; the eating and drinking of the Logos is knowledge of the divine essence; the flesh is the Spirit, the blood is the Logos, the union of the two is the Lord who is the food of His people.’ [from J.B. Mayor in Hort and Mayor, *Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, Book vii, page 383]

“The mode of speech thus found in Clement of Alexandria is carried on in the writings of Origen; and the latter lays some stress on the more perfect understanding of the phraseology about the Eucharistic elements which is possessed by those who have deeper knowledge of the Christian religion.” (vol 1, pg 25-26)
bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm

Although I want to stress they ALL took the Real Presence and Eucharist institution (Matt 26:26ff; Luke 22:19ff; 1 Cor 11:23-29) literally as the Body and Blood of Christ. NONE of the Fathers or early Christian writers denied the literal interpretation in order to adopt a purely “symbolic” one. This realist and literal interpretation was not denied until Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century.

RedBert, your snippets on Clement of Alexandria are misleading. Do you really think every Christian until the 11th century was wrong? Including St. Ignatius who was trained by John the Apostle and ordained by Peter?

 

[RedBert]

RedBert;6584341]After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life?
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?

They are false when taken in isolation from it’s context. They are true when read in context. Text without context is a pretext. The bible without the Church is just an excuse.

that answer is weak, it is the same chapter, same conversation. the same context:

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says FOUR TIMES: “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. How you take this to mean spiritual or metaphorical or figurative is beyond me.

he says the word “believe” FIVE TIMES ; how can you not see that is the main point.

Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

He did!
v63 “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”

But the problem is
v64 “Yet there are some of** you who do not believe**.”
“For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them** did not believe**…”

Why don’t they believe?
v65 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

are you suggesting Jesus should have said : hey guys, this is what I really meant?
would it had made a difference if the Father had not enabled them?

if this was a reading test:

After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life?

(v40&47 or v54)
which one figurative and which one literal?
Which one is in agreement with the rest of the Bible? (hint: see John 3:16, Rom 10 9-10, etc, etc)
which one is in conflict with Old Testament law?