Help! John 6

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

Good job.

Many scholars now believe that Matthew and Revelation, etc. were written before 70 A.D. since in Revelation, John is instructed to measure the temple in Jerusalem. (Revelation 11:1-3) The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

There are other reasons also, but this is the main one. My new Bible time-line chart which I received reflects this change in thinking, too.

Pax,
SHW

What would be the basis for dating Matthew earlier? And when would you date the Gospel of John?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I have a loved one who is a Southern Baptist. Now, it has become evident that that they do not teach all of what Jesus said, only certain passages. How do I explain that in John 6 that Jesus for the first and only time does not correct or clarify His message. He lets the non believers walk away and provides nothing of a clarification to His Apostles.

I’m glad to see you are getting right to the heart of the matter, which is the Eucharist. I used to be a Baptist, and i believe that if you can convince a Baptist that the Eucharist is indeed the actual body and blood of Christ, you might make good headway. No Baptist that i know would remain one if he believed what Catholics do about the Eucharist.

I’m no longer a Baptist, but i’m still not fully convinced as to the nature of the Eucharist. If you, or anyone else, would like to convince me, i’d be grateful. You also might learn something from the discussion that will help you reason with your friend.

 

[SHW]

What would be the basis for dating Matthew earlier? And when would you date the Gospel of John?

Hi Randy,

“Carmignac gives many other examples, and he draws these conclusions about the dating of the synoptics: " The latest dates that can be admitted are around 50 for Mark … … around 55 for Completed Mark, around 55-60 for Matthew, between 58 and 60 for Luke. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: Mark around 42, Completed Mark around 45, (Hebrew) Matthew around 50, (Greek) Luke a little after 50.” [Ibid., 61.]."

From: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea2.asp

"The New Jerome Biblical Commentary dates Matthew’s Gospel between A.D. 80 and 90 and more likely toward the end of that decade. This seems to be the received opinion, but it is being challenged today not just by the exegetes I have mentioned, but from another direction, that of papyrology. At the end of 1994 Carsten Thiede, a papyrologist who directs the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany, announced his findings concerning three papyrus scraps belonging to Magdalen College, Oxford. The scraps contain phrases from the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. A few decades earlier the scraps had been dated as coming from the end of the second century and therefore were thought uninteresting and were forgotten, but Thiede, literally taking a fresh look by using a newly invented high-power microscope, concluded that the dating was faulty. He said the scraps were written no later than the year 60, which is to say about three decades earlier than the date given in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. As The Times of London said, the finding “provides the first material evidence that the Gospel according to St. Matthew is an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ.”

                  ***************************

“Thus it appears that it may not be the new apologists who are uncritical in their positions. It may be that their opinions will be, in a few years’ time, in considerably greater favor than the ones now preferred by their opponents. With that prospect in mind, perhaps I need not take too seriously Fr. Rausch’s complaint that I take “the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 as the historical words of Jesus rather than as the Eucharistic theology of the Johannine community.” I plead nolo contendere, since** I think the evidence points to an early date for the composition of John’s Gospel—at least thirty years earlier than generally thought—and, if so, John must have been the author of the Gospel attributed to him.** There would have been no time for any “Johannine community” to arise and to embellish his writings. Thus the words attributed to Jesus in John 6 are likely to be his ipsissima verba, not just his ipsissima vox.”

From:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea1.asp

See also:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9003revw.asp

Hope this helps.
Pax,
SHW

 

[Coder]

Read John 3:6: usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john3.htm

John 6:55 “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” It seems hard to interpret that non-literally.

John 6:51
The bread…
Luke 22:19
…he took the bread…

John 6:51
…that I will give…
Luke 22:19
…gave it to them…

John 6:51
…is my flesh…
Luke 22:19
…is my body…

John 6:51
…for the life of the world…
Luke 22:19
…for you…

When Jesus refers to the spirit in John 6:63 I think that He is simply emphasizing that He has come from Heaven and that His flesh is not the flesh of a normal mortal human. It seems that some people did not readily accept that He is God and had come from heaven.

 

[SHW]

When Jesus refers to the spirit in John 6:63 I think that He is simply emphasizing that He has come from Heaven and that His flesh is not the flesh of a normal mortal human. It seems that some people did not readily accept that He is God and had come from heaven.

True.

Here is another way to look at it also:

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.”

Flesh without spiritual animation is dead because flesh needs spirit in order to be a living being. Without our spirits animating our flesh we are but a corpse (dead) and this dead body is useless and decays. Jesus’ Words say that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life with Him because His Spirit gives our spirits life (spiritual grace) through our eating of His living flesh and blood.

Eating the dead flesh of the animals sacrificed as paschal lambs at Passover cannot save us but eating Jesus’ living flesh as Paschal Lamb can save us if we receive it in a worthy manner. His Spirit will animate both our spirits and bodies forever after we receive new bodies at the Resurrection of the Dead when He returns at His Second Coming.

Holy Eucharist is the way that God has chosen for those persons in His New Covenant Church, who obey Him, to be nourished both spiritually and physically on earth in order that they may live eternally with Him in heaven after the Resurrection of the Dead and the Last Judgment.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Jerry_Marino]

We do not sacrifice Christ “all over again”…the sacrifice of the mass is a re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. That sacrifice is made present again in the mass.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

Do you understand what you have just typed?

Jesus is not re-sacrificed; rather, the one sacrifice is made present in the mass. In that sense, the sacrifice of the mass is a true sacrifice, but not because it is a new sacrifice of Christ who is not sacrificed again and again, but because it re-presents the one, true sacrifice of Calvary.

God is not bound by space or time.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Do you understand what you have just typed?

Jesus is not re-sacrificed; rather, the one sacrifice is made present in the mass. In that sense, the sacrifice of the mass is a true sacrifice, but not because it is a new sacrifice of Christ who is not sacrificed again and again, but because it re-presents the one, true sacrifice of Calvary.

God is not bound by space or time.

hey it’s your catechism, oh wait your convert you’ll learn later on.

 

[zach_dunn]

hey it’s your catechism, oh wait your convert you’ll learn later on.

What is this supposed to mean? He explained why the Catechism is right and why your understanding of it and of scripture is wrong. Randy has already learned the truth, obviously. Let’s try this again.

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was “once for all,” the Eucharist is a re-representation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. This means that we are showing that very same sacrifice that happened 2,000 years ago on Calvary. In this sense, that we are re-representing Christ’s sacrifice, it is a true sacrifice. I hope this helps in your journey to the truth.

Pax,
Zach

 

[Jerry_Marino]

it means what it means, it is not a riddle.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.

it means what it means out of the catechism

‘his priesthood was not to end with his death’, taken from above and this statement is FALSE! my Jesus is Risen, He’s alive. oh i’ll refrain, here’s the word of God on the priesthood of Jesus and i recommend that you all read the whole chapter.

Hebrews 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

God bless you.

 

[baddog]

it means what it means, it is not a riddle.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.

it means what it means out of the catechism

‘his priesthood was not to end with his death’, taken from above and this statement is FALSE! my Jesus is Risen, He’s alive. oh i’ll refrain, here’s the word of God on the priesthood of Jesus and i recommend that you all read the whole chapter.

Hebrews 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

God bless you.

I’ll put my two cents in here.
Christ’s blood was shed only once, but it is continually being offered to the Father. Christ’s sacrifice was a single act that is perpetuated through time. God transcends time.
Calvary is in the perpetual now in heaven. John, in Revelation, gives a a glimpse of heaven.
Rev. 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;
What we see is the slain Lamb standing before the throne, continually offering His blood for mankind.
In time and space, Calvary happened but once. However, in heaven the blood of Christ is continually being offered for the sins of men, and is re-presented in the Mass.

 

[SHW]

I’ll put my two cents in here.
Christ’s blood was shed only once, but it is continually being offered to the Father. Christ’s sacrifice was a single act that is perpetuated through time. God transcends time.
Calvary is in the perpetual now in heaven. John, in Revelation, gives a a glimpse of heaven.
Rev. 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;
What we see is the slain Lamb standing before the throne, continually offering His blood for mankind.
In time and space, Calvary happened but once. However, in heaven the blood of Christ is continually being offered for the sins of men, and is re-presented in the Mass.

Very well put!

Pax,
SHW

 

[Randy_Carson]

hey it’s your catechism, oh wait your convert you’ll learn later on.

Jerry-

Perhaps you missed the fact that I converted in 1979 as noted in my signature. I’ll be celebrating my 30th year as a Catholic this summer, and believe me, I’m more grateful to God now than ever for the grace of conversion to the true Church.

It might be fair to say that I’m somewhat familiar with the Catechsism at this point, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

it means what it means, it is not a riddle.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.

it means what it means out of the catechism

‘his priesthood was not to end with his death’, taken from above and this statement is FALSE! my Jesus is Risen, He’s alive. oh i’ll refrain, here’s the word of God on the priesthood of Jesus and i recommend that you all read the whole chapter.

Hebrews 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

God bless you.

Okay, imagine that at the mass, the priest, acting in persona christi, creates a warp in the space-time continuum so that the sacrifice on Calvarly is made present on the altar. There is only ONE sacrifice.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll put my two cents in here.
Christ’s blood was shed only once, but it is continually being offered to the Father. Christ’s sacrifice was a single act that is perpetuated through time. God transcends time.
Calvary is in the perpetual now in heaven. John, in Revelation, gives a a glimpse of heaven.

Rev. 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;

What we see is the slain Lamb standing before the throne, continually offering His blood for mankind.

In time and space, Calvary happened but once. However, in heaven the blood of Christ is continually being offered for the sins of men, and is re-presented in the Mass.

I was gonna quote that verse, but you already did. Good work!

 

[Randy_Carson]

it means what it means, it is not a riddle.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.

it means what it means out of the catechism

‘his priesthood was not to end with his death’, taken from above and this statement is FALSE! my Jesus is Risen, He’s alive. oh i’ll refrain, here’s the word of God on the priesthood of Jesus and i recommend that you all read the whole chapter.

Hebrews 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

God bless you.

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.

Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.

The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ—it is the work of Christ.
from:

**Is the Mass a Sacrifice? **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

 

[JJ59]

Not sure about the whole priesthood thing, but for the OP: If you get asked about John 6:63, explain that “the flesh counts for nothing” (Meaning, as many protestants interpret it, that Christ’s real flesh counts for nothing, and thus everything Jesus said about eating his flesh is to be taken as symbolism.) means that ‘earthly things’ count for nothing. “Flesh” or “flesh and blood” was a common term that Jesus used to describe earthly things.

“Watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
-Mark 14:38

“And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
-Matthew 16:17

“You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.”
-John 8:15

So was Jesus using that term, or actually saying that his true flesh counts for nothing?

Well for one thing, if you look through John 6, you’ll see that every time Jesus is referring to his flesh, he says “my flesh”, with one exception, when he says “the flesh of the Son of Man.” This is obviously different from John 6:63, which says “the flesh”.

And also, in context, that interpretation just wouldn’t make sense. Why does Jesus alternate from symbolic flesh to his real flesh, using the same word? It just doesn’t make sense. Either Jesus was saying “He that eateth my flesh (SYMBOLIC) etc.” and then “The flesh (SYMBOLIC) counts for nothing”, then it doesn’t make any sense. Obviously, they reject the “double symbolic” interpretation, and are left with only one interpretation:

That Jesus wants us to truly eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist.

I hope this helps (and makes sense, this was some sloppy writing on my part!!)

God Bless.

 

[ncgolf]

Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself.

The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” Exactly … for Jesus is both priest and victim … no one before or since Calvary can make this claim.

When the priest re-presents Jesus’s sacrifice … he does it “in persona Christo” … in the person of Christ … it is Christ himself who makes this offering through the priest.

“In persona Christo” is important to Catholics as the Sacrament of Reconciliation is offered in the same manner, it is Christ who is present through the office of the ministerial priesthood. This can be since Christ is both priest and victim.

If this is not true … then yes … the sacricifice would indeed be a sacrilegious and pagan practice.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

yesterday, i went to a memorial service at a catholic church and the words of the priest were not diced in any form. so you could cut any kind of way you’d like what the church teaches is that of a sacrifice in the eucharist.

read hebrews 10 my friends

don’t imagine what scripture means live it.

 

[ncgolf]

yesterday, i went to a memorial service at a catholic church and the words of the priest were not diced in any form. so you could cut any kind of way you’d like what the church teaches is that of a sacrifice in the eucharist.

You need to specifiy a bit … was it a Mass or not? Not all services in a Catholic Church are masses so describe what you attended?