Help! John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter 32ob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3

32ob

Guest
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.
 
Hello!
Trying to convince a Southern Baptist of the real presence is very daunting. I wonder if some would have a problem in receiving the “Blood of Christ” in the form of wine??? Anyway, one approach would be to show that in the Old Covenant, the Old Coventant sacraments were not designed to be conduits for Christ to come to us but always pointed to something that would be greater. For instance, the manna in the desert fed the chosen people. The alter of Jewish sacrifices was a prefiguring of the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass. The thrust of the Old Covenant was to precede the Final and everlasting New Covenant with sacraments that were to be Christ’s oaths to us to make up for what we lacked.
Another source of information might be the Greek word for “Eat” my Body. It actually means to “chew”. If the belief that the Eucharist is only symbolic, the word for “chew” would not be used.
I hope this little bit helps.
mdcpensive1
 
Jesus knew himself that this doctrine of the Holy Eucharist would be hard to believe. He created humans with free will. He did not chase after those people begging them to come back, because what he was stating was a fact. He was speaking the truth, and those who no longer walked with him, refused to accept it.

Everything that is in the New Testament is prefigured in the old testament by the prophets.

Manna in the desert in OT prefigures the Holy Eucharist
john 6 v 51

The Catholic faith has many mysteries. That is why faith is a supernatural gift from God. Not everyone will believe. One can not believe in the truths of the catholic faith unless it is given to him by God.

A little comment from Pope Leo XIII

*“He who gathers not with the Church scatters and gathers not, and he who labours not with the Church most assuredly struggles against God… The Church of Christ, therefore, is the only and ever-enduring Church; and all who depart from it depart from the will and command of Christ the Lord. They have left the path of salvation and are headed towards destruction”.
 
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 was raised as a Southern Baptist and became Catholic in 2004 at the age of 33. The real presence was one of the easiest things for me to accept. What had always bothered me was that we, as Baptists, believed it was symbolic. No where could I find in the Bible where it said, or even implied, that it was symbolic. In Scott Hahn’s lectures on the book of John, he talks about how many people are converted to Catholicism because of that chapter. The fact that Jesus let people walk away because of a misunderstanding, doesn’t make sense. They walked away because they were devout Jews, and there are strict prohibitions, from Leviticus, about consuming blood. That’s why it was a hard teaching for them and not just a misunderstanding. Don’t know if that will help.
 
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.
Welcome to CAF!

This wonderful little book will be a great help in answering your loved one’s questions about the Eucharist:

amazon.com/This-My-Body-Evangelical-Discovers/dp/0931888484
 
The problem you’ve no doubt run into with the Southern Baptist is that they think in verse 63 ( “*It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”) *Jesus is explaining His message by saying that the words “flesh” and “blood” are only symbolic and represent “spirit” and “life”.

Of course, that is not what Jesus is doing. Here is how I would explain it to a Baptist.

Jesus doesn’t say “the words I have spoken symbolize spirit and life” - He says His words ARE spirit and life. That is, His body IS spirit; His blood IS life. (Recall the OT passage about blood - Lev 17:14 “…for the life of every creature is its blood…”)

In verse 63 He is explaining that when believers eat His flesh and blood (according to the “words” He has just spoken) they are receiving His life and spirit — for His spirit and life are united to His flesh and blood forever in His resurrected body. In the Eucharist we receive the whole Christ - Divinity, glorious resurrected body and blood eternally united with His spirit and life. If we wish to receive the fullness of His glorified human nature within us, we must consume the body, even tho it is the soul (spirit and life) which is of greatest importance.

Here is a writing taken from this weeks Office of Readings, written by St. Cyril of Alexander, which I think speaks beautifully to this passage in John’s gospel:

*When the life-giving Word of God dwelt in human flesh, He changed it into that good thing which is distinctively His, namely, life; and by being wholly united to the flesh in a way beyond our comprehension, He gave it the life-giving power which He has by His very nature. Therefore, the body of Christ gives life to those who receive it. *

Nita
 
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Jesus Christ, in speaking of his own body, never says* the flesh*, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify a carnal manner of understanding any thing.

The early Christians believed the Eucharist was more than just symbolic.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Saint Paul says if we partake of the bread unworthily, we are guilty of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of Christ. If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then how can we be guilty of profaning Christ’s body and blood? You can’t murder a symbol.

Read more about the scriptural evidence for the Eucharist at scripturecatholic.com/index.html
 
I was raised Southern Baptist. I came into the Church in 2005 at the age of 25. It was the Holy Eucharist that brought me in. I made Holy Aours at a local Perpetual Adoration Chapel before entering RCIA and I knew where I belonged. What becomes a stumbling block for most protestants, especially Southern Baptist is St. John 6:63

(RSV-CE)
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

This is misinterpreted and they basically think that he is refuting his previous discourse as a parable. If our Blessed Lord had been telling a parable he would have corrected the disiples that turned to leave him. He made no attempt to do so, but instead he reiterated what he said. How can this be taken any way other than literally. We don’t have to understand it, only believe. Remember what Christ said to St. Thomas, “Blessed are those who believe and have not seen.” I thank God today for having given me the faith necessary to believe without having seen.
 
i’ll be your huckleberry, convince me that what is taught in the catholic church is truth and what is taught in the baptist church is false. please go slow so i can soak up all information, and i will do my best to keep an open mind to your teaching. also, my deepest and most sincere question is how you all of catholic faith can offer up to God the sacrificed body of Christ? that is what you recite in the rosary of the mass, am i correct? i await patiently verse by verse of chapter 6.

God bless.
 
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.
Hi,

I wrote a Scripture Study on the Holy Mass and perhaps it will give you some ideas to share:

members.cox.net/studyhisword/HolyMass.pdf

Pax,
SHW
 
i’ll be your huckleberry, convince me that what is taught in the catholic church is truth and what is taught in the baptist church is false. please go slow so i can soak up all information, and i will do my best to keep an open mind to your teaching. also, my deepest and most sincere question is how you all of catholic faith can offer up to God the sacrificed body of Christ? that is what you recite in the rosary of the mass, am i correct? i await patiently verse by verse of chapter 6.
God bless.
Jerry, thanks for asking and I will give it a shot.

First of all, we believe that the Eucharist has always been prefigured in the Old Testament. We believe that God has always been revealing Himself gradually through time and events from Melchizadek’s use of bread and wine in Genesis, manna in the desert in Exhodas, the bread of presence in the temple. Also, the place where Jesus was born, Bethlehem is translated as the place of bread. He was laid in a manger, a symbol of feeding. Miracles were done in the feeding of thousands showing God feeding us by taking care of our needs.
Bread is a staple and so it is meantioned in the Our Father as our daily bread. John’s Gospel says He is the Bread of Life.

Jewish tradition always had it that the “heart” of someone was inside the person so what was eaten was very important. Eating was very personal with them and was a means of community. Jewish tradition also had it that they celebrated the Passover each year. The Passover Jesus celebrated with the 12 apostles was where He established the “feeding of the Eucharist”. He is giving Himself to us as our bread to eat so as to become one with Him.

So how can He give Himself to the apostles when He was present to them? The answer is that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ in His Glorified Body. Christ is human and divine. His human presence was at the passover meal and His glorified prescence which is not limited to time was given in the Eucharist. It is the same Christ. One in time and one outside of time.

We also have the Eucharist because at Baptism we have been regenerated to become the new recepticle for Jesus. The Holy of Holies in the temple was the place where God resided and Holy Communion then places the Presence of God in the New Temple which is inside of us. The bread is used only as the mechanism to eat humanly because it is actually the true Body of Christ. I hope the concept of the New Temple within is will be important for you as it was for me. The temple is always to be made Holy by constantly growing in grace so we can receive him properly.

Also, Christ is the High Priest that offers Himself continually for our benefit. It may seem like we are offering Him, but it is really Him that constantly offers Himself for our behalf since He is both Priest and Victim. We can offer ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. The rosary is a special prayer that is not part of the Mass.

mdcpensive1
 
Thank you SHW, your article on the Mass was much better than I wrote off the top of my head.

mdcpensive1
 
i’ll be your huckleberry, convince me that what is taught in the catholic church is truth and what is taught in the baptist church is false. please go slow so i can soak up all information, and i will do my best to keep an open mind to your teaching. also, my deepest and most sincere question is how you all of catholic faith can offer up to God the sacrificed body of Christ? that is what you recite in the rosary of the mass, am i correct? i await patiently verse by verse of chapter 6.

God bless.
Okay…this is original work from me.

THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

by Randy Carson

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Ironically, Protestants who claim that the bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation refuse to accept the literal meaning of this passage because it conflicts with what they want to believe. However, the true meaning of Jesus’ words can be illustrated from the reaction of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.

Reaction of the Eyewitnesses

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard it for the very first time.

In John 6:52 we read: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was using metaphors in these examples. By contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” indicating that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus further clarified and emphasized the true meaning of his words by declaring,

“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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

(cont.)
 
The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him following them out the door and down the street saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

(cont.)
 
Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

(cont.)
 
The New Testament Writers

In addition to the dramatic episode recorded in John 6, the New Testament records several other passages regarding the body and blood of Jesus. Writing from the mid to late first century (anywhere from 25 to 75 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus), Matthew, Mark, Luke and the Apostle Paul all recorded their versions of the events known as the Last Supper. But before looking at these passages, let’s consider one last point concerning the beloved disciple of Jesus, the Apostle John.

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

Matthew – 90-100 A.D.

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28

Mark – 70-90 A.D.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Mk 14:22-24

Luke – 50-60 A.D.

And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Lk 22:19-20

Note that not one of these writers records Jesus saying, “This represents my body; this represents my blood.” With nearly half a century or more to reflect on the true meaning of Jesus’ teaching, they infallibly recorded the words of Jesus just as they were spoken – they wrote, “This is”. It would be another 1500 years before someone would proclaim, “This is not.”
 
so by eating actual bread as you have stated we have eternal life?
i just want to be clear, cause those who do not partake then would not have eternal life?

we as protesstants partake in this ceremony as a memorial cause Jesus said to eat this in remembrance of me (1cor11.luke22, matt26) however according to your catechism the eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-represents the sacrifice of the cross.

bare with me a second here, i’ll get to the bible in just a while but according to your belief.

the eucharist is a requirement for salvation = takes away Christ’s work on the cross

baptism wash away sins = takes away from Christ’s work on the cross

the more you add on the less Christ had to die for us

how can one sacrifice Christ all over again?
 
Matthew – 90-100 A.D.

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28
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
 
so by eating actual bread as you have stated we have eternal life?
How have you missed the point that what was bread has become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? We’re not eating “actual bread”…we’re eating the actual body of Christ.
we as protesstants partake in this ceremony as a memorial cause Jesus said to eat this in remembrance of me (1cor11.luke22, matt26) however according to your catechism the eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-represents the sacrifice of the cross.
You have accurately portrayed both faith traditions.
bare with me a second here, i’ll get to the bible in just a while but according to your belief.

the eucharist is a requirement for salvation = takes away Christ’s work on the cross

baptism wash away sins = takes away from Christ’s work on the cross

the more you add on the less Christ had to die for us
How do you get that we subtract from Christ’s death on the Cross through baptism and the eucharist? If it were not for His sacrifice upon the cross, those things would be meaningless.
how can one sacrifice Christ all over again?
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top