R
Radical
Guest
Hello Michael (and others)…it will be a couple of days before I’ll have the time to respond…in the mean time, take care.
- Status
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
M
mikeledes
Guest
Hello Radical! I understand. Soon I will be unable to participate in this thread as much as I would like to because I will be pretty busy for the next two weeks. May God richly bless you in Christ!
In Christ,
Michael
B
brkn1
Guest
I might better say that you believe the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood of Jesus, which could be said to be the physical presence of Jesus if true.
That might be what I called “another form” since Jesus did not physically walk around as a piece of bread.
Why did you ask?
B
brkn1
Guest
Still, Christ came to fulfill the Law and eating of any manner of blood was forbidden and seriously punished.
The symbolic understanding of what Christ commanded does not have the problem you have here, and Scripture is meant to be understood in context. The context includes the forbidding of a literal eating of blood according to the Law which applied then.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
I asked in an attempt to gauge your familiarity with the Catholic doctrine.
When you say another form, do you have in mind that in the Catholic Eucharist Christ himself either is or looks like a piece of bread?
VC
M
mikeledes
Guest
The Law forbade David from eating the consecrated bread. And yet you find that acceptable?
On what authority do you base your prior claim that there are “obvious exceptions?”
God Bless,
Michael
L
larkin31
Guest
As a regular Protestant church-goer, I was never taught this, and the literalness of eating the flesh of Jesus or drinking his blood is, to folks like me, a bizarre suggestion.
Don’t Catholics hedge this a bit and call the it the “essence” of Jesus that is imbibed? I don’t really know what that means, and many Protestants consider this “essence” position a neat dodge away from both the suggestion of literal cannibalism from the the symbolic meaning.
And honestly, my church never cared how anyone viewed the Eucharist and freely invited Catholics to participate in the act.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
What part of Christ’s life, death, resurrection and His ministry is not bizarre to folks like yourself, ie agnostics?
Many Protestants also believe that Christ’s blood and body is present just as passionately as Catholics do. Don’t paint with such a broad brush.
God bless you
M
mikeledes
Guest
I think we all agree that Jesus uses at least one metaphor in John 6 and that’s “bread” (Gk. artos). Now when Jesus uses a metaphor, there is usually a transition from figurative language to literal meaning. For example:
John 4:32-34
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.
So the true meaning of the metaphor “food” is revealed in verse 34:
Food (metaphor) = Will of God (literal meaning)
Do we find this transition from figurative to literal in John 6? Yes! In John 6:51:
… and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
Now in this verse, Jesus reveals that the metaphor (bread) means His flesh. Now if His flesh were also a metaphor, then there’s a problem. One metaphor cannot mean another metaphor:
Bread (metaphor) = Flesh (metaphor)
That makes absolutely no sense and that is not how Jesus uses metaphors or how metaphors are normally used. A metaphor, by definition, symbolize something real. For example, the “True Vine” (metaphor) of John 15 symbolizes Christ (real) . A metaphor cannot mean another metaphor. If that were the case, nothing is really being said. “Bread” cannot mean another metaphor. So John 6:51 can only mean:
Bread (metaphor) = Flesh (literal meaning)
In other words, Jesus is establishes in verse 51 that He is talking about real flesh and hence the verses that follow are to be interpreted literally (real Flesh and real Blood).
John 7:16-17
16So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
17"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.
And…
John 14:24
24"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
So when He says that His words are “spirit and they are life,” He means that His words are not of human origin (flesh), but of divine origin (Spirit) and the word of God is the instrument God uses to bring people to salvation. We find this contrast between the words of divine origin (Spirit) and words of human origin (flesh) in:
1 Corinthians 2:13
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.
The flesh profits nothing because words that have their origin in the flesh do not lead to salvation. So Jesus is simply asserting that what He just taught (i.e. that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood) is divinely revealed teaching (spirit). Peter says that Christ has the words of eternal life because He believes that Jesus is the Holy One of God (i.e. sent by God) and hence His words are the words of God. And what is the word of God? It is the sum total of divinely revealed teaching (i.e. the literal suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, the command to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, the command to love our neighbor, etc.) Peter and the apostles accept His teaching that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood because they believe Christ is sent by God and hence what He just taught in John 6:51-58 is the word of God, divinely revealed teaching. Peter is not giving and interpretation of Jesus’s words. He is affirming his belief in their divine origin.
God Bless,
Michael
John 4:32-34
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.
So the true meaning of the metaphor “food” is revealed in verse 34:
Food (metaphor) = Will of God (literal meaning)
Do we find this transition from figurative to literal in John 6? Yes! In John 6:51:
… and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
Now in this verse, Jesus reveals that the metaphor (bread) means His flesh. Now if His flesh were also a metaphor, then there’s a problem. One metaphor cannot mean another metaphor:
Bread (metaphor) = Flesh (metaphor)
That makes absolutely no sense and that is not how Jesus uses metaphors or how metaphors are normally used. A metaphor, by definition, symbolize something real. For example, the “True Vine” (metaphor) of John 15 symbolizes Christ (real) . A metaphor cannot mean another metaphor. If that were the case, nothing is really being said. “Bread” cannot mean another metaphor. So John 6:51 can only mean:
Bread (metaphor) = Flesh (literal meaning)
In other words, Jesus is establishes in verse 51 that He is talking about real flesh and hence the verses that follow are to be interpreted literally (real Flesh and real Blood).
Code:
If "bread" symbolized His words or teaching, He would have said "the bread that I will give is my Word." He does not do that. In fact, what *are* the words He spoke in John 6? His* words *are *that me must eat His flesh and drink His blood*. And His words are the words of God, that is, they are divinely revealed teaching. That's why throughout the Gospel of John He consistenly states:16So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
17"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.
And…
John 14:24
24"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
So when He says that His words are “spirit and they are life,” He means that His words are not of human origin (flesh), but of divine origin (Spirit) and the word of God is the instrument God uses to bring people to salvation. We find this contrast between the words of divine origin (Spirit) and words of human origin (flesh) in:
1 Corinthians 2:13
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.
The flesh profits nothing because words that have their origin in the flesh do not lead to salvation. So Jesus is simply asserting that what He just taught (i.e. that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood) is divinely revealed teaching (spirit). Peter says that Christ has the words of eternal life because He believes that Jesus is the Holy One of God (i.e. sent by God) and hence His words are the words of God. And what is the word of God? It is the sum total of divinely revealed teaching (i.e. the literal suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, the command to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, the command to love our neighbor, etc.) Peter and the apostles accept His teaching that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood because they believe Christ is sent by God and hence what He just taught in John 6:51-58 is the word of God, divinely revealed teaching. Peter is not giving and interpretation of Jesus’s words. He is affirming his belief in their divine origin.
God Bless,
Michael
L
larkin31
Guest
Are you saying that ALL of the passages that follow are literal, or just some of them, or just some parts of them?
Here they are:
Does the Catholic Church teach literal interpretation of ALL these phrases and clauses that follow John 6:51?
L
larkin31
Guest
Many parts of his life are not bizarre at all for the world of a radical Mediterranean peasant.What part of Christ’s life, death, resurrection and His ministry is not bizarre to folks like yourself, ie agnostics?
B
brkn1
Guest
My understanding of transubstantiation is that the Catholic Eucharist involves Christ becoming both spiritually and physically present by a transforming of the substance of the bread into Christ’s Body and the substance of the wine into Christ’ Blood.
I recall hearing that either element holds or becomes the entire Christ in itself, but that as dogma I’m not sure about.
B
brkn1
Guest
Jesus spoke of David doing so, therefore I have no problem with it. It makes sense that the Law should not work to harm those for whom it was given.
I don’t think Jesus meant that it was OK for someone who did not have an over-riding need, such as strong hunger etc., to just eat the consecrated bread. It would have been wrong for David to come back a little later and do the same thing when he was not desperately hungry.
The miracles that Jesus performed on the Sabbath demonstrated the same sort of over-riding need taking precedence over the letter of the Law.
None of the examples of exceptions could be said to have changed the Law.
This exception tangent that you want to stay on still does not get around the fact that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and not violate it at the last moment. Jesus completely violated Leviticus 17, if He offered actual blood to be eaten by the Apostles.
A
andrewv33
Guest
My dear friendBy God’s grace, through the truth of His Word, and with the illumination of the Spirit, I accept it gladly.
Christ also said this" Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. "
Also as with the biblical passover tradition these serve to remind us of Gods greater plan.
The bible is clear that Christ has only died ONCE and can only be sacrificed once, as per what the bible says. The drinking of wine and eating of bread is only symbolic to say the least . So i cannot accept anything else that is not from the word of God/Bible.
Do not forget that there is only ONE mediator between people and GOD!
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
AMEN
A
andrewv33
Guest
Please keep an open mind
I respect your position on faith, but until you actually stop giving your opinion on what you prefer to believe and you actually show that what you are saying is not simply your personal belief then its not BIBLICAL/christian.
Joh 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
This clearly refers that he is spiritual food! the bible is full of symbolism that shows how God and Christ can fill the spiritual void…
J6:34-35 is straight forward to understand we do not need to twist and interpret.
M
mikeledes
Guest
So are you saying that the Law did not prohibit the eating of the consecrated bread in the case of strong hunger, despite the fact that no such exception is stated in the Law? And that performing miracles does not violate the Law, depsite the fact that the letter of the Law does not mention that exception? It seems to me that you are arguing that they are exceptions because Jesus “spoke of doing so” and Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath. In essence, that we know these are exceptions based on what Jesus said and did. Therefore…
… Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The sheer fact that He does this means that what He commands does not violate the law… just as performing miracles on the Sabbath did not violate the Law, despite the fact that the Law doesn’t make an explicit exception in the case of miracles. His command and His performance of miracles are not violations of the Law because the prohibitions of the Law did not have these acts within its purview. They were never meant to be prohibited and that’s why they are not violations. So if we go by the letter of the Law, David violated the Law and Jesus violated the Sabbath and the prohibition againts drinking blood. But the letter of the Law does not always reveal the exceptions. Jesus words and actions demonstrate that David did not violate the law eating the consecrated bread, that performing miracles did not violate the sabbath, and drinking His blood… not just any blood… is not a violation of the Law.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that those passages are to be taken literally, not figuratively. In John 6:51, Jesus has moved from the figurative to the literal . He reveals that the figurative “bread” means His flesh. As I stated in my argument, a metaphor cannot signify another metaphor. Therefore, we know that real flesh is the literal meaning of the metaphor “bread.” And once He has revealed that the bread is His flesh, we know that the following verses refer to that literal flesh. So He is not speaking figuratively.
God Bless,
Michael
S
shawn38
Guest
Does the Roman priest perform, at the altar, a sacrifice with someone else’s blood?
Does the Roman priest freely confess that he presents the sacrifice to God for his own sins and for those of the people?
M
mikeledes
Guest
A common rebuttal of the Catholic position is John 6:35:
**35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. **
Does this mean that we should suddenly give up our belief in the Real Presence? No. Jesus is simply saying here that He will give something to those that come to Him and believe that will satisfy their hunger and thirst. Obviously, you cannot subjectively receive something from Christ if you refuse to believe in Him. So what Christ is establishing in this verse is that in order to receive that which He offers, you must first come to Him in faith. What does Jesus give to those that believe? Well, He reveals one thing earlier in John:
John 4:10-14
**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **
Jesus talks about “living water” and this “living water” is a metaphor. The woman thinks He is literally talking about the water in the well. Jesus corrects her by explaing that He is not talking about the water in the well, but of figurative water. But what does the metaphor “living water” signify? Well, as I’ve stated earlier, John does not leave any key metaphor unexplained and He gives us the meaning of the metaphor “living water” in John 7:38-39. The “living water” that Jesus gives is the Holy Spirit.
Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (literal meaning)
To those that come to Jesus in faith, He will give them the Holy Spirit (living water). Therefore, the believer receives an ontological and hence objective gift from Christ, since the Holy Spirit really exists … He is not a metaphor.
But is that all Christ gives to those who come to Him in faith? No! In John 6:51, Jesus reveals something else:
John 6:51
…and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
In this verse, Jesus reveals that the metaphor “bread” concretely signifies His flesh. So not only does Jesus offers us “living water” (Holy Spirit), but He also offers us “bread” (His Flesh) and both are to be subjectively appropriated by the believer. So we know of two ontological things that Jesus gives:
Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (ontological/objective reality)
Bread (metaphor) = Christ’s Flesh (ontological/objective reality)
Note that Christ says flesh, highlighting that it is not the mere “spiritual” presence as understood by Protestants. In fact, Jesus picks the metaphors to convey the realities they represent. Water has no particular form and is clear, which perfectly symbolizes the spiritual nature of the Holy Spirit. Bread has form and is something concrete, which perfectly symbolizes the body of Christ. As Catholics, we would say these two ontological realities are given by Christ by means of the Sacraments of Baptism (Holy Spirit) and Holy Communion (His Body and Blood). But I don’t want to get too much into that because I don’t want to deviate from the subject of this thread.
So Jesus first talks about faith in John 6:35 to set the stage for what He will give to those that come to Him in faith (John 6:51). Obviously, a person who refuses to believe in Christ either will *not *receive what Christ offers, with all its benefits, and if He receives what Christ offers, he is only bringing condemnation upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). So it is logical that Christ would emphasize faith before discussing what He will give to those who come to Him in faith, namely, His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
God Bless,
Michael
**35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. **
Does this mean that we should suddenly give up our belief in the Real Presence? No. Jesus is simply saying here that He will give something to those that come to Him and believe that will satisfy their hunger and thirst. Obviously, you cannot subjectively receive something from Christ if you refuse to believe in Him. So what Christ is establishing in this verse is that in order to receive that which He offers, you must first come to Him in faith. What does Jesus give to those that believe? Well, He reveals one thing earlier in John:
John 4:10-14
**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **
Jesus talks about “living water” and this “living water” is a metaphor. The woman thinks He is literally talking about the water in the well. Jesus corrects her by explaing that He is not talking about the water in the well, but of figurative water. But what does the metaphor “living water” signify? Well, as I’ve stated earlier, John does not leave any key metaphor unexplained and He gives us the meaning of the metaphor “living water” in John 7:38-39. The “living water” that Jesus gives is the Holy Spirit.
Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (literal meaning)
To those that come to Jesus in faith, He will give them the Holy Spirit (living water). Therefore, the believer receives an ontological and hence objective gift from Christ, since the Holy Spirit really exists … He is not a metaphor.
But is that all Christ gives to those who come to Him in faith? No! In John 6:51, Jesus reveals something else:
John 6:51
…and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
In this verse, Jesus reveals that the metaphor “bread” concretely signifies His flesh. So not only does Jesus offers us “living water” (Holy Spirit), but He also offers us “bread” (His Flesh) and both are to be subjectively appropriated by the believer. So we know of two ontological things that Jesus gives:
Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (ontological/objective reality)
Bread (metaphor) = Christ’s Flesh (ontological/objective reality)
Note that Christ says flesh, highlighting that it is not the mere “spiritual” presence as understood by Protestants. In fact, Jesus picks the metaphors to convey the realities they represent. Water has no particular form and is clear, which perfectly symbolizes the spiritual nature of the Holy Spirit. Bread has form and is something concrete, which perfectly symbolizes the body of Christ. As Catholics, we would say these two ontological realities are given by Christ by means of the Sacraments of Baptism (Holy Spirit) and Holy Communion (His Body and Blood). But I don’t want to get too much into that because I don’t want to deviate from the subject of this thread.
So Jesus first talks about faith in John 6:35 to set the stage for what He will give to those that come to Him in faith (John 6:51). Obviously, a person who refuses to believe in Christ either will *not *receive what Christ offers, with all its benefits, and if He receives what Christ offers, he is only bringing condemnation upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). So it is logical that Christ would emphasize faith before discussing what He will give to those who come to Him in faith, namely, His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
God Bless,
Michael
- Status