How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[brkn1]

Can you explain what standard you use to determine whether something is an obvious exception ot not? Where does that standard come from? And how is it that those exceptions, which are unwritten, do not take the real power out of the Law?

And if the consecrated bread is for priests alone, then that means no layman is supposed to eat it. And is David’s violation a sin?

God Bless,
Michael

To be honest with you, I have no certain idea about any “obvious exceptions” to the Law or if David’s violation of the Law was a sin and I’d bet you really don’t either.
Your claim for “unwritten” exceptions also comes across as a desperate attempt to make up stuff to get around the problem, which I have mentioned many times about Jesus violating the written Law, if the wine was really His Blood as you insist. You can not get around that fact and you seem to have invented this “unwritten exceptions” to explain it away. Such expanations are the stuff of heresy and cults.
Please direct me to where you got this idea of “unwritten exceptions” from. I know it wasn’t from the Bible.

 

[Radical]

Hello Radical. You have written A LOT so it will take time for me to respond.

God Bless,
Michael

Yep…gets worse every time …and I didn’t even respond to your last “Augustine post” and in all the words I forgot to say:

God Bless You. Cheers.

 

[mikeledes]

This is often true, but it isn’t always the case.

You are stretching too much with this claim. Two obvious exceptions are John 2:19-22:

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John explained, but Jesus never did);

And my basic point is that there is always a clarification when Jesus uses the metaphor. In this instance, John provides the meaning. What Jesus preached was not only for the benefit of those listening to Him at the time, but to future generations as well. In John 6, neither Jesus nor John provide a correction of the misunderstanding.

John 4: 7-16

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans. ) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” 13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 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.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
At two places (vs 11 & 15) the woman demonstrated that she didn’t understand that Jesus was speaking figuratively…but Christ never clarified that he was speaking figuratively…and, of course, he never explained the figure either.

The point is that He corrected Her misunderstanding. She thought that He was talking about that particular well, but Jesus indicates that He was not speaking about that well. As I stated earlier, Jesus’s words are not only for the benefit of those listening at that time, but for future generations as well. Any person familiar with the Bible will read verse and know Jesus is not talking about literal water…will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. And we know He is not talking about literal water because John later clarifies what He meant by “living water” (John 7:38-39)

Here again you are stretching too far. An exception is John 12:30-35:

• 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” 35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36 Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them. *

Key verse is verse 33, which explains what Jesus meant. The Gospel of John is written for the benefit of future generations. That’s why no key metaphor is left unexplained, especially if it is mistakenly taken literally or misunderstood.

Another exception is found in John 16 where the disciples couldn’t understand what Jesus meant by, “In a little while you will see me no more and then after a little while you will see me”…particularly “the little while” part. Jesus doesn’t reaffirm “the little while” or specify that he will be killed.

But was Jesus speaking figuratively? My argument is when He is speaking figuratively and He is taken literally. Literally speaking, in a little while they will see Him no more (arrest, passion, death) and then they will see Him (resurrection). That is not figurative language.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Continuing:

What we see in John 6 is similar to what we see in John 10. In John 10 Christ started by describing himself using a figure of speech. (The Watchman who is known by the sheep [a figure]. The shepherd can identify the sheep by name and they follow him.[Christ can actually name his followers and we follow him]). When this is not understood, Christ expands on the figure of speech and adds to it. In the expansion, Jesus is both the gate (another figure) and the Good Shepherd (yet another figure) who lays down his life for the sheep. (lying down his life being something that Jesus actually does.) At the end, the audience is divided.

First of all, John clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking figuratively, which He doesn’t do in John 6. Secondly, Jesus explains what the figurative language means, which He also doesn’t do in John 6. Now all the elements you mention are in the original parable. Jesus now identifies what those elements symbolize.

1)The door (v. 1) is explained in v. 7 (I am the door)
2) The shepherd that leads the sheep (v. 2-3) is explained in v. 11).

Now that He identified the key elements and has established that He was speaking figuratively, He developed the points He was trying to make. The key elements of the figurative language are explained and we know He is speaking figuratively because John said so and Jesus explains the figurative language.

Similarly, in John 6 Jesus started by describing himself using a figure of speech. Jesus is the Bread of Life (a figure) that came down from heaven ( something that Jesus actually did). This is not understood and so Jesus expands on it. In the expansion, Jesus adds that the bread (a figure) is actually his flesh which he gives for the world (giving his flesh for the world as a sacrifice on the cross is something that Christ actually did) The expansion is also misunderstood and so Jesus adds further to it by referencing his blood (which must be drunk for eternal life…yet another figure). At the end, the audience is divided.

There was no misunderstanding of figurative language prior to John 6:51. While He used figurative language (i.e. bread), the Jews understood that He was speaking figuratively and hence there was no need for correction. They didn’t say “How can this man be bread?” They said “How can this man come down from heaven?” They objected to a very literal truth. As I stated before, when Jesus uses figurative language and it is taken literally, either He or John corrects it. That does not happen after John 6:51.

Giving a figure of speech and then expanding upon it, is something that we see Christ do at John 6, 10 and 15.

Giving a figure of speech, revealing that it is figurative, and expanding on its real meaning is what Jesus does in John 6 and 10. In John 15, it is clear from the start Jesus is speaking figuratively. You don’t have the apostles asking “how can you be a vine”? Like I said, corrections occur after something figurative is taken literally and this is done by Jesus or John. Neither of them do that in John 6.

You should note that in this passage Jesus also provided a “how” explanation. Christ explained how it was that Abraham had rejoiced…it was b/c of Jesus’s preexistence that Abraham could know of Christ. This, of course is a problem for your next claim which went:

He gives a very basic explanation. That He existed before Abraham. He does not go into detail.

Jesus also explained the “how” in response to Nicodemus’s question as to how one can be born again. He explained that it was a spiritual birth and that the “how” is by belief in Jesus. This, of course, is the recurring message of the gospel of John and that message (of belief in Christ) appears repeatedly in John 6.

Again, the point is that the “figurative” language was misunderstood… he thought it was a physical birth… and Jesus corrects him and explains it is a spiritual one. Again, my argument still stands.

as mentioned, the claim of preexistence actually explained how it was that Abraham could have rejoiced. I am not saying that a full blown theological explanation must be provided in John 6 if a RP understanding is valid, but I am saying that:

1. your effort to establish an absolute pattern of action for Jesus has holes in it…your sample size is too small and even then there are exceptions to the rules that you hope to establish.
2. Christ did not make an effort to eliminate the misunderstanding (be it misunderstanding figurative as literal; or misunderstanding transubstantial as cannibalistic; or taking either as being just too offensive); and

1. one has no better reason to expect a correction of the “misunderstanding figurative as literal” mistake than one has to expect a correction of “misunderstanding transubstantial as cannibalistic” mistake.

When Jesus speaks figuratively, His response gives a clear indication that He is speaking figuratively and/or John indicates that He is speaking figuratively. The point is that neither of them indicate that the words Jesus speak after John 6:51 are figurative, something unsusual in the Gospel of John. I will continue another time because I have to go.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[larkin31]

And my basic point is that there is always a clarification when Jesus uses the metaphor. In this instance, John provides the meaning. What Jesus preached was not only for the benefit of those listening to Him at the time, but to future generations as well. In John 6, neither Jesus nor John provide a correction of the misunderstanding.

So, Jesus expected his followers to be cannibals? Or is there a certain level of metaphor going on here?

 

[shawn38]

Let me give you the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of a tabernacle:

That is, at the present time in ecclesiastical usage it is only the name for the receptacle or case placed upon the table of the high altar or of another altar in which the vessels containing the Blessed Sacrament, as the ciborium, monstrance, custodia, are kept.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a “metaphysical state.” It is simply where the Blessed Sacrament is stored. I’m not aware of any metaphysical significance attached to the tabernacle per se.

God Bless,
Michael

Bread and wine physically and scientifically maintains the characteristics of bread and wine, yet to the faithful it’s the body and blood.

Same principle for the tabernacle.

How can Christ be found in a man made tabernacle, in the form of bread and wine, if the tabernacle is not transformed spiritually into the heavenly true tabernacle? This would seem to clearly contradict Hebrews 9:24 and 8:2.

 

[mikeledes]

and still continuing

No, my argument doesn’t rest on the absence of an explanation of transubstantiation. My argument rests on the fact there is not even a hint given that a) cannibalism isn’t involved and/or b) a miraculous eating is involved. I am not suggesting that Christ should have presented a lecture on greek philosophy.
agreed, but explanations of the complexity of “a) cannibalism isn’t involved and/or b) a miraculous eating is involved” are provided elsewhere. A sentence or two such as, “By this he meant the Lord’s Supper that he would later provide. Up to then he had not told them that he would miraculously change bread into his actual (but invisible) flesh”. This sort of explanation would be on par with what he provided at 7:37.
…and as a couple of other passages demonstrate that such wasn’t always the case
well, as shown that isn’t always the case

My argument rests on the fact that when Jesus spoke figuratively and He was understood* literally*, He *and/or ** John reveal that He is speaking figuratively after a question is asked or a controversy has arisen. Based on Jesus’s responses and John’s commentary, the primary * interest is to indicate to those hearing and/or reading that Jesus is speaking figuratively. Why doesn’t Jesus go into greater detail after He has revealed the literal meaning? That’s beyond what I am arguing and does not affect my original point… when Jesus speaks figuratively and is questioned, He or John indicates that He was not speaking literally.

You have yet to show a passage in which Jesus speaks figuratively, a question or controversy follows, and there is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively. Every example you have cited that seemingly pokes a hole in my argument only supports what I’ve been saying.

I am not at all convinced that many (if any) in his audience took him literally that day. A literal understanding could only have envisioned cannibalism…a thing which was so contrary to Jewish law and so contrary to the pure morality of Jesus. Rather, I suspect that the reluctant disciples would have believed that he was being excessively vulgar and inappropriate and merely spewing nonsense…(and not speaking about a literal gnawing of his flesh).

First of all, the key verse for my argument is John 6:52 :

**52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” **

They took Him quite literally. Based on what we’ve consistently seen in the Gospel of John after Jesus’s statement raises a question or causes a controversy, we should find … either from Jesus or John … a correction that indicates that He was speaking figuratively. There is no correction. Instead, Jesus emphatically reaffirms what He said and amplifies it. What happens next:

**60Therefore MANY of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” **

And yet there is no correction even after that. He doesn’t say “eating My flesh means believing in Me” and John doesn’t say “they didn’t realize He was talking about believing in Him.” Again, let me reiterate my argument. My argument is not that when Jesus speaks literally and those listening don’t understand, He explains it. What I am saying is that when Jesus speaks figuratively and a question is raised or a controversy arises, Jesus or John indicates that the original statement was figurative. What Jesus does beyond that does not affect my argument.

Two things. First, if one approaches the matter from a figurative understanding, then things take on a different significance.

We should not approach the matter with a figurative understanding. That’s imposing our own understanding on the words instead of the words shaping our understanding. We should allow the words of Christ and John to indicate to us whether He is speaking figuratively. In the case of John 6, neither Christ nor John indicate those words should be taken figuratively.

Continued in next post…

 

[PRmerger]

Could you also clarify the metaphysical state of the tabernacle where the consecrated bread is stored?

As our High Priest, Christ did not enter a man-made tabernacle (Heb 9:24), but serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man (Heb 8:2).

So wouldn’t something have to happen to the earthly church, at least spiritually, where through faith, it’s seen as the heavenly (true) tabernacle by the faithful?

I think this is an interesting concept–especially in light of Catholic teaching on Mary, the “original tabernacle of Our Lord”. She clearly was not a “man-made tabernacle” but was the “true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

 

[mikeledes]

Jesus also explained the “how” in response to Nicodemus’s question as to how one can be born again. He explained that it was a spiritual birth and that the “how” is by belief in Jesus. This, of course, is the recurring message of the gospel of John and that message (of belief in Christ) appears repeatedly in John 6.

Hello Radical. I just want to amplify my response to this argument you made regarding Nicodemus. Nicodemus did not ask"how" in the sense that he now understood what Jesus meant by spiritual birth and now wanted to know how He can be spiritually reborn. In fact, He asked “how” because He didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about and his question was rooted in* incredulity*. This is made clear by Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ question:

**9Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man./] **

Jesus made a “figurative” statement, Nicodemus thought He was talking about a second physical birth, and Jesus corrected him by telling Him its a spiritual rebirth. Even after Jesus clearlyreveals the literal meaning of what He said, Nicodemus at this point does not understand what Jesus said and is incredulous (v.v. 11-12). Though Nicodemus didn’t understand the nature of this spiritual of this spiritual rebirth, Jesus does not go into further detail about its nature. Instead, He reproves Nicodemus for His incredulity and appeals to the divine origin of what He just said… “we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen.” The implication being that Nicodemus should not question this teaching and believe it because it is from God. To reinforce that point, Jesus reveals to Nicodemus His divine origin, that He came down from heaven.

Jesus’ response to Nicodemus incredulity after revealing the literal truth regarding the spiritual rebirth is reminiscent to His response to the incredulity to the literal truth regarding the eating and drinking of His blood:

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “his is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

Once again, in the face of incredulity after revealing manifest truth, Jesus does not go into details about the nature of what He just taught… just as He didn’t go into details about the nature of regeneration… and instead appeals to His divine origin and divine authority. As he does with Nicodemus, He reminds the incredulous that He came down from heaven and that His words are backed by divine authority (i.e. words are spirit and life) and not mere human authority (flesh). Once He reveals a* literal* truth, the divine origin of His words should be enough to make them trustworthy and worthy of belief.

Now regarding what you said about the verses that follow. Apparently it’s not so clear that Jesus is explaining how a person is reborn because Calvinists deny that one is regenerated through faith, as opposed to Arminian Protestants who claim that regeneration is through faith. Calvinists argue that regeneration logically precedes faith and hence it is regeneration that enables a person to believe the gospel.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Bread and wine physically and scientifically maintains the characteristics of bread and wine, yet to the faithful it’s the body and blood.

Same principle for the tabernacle.

How can Christ be found in a man made tabernacle, in the form of bread and wine, if the tabernacle is not transformed spiritually into the heavenly true tabernacle? This would seem to clearly contradict Hebrews 9:24 and 8:2.

Was the upper room transformed into the heavenly true tabernacle by Jesus’s presence when He appeared to His disciples?

Many scientists deny God and the whole concept of divine revelation because it cannot be empirically proven. Christians have never been empiricists.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[TriuneUnity]

Was the upper room transformed into the heavenly true tabernacle by Jesus’s presence when He appeared to His disciples?

Many scientists deny God and the whole concept of divine revelation because it cannot be empirically proven. Christians have never been empiricists.

God Bless,
Michael

Indeed. One could also ask the question, “Well, if the Holy Spirit really regenerates you and you have the Triune God dwelling inside you, why aren’t you different scientifically. Why haven’t you changed into some beatific being, replete with wings and a halo.”

 

[mikeledes]

A sentence or two such as, “By this he meant the Lord’s Supper that he would later provide. Up to then he had not told them that he would miraculously change bread into his actual (but invisible) flesh”. This sort of explanation would be on par with what he provided at 7:37.

I just want to add one more thing. The explanation John provided in John 7:37 was the *literal meaning of the figurative *language Jesus used, which is on par with what he normally does when Jesus makes figurative statements. When Jesus makes a clearly literal statement, John does not provide explanations even in the case where Jesus is still not understood. Again, I bring to mind the case of Nicodemus. Even after Jesus revealed the true meaning of His figurative language, Nicodemus still did not understand the nature of regeneration and was incredulous. Jesus did not go into further detail about the nature of regeneration, but rather appeals to His divine origin and the divine authority of His words, as He does in the face of incredulity after He reveals the doctrine of the Real Presence in John 6 (i.e. he came down from heaven and His words are of divine origin). And John didn’t need to explain anything because Jesus already revealed what He meant by “born again.”

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Indeed. One could also ask the question, “Well, if the Holy Spirit really regenerates you and you have the Triune God dwelling inside you, why aren’t you different scientifically. Why haven’t you changed into some beatific being, replete with wings and a halo.”

Hello TriuneUnity! 'Thank you for your contribution. Having you participate in a thread is always a pleasure…at least for me. May God richly bless you in Christ!

In Christ,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And in John 6, there is a changing pattern of what is literal and what is non-literal from sentence to sentence. When Jesus states “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” the “bread” is the non-literal term in the metaphorical comparison. The literal “I” comes first and the non-literal “bread” comes second.

That’s right. There are instances when Jesus immediately identifies what a metaphor means. But Jesus refers to Himself as “bread” in a general way up until John 6:51 when He concretely reveals what He means by “bread.”

"Bread" (Metaphor) = Flesh (literal meaning)

In John 6:27, Jesus states this: 27"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." In this case the “food” is non-literal in both uses and is in comparison with another non-literal term “Son of Man.” Contrary to your claim, non-literal terms can certainly be compared to other non-literal terms.

Son of Man is a reference to His human nature. He was born of a human and hence He is literally Son of Man.

In all of John 6:53-58, Jesus is speaking of his “bread” in non-literal terms; Jesus is the “bread” here.

In John 6:53-58, Jesus now focus on what He has revealed the metaphor “bread” means, namely His flesh.

Earlier, however, in the miracle scene, the “bread” is literal and not fed to the people as a metaphorical embodiment of the spirit of God. It is simply material of plenty.

No one ever claimed that it was. It was a miracle, but the bread was just bread.

The references to blood and meat are very literal in tone, but with every reference to “bread” around them as non-literal, and since we know that Jesus was not advocating cannibalism (the most literal interpretation possible), we know that he is in metaphorical mode, which continues with the references to his “meat” and “blood.” ALL of it is a metaphor for the imbibing of the spirit of God.

The bread is the metaphor and hence the Flesh and Blood are literal. Moreover, you are confusing two distinct persons of the Trinity. John 6 is about Christ, not about the Holy Spirit. What I said about the Holy Spirit refers to another chapter in John.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

the latter

It is possible that Christ could have explained himself more in all the exceptions that I gave, but if one is to make that allowance, then one has to make that allowance in those instances that Michael is using to set a pattern of saying and doing by Jesus…that allowance destroys the hope of a pattern (which also works for me). It should be noted that the Bread of Life passage starts at the side of a lake and continues to a synagogue at Capernaum…a lot more would have been said. One might also argue that the applicable explanation can be found elsewhere in the gospel, but one could make the same argument for the figurative interpretation of John 6…so if one is to make that allowance, that too, works for me.

Cheers.

All of the parts of my argument form an integral whole. You cannot divide what I said about Jesus from what I said about John. The basic point is that in the Gospel of John, there is no room for the reader to mistakenly take something figurative as literal or something literal as figurative because either Jesus and/or John clearly reveal that He is speaking figuratively. John conscientiously clarifies for the reader those figurative staments made by Jesus that were not easily understood. Considering this consistent pattern we find in the Gospel of John, it is odd that the most controversial statement made by Jesus in this gospel is left unexplained if it was meant to be taken figuratively. The obvious reason why it lacks such an explanation is because it was meant to be taken literally.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[larkin31]

That’s right. There are instances when Jesus immediately identifies what a metaphor means. But Jesus refers to Himself as “bread” in a general way up until John 6:51 when He concretely reveals what He means by “bread.”

"Bread" (Metaphor) = Flesh (literal meaning)

“Bread” is not the metaphor. The “metaphor” is the entire comparison. “Bread” is one of the terms of the metaphor.

Son of Man is a reference to His human nature. He was born of a human and hence He is literally Son of Man.

No. The only literal statement in this regard that could be true is that he is “The Son of Mary” (apologies to Joseph)

In John 6:53-58, Jesus now focus on what He has revealed the metaphor “bread” means, namely His flesh.

I highly doubt that he was advocating cannibalism.

No one ever claimed that it was. It was a miracle, but the bread was just bread.

My point was to demonstrate that your claim that his pattern was non-literal to literal was incorrect even for this one scene.

The bread is the metaphor and hence the Flesh and Blood are literal

. Your “hence” here is an unsubstantiated conclusion. I teach English, and there is no *requirement *that the two terms of a metaphorical claim cannot be non-literal. And I have shown how this is true here.

Moreover, you are confusing two distinct persons of the Trinity. John 6 is about Christ, not about the Holy Spirit.

So, this passage is literally about eating Christ’s flesh and NOT about imbibing divine spirit? I have asked you this twice, and you have not answered. Is this a recommendation for cannibalism?

 

[larkin31]

…John conscientiously clarifies for the reader those figurative staments made by Jesus that were not easily understood. Considering this consistent pattern we find in the Gospel of John, it is odd that the most controversial statement made by Jesus in this gospel is left unexplained if it was meant to be taken figuratively. The obvious reason why it lacks such an explanation is because it was meant to be taken literally.

And this “obvious reason” isn’t “odd”? You are simply trading an outrageously “odd” suggestion of cannibalism for the “odd” possibility that John (or other writer) had a motive in mind that may have stretched the actual words of what Jesus said about the act of Communion. John’s depiction of Jesus is quite different in ways from the rest of the gospels, and this phrasing puts even more pressure on his hearers to decide, Are they in or are they out? Will you eat Jesus, or will you not?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Brkn1,

Sorry to have joined so late … Maybe I can offer an idea or two that could help out here.

There can be no physical “Real Presence” until the promised second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is now in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is presently acting as our High Priest (Mediator).

It would probably be go to go back and re-read the entire 6th Chapter of John. As I appreciate the matter, this entire Chapter can be examined in three distinct parts: (1.) Feeding the 5,000 [Jn 6:1-15], (2.) Jesus walks on water and calms the storm [Jn 6:16-24] and (3.) The Eucharistic Discourse and outcome [Jn 6: 25-70].

The 1st and 2nd parts of John 6 are dramatic presentations that Jesus can do all things.

In the 1st part, there is simply no way anyone TODAY could feed 5,000 men (not counting the women and children) in the length of time it took to say a blessing and have them sit into groups in this deserted place. Even with today’s great communications - how would we be able to get bread (forget about the fish) for that many people in so short a time. It simply can not be done without quite a lot of prep time on our part. And remember, the Gospel account does not give us the kind of detail that a caterer would need to know - like how many people are actually being fed so that there was an abundance of food. Christ showed He can control nature in front of all of these people.

In the 2nd part, Jesus demonstrates that He can do things that no mere human can do: walk on water and command the wind and sea to be calm. He made this demonstration in front of His apostles in the boat - and then the boat immediately arrived at their destination, Capharnaum.

Since the 4 Gospel writers were not focused on a total chronological presentation of Christ’s life - all show some skipping around after a recognized beginning (either the Announciation or beginning of Public Ministry) and a recognized end (Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection) we must ask ourselves, why do these two events preceed the Eucharistic Discourse. After reading about the first two events - I submit that most people are convinced that there is NOTHING that Jesus (True God and ture man) can not do even though we can not explain how He did them! Yet, we get to the third (Eucharist Discourse) and boldly proclaim, “Nawwwwwww… He CAN’T do that!!”

Such a response seems strange to me.

Jesus said that He must “go away” “to My Father” or “the Comforter will not come unto you;”. Jesus was speaking about His physical going away and not spiritual. As God, Jesus is spiritually present everywhere as He holds all things together.
Jesus is spiritually indwelling all those whom the Holy Spirit indwells. It is by the Spirit that Jesus spiritually resides in a believer.

This is where the argument gets a bit muddeled, Brkn1. One can not jump all over in an effort to avoid the clearly presented facts contained in John 6. You are right, Jesus has not abandoned us. But, you would apparently have Him deny what He said at the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke when He told the Apostles to continue to make Christ PHYSICALLY PRESENT in the form of the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

If a physical real presence were true, then there is no good explanation why Jesus said that He must “go away” or the “Comforter will not come”.

It sounds like you are trying to reduce Faith into what can be understood, Brkn1. Note none of us can ‘explain’ any of Christ’s miracles - we either believe they are what they are - or, we don’t. The Pharisees (and others) were challenged that if they did not believe what He was telling them (that He was the Son of God) to belive what they were actually seeing before their very eyes. But, at no point is Christ telling His listeners that they must first understand before they believe.

I would be especially interested in someone explaining (John 17:11): “And now I am NO MORE in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.”
Jesus was speaking of the future where He would not be physically in the world until that promised day of His second coming.

Truly, this needs to be placed in context, Brkn1. John chapters 14-17 are the Last Supper discourses. In less then 24 hours (Thursday evening to Friday at 3:00pm) Christ will be dead. He is anticipating everything for His apostles - and through it all, encouraging them. His UN-resurrected Body will be no long in the world - but, His Real Presence will be ALWAYS with us. Why? Because He said so! Honest, you either believe John 6 or you don’t.

To my way of thinking, the proof of what He said being understood by His listeners - and then rejected by these listeners - lies in Jn 6:52. Notice, they DON’T SAY, “How can this man use such a metaphore?” What they DO SAY is quite revealing: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is the first time people walked away from Christ for a purely doctrinal issue. He said that we must eat His Flesh and they said, ‘Goodbye’. Notice, this division is going on to this very day.

God bless

 

[shawn38]

I think this is an interesting concept–especially in light of Catholic teaching on Mary, the “original tabernacle of Our Lord”. She clearly was not a “man-made tabernacle” but was the “true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

I disagree with the immaculate conception, but Mary was not concieved by the Holy Spirit, only protected from the affliction of original sin. She was still concieved naturally. If I’m wrong, correct me.

Back on point:

Christ ascended to Heaven (not the womb of Mary aka true tabernacle
Seated (indicative of the sacrifice being finished) at the right hand of God
Serves in the sanctury, the true tabernacle, not man made, interceding for us before God.

Heb 9:24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Heb 8:1-2 We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

How can Christ’s real presense be found in a man made tabernacle? Not to mention one not setup according to God’s commandment to Moses which is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.

When a man made church is first consecrated, is it then transformed to a heavenly tabernacle in the eyes of the faithful?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

shawn,

Would it help your inquiry to investigate why for Catholics, Christ isn’t present in the tabernacle in a manner in which bodies are in a place? Christ isn’t “in” the tabernacle the same way you are in your house.

Maybe it will help you get to the bottom of things. If it is a tangent, please ignore!

VC