If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

[zz912]

ZZ, I you are only focused on one tree in the forest. There is more to it than v.54. Again, please look back to v.40.

40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”

Please see that it also has the exact same promise,namely “eternal life” and resurrection. Tell me if this is not so. What does it mean to you? Are we dealing wth two different promises? One for Catholics and one for Protestants?

What does it mean to me? It means I need to believe Him when He says before AND after this verse, several times, that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and that His Flesh and Blood is REAL food and drink.

Rather i think that the answer is the same as for all other parables. One is figurative and the other is literal. In all other parables of Jesus, the physical illustrates the spiritual. Is there a reason why this one is different?

This is a discourse, not a parable. And every time they challenge Jesus on this teaching, He gets MORE literal.

2nd observation. Jesus says in Lk22:19 This is My body which is given for you. The body that was" Given" was the one nailed to the cross. In v. 20 Jesus does not say the wine is his blood, but rather" This cup is the new covenant"

*17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.*

“in my blood”. Why did you leave out those three words? I’m missing your point because you can’t honestly be arguing that He isn’t directly saying the wine is His blood. He directly DOES say that.

If i believe that v. 40 is literal, then everything works out. If not then I must reinterpret the rest of scripture to harmonize with the other way.

Verse 40 and 54 are literal. How would they not harmonize?

 

[zz912]

Well the rich man certainly encountered a hard saying and left.

No I am saying is that those who stayed had the figurative eating .Those that left had a more literal understanding.

Blessings

Did the rich man misunderstand Jesus’ teaching?

and let’s look at the end of the discourse:

John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Nothing in there gives an indication that Peter understood Jesus in a symbolic way. In fact it is the opposite. Jesus asks, and Peter gives an answer that means “I don’t understand your teaching on this, but I will still trust you”.

And what kind of cruel God would allow such a misunderstanding of His teaching to remain for 2000 years? Jesus promised the lead His Church into all truth.

 

[zz912]

Actually the warning can be applied to the several varied views of “communion”. That is, all could be participated in “unworthily”.

Also not sure hell was warned about, but maybe sickness,death.

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[j] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[k] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters,[l] when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together,** it will not be for your condemnation**. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

Sickness and death are referenced, but it is secondary. Judgment and condemnation is the primary warning. Judgment to hell.*

 

[zz912]

Yes, we can. Any church that puts forth the good news, the Word of God, puts the listener in a position to not only learn about Him , but actually meet Him.

Blessings

How many churches did Jesus build?

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, we can. Any church that puts forth the good news, the Word of God, puts the listener in a position to not only learn about Him , but actually meet Him.

Blessings

Yes, there is a degree of truth in every church that teaches Jesus as the Son of God, some have more than others. Can you name any church that says they don’t have the whole truth as revealed by God? Of course not, they all claim to have it. But, the fact that we all are here on this forum debating proves that we are not united in one mind on everything Biblical. Jesus layed out His teachings 2000 yrs. ago, and instructed others whom He had chosen to spread the good news to every nation. Jesus established a church, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that church exists today, and has the fullness of Truth in it, not partial truths.

So, yes, for the most part, Christian churches regardless of denomination, can put a person in a position to begin to seek Jesus and learn from Him. But, as we grow in Him, we will naturally want to worship in Spirit and Truth, and nothing but the full Truth will satisfy us, this is why they sometimes call it a “faith journey.” This journey may eventually lead someone to a different church than the one they started out in.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus said to the Twelve, “THIS is My Body”, “THIS is My Blood”. I accept Jesus at His word. that is all. I do not have to explain or defend it. Jesus said it and I accept it.

then He said to the Twelve, “Do THIS”. I really fail to see the problem. the apostles and their successors have been doing what He told them to do ever since.

We RCs have placed our trust in Jesus. Jesus decided His flock on earth needed an hierarchical Church. He gave the Church a magisterium. we accept this. we do not have to explain it or defend it because Jesus decided it for us and we trust Him.

the magisterium of the RCC has taught us the meaning of the Last Supper just as Jesus taught them Its meaning. if you disagree with Jesus and HIs magisterium, so be it; but, you really cannot expect to receive all of the graces available through faith in Jesus if you refuse to honor and obey those He chose to shepherd His flock.

 

[JMM1957]

Jesus said to the Twelve, “THIS is My Body”, “THIS is My Blood”. I accept Jesus at His word. that is all. I do not have to explain or defend it. Jesus said it and I accept it.

then He said to the Twelve, “Do THIS”. I really fail to see the problem. the apostles and their successors have been doing what He told them to do ever since.

We RCs have placed our trust in Jesus. Jesus decided His flock on earth needed an hierarchical Church. He gave the Church a magisterium. we accept this. we do not have to explain it or defend it because Jesus decided it for us and we trust Him.

the magisterium of the RCC has taught us the meaning of the Last Supper just as Jesus taught them Its meaning. if you disagree with Jesus and HIs magisterium, so be it; but, you really cannot expect to receive all of the graces available through faith in Jesus if you refuse to honor and obey those He chose to shepherd His flock.

:clapping: Excellent post, this sums it up for me also. We need to accept Jesus at His word as you say, not doubt and question how it is possible, or come up with our own explanation, but trust Him as a child.

 

[JonNC]

of course with their mouth ,yet I heard an augustine quote that is hard to forget,“leave your teeth and bellies behind”, as if stressing the “unbloodiness” of it, even figurativism,and that we eat the elements in faith, the Word(s) in faith.Judas was condemned already, for his betrayal already in motion.

Not figurativism, but the supernatural, sacramental nature of the real and substantial presence.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Not figurativism, but the supernatural, sacramental nature of the real and substantial presence.

Jon

you got it bro.
I think it’s easier for me to understand that the discourse in John 6 was about receiving the Word of God in our hearts. Belief brought them to Him, in the flesh and bone, delivering the Word of God. YET He would not be with us long because those who disbelieve had contempt for him. So during His betrayal and attack from those who disbelieved, those who believed LEFT HIM. He knew this when He Taught in the John 6 discourse.

Some of the 11 even lacked belief after the resurrection!!

So receiving the Word of God in whatever form, after He left the disciples, depends on coming together for participation in the one loaf.

I believe all would do well to accept the Teachings which are bound with this one loaf. It is as though those who heard Jesus deliver the true bread were commissioned to then deliver this same bread. And here I mean Teachings. His Teachings are bound to His true flesh and blood.

Our goal and conviction is to receive Him who contained and delivered His Father’s Word faithfully, and for our sake, with a clean heart and conscience. This is not easy! It demands constant watch and Charity and conversion.

 

[benhur]

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves*. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[j] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[k] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters,[l] when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together,** it will not be for your condemnation**. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

Sickness and death are referenced, but it is secondary. Judgment and condemnation is the primary warning. Judgment to hell.Hi zz,

Maybe, but my initial reaction is totally disagree. Condemnation does not always mean as in condemned to hell. It means judged and and found guilty, of something, venial or mortal. Paul admonishes not be found guilty of participating unworthily and that the Lord disciplines us as His children, not sending us to hell, in this text.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Did the rich man misunderstand Jesus’ teaching?

and let’s look at the end of the discourse:

John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Nothing in there gives an indication that Peter understood Jesus in a symbolic way. In fact it is the opposite. Jesus asks, and Peter gives an answer that means “I don’t understand your teaching on this, but I will still trust you”.

And what kind of cruel God would allow such a misunderstanding of His teaching to remain for 2000 years? Jesus promised the lead His Church into all truth.

Actually nothing explicitly says Peter understood figurative or literal. Peter did not say anything about what he did not understand, only what he understood. We can only *presume *to know otherwise what he was thinking.

I see the eating as figurative in this discourse, so I color Peter’s understanding as figurative, as you color it literal.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

How many churches did Jesus build?

Well, one church yet there were seven churches in Revealtions. John wrote one letter but referenced specifically seven, just as assuredly if the Lord wished today He could write one letter referencing specifically one to 30,000, each tailored perfectly.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yes, there is a degree of truth in every church that teaches Jesus as the Son of God, some have more than others. Can you name any church that says they don’t have the whole truth as revealed by God? Of course not, they all claim to have it. But, the fact that we all are here on this forum debating proves that we are not united in one mind on everything Biblical. Jesus layed out His teachings 2000 yrs. ago, and instructed others whom He had chosen to spread the good news to every nation. Jesus established a church, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that church exists today, and has the fullness of Truth in it, not partial truths.

So, yes, for the most part, Christian churches regardless of denomination, can put a person in a position to begin to seek Jesus and learn from Him. But, as we grow in Him, we will naturally want to worship in Spirit and Truth, and nothing but the full Truth will satisfy us, this is why they sometimes call it a “faith journey.” This journey may eventually lead someone to a different church than the one they started out in.

Very good thank you

“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”. I often say here on CAF that many times you will find P’s, or ''evangelicals", as first espousing Jesus while many C’s first espouse their church. Not all but many , and as touching emphasis

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Not figurativism, but the supernatural, sacramental nature of the real and substantial presence.

Jon

Hi Jon,

As you know I kindly assert it to be a remembrance rite. As Luther steps a bit back from transubstantiation, and Calvin a bit back from Luther, I rest more comfortably with Zwingli’s final step back from Calvin. Yet the Lord is real and present in the rite spiritually speaking, not body and blood.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Hi Jon,

As you know I kindly assert it to be a remembrance rite. As Luther steps a bit back from transubstantiation, and Calvin a bit back from Luther, I rest more comfortably with Zwingli’s final step back from Calvin. Yet the Lord is real and present in the rite spiritually speaking, not body and blood.

Blessings

Can you show us scripture where Our Lord Jesus said it is a spiritual rite? How about where He said its a symbol?

 

[zz912]

Hi zz,

Maybe, but my initial reaction is totally disagree. Condemnation does not always mean as in condemned to hell. It means judged and and found guilty, of something, venial or mortal. Paul admonishes not be found guilty of participating unworthily and that the Lord disciplines us as His children, not sending us to hell, in this text.

Blessings

Paul says we are answerable for the Body and Blood of Our Lord. That’s not venial sin. Crucifying God Himself is not a venial matter. Being judged as guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Jesus is an infinite sin that demands hell.

Your parsing the language to avoid the clear truth.

 

[zz912]

Actually nothing explicitly says Peter understood figurative or literal. Peter did not say anything about what he did not understand, only what he understood. We can only *presume *to know otherwise what he was thinking.

I see the eating as figurative in this discourse, so I color Peter’s understanding as figurative, as you color it literal.

Blessings

So you interpret it to mean figurative, and I as literal. So who does Scripture and Jesus say we should turn to for resolution of this question?

 

[zz912]

Well, one church yet there were seven churches in Revealtions. John wrote one letter but referenced specifically seven, just as assuredly if the Lord wished today He could write one letter referencing specifically one to 30,000, each tailored perfectly.

Blessings

Did Jesus give different doctrines and truths to the seven churches in Revelation?

 

[JMM1957]

Did Jesus give different doctrines and truths to the seven churches in Revelation?

 

[benhur]

Can you show us scripture where Our Lord Jesus said it is a spiritual rite? How about where He said its a symbol?

No, I can not just as you can not show He says it is a sacrament and that the bread and wine turn into His body and blood explicitly.

Whatever the Passover was/is , communion is (rite vs sacrament).

Blessings