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

[JonNC]

I see both yours and Ben’s faith great. I see his points and do admire much about them. I also see yours springing closer from Catholic Communion.

Didn’t Luther describe these ones as “enthusiasts”?

Particularly Karlstadt and Muntzer

Jon

 

[eazyduzit]

And the Jews walked away because they could not handle Him saying you must gnaw at my words? That is laughable. But why not just say: “gnaw at my words, or teachings?”

So in your mind, Jesus was being figurative when He said: “for My flesh is real food?” Did Jesus literally walk the Earth, or just figuratively?

Once again if St. John had stayed with the word phago, one could argue that Jesus was being figurative. When Jesus ramps up the discourse, and St. John switches to trogo, there can be no doubt Jesus is not talking figuratively, since trogo ALWAYS means to gnaw on real food.

If this is the exclusive mindset of John (or Jesus) then how is it that Jesus says in ch.4:32,34, "I have food that you know nothing about. …My food is…,"So according to your understanding this is not “real” food? Just. figurative?

 

[JMM1957]

If this is the exclusive mindset of John (or Jesus) then how is it that Jesus says in ch.4:32,34, "I have food that you know nothing about. …My food is…,"So according to your understanding this is not “real” food? Just. figurative?

John 4:32, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Verse 34, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”

In this case “food” is figurative. Looking at the context, Jesus disciples wanted him to eat real nutritional food, but Jesus is saying that at that moment, doing his Father’s will is more important. Jesus is simply contrasting the less important eating of real food, with doing His Fathers work. Jesus is putting His priorities in order for the disciples to understand.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe it is wrong to believe “eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus” is mere Eucharist consumption.

It is not what Eucharist consumption is about. Eucharist consumption is believing that His Word transformed what our human senses see as mere food for our bellies into the treasures contained in the Word made flesh.

And like I’ve stated before. The one and true Eucharist delivers only one Teaching, one faith, in on unified body of believers who are all in spiritual communion with one another.

 

[JMM1957]

I believe it is wrong to believe “eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus” is mere Eucharist consumption.

It is not what Eucharist consumption is about. Eucharist consumption is believing that His Word transformed what our human senses see as mere food for our bellies into the treasures contained in the Word made flesh.

And like I’ve stated before. The one and true Eucharist delivers only one Teaching, one faith, in on unified body of believers who are all in spiritual communion with one another.

Jesus did not intend for the Eucharist to be understood in multiple ways, with differing ideas about what you are actually participating in.

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus did not intend for the Eucharist to be understood in multiple ways, with differing ideas about what you are actually participating in.

I agree. The account in Luke of the disciples on the road to Emmaus states, “He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

This has significant meaning. We can’t fully know Him and what He Teaches us outside of the “breaking of bread”.

It’s not a bad thing to discern Jesus and His Spirit figuratively in His Eucharist. It become more murky if we decide the Apostolic Teachings which are bound to Catholic Communion are NOT from Him. Then we don’t really know Him and have manipulated His image.

 

[JMM1957]

I agree. The account in Luke of the disciples on the road to Emmaus states, “He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

This has significant meaning. We can’t fully know Him and what He Teaches us outside of the “breaking of bread”.

It’s not a bad thing to discern Jesus and His Spirit figuratively in His Eucharist. It become more murky if we decide the Apostolic Teachings which are bound to Catholic Communion are NOT from Him. Then we don’t really know Him and have manipulated His image.

Yes, their eyes were prevented from seeing Him, a figurative blindness, until He broke the bread and had Eucharist with them. Very significant.

 

[benhur]

Each family ate their own lamb, even on the night of the first Passover. But they all shared in the one event. Same with Jews celebrating Passover 1,000 years later. And it wasn’t good enough that they just said the prayers, or thought really hard about the Passover. They had to EAT the lamb to participate and be an Israelite. Those who didn’t were violating the covenant.

And the New Covenant supercedes the prefigurement of the Old Covenant. Where each family had a different lamb, we bring our different bread and Jesus transforms the bread into the ONE Lamb. So the New Covenant is greater than the Old, and unites all people together in a way the Old could not.

Did they eat lamb at last supper and I do not mean Jesus. The Passover also has bread, unleavened and wine to consume. They did not drink blood.

We do not eat lamb anymore, because of the once for all sacrifice at Calvary. Jesus chose the remaining elements of the Passover, bread and wine, to signify that.

The unleavened bread represents “purity”, even sinlessness ? The wine (4 cups) represents deliverance and finally "thanksgiving " for that. The fourth reminds me of “it is finished” thank you.

In essence we are thankful that we do not have to eat lamb anymore. We are also thankful that we eat “purity” ,signified by the bread,which of course Jesus was also.

This is the new “passover” for the new covenant. We do not literally eat lamb anymore.

Just my thoughts that you have prodded.Thank you.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Ahh, the messages to the “churches” and it’s commendments and warnings AND promises!

That is an interesting study, especially in light of the fact that not one of them continued, but all fell and no longer exist!

Hopefully some members can share some things about that chapter which tie into John 6 and His Eucharist.

Actually, I thought Philadelphia and Smyrna (Izma) still exist , with congregations.

 

[benhur]

And the Jews walked away because they could not handle Him saying you must gnaw at my words? That is laughable. But why not just say: “gnaw at my words, or teachings?”

There are many occasions when we speak figuratively and do not have to qualify it as “figurative”. It is understood.

So in your mind, Jesus was being figurative when He said: “for My flesh is real food?” Did Jesus literally walk the Earth, or just figuratively?

Because we eat bread and drink wine does not do away with what they signify. We are not Gnostic.

Once again if St. John had stayed with the word phago, one could argue that Jesus was being figurative. When Jesus ramps up the discourse, and St. John switches to trogo, there can be no doubt Jesus is not talking figuratively, since trogo ALWAYS means to gnaw on real food.

Yes, Jesus definitely ramped up the bar, almost hyperbole, to separate the sheep from goats. Trogo can still be figurative in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Or, “my Word is real food”… I don’t think so. One could “eat His Word”, but that would be figurative.

Let’s see, “Eat my flesh and have eternal life” and Peter says Jesus has the words of eternal life.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,
Stepping back from Transubstaniation is in no way shape or form stepping away from the real presence. I respect your view, Ben, but it is a decidedly unacceptable one for me as a Lutheran, as is Calvin’s, the crypto-Calvinists, and even the receptionists that have, at times, preached that particularly unLutheran teaching within Lutheranism.
As I said, I truly respect your view, but I agree with Luther, that before I drink mere wine (symbolic belief) with the Swiss, I would drink blood (Transubstantiation) with the pope. This, to me, is a distinct line between Lutheranism and Protestantism, one I could never cross.

“Ist ist ist.” - Luther

His peace,
Jon

Thanks Jon,

One can never forget that Luther drink quote.

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Let’s see, “Eat my flesh and have eternal life” and Peter says Jesus has the words of eternal life.

Nope. You’re making an incorrect comparison between those two statements, imo. You can’t just use those two verses to make your point valid, you have to use more of Scripture. We have been talking about John 6 now for quite some time and all I can say is, this is a stumbling block for many people. No different than the ones who “walked away.”

 

[rcwitness]

Actually, I thought Philadelphia and Smyrna (Izma) still exist , with congregations.

I guess I’m not positive Ben. I remembered hearing someone, I believe it was Michael Barber, commenting on Revelations. He made that remark about none of the Churches still existing.

Now maybe he meant those original churches with leadership which can be traced back?

Do you have a good resource about the current churches in Philadelphia and Smyrna? Do they claim to be an unbroken continuation from the church of Revelations?

 

[benhur]

Nope. You’re making an incorrect comparison between those two statements, imo. You can’t just use those two verses to make your point valid, you have to use more of Scripture. We have been talking about John 6 now for quite some time and all I can say is, this is a stumbling block for many people. No different than the ones who “walked away.”

And the ones who walked away had the more literal view.

In my opinion having the right view is not stumbling.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

And the ones who walked away had the more literal view.

In my opinion having the right view is not stumbling.

Blessings

IMO, John 6 is not as much about Eucharist as His Eucharist is about John 6

In the same way that His followers stayed with Him and kept His Word in heart and deed, so do His followers stay with His Eucharist and keep His Word and deed. Though His Eucharist contains the full revelation of His death and resurrection.

Both sceneries have Judas’ who remain only externally but not in heart, so they become instruments of the devil.

 

[JMM1957]

And the ones who walked away had the more literal view.

In my opinion having the right view is not stumbling.

Blessings

If they had understood Him in a metaphorical, figurative or symbolic sense, there would have been no reason for them to quarrel. Just as Nicodemus thought of being born again in the purely physical sense (Jn. 3:4), and the woman at the well thought only of natural water (Jn. 4:11) so now the Jews understand the reference to His flesh literally.

Yes, the ones who walked definitely took Jesus literally, but their lack of faith prompted them to say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat”, and “This saying is hard, who can accept it?” The disciples who stayed said, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. "What Peter and the others were really saying was, “We have no other choice, We know you have come from God. You speak the words of God (Jn. 3:34; 17:8). We don’t fully understand your message, but we have enough faith in You because of He who sent You, that we’ll stay with You.” The initial silence of the disciples who stayed, as opposed to the ones who grumbled and left, does not indicate that they understood Jesus symbolically or figuratively instead of literally, they just believed and didn’t openly question Him any further.

 

[KathleenGee]

If we reduce Christ’s Eucharist to words, then there is no Eucharist.

Has anyone seen the You Tube video on the miracle of the Eucharist from Buenas Aires? It happened when P Francis was archbishop there.

I tried to provide it but the link wouldn’t come through…it is so amazing and how the bread and wine truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…but remain in the traditional form of the gifts of bread and wine…the Jewish custom going way back of breaking bread and giving thanks at meals.

I will try to find it again…for now …

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC7RPJC4uDA

 

[benhur]

IMO, John 6 is not as much about Eucharist as His Eucharist is about John 6

OK, that may be.

In the same way that His followers stayed with Him and kept His Word in heart and deed, so do His followers stay with His Eucharist and keep His Word and deed. Though His Eucharist contains the full revelation of His death and resurrection.

yes it may be one in the same following and Eucharisting. I would just be careful
not to confuse the elements with the reality they represent. That is the Jews did not idolize the elements of their saving Passover that was instituted by God .That is "eucharist " is not a thing but an action we do thru elements representing spiritual realities.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

If we reduce Christ’s Eucharist to words, then there is no Eucharist.

Yes of course, just as we should not reduce Christ Himself to mere words , though He is Logos. Yet words, His words, as do communion elements, have a spiritual reality not meant to be reduced. The thanksgiving is very specific, as is the communion.

I tried to provide it but the link wouldn’t come through…it is so amazing and how the bread and wine truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…but remain in the traditional form of the gifts of bread and wine…the Jewish custom going way back of breaking bread and giving thanks at meals.

Yes the “pure” bread is now the figurative element of the “lamb”. We do not eat literal lamb anymore , but are thankful for the "pure’’ Christ, providing all the things the 4 cups of wine represent, all dealing with justification and salvation and the fourth, thanksgiving.

Blessings