Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

[rjcash]

But that is the context. The Bible says that the Church is, first and foremost, the way to settle doctrinal disputes as well as determine what is binding, as well as what is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

I don’t see where the Bible says it is first and foremost.

BTW, other than the Bible, what is another source of teaching?

Also, I am proud to be from the USA, RJ!

Glad to hear you are made in the USA!!

“I don’t see where the Bible says it is first and foremost.”

Again, did I say that it did?

To answer your question as stated “BTW, other than the Bible, what is another source of teaching?”, That would be “Home and Garden”, “Popular Mechanics magazine” and the Public Library, also Public Schools.

But I really do not want to go off topic anymore.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[rjcash]

Yes. Not all of his philosophy, but a few of his works.

Aristotle isn’t considered ‘tradition’, per se, although some of his reasoning is utilized by Christian thinkers (including Aquinas) in their theological and philosophical thought.

Thanks for answering directly and now let’s get back to the text in Jn. 6.

I stated in a previous post that observation of a text should precede any interpretation of the text. Seems to make sense to me, hardly seems possible to intrepret anything without having first observed what is in the text and not in the text.

So I would like to ask your simple indugence in demonstrating to me how strict an observer you are.

Let’s look at all of Jn. 6 as you suggested, of course we both know the chapter divisions are not in the original text, but let’s just go with the English version of the Douay and look at Jn. 6.

I am not looking for comments, just factual statements from the text itself. I would like to say of course you are free to make comments, but please make them at the end, after you answer with the simple observations, if you feel the need to comment. And I should say observations that are directly stated in the text?

Can you tell me these simple observations.

1. How many people in all of Jn. 6 are directly identifed as believers?
2. Who are they?
3. Where in the text by verse reference are they directly identified?

Again, I would like to stress “directly in the text” and remember you can comment after you make these simple observations! And of course you are free to comment anytime, but I simply ask you to indulge me, so I can keep this focused on the observations, only the observations and nothing but the observations!

Thanks!!

 

[rjcash]

You’re not subtly throwing red herrings on the trail so much as lobbing them forcefully at passerby while banging with a wooden spoon on the bucket over your head.

What he said was not a tangent, and you didn’t comment on it. Comments?

“This is not what the original post is about!!” This is a basic policy of the forum. The original post is about Mt 26:29. I have only been responding to Jn 6, since everyone keeps bringing it up.

I also consider your comment about, “a wooden spoon on the bucket over your head.” to be an abusive remark toward me, since it said, “your head” referring to me, and uncalled for. So I have reported this as a not appropriate remark to the admin.

They may agree or may not, but I just want you to know I find it inappropriate to make these personal remarks.

 

[ahs]

…But I really do not want to go off topic anymore.

Thanks for understanding.

Great. So let’s get back to this:

“And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well” - Yes I do, since it says whosoever in the text.

Why can’t John 6 apply to me? - Never said it didn’t, but did say if it applies to you literally then it applies to them literally, which then would mean it literally applies to unbelieving Jews.

Yes, John 6 applies to everyone, regardless of “time”. The “present tense” you keep referring to applies to ALL, in ALL time. You are correct in this, and you are correct that Jesus is speaking to ALL, INCLUDING unbelievers. Yes.

Where you are wrong is in what John chapter 6 IS. Recall my attempt to give an explanation:

Again, as has been stated many times over, Jesus first instructs them (and us) what we must believe and what we must do. Then, those who have believed are then invited to partake in the Lord’s Supper, where He actually gives His Body and Blood. Only those who did believe were offered and given the Eucharist. But ALL people, believers and unbelievers alike, are instructed that we must eat His Flesh and drink of His Blood in order to have life within us. We are not actually offered Eucharist until we believe.

John 6 is the instruction…given to ALL. The Lord’s Supper is the invitation to the believers. As badly as you seem to want to only look at John 6 :41-60 to discuss the Church’s Teaching on Eucharist, it cannot be done and still get the full context. You are short-changing yourself by not looking at the whole picture.

You are fixated on only John 6: 41-60 to debate the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. However, the Catholic Teaching is not focused ONLY on John 6: 41-60. The Church takes those verses, as well as the entirety of John 6, and puts them into the context of the whole of Scripture. THAT is why 1 Cor 11:23-29 matters and is very relevant…as well as Jn 6:35-71, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4, and many others. You can find this teaching explained clearly in the writings of the very first Christians who taught on this subject in the first and second centuries.

The RCC says unbelievers are forbidden from taking communion…

Yes, and this fits into Scripture perfectly…when Scripture is taken into proper context and not “cherry-picked” until a preferred meaning is extruded.

Let me clarify my above post:

Not once in Jn 6:41-60 does Christ say, “Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…”. No, He says, as you have many times pointed out to us, “Unless you eat” or “Except you eat” (depending on the translation/version of the Bible).

He tells ALL, EVERYONE, believers and nonbelievers alike, that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. In Jn 6 He is teaching us what to do, and how to do it…but He never offers it at that teaching…He does not, in John 6 41-60 invite them by saying, “Take, Eat…”. He only tells that (“Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…” ) to BELIEVERS at the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Gorgias]

Sure, I’ll play along for a bit…

1. How many people in all of Jn. 6 are directly identifed as believers?
2. Who are they?
3. Where in the text by verse reference are they directly identified?

“Directly”? Why is this the appropriate standard?

In any case, the answer is “zero”; no one is “directly identified as a believer”.

However, in v69, Simon makes the claim that he and the apostles believe in Jesus. (Jesus immediately refutes this claim, however.)

In addition, in v64, Jesus mentions that some (of the disciples) do not believe; implicitly, then, we conclude that some do believe. However, if your standard is “directly identified”, we’re still batting zero for ὄχλος …

keep this focused on the observations, only the observations and nothing but the observations!

I would argue that too rigid a literalistic view is an inappropriate approach, but let’s see where you go with this…

 

[rjcash]

Sure, I’ll play along for a bit…

“Directly”? Why is this the appropriate standard?

In any case, the answer is “zero”; no one is “directly identified as a believer”.

However, in v69, Simon makes the claim that he and the apostles believe in Jesus. (Jesus immediately refutes this claim, however.)

In addition, in v64, Jesus mentions that some (of the disciples) do not believe; implicitly, then, we conclude that some do believe. However, if your standard is “directly identified”, we’re still batting zero for ὄχλος …

I would argue that too rigid a literalistic view is an inappropriate approach, but let’s see where you go with this…

Thanks again for answering directly. And I was not establishing any standard per se, other than to say that’s it’s important to first see exactly what the text says and does not say. Since the text is the text. Simple enough.

Well, since Peter did say, “70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” Since Peter would be including himself in the we, since that is what we usually means, then I would say Peter is directly identified as per his own confession. Would that be ok to say?

Also, I would not say it is “too rigid a leteralistic” view, since again the text is the text. Now, if you are referring to interpretation, then yes I would agree. But the simple act of observing what is actually stated in black and white on the page, without reading assumptions into it, is acutally quite a difficult discipline for most people to learn.

I would again also stress that in observation of the text, there is nothing but the text and we should not read anything into the text that is not there, in the stage of observation.

Now, we could look at the last verses and say that when Peter spoke for the twelve, that we would know from other sources and from history that the 12 other than Judas were believers. But as observed that is NOT in the text, the text says Peter made the statement and of course Peter could be incorrect, which of course he was as concerns Judas, which even Jesus makes clear. But those observations of history, etc. is as you said NOT in the text and I would agree.

As to the some of the disciples, in the text it says, “67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.”

So here if we are sticking with the text, it would be fair to conclude according to the text and context that the only ones identified as “not walking away” are “the twelve”, which are referred to by Jesus himself and he refers to no others in this text. So here in this text the many would be everyone else except the twelve, which are the only ones that Jesus addresses. Again just in the text itself.

The reasoning would be, well it does say many, who then do we have left mentioned in the text. Oh, we see the twleve mentioned, so the many that walked away, would be everyone but the twelve. This would still fit the context correct? And any others would be just an assumption, i.e. not mentioned directly. This would be sticking with the text correct? As observation of the text!

When I speak of simple statements of fact that are observations that is what I mean. In this case I do think those are facts concerning the text. So when I say if I have made a factual statement about the text, I would mean show me in the text itself in black and white where it says so and so.

Now I also know there are not things directly referred to as say the “trinity”, i.e. it never uses the word trinity. But there are some verses that come very close to directly stating the concept, just maybe not all in one verse.

But then again it is a true statement that the Bible does not use the word trinity and is a true fact/observation.

So do you agree with this, all of this, none of this, most of this, a very small portion of this, or what in the world are you talking about, etc?

 

[rjcash]

Great. So let’s get back to this:

Yes, John 6 applies to everyone, regardless of “time”. The “present tense” you keep referring to applies to ALL, in ALL time. You are correct in this, and you are correct that Jesus is speaking to ALL, INCLUDING unbelievers. Yes.

Where you are wrong is in what John chapter 6 IS. Recall my attempt to give an explanation:

You are fixated on only John 6: 41-60 to debate the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. However, the Catholic Teaching is not focused ONLY on John 6: 41-60. The Church takes those verses, as well as the entirety of John 6, and puts them into the context of the whole of Scripture. THAT is why 1 Cor 11:23-29 matters and is very relevant…as well as Jn 6:35-71, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4, and many others. You can find this teaching explained clearly in the writings of the very first Christians who taught on this subject in the first and second centuries.

Yes, and this fits into Scripture perfectly…when Scripture is taken into proper context and not “cherry-picked” until a preferred meaning is extruded.

Can you do me a favor, a small one at that. Can you look at my questions to Gorgias in the last post then, his answers then my comments and please try to be objective. It is about how to deal with the text. And basically he agrees, so check it out first, so I don’t have to repeat it all.

And tell me what you think, before we proceed any further.

And just one comment, it is ok to focus on v. 41-60 since it is there, after all the RCC does. And that is not to say there is not more, but it is very hard to keep people focused even on “one” small point. Check out the posts I mentioned about dealing with the text. I actually think you might even agree. He even said he did.

Make sure to go to the first one, so dare I say you have the CONTEXT.

The “first one” starts with “I stated in a previous post that observation of a text should precede any interpretation of the text.”

Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

So do you agree with this, all of this, none of this, most of this, a very small portion of this, or what in the world are you talking about, etc?

Some of this.

Well, since Peter did say, “70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” Since Peter would be including himself in the we, since that is what we usually means, then I would say Peter is directly identified as per his own confession. Would that be ok to say?

I don’t think so. After all, Jesus refutes his statement directly. We’d have to give the assertion of Jesus precedence over that of Peter, don’t you think? And Jesus’ response directly refutes Peter, without giving an assent to any part of Peter’s statement. Do I think that Jesus sees the apostles (minus Judas) as believers? Yes. But that’s not what you asked – you asked for direct identification; in this case, there’s no direct identification that isn’t contradicted by Jesus.

But those observations of history, etc. is as you said NOT in the text and I would agree.

Right.

As to the some of the disciples, in the text it says, “67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.”

So here if we are sticking with the text, it would be fair to conclude according to the text and context that the only ones identified as “not walking away” are “the twelve”, which are referred to by Jesus himself and he refers to no others in this text. So here in this text the many would be everyone else except the twelve, which are the only ones that Jesus addresses. Again just in the text itself.

No. John is very clear in the way he identifies people: there are the ‘disciples’ and there are the ‘Twelve’.

Oh, we see the twleve mentioned, so the many that walked away, would be everyone but the twelve. This would still fit the context correct?

In the text itself, when John says that many disciples walked away, we cannot conclude that he meant that those who stayed were the Twelve. In other words, if only many disciples walked, then some disciples stayed. From context, we also know that the Twelve were still around, but they’re a distinct group, according to John.

So when I say if I have made a factual statement about the text, I would mean show me in the text itself in black and white where it says so and so.

Right. So… show me in the text where John refers to the Twelve as among “the disciples”, and I’ll entertain the idea. Otherwise, no.

 

[Gorgias]

And basically he agrees, so check it out first, so I don’t have to repeat it all.

Well… I’m willing to play along, for the sake of argument. Once we reach ‘interpretation’, we’ll see how long that lasts…

 

[rjcash]

Can you do me a favor, a small one at that. Can you look at my questions to Gorgias in the last post then, his answers then my comments and please try to be objective. It is about how to deal with the text. And basically he agrees, so check it out first, so I don’t have to repeat it all.

And tell me what you think, before we proceed any further.

And just one comment, it is ok to focus on v. 41-60 since it is there, after all the RCC does. And that is not to say there is not more, but it is very hard to keep people focused even on “one” small point. Check out the posts I mentioned about dealing with the text. I actually think you might even agree. He even said he did.

Make sure to go to the first one, so dare I say you have the CONTEXT.

The “first one” starts with “I stated in a previous post that observation of a text should precede any interpretation of the text.”

Thanks!

You said,
“Yes, and this fits into Scripture perfectly…when Scripture is taken into proper context and not “cherry-picked” until a preferred meaning is extruded”

Well I happen to like cherries, they are made by God and God approved!!!

 

[rjcash]

Some of this.

I don’t think so. After all, Jesus refutes his statement directly. We’d have to give the assertion of Jesus precedence over that of Peter, don’t you think? And Jesus’ response directly refutes Peter, without giving an assent to any part of Peter’s statement. Do I think that Jesus sees the apostles (minus Judas) as believers? Yes. But that’s not what you asked – you asked for direct identification; in this case, there’s no direct identification that isn’t contradicted by Jesus.

Right.

No. John is very clear in the way he identifies people: there are the ‘disciples’ and there are the ‘Twelve’.

In the text itself, when John says that many disciples walked away, we cannot conclude that he meant that those who stayed were the Twelve. In other words, if only many disciples walked, then some disciples stayed. From context, we also know that the Twelve were still around, but they’re a distinct group, according to John.

Right. So… show me in the text where John refers to the Twelve as among “the disciples”, and I’ll entertain the idea. Otherwise, no.

"After all, Jesus refutes his statement directly. "

Can you show me this, this is one part I did not understand.

I see this, "71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?
72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

 

[rjcash]

Some of this.

I don’t think so. After all, Jesus refutes his statement directly. We’d have to give the assertion of Jesus precedence over that of Peter, don’t you think? And Jesus’ response directly refutes Peter, without giving an assent to any part of Peter’s statement. Do I think that Jesus sees the apostles (minus Judas) as believers? Yes. But that’s not what you asked – you asked for direct identification; in this case, there’s no direct identification that isn’t contradicted by Jesus.

Right.

No. John is very clear in the way he identifies people: there are the ‘disciples’ and there are the ‘Twelve’.

In the text itself, when John says that many disciples walked away, we cannot conclude that he meant that those who stayed were the Twelve. In other words, if only many disciples walked, then some disciples stayed. From context, we also know that the Twelve were still around, but they’re a distinct group, according to John.

Right. So… show me in the text where John refers to the Twelve as among “the disciples”, and I’ll entertain the idea. Otherwise, no.

The disciples and 12 distinction is a good point, but as it is getting late for me, I’m on PCT time, I need to get back to you.

And I thik it could go either way, but I am probably leaning more toward your side of the distinction if sticking with the “directly stated” distinction. I was getting into more of the “if we reason” side of it.

To be continued.

And thanks, I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth for AHS, but it is hard in these forums to take everything into account when posting.

I just wanted him to see this generic principle.

 

[Gorgias]

"After all, Jesus refutes his statement directly. "

Can you show me this, this is one part I did not understand.

I see this, "71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?

72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

Sure:

Jesus speaks “to the Twelve” (v 67).

Peter responds in the voice of the Twelve: “we have come to believe” (v 69).

Jesus answers “them” (i.e., the Twelve) (v70).

Jesus identifies that the subject of Peter’s confession is the Twelve: “Did I not choose you twelve?” (v 70).

And Jesus refutes the assertion that the Twelve believe: “Yet is not one of you a devil?” (v 70).

John concurs that Peter’s statement about the Twelve has been refuted by Jesus, identifying that Jesus “was referring to Judas, … one of the Twelve” (v71).

In other words, Peter makes a statement about the apostles corporately, as a group, and not individually. Jesus refutes the statement and John affirms that it is true. Nothing further is stated – there’s no assertion that (any of) the Eleven believe, either from Peter or from Jesus.

Therefore, on the face of the text, and at the end of John 6, no one has been seen to be identified as a believer at that point in the narrative.

 

[Gorgias]

The disciples and 12 distinction is a good point, but as it is getting late for me, I’m on PCT time, I need to get back to you.

No problems. Take whatever time you need.

By the way, as you look through John, ask yourself: in what context do we see “the Twelve”? It might surprise you – if the context that we see “the Twelve” is (not coincidentally) the context in which Jesus talks about “eating his flesh”, what does that say about what constitutes the apostles as “the Twelve”? I would assert that, as apostles – and as the first bishops – John is demonstrating to us that their special mission is constituted around the Bread of Life. (hint hint)

Sure, you can look at them individually or in small groups as “disciples”, but as the Twelve, they have a special mission.

And thanks, I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth for AHS

It’s all good; no offense taken!

 

[rjcash]

Sure:

Jesus speaks “to the Twelve” (v 67).

Peter responds in the voice of the Twelve: “we have come to believe” (v 69).

Jesus answers “them” (i.e., the Twelve) (v70).

Jesus identifies that the subject of Peter’s confession is the Twelve: “Did I not choose you twelve?” (v 70).

And Jesus refutes the assertion that the Twelve believe: “Yet is not one of you a devil?” (v 70).

John concurs that Peter’s statement about the Twelve has been refuted by Jesus, identifying that Jesus “was referring to Judas, … one of the Twelve” (v71).

In other words, Peter makes a statement about the apostles corporately, as a group, and not individually. Jesus refutes the statement and John affirms that it is true. Nothing further is stated – there’s no assertion that (any of) the Eleven believe, either from Peter or from Jesus.

Therefore, on the face of the text, and at the end of John 6, no one has been seen to be identified as a believer at that point in the narrative.

Well eveything is good up to this statement, “And Jesus refutes the assertion that the Twelve believe: “Yet is not one of you a devil?” (v 70).”

“was referring to Judas, … one of the Twelve”

Since it says directly that it was referring to Judas, how does it apply to all Twelve, when it also refines it to “one of the Twelve”?

Seems it is talking about Judas, not the others?

 

[Gorgias]

Well eveything is good up to this statement, “And Jesus refutes the assertion that the Twelve believe: “Yet is not one of you a devil?” (v 70).”

“was referring to Judas, … one of the Twelve”

Since it says directly that it was referring to Judas, how does it apply to all Twelve, when it also refines it to “one of the Twelve”?

What is Peter’s literal statement? He asserts that the Twelve believe in Jesus.

So, Jesus provides a counter-example to refute Peter’s statement. Therefore, on the level of the text, an assertion is made and refuted. It’s up to Peter to say, “well… the other eleven of us believe in you”, or “I personally believe in you”, but no such assertion is made.

Yes, the means by which Jesus refutes the statement is by pointing out the notion of Judas’ treason. However, it’s meant to refute the statement in general, not to literally point at Judas.

Again, you need to look at the text itself. Does Jesus say, “Well, Judas doesn’t believe in me, so you’re wrong”? No – he says, “one of you is a devil”! And, you don’t hear eleven voices responding, “not me, Lord!” … instead, there’s silence. Jesus has just challenged the Twelve to assert either that He’s wrong (i.e., the Twelve all believe), or to assert individually that each is not a devil. No one replies. That silence is so deafening, it jumps right out at you!

So, not one of the Twelve is willing to tell Jesus that he himself is not a devil. It’s kind of hard to assert that the literal text is telling us that they are saying they’re believers, if they personally are unwilling to even make the statement, “I’m not a devil, Lord”, don’t you think?

 

[rjcash]

Great. So let’s get back to this:

Yes, John 6 applies to everyone, regardless of “time”. The “present tense” you keep referring to applies to ALL, in ALL time. You are correct in this, and you are correct that Jesus is speaking to ALL, INCLUDING unbelievers. Yes.

Where you are wrong is in what John chapter 6 IS. Recall my attempt to give an explanation:

You are fixated on only John 6: 41-60 to debate the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. However, the Catholic Teaching is not focused ONLY on John 6: 41-60. The Church takes those verses, as well as the entirety of John 6, and puts them into the context of the whole of Scripture. THAT is why 1 Cor 11:23-29 matters and is very relevant…as well as Jn 6:35-71, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4, and many others. You can find this teaching explained clearly in the writings of the very first Christians who taught on this subject in the first and second centuries.

Yes, and this fits into Scripture perfectly…when Scripture is taken into proper context and not “cherry-picked” until a preferred meaning is extruded.

You said, “He tells ALL, EVERYONE, believers and nonbelievers alike, that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. In Jn 6 He is teaching us what to do, and how to do it…but He never offers it at that teaching…He does not, in John 6 41-60 invite them by saying, “Take, Eat…”. He only tells that (“Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…” ) to BELIEVERS at the Lord’s Supper.”

If you have ever even once used anywhere in Jn 6 to tell anyone they need to “eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ”, then the people he spoke directly to, would understand it the same way or else why did THEY say, the ones that actually heard him, which we did not, "how can this man GIVE US his flesh to eat. Now you know full well these verses are used to say that people need to “eat” the flesh of Christ.

But the point you are making does not skirt the issue that unbelievers are NOT to partake yet Jesus told them they HAD to FOR eternal life. So he did not tell them to take for communion! You still haven’t answerd that one. Is communion offered to unbelievers, ones who are NOT confirmed and NOT in good standing with the church, to “eat his flesh” which could only be communion, for eteranl life?

Now the flip side would be, if you don’t believer that he told these people to “eat his flesh”, then are you going to stop usnig this text to tell anyone they have to?

Now when I want to look in detail at Jn. 6 you want to say it’s cherry picking. What about when it is used in liturgies, mass, etc.

I love Cherries, they are created by God and God ordained!!

 

[ahs]

You said, “He tells ALL, EVERYONE, believers and nonbelievers alike, that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. In Jn 6 He is teaching us what to do, and how to do it…but He never offers it at that teaching…He does not, in John 6 41-60 invite them by saying, “Take, Eat…”. He only tells that (“Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…” ) to BELIEVERS at the Lord’s Supper.”

If you have ever even once used anywhere in Jn 6 to tell anyone they need to “eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ”, then the people he spoke directly to, would understand it the same way or else why did THEY say, the ones that actually heard him, which we did not, "how can this man GIVE US his flesh to eat. Now you know full well these verses are used to say that people need to “eat” the flesh of Christ.

Right…in their proper context with the Lord’s Supper and all the other verses I listed for you among many others…you bet…He is telling them they must actually, literally eat His Flesh. “How can this man give us his flesh…”…yet He didn’t at that moment give it to them. He only told them what they must do. No where in Jn 6 does He actually give, He instructs so that they know what they must do to have eternal life.

But the point you are making does not skirt the issue that unbelievers are NOT to partake yet Jesus told them they HAD to FOR eternal life. So he did not tell them to take for communion! You still haven’t answerd that one. Is communion offered to unbelievers, ones who are NOT confirmed and NOT in good standing with the church, to “eat his flesh” which could only be communion, for eteranl life?

I did answer it, like 3 times now. Here it is again: ALL people, believers AND unbelievers are called to BELIEVE that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, in a literal sense. And if we do not believe that, no, we will not partake without placing upon ourselves the guilt of the Body and Blood of Christ. (1 Cor 11:23-29…these verses are directly tied to John 6 as well as the Lord’s Supper. You might choose to ignore them, but the Catholic Church does not…and this is Catholic Answers afterall.)

Now the flip side would be, if you don’t believer that he told these people to “eat his flesh”, then are you going to stop usnig this text to tell anyone they have to?

He told them in that text they must eat His Flesh…yes! And He did not offer it at that moment to any unbelievers. He told them what to do, how to understand His teaching on the matter, and let them decided if they would believe or not. When they walked away, how many of them did He call to and say “Wait! At least take a bite…just a sample…take and eat…” Or anything like “…it was just a figure of speech!” Nope, nothing of the sort. He simply let them go…not having offered them His Flesh and Blood at that moment…but telling them what they must do…teaching them without actually offering them the Flesh and Blood at that moment.

Now when I want to look in detail at Jn. 6 you want to say it’s cherry picking. What about when it is used in liturgies, mass, etc.

I get the feeling this sentence is intended to detract from the discussion…I really don’t see where the laity at a Mass would be debating whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. But to answer you to the best that I understand your question: John 6, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, is as clear as day that Christ is being literal in His words about His Body and Blood. IT DOES provide a solid teaching in my opinion. The “present tense” argument you gave falls apart as soon as it presented and I’ve never heard any good argument otherwise to show that Christ was not being literal in John 6 41-60. The other positions you’ve put forward are irrelevant to His teaching, in my opinion. His words speak to me clear as day. The teaching in John 6 is confirmed for me by all the other verses I’ve provided for you, and they all fit together quite nicely. You can refute the teaching to yourself all day long if you choose, but I invite you to look outside your “wall” and see how all these verses fit together: The entirety of John 6, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4…And after you’ve done that…if you still disagree…then I invite you to show me why those verses don’t fit together in context and how they don’t support John 6.

But if you are not willing to look past that narrow window you’ve made for yourself, I don’t believe you and I are going to be able to have any fruitful discussions on Eucharist. I would encourage you to use as much of the Truth that you have made available to yourself (God’s Word…the Scriptures…and dare I recommend the writings of the earliest Christians who taught on this matter…see the links I provided several posts ago) when trying to understand a Truth of God, and not just a bit here or there…even if you do like cherries.

-ahs

 

[rjcash]

I get the feeling this sentence is intended to detract from the discussion…I really don’t see where the laity at a Mass would be debating whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. But to answer you to the best that I understand your question: John 6, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, is as clear as day that Christ is being literal in His words about His Body and Blood. IT DOES provide a solid teaching in my opinion. The “present tense” argument you gave falls apart as soon as it presented and I’ve never heard any good argument otherwise to show that Christ was not being literal in John 6 41-60. The other positions you’ve put forward are irrelevant to His teaching, in my opinion. His words speak to me clear as day. The teaching in John 6 is confirmed for me by all the other verses I’ve provided for you, and they all fit together quite nicely. You can refute the teaching to yourself all day long if you choose, but I invite you to look outside your “wall” and see how all these verses fit together: The entirety of John 6, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4…And after you’ve done that…if you still disagree…then I invite you to show me why those verses don’t fit together in context and how they don’t support John 6.

But if you are not willing to look past that narrow window you’ve made for yourself, I don’t believe you and I are going to be able to have any fruitful discussions on Eucharist. I would encourage you to use as much of the Truth that you have made available to yourself (God’s Word…the Scriptures…and dare I recommend the writings of the earliest Christians who taught on this matter…see the links I provided several posts ago) when trying to understand a Truth of God, and not just a bit here or there…even if you do like cherries.

-ahs

“The “present tense” argument you gave falls apart as soon as it presented and I’ve never heard any good argument otherwise to show that Christ was not being literal in John 6 41-60”

I think you are missing the point, I am saying it is literal, I have acknowledged that numerous times and the present tense, just means he was talking to people in the present. Didn’t they think so, they said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. Is that not literal? If he meant it for you, did he not mean it for the very people he was speaking to at that present time?

So if he means it for you literally and you think it does, how can it not be meant for them literally? Since they also thought it did, "how can this man GIVE US (we who are present and hearing his words) And he told us to eat it in the present tense.

The thing is he tells the unbelievers to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life, yet we both know that is not what is said at any mass, since unbelievers are prohibited. But you never answered that, though asked many times. He told them to eat his flesh, literally and they would literally HAVE eternal life. How can they, unbelievers, have eternal life by eating his flesh. Especially since there was not physical bread or wine present, like in Mt. “and he took the bread”. These people were not present at the Last Supper, but he did tell them they could HAVE eternal life when he WAS speaking to them, literally! Just a simple question about the literal words! Do you take this literally? And does that sound like communion, unbelievers being addressed?

Also, you said, “all the other verses you listed”. One question? Did the people he spoke these words directly to “have access to all the verses you listed”? Since you keep bringing this up, I am really curious if you think they had access to even the Gospel of John chap. 7, or Mt. or I Cor. I am serious, since you keep mentioning it. I am referring to the people he first spoke these words to!

And since Jn. 6 is a VITAL passage in the whole history of the church, I think it is a vital passage to look at. I have of course read the other passages and in the original greek. But I am still talking about a passage the church holds near and dear, nothing wrong with that!!

Now to say a question has been answered, when it has not been answered directly, is like me asking, “is the sky blue” and someone answers “the grass is green”. Yes an answer was provided, but it was not really related to the question?

So can you answer the questions above? Thanks!

 

[rjcash]

I get the feeling this sentence is intended to detract from the discussion…I really don’t see where the laity at a Mass would be debating whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. But to answer you to the best that I understand your question: John 6, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, is as clear as day that Christ is being literal in His words about His Body and Blood. IT DOES provide a solid teaching in my opinion. The “present tense” argument you gave falls apart as soon as it presented and I’ve never heard any good argument otherwise to show that Christ was not being literal in John 6 41-60. The other positions you’ve put forward are irrelevant to His teaching, in my opinion. His words speak to me clear as day. The teaching in John 6 is confirmed for me by all the other verses I’ve provided for you, and they all fit together quite nicely. You can refute the teaching to yourself all day long if you choose, but I invite you to look outside your “wall” and see how all these verses fit together: The entirety of John 6, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4…And after you’ve done that…if you still disagree…then I invite you to show me why those verses don’t fit together in context and how they don’t support John 6.

But if you are not willing to look past that narrow window you’ve made for yourself, I don’t believe you and I are going to be able to have any fruitful discussions on Eucharist. I would encourage you to use as much of the Truth that you have made available to yourself (God’s Word…the Scriptures…and dare I recommend the writings of the earliest Christians who taught on this matter…see the links I provided several posts ago) when trying to understand a Truth of God, and not just a bit here or there…even if you do like cherries.

-ahs

You said, “called to **BELIEVE ** that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, in a literal sense”

Then I would have to give my opinion, which is you do not take his words literaly, because he told them if they want eternal life, the unbelievers would have to actually and literally eat his body, not just believe it was necessary. Let me ask again, do you believe these words were meant literarlly, because you have attempted to re-phrase his words to mean they would only have to believe they needed to eat. Or is that the way you interpret it for yourself, that you only need to believe it is necessary to eat? Seriously, I am trying to figure out what you do mean?

Also, if I am told to believe I must “eat his flesh”, what action should that result in? I think they knew, since they said, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”! And they were told they could have eternal life then, by taking this action?