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

[ahs]

…I think you are missing the point, I am saying it is literal, I have acknowledged that numerous times

AH! You are right…I did miss that point and I apologize.

I have addressed all of your questions already, extensively. I’ll take the fault as my own that I was unable to be more clear. Your questions can be more clearly answered, in very great detail, by the following links. You will see without any doubt why and how the Church uses Jn 6 and how this fits into the Mass and why Eucharist is only given to those who believe.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

Please read those. Then, if you have more questions, let’s continue. I will re-read them as well so that I will better understand how to explain when further questions arise.

God Bless!
-ahs

 

[ahs]

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

In other words…I am having trouble showing you the difference between “the fact of the Real Presence” as shown in Jn 6, and the “Lord’s Supper”…and how they tie into one another. Those links will show you how they fit together.

In other words…“the words of promise” and “the words of institution” and how they connect, etc…

 

[ahs]

“By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only *prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse *containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically…Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible…”

"…First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a *threefold food *in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). *Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers *— Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc [sic] to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John 6:51, 53: phagein). " newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm (first paragraph) (emphasis mine, except as noted with “[sic]”)

 

[rjcash]

“By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only *prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse *containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically…Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible…”

"…First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a *threefold food *in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). *Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers *— Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc [sic] to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John 6:51, 53: phagein). " newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm (first paragraph) (emphasis mine, except as noted with “[sic]”)

I read them and they do not make any connections at all. The articles did not address the questions I asked you directly. Can you please read the text itself and answer the questions.

Remember some facts in doing so. At the time he spoke to these people there was no “Last Supper” yet. That is a FACT!

At the Last Supper, there was never any presentation to unbeleivers on how they could get eternal life by eating his flesh.

When doing bible study the first and foremost rule is, look at the words that are in black and white on the page in front of you.

And then stop reading into them something that did not not even exist yet.

Then remember he was speaking to real people in a point of time. Think of it from the perspective of these people. And the fact he was telling them everything they needed to hear for gaining eternal life, when he was spoke to them at that point of time. I don’t think he forgot to tell them anything.

There is no reference then or for the future of physical bread and physical wine. No elements? No transubtantiation!

These people had no clue as to what the Last Supper was about, since it did not exist yet.

These people were never invited to the Last Supper, but they were told they could have everlasting life! That’s a fact!!

And remember the entire context from beginning to end is about “believing” in Chrsit for eternal life.

Take John’s word for it, on what the ENTIRE THEME of the book is, he should know, he wrote it! His stated purpose is, "
John 20:31

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

31But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name."

That is the theme of the ENTIRE BOOK, in believing you may have life. If you look at Jn. 6, this is repeated from beginning to end, by none other than the Lord himself.

The only references to the future, were concerning his death or that which "gives to the world, i.e. unbelievers will be able to attain eternal life. That is NOT what the Last Supper was for, it clearly states it is a commemoration. Since the Last Supper and the Euchaist is for believers only and unbeleivers are forbidden to partake, this could not possibly be a reference to the “Eucharist”. It is NOT for the life of the world. This is a reference to something for unbeleivers, so they can attain life. The only ones allowed to take the Eucharist are believers, i.e. people who already have the life spoken of.

So do you really take the words in Jn 6 literally? I know you keep saying you do, then is the Eucharist presented for unbelievers to partake in for eternal life in the Mass? I thought unbelivers are prohibited from the Eucharist?

Just try reading it with these things in mind.

He IS speaking to “unbelievers” about how to get everlasting life. Is communion EVER presented to “unbelievers” as a way to gain everlasting life? Because that IS what he told them.

In other words, is it ever said, “come all unbelievers, eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, so you can have everlasing life?” This would be a literal interpretation of Jn. 6.

Just my opnion, but I do not think you are taking his words literally?

Please, please, please answer my previous questions.

Thanks!

 

[rjcash]

"
"…First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a *threefold food *in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). *Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers *— Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc [sic] to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John 6:51, 53: phagein). " newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm (first paragraph) (emphasis mine, except as noted with “[sic]”)

“ahs”

First I do want to say, thank you very much for spending the time answering to the degree you have tried to so far. I have noticed a marked improvement in at least making an effort in sticking with the text. You are getting a wee bit better!

But I have a proposal. Did you read my prior post about “observation” and “interpretation”?

First of all do you see the difference I mentioned in “observing” strictly what is in the text?

By that I mean, just the actual words that are on the page. So like if I asked, does the word “mango” appear anywhere in the text of Jn 6, hopefully you would say, that the word mango does not appear in the text! Now of course that does not mean mangoes don’t exist and that God did not make them. But it is not in the text in Jn 6! Also, if you say to me, No the word mango does not appear in the text, it does not mean you don’t believe that God created mangoes and that mangoes do in fact exist. All that it means is, that the word mango does not appear in the text in question.

I think quite a bit of misunderstanding exists because I am talking “observation” and you are talking “interpretation”. What do you think about that?

Now my proposal is that if you agree to switch over to “observation”, then I would like to ask a few basic questions about the text. These would not be trick questions, just simple observations.

Here is an example. Where does the text say the conversation in v. 41-60 takes place? So I am asking if in the text itself it says where this takes place and what city it occurs in. Since this is an example, then a hint is more than appropriate, take a look at v. 60.

So if that’s agreeable, here are two questions based on the example.

1. What does the text say is the structure wherein the discussion takes place in v. 41-60?
2. What city does the text say the discussion in v. 41-60 occured in?

If you see any additional observations about what the text says as pertains to these two questions, then please feel free to add them. But please just the two questions and only what is in the text itself, since that is what I am asking about.

Remember the hint, look at v. 60!

I start at v. 41 because that is where the text switches from talking about the mulitude, then switches to “41 The Jews therefore murmured at him”, then we find it stating in v. 60 where this is occuring. We do see in v. 41 that he is now talking to a distinct group that John refers to as “the Jews”. And if you remember in Jn 1 this is an important group in John’s writing, since he says, “John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Which of course are “the Jews”!. John even makes use of the phrase “the Jews” again right there in Jn 1:19 "… when **the Jews **sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou?

And a very telling reference in John 5:18 just before the events in Jn 6.
“Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”

Then in John 6:53
“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Then just after Jn 6, in John 7:1
“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”

These references to “the Jews” as a distinct group occur all through John.

So we do see these Jews as a distinct group in Johns writing!! And the references to “the Jews” I included precede the events of Jn 6, then follow the events of Jn. 6.

That is why it is key to see in v. 41 that he now is addressing “the Jews”.

So if you could just answer the two questions, first, then any additional comment you might have, can you add that after the two questions and two answers?

Also, you might think this is a bit trite, but it is actually incredibly hard for people to just make simple observations about the text, only the text and nothing but the text.

Thanks again!

 

[rjcash]

“By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only *prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse *containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically…Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible…”

"…First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a *threefold food *in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). *Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers *— Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc [sic] to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John 6:51, 53: phagein). " newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm (first paragraph) (emphasis mine, except as noted with “[sic]”)

I just came across this, “Until you are a Baptised Catholic you cannot recieve Holy Communion. To do so would be a Mortal Sin.”

Is this an official teaching of the RCC? Is this according to the “Latin Rite” or more?

 

[ahs]

I read them and they do not make any connections at all. The articles did not address the questions I asked you directly. Can you please read the text itself and answer the questions.

Remember some facts in doing so. At the time he spoke to these people there was no “Last Supper” yet. That is a FACT!

At the Last Supper, there was never any presentation to unbeleivers on how they could get eternal life by eating his flesh.

BINGO! You just answered your own question. When He spoke to unbelievers, He was saying the “words of promise”. He was telling them what they needed to do…they were going to have to do something (eat His Flesh). Only the ones who believed were at the Supper, and at that point He spoke the “words of institution”, where He actually offered to the believers His Flesh and Blood.

Jn 6 establishes the fact of the Real Presence. Those Jews who heard this did not yet know of the Lord’s Supper because it had not happened yet…correct. But that does not matter. Christ was not inviting them yet to the Supper, He was establishing the fact of the Real Presence. He was also separating the believers from the non-believers…did He not allow the non-believers to go away?

As you just said, look at the “black and white” of the text. Where in Jn 6 did He say to them “take…eat…take…drink”? He didn’t. He established with them the fact of the Real Presence. Why does this fit into the Catholic belief that only believers can partake? Because, at that moment, it establishes that Christ will offer His true Self to us at some point. It also establishes that the non-believers were allowed to go their way and no longer follow Christ. When He finally does offer His Self, at the Last Supper, the connection is made between the “words of promise” and the “words of institution” and immediately we see that partaking in Communion is something that requires by its very nature belief. When we “commune”, when we participate in “Communion”, we are saying that we truly believe in all the Teachings that Christs gave us through His Church. To partake in “Communion” and not believe this is telling a lie, is it not?

Only the believers were offered the Eucharist, and from those believers we are told that if we take the Eucharist unworthily, we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves. Therefore, is it not proper to prevent someone from partaking unworthily and in unbelief since we do not want anyone to eat or drink judgment upon themselves? It is an act of mercy to restrict them from drinking damnation on themselves is it not? Or shall we let them eat in unbelief and take on the guilt that the Apostle warns us of in 1 Cor 11:23-29?

By the way, there is a book that may help you understand this better. “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. While it may not convince you of the Church’s teaching, it will at least clarify it for you, as he speaks form the perspective of a convert from Presbyterianism.

 

[lindaharry]

Hello ,

My name is Miss linda, i will like to have a good relationship with you please write me with my ID (linda.harry27@yahoo.com)
so that i will send you my photo and tell you about me.

linda

 

[ahs]

I just came across this, “Until you are a Baptised Catholic you cannot recieve Holy Communion. To do so would be a Mortal Sin.”

Is this an official teaching of the RCC? Is this according to the “Latin Rite” or more?

See 1 Cor 11:23-29 and the other verses I referenced, as well as the links I provided on Eucharist.

Also see these paragraphs from the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3X.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3Y.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3Z.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P43.HTM

Brief Summary
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

 

[rjcash]

---

BINGO! You just answered your own question. When He spoke to unbelievers, He was saying the “words of promise”. He was telling them what they needed to do…they were going to have to do something (eat His Flesh). Only the ones who believed were at the Supper, and at that point He spoke the “words of institution”, where He actually offered to the believers His Flesh and Blood.

Jn 6 establishes the fact of the Real Presence. Those Jews who heard this did not yet know of the Lord’s Supper because it had not happened yet…correct. But that does not matter. Christ was not inviting them yet to the Supper, He was establishing the fact of the Real Presence. He was also separating the believers from the non-believers…did He not allow the non-believers to go away?

As you just said, look at the “black and white” of the text. Where in Jn 6 did He say to them “take…eat…take…drink”? He didn’t. He established with them the fact of the Real Presence. Why does this fit into the Catholic belief that only believers can partake? Because, at that moment, it establishes that Christ will offer His true Self to us at some point. It also establishes that the non-believers were allowed to go their way and no longer follow Christ. When He finally does offer His Self, at the Last Supper, the connection is made between the “words of promise” and the “words of institution” and immediately we see that partaking in Communion is something that requires by its very nature belief. When we “commune”, when we participate in “Communion”, we are saying that we truly believe in all the Teachings that Christs gave us through His Church. To partake in “Communion” and not believe this is telling a lie, is it not?

Only the believers were offered the Eucharist, and from those believers we are told that if we take the Eucharist unworthily, we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves. Therefore, is it not proper to prevent someone from partaking unworthily and in unbelief since we do not want anyone to eat or drink judgment upon themselves? It is an act of mercy to restrict them from drinking damnation on themselves is it not? Or shall we let them eat in unbelief and take on the guilt that the Apostle warns us of in 1 Cor 11:23-29?

By the way, there is a book that may help you understand this better. “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. While it may not convince you of the Church’s teaching, it will at least clarify it for you, as he speaks form the perspective of a convert from Presbyterianism.

Well, I see you don’t seem to be willing to answer the questions I asked about observation?

1. Do you plan on doing that?

Also, this question is not about the text, but is about Church practice. Since it seems that if I include too much, you don’t answer the questions I ask, but rather take off on some point and maybe forget to get back to the questions.

I thought by numbering them and getting it to two would help. So I will try again.

1. Does the church, especially now it is established one has to also be baptized, do as Jesus did in Jn 6. Do they invite unbelievers to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”, so they can have eternal life. Which IS exactly and literally what the text says!

So just to summarize, there are two questions above, numbered 1 and 2. Can you answer those directly.

Also, in addition to the above two questions, can you go back to my post about observation and answer those two questions separately, in response to that post. They are very quick and easy to answer.

Again, just answer the questions first, then comments can come AFTER the 2 questions and 2 answers you have provided.

And of course if you would like to provide a link for question 2 that shows the churchs policy on that, feel free.

To answer yours, " Where in Jn 6 did He say to them “take…eat…take…drink”? "
He did not use those words, which would show these are two different events. Here is another difference. Just like he did not say to unbelievers at the Last Supper, he that eats my flesh HAS eternal life. He did however say, except “you eat” and “he that eats” AND telling them would have eternal life when they do eat and drink!!!

As far as the “future reference” we can get to that later, but you really need to answer my questions about observation first.

But if you like, so I can know for sure what you are referring to and HOW you are interpreting these verses about the future, can you list those verses in Jn 6? And explain HOW you are using them, like this verse is saying Jesus says he will be offering his flesh in the future and what future event he refers to and when that is?

I almost shudder having included that, lest you forget the 4 numbered questions I have asked, so please stay on point and do not forget the 4 questions!

Thanks again!!

PS: I noticed your other 3 questions, “we do not want anyone to eat or drink judgment upon themselves? It is an act of mercy to restrict them from drinking damnation on themselves is it not? Or shall we let them eat in unbelief and take on the guilt that the Apostle warns us of in 1 Cor 11:23-29?” In general I would say they do have to eat and drink worthily as Paul said. But your wording has changed the meaning a bit, so I do not fully agree, because of your wording. If you would like to start a separate post about 1 Cor. 11, let me know and I might join it.

I looked for your questions and answered your questions, can you do the same?

Remeber there are 4 numbered questions in two separate posts that I would like you to answer!!

 

[ahs]

rjcash, I realize it seems like I am not directly answering you. I thought I had answered everything you asked. I’ll go by your points to make sure though. But I know several posts prior (at least twice) I have stated exactly the answers to the questions you have asked in this first set:

1. What does the text say is the structure wherein the discussion takes place in v. 41-60?
2. What city does the text say the discussion in v. 41-60 occured in?

1 - “…in the synagogue…”

2 - “…in Capharnaum.”

Well, I see you don’t seem to be willing to answer the questions I asked about observation?

1. Do you plan on doing that?

1 - Yes. (See above.)

Also, this question is not about the text, but is about Church practice. Since it seems that if I include too much, you don’t answer the questions I ask, but rather take off on some point and maybe forget to get back to the questions.

I thought by numbering them and getting it to two would help. So I will try again.

1. Does the church, especially now it is established one has to also be baptized, do as Jesus did in Jn 6.

2 - Yes, the Church does as Jesus did, and No, Jesus did not do what you suggest He did in John 6. The Church does as Jesus did in John 6 and teaches the Truth to all and invites all people to understand that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. The Church teaches, to ALL…believers and non-believers alike, the fact of the Real Presence, just as Jesus taught it in John 6.

Do they invite unbelievers to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”, so they can have eternal life. Which IS exactly and literally what the text says!

Jesus, however, did not invite, per se, unbelievers, or believers for that matter, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in John 6. What He did was tell them that His Flesh and Blood are true food and true drink and that they must eat/drink of Him. But did NOT say, in John 6, “take…eat…take…drink…”. He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time. He would not, in fact, actually offer it until the Last Supper…which, as you have pointed out, was not known of by anyone at this time, other than Christ.

So, for question 2 - Yes, the Church does EXACTLY as Jesus did. Where you are getting tripped up is that you are trying to see something in the text of John 6 that isn’t there.

That’s what I’ve been explaining…in my second-to-last post, and a couple posts before that, and the post before that, and the post before that.

 

[ahs]

In other words:

“…unless you eat…” “…except you eat…” “…I am the bread that…” “…he who eats…” “…my Flesh is true food…” (all in John chapter 6)

ARE NOT

“…take and eat…” “…take and drink…” (Lord’s supper) “…here you go…” “…here, eat this…” (these are non-Biblical examples that would also be proof of an actual offering of something…and John 6 has nothing like this in it)

1) - Can you please show me a verse in John 6 41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone?

 

[rjcash]

rjcash, I realize it seems like I am not directly answering you. I thought I had answered everything you asked. I’ll go by your points to make sure though. But I know several posts prior (at least twice) I have stated exactly the answers to the questions you have asked in this first set:

1 - “…in the synagogue…”

2 - “…in Capharnaum.”

1 - Yes. (See above.)

2 - Yes, the Church does as Jesus did, and No, Jesus did not do what you suggest He did in John 6. The Church does as Jesus did in John 6 and teaches the Truth to all and invites all people to understand that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. The Church teaches, to ALL…believers and non-believers alike, the fact of the Real Presence, just as Jesus taught it in John 6.

Jesus, however, did not invite, per se, unbelievers, or believers for that matter, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in John 6. What He did was tell them that His Flesh and Blood are true food and true drink and that they must eat/drink of Him. But did NOT say, in John 6, “take…eat…take…drink…”. He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time. He would not, in fact, actually offer it until the Last Supper…which, as you have pointed out, was not known of by anyone at this time, other than Christ.

So, for question 2 - Yes, the Church does EXACTLY as Jesus did. Where you are getting tripped up is that you are trying to see something in the text of John 6 that isn’t there.

That’s what I’ve been explaining…in my second-to-last post, and a couple posts before that, and the post before that, and the post before that.

You are getting better at sticking with the text, so thanks!

You said, “He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time”

Let’s look at

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Here is where Jesus would disagree with that statement. Notice in v. 50 he says, “this **is **the bread”

And like it or not John wrote that the word “is” **IS **in the “present tense”, you can tell from that verse, since it says “which cometh down”, meaning it is already there and v. 51 where he says,

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”

Notice “which came” down is actually past tense! So the bread is already there.

So the bread he is referring to is already there in front of them, in front of their face!!

He then said, directly to their face, “that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

Question, that means please answer.

1. Were the ones he was talking to face to face excluded from this statement, even though he just told them the bread is present and right under their noses? When he says directly to them, “you may eat it” (if any man eat).

When he says, “if any man”, which would include them, isn’t he telling them they can eat this bread, the bread he said, “has already come down” the bread that he says they too can eat (any man) and “not die”, since the bread was right there in front of their face. At least that is what John said, the bread already came down.

Again you keep referring to the last supper with “take eat”. I thought we already established these people did NOT have any of the NT to reference. Jesus was telling them all that they needed to hear to HAVE eternal life. And you keep leaving out the part about eternal life, which he offered to them at that time.

1. If as you are saying he really did not offer it to them at that time, why is he telling them they can HAVE eternal life? As in the next verse, 52 “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever”. Again “any man” is mentioned, are they excluded?

So he is saying, if you who are “any man” eat of this bread “which already came down” and is in front of your face, you shall HAVE eternal life. This is of course my paraphrase. But that is what is in the text.

In this context he clearly tells them the bread he is talking about eating is already there in front of them, NOT some unknown and undisclosed time in the future, if they live that long!!

He did not tell them this for communion, as believers, ones who are confirmed, ones who are baptized, ones who are in good standing with the church. He told this to them as “unbelievers”.

 

[rjcash]

rjcash, I realize it seems like I am not directly answering you. I thought I had answered everything you asked. I’ll go by your points to make sure though. But I know several posts prior (at least twice# I have stated exactly the answers to the questions you have asked in this first set:

1 - “…in the synagogue…”

2 - “…in Capharnaum.”

1 - Yes. #See above.#

2 - Yes, the Church does as Jesus did, and No, Jesus did not do what you suggest He did in John 6. The Church does as Jesus did in John 6 and teaches the Truth to all and invites all people to understand that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. The Church teaches, to ALL…believers and non-believers alike, the fact of the Real Presence, just as Jesus taught it in John 6.

Jesus, however, did not invite, per se, unbelievers, or believers for that matter, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in John 6. What He did was tell them that His Flesh and Blood are true food and true drink and that they must eat/drink of Him. But did NOT say, in John 6, “take…eat…take…drink…”. He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time. He would not, in fact, actually offer it until the Last Supper…which, as you have pointed out, was not known of by anyone at this time, other than Christ.

So, for question 2 - Yes, the Church does EXACTLY as Jesus did. Where you are getting tripped up is that you are trying to see something in the text of John 6 that isn’t there.

That’s what I’ve been explaining…in my second-to-last post, and a couple posts before that, and the post before that, and the post before that.

You are getting better at sticking with the text, so thanks!

You said, “He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time”

Let’s look at

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Here is where Jesus would disagree with that statement. Notice in v. 50 he says, “this **is **the bread”

And like it or not John wrote that the word “is” **IS **in the “present tense”, you can tell from that verse, since it says “which cometh down”, meaning it is already there and v. 51 where he says,

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”

Notice “which came” down is actually past tense! So the bread is already there.

So the bread he is referring to is already there in front of them, in front of their face!!

He then said, directly to their face, “that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

One question, that means please answer.

1. Were the ones he was talking to face to face excluded from this statement, even though he just told them the bread is present and right under their noses? When he says directly to them, “you may eat it” #if any man eat#.

When he says, “if any man”, which would include them, isn’t he telling them they can eat this bread, the bread he said, “has already come down” the bread that he says they too can eat #any man# and “not die”, since the bread was right there in front of their face. At least that is what John said, the bread already came down.

Again you keep referring to the last supper with “take eat”. I thought we already established these people did NOT have any of the NT to reference. Jesus was telling them all that they needed to hear to HAVE eternal life. And you keep leaving out the part about eternal life, which he offered to them at that time.

1. If as you are saying he really did not offer it to them at that time, why is he telling them they can HAVE eternal life? As in the next verse, 52 “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever”. Again “any man” is mentioned, are they excluded?

 

[ahs]

I’ll post in a different color within you quotes to make sure I answer each question…etc…

You are getting better at sticking with the text, so thanks!

You said, “He told them that they MUST do so AND He did NOT offer it at that time”

Let’s look at

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Here is where Jesus would disagree with that statement. Notice in v. 50 he says, “this **is **the bread”

And like it or not John wrote that the word “is” **IS **in the “present tense”, you can tell from that verse, since it says “which cometh down”, meaning it is already there and v. 51 where he says,

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”

Notice “which came” down is actually past tense! So the bread is already there.

So the bread he is referring to is already there in front of them, in front of their face!!

He then said, directly to their face, “that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

Yet He did not say, “now eat…” or “take this and eat it…” or "here you go, give it a bite…"

Question, that means please answer.

1. Were the ones he was talking to face to face excluded from this statement, even though he just told them the bread is present and right under their noses? When he says directly to them, “you may eat it” (if any man eat).

"if any man eat" and “you may eat it” are not the same. Now you are interpreting. You said to stick with the black and white of the text, so let’s do that. And to directly answer your question, none present were/are excluded from His teaching on the Real Presence.

When he says, “if any man”, which would include them, isn’t he telling them they can eat this bread, the bread he said, “has already come down” the bread that he says they too can eat (any man) and “not die”, since the bread was right there in front of their face. At least that is what John said, the bread already came down.

He is telling them they must eat it but doesn’t offer it for eating at this time. Where do you see Him saying “take and eat…”? And please stick to the text.

Again you keep referring to the last supper with “take eat”. I thought we already established these people did NOT have any of the NT to reference. Jesus was telling them all that they needed to hear to HAVE eternal life. And you keep leaving out the part about eternal life, which he offered to them at that time.

I’m referring to “take…eat” for you, not them, because you are trying to read the words of the Last Supper into John 6. Where in John 6 does Jesus tell them to “eat right now”.?

1. If as you are saying he really did not offer it to them at that time, why is he telling them they can HAVE eternal life? As in the next verse, 52 “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever”. Again “any man” is mentioned, are they excluded?

Because they CAN have eternal life…all they have to do is partake in eating is Flesh. They walked away and no longer followed Him before He actually offered it, though.

So he is saying, if you who are “any man” eat of this bread “which already came down” and is in front of your face, you shall HAVE eternal life. This is of course my paraphrase. But that is what is in the text.

**Yep. ‘To any man, you are looking right at the Food you must eat…it’s right here in front of your face and you will have to eat it.’ Yep, it’s right there in the text. But what is NOT there is ‘so now, eat.’ (Why did Christ not offer it right then and there? I don’t know…I’d have to study some more…but the fact is that He didn’t.) **

In this context he clearly tells them the bread he is talking about eating is already there in front of them, NOT some unknown and undisclosed time in the future, if they live that long!!

I know, right? It’s right there in their faces, and they don’t even see it. I wonder what they would have thought if he had followed up His teaching with, “take and eat…” and had actually given it to them right then and there. But, alas, He did not.

He did not tell them this for communion, as believers, ones who are confirmed, ones who are baptized, ones who are in good standing with the church. He told this to them as “unbelievers”.

Absolutely. ALL are called to believe in the Real Presence. I hope that ALL will come to believe so that they can then participate in the Eucharistic Celebration.

 

[rjcash]

In other words:

“…unless you eat…” “…except you eat…” “…I am the bread that…” “…he who eats…” “…my Flesh is true food…” (all in John chapter 6)

ARE NOT

“…take and eat…” “…take and drink…” (Lord’s supper) “…here you go…” “…here, eat this…” (these are non-Biblical examples that would also be proof of an actual offering of something…and John 6 has nothing like this in it)

1) - Can you please show me a verse in John 6 41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone?

You asked,
“Can you please show me a verse in John 6 41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone?”

Of course not, so now you are looking at the text and realizing the truth. If it is not in Jn. 6, this is definitely NOT about the “Eucharist”!

This would make it very clear it has nothing to do with the Last Supper. Also, what happens is when looking at the other Gospels and saying it is literally “His flesh" Jn. 6 is always referred back to. This is what is called a circular argument.

This is a question that I would like to answer directly!!

6. At the Last Supper, can you show me where Jesus gives them Flesh and Blood and says, take eat?

I don’t think anyone thinks he tore off a piece of his flesh and handed it to them, or got some blood from his veins.

I think it says, “he took bread” and “he took wine”.

So just to correct you, you make the wrong comparison!!

And isn’t that the point of John 6, he is not talking to believers, that are confirmed, that have been baptized, that are in good standing with the church about communion?

Now to the obvious contradiction in your question,

“Can you please show me a verse in John 6:41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone”

And yet you say “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” is to be taken literal?

This also is a question to be answered.

7. Also, then can you show me in John 6 where he mentions the physical bread and physical wine? Since you keep comparing it to the Last Supper.
**
7. a. So let’s reverse that with the correct comparison. Can you show me in Jn 6, where he took physical bread and physical wine and said “take eat” and “take drink”?**

Question:

8. Did these people in Jn 6 have a copy of the NT to look at concerning the Last Supper.

Jesus even told a parable that basically told people not to put off making a dicision about salvation and ending it by saying he was foolish, since his life would be required of him that night, i.e. he would die.

All of the people he addressed as recorded by John he told to believe at the time he was speaking to them. Why would v. 41-60 be an exception?

 

[rjcash]

I’ll post in a different color within you quotes to make sure I answer each question…etc…

Yep. ‘To any man, you are looking right at the Food you must eat…it’s right here in front of your face and you will have to eat it.’ Yep, it’s right there in the text. But what is NOT there is ‘so now, eat.’ (Why did Christ not offer it right then and there? I don’t know…I’d have to study some more…but the fact is that He didn’t.)

This disctinction of yours, “take eat” and “May eat”, is an invalid distinction. He did NOT refuse them the opportunity, because of some hidden requirements, as you suggest.

You are only saying that because you are reading into the Last Supper that it is his flesh, yet these are the very verses used to make that distinction. Then you are turning around and saying it was not offered in John 6. “He that eats” is PRESENT TENSE, John wrote that for a reason.

Question 1

Well you mentioned earlier that he did not offer it, telling them they CAN eat it and have eternal life, IS an offer. He did not turn around and tell them NOT to, how is as you say they dicided not to, if it was NOT offered:?

You keep mentioning, the Last Supper, but they did not have the NT to look that up. So these references are not dealing with Jn 6.

It seems a bit strange that he would tell them they could have eternal life by eating his flesh then, it is in the present tense, like it or not, then hide the fact from these very people he was offering eternal life to that they would also need to be confirmed believers, baptized believers in the RCC, believers in good standing with the RCC, etc. before they could have eternal life.

Then in Jn 7:1 it says, “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”

They sure took him as directing it to them THEN, didn’t they?

 

[rjcash]

I’ll post in a different color within you quotes to make sure I answer each question…etc…

You said,
“if any man eat” and “you may eat it” are not the same. Now you are interpreting.
You said to stick with the black and white of the text, so let’s do that."

Actually, I said both, check the words, but this is a minor point. You are starting to stray from the words that I posted.

You said,
“And to directly answer your question, none present were/are excluded from His teaching on the Real Presence.”

I never used the phrase “Real Presence” and I might have missed that in the text.

**Question 10.

Are you saying the words “real presence” are in the text?**

That is not what I asked! This does not count as an answered question. Here is what I asked, please answer the question as I asked it, about the text.

1. Were the ones he was talking to face to face excluded from this statement, even though he just told them the bread IS present and right under their noses? When he says directly to them, "that if any man eat of it, he may not die."

v. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

Present tense is used to describe the bread, in other words Jesus IS in the present the present Bread of life. That would make sense since he is there physically present with them in real time.

And so even though he was saying the bread is PRESENT, you seem to be saying he did not really mean they could eat the bread then, when he made the offer to them, so they themselves “may not die”

By the way the phrase “may eat” in the Greek is an Aorist Subjunctive. The Aorist has the idea of past action, not future action. The subjunctive is conditional and has to do with maybe they will, maybe they will not. But one thing for sure is it is NOT future tense.

So they can eat his flesh now or not eat his flesh now, that is their choice. But he is talking to them at that point in time and is making a valid offer to them. I can’t imagine Jesus offering something, but not really meaning it.

Question 11

Were they excluded from this offer to “any man”? Did this include them?

You seem to be suggesting that since he did not say, “take eat”. That “if any man eat” does not refer to them directly, so even though Jesus himself made this offer to them, they would not be able to fulfill this, because it did not use the phrase in Matthew, which of course had not yet been written, which said, “take eat”.

And if I understand what you are saying, even though Jesus himself said to them “they may eat his flesh” that did not really mean that they could eat his flesh, even though Jesus himself said, “they may eat his flesh”?

Now I have always been taught that if I say “may I sit down here”, that is not talking about some unknown and undisclosed time in the future or unknown or undisclosed event in the future. Most people would usually say, sure you may sit down here, glad to have you join us. So the concept of may I or you may is usually talking about real time, especially since in the original it is an Aorist tense, which is NOT a future tense.

**Question 12

You seem to also suggest this means something like, “any man may eat”, but not really now and not really you guys until sometime in the future, which I am not telling you anything at all about ever, since you are not invited to the Last Supper.
It seems this is what you are suggesting, but I am not sure, can you clarify this?**

**Question 13

So I am just trying to figure out how Jn 6 is supposed to be taken literally, if this was not a real offer to the people he was actually speaking to at that time? Like when he said, if you “eat my flesh” you will HAVE eternal life, So he means real flesh and real blood, but when he says “you may eat it” and “except you eat it” and you will have eternal life, that part is NOT to be taken literally, even though they are in the same sentence? That he really meant to tell them they would have to wait for some undisclosed event at some unknown time, even though he said “He that eats”, which is in the present tense, which John used, not me. **

**
Question 14

That they had the choice to take it, but they walked away from it at the time it was offered. So of course how can someone walk away from something in the present time that was not really offered to them in the present time and is actually a past tense, as in “if any man may have eaten in the past”?**

 

[ahs]

You asked,
“Can you please show me a verse in John 6 41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone?”

Of course not, so now you are looking at the text and realizing the truth. If it is not in Jn. 6, this is definitely NOT about the “Eucharist”!

So now you see my point about Him not actually giving His Flesh and Blood in John 6. But you are only partially right…this teaching IS about the Eucharist, in so far as it establishes the fact of the Real Presence of a Eucharist to be offered…yet not offered in John 6…yet the Real Presence of it is stated in John 6.

This would make it very clear it has nothing to do with the Last Supper. Also, what happens is when looking at the other Gospels and saying it is literally “His flesh" Jn. 6 is always referred back to. This is what is called a circular argument.

I think you are fishing here.

This is a question that I would like to answer directly!!

6. At the Last Supper, can you show me where Jesus gives them Flesh and Blood and says, take eat?

I don’t think anyone thinks he tore off a piece of his flesh and handed it to them, or got some blood from his veins.

I think it says, “he took bread” and “he took wine”.

So just to correct you, you make the wrong comparison!!

Start a new thread for this one. Or, read those links I provided for you and then tell me what you think of THOSE explanations. I won’t go down rabbit trails with you after you have already admonished me to stick to John 6 and to stick to the text…

And isn’t that the point of John 6, he is not talking to believers, that are confirmed, that have been baptized, that are in good standing with the church about communion?

See my previous post where I went into great detail about this already.

Now to the obvious contradiction in your question,

“Can you please show me a verse in John 6:41-60 where Jesus actually GIVES His Flesh or Blood to anyone”

And yet you say “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” is to be taken literal?

If you can’t answer the question, then just say you can’t answer it (as you did above…“Of course not…”). And I do say “…eat My Flesh…” and “…drink My Blood…” is to be taken literally. You yourself have not argued against this. But these quotes are out of context. You left out “…he who…” or “…unless you…”. He is not giving it at that moment…He is establishing the fact of His Real Presence.

This also is a question to be answered.

7. Also, then can you show me in John 6 where he mentions the physical bread and physical wine? Since you keep comparing it to the Last Supper.
**
7. a. So let’s reverse that with the correct comparison. Can you show me in Jn 6, where he took physical bread and physical wine and said “take eat” and “take drink”?**

Fishing again. But you are missing a key point…Jesus is establishing that HE is true Bread…so the TRUE Bread is present…physically…yet not given in John 6.

Question:

8. Did these people in Jn 6 have a copy of the NT to look at concerning the Last Supper.

Nope. How would they have? And what difference does it make to this discussion?

Jesus even told a parable that basically told people not to put off making a dicision about salvation and ending it by saying he was foolish, since his life would be required of him that night, i.e. he would die.

All of the people he addressed as recorded by John he told to believe at the time he was speaking to them. Why would v. 41-60 be an exception?

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you are trying to ask me here. I think my previous post covered the core question here very well though.

 

[ahs]

(It’ll be tomorrow night before I can get to the rest…kids’ bedtime, etc…)