John 6:53

[CopticChristian]

Hey Cop

What in the world is your point with all this? Do you not believe that the bible is the word of God and inerrant or is it just your intent to denigrate AP’s faith in it? I thought this thread was suppose to be on Jn.6:53???

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…

Now this is Catholic Answers. This is a topic on the Eucharist and the Gospel of Jonh, in the, Scriptures. Now I believe that the bible was birthed from the Church, that was birthed from Christ, and is His Church. He used that Church to give us Scripture and that Church has validated Scripture for me. I believe it is Scripture because the Church says so. I have no idea where you get your authenticity of what you read.

Now I don’t know what you are calling Scripture and what you are reading. Do you have original Scripture. In order to be on the same page, we need to be on the same page. What pages do you read from and where did they come from so I can have some commonality of understanding. Is it the New World Translation or what?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I understand your dilema. When you quote 1Timothy 3:16 as validating the Bible, you always, like all Protestants, to go back and read what was written before. So if you go back and read what was written before as you should you don’t have to read between the lines, just the lines.

?

We had a request in this thread to stay on topic. I intend to honour this request.

I think it should suffice to say that as a part of my journey with Jesus Christ I came to believe that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. How I came to this belief I consider a separate topic not related to this thread. Particularly since these are shared beliefs (I think).

But one can always take this same type of question back a few levels.

How can you be sure that God exists?
How can you be sure the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the true God?
How can you be sure that the Christian triune God is the true God?

And for all of these questions my answer is the same, it is a part of my journey that I came to believe these all are true.

Now back to the topic of this thread.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Now this is Catholic Answers. This is a topic on the Eucharist and the Gospel of Jonh, in the, Scriptures.

That it is.

Now I believe that the bible was birthed from the Church, that was birthed from Christ, and is His Church. He used that Church to give us Scripture and that Church has validated Scripture for me… I believe it is Scripture because the Church says so.

Your entitled to believe anything you want and so is AP.

I have no idea where you get your authenticity of what you read.

It’s not a requirement of this thread that you understand where anyone gets their authenticity of anything.

Now I don’t know what you are calling Scripture and what you are reading. Do you have original Scripture. In order to be on the same page, we need to be on the same page. What pages do you read from and where did they come from so I can have some commonality of understanding. Is it the New World Translation or what?

I’m calling the bible scripture. Why is this such a big issue with you Cop? Considering that it is totally off topic and really none of your business?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Now this is Catholic Answers. This is a topic on the Eucharist and the Gospel of Jonh, in the, Scriptures. Now I believe that the bible was birthed from the Church, that was birthed from Christ, and is His Church. He used that Church to give us Scripture and that Church has validated Scripture for me. I believe it is Scripture because the Church says so. I have no idea where you get your authenticity of what you read.

Now I don’t know what you are calling Scripture and what you are reading. Do you have original Scripture. In order to be on the same page, we need to be on the same page. What pages do you read from and where did they come from so I can have some commonality of understanding. Is it the New World Translation or what?

Hi CopticChristian or anyone—

Could I get some thoughts on the link I included a few posts back, from New Advent, giving chapter 16 (scroll down for it) of St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine where he talks about John 6:53 as an example of a time to understand words figuratively?

I have zero interest in arguing about anything here. I’m interested in understanding. This is an important topic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi CopticChristian or anyone—

Could I get some thoughts on the link I included a few posts back, from New Advent, giving chapter 16 (scroll down for it) of St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine where he talks about John 6:53 as an example of a time to understand words figuratively?

I have zero interest in arguing about anything here. I’m interested in understanding. This is an important topic.

Bless you. I am so grateful that you have come to this point. I pray daily for you. I have asked you and others to pray for me. I read that passage and it is now time to give you an answer and some thoughts…Ask an Apologist…because if I were to lead you astray at this moment I would never forgive myself. I have taken this question to an Apologist to porperly gear you toward the answer you seek. You too can do this and it would be considedered proper and I am sure others would see this, as you state, I have asked an Apologist this question as a sign of sincerity. Forgive my impudence in forwarding this question to an apologist.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you, CopticChristian. It was no impudence on your part; there’s nothing to forgive. In fact, that was a good idea, and an act of good will.

 

[Miriam1947]

AmateurPianist—

I’d be interested in the answer to your question, too–“Who is the first church father that specifically related John 6 to communion?” That 's not at all a challenge, but rather a sincere question.

I had read St. Augustine’s sermon from John 6 quite awhile ago. I could very well be wrong, and I should read it again but it was really long, however I wouldn’t assert that Augustine related it specifically to the Eucharist. Again, my memory is fuzzy on that, though.

On the other hand, here’s a link to New Advent for the place where St. Augustine says John 6’s command to “eat My flesh and drink My blood” is an example of a time to not take the words literally. The link goes to his treatise “On Christian Doctrine”; then please scroll down to chapter 16. www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

 

[AbideWithMe]

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

Hi Miriam

Yes, I remember reading where Cat talked about that before. (I’ve been reading CAF for about a year, though I’m new as a member.)

I was hoping we could stay on John 6 for longer.

 

[hn160]

I posted this on another thread: Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth in his book The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology ( a good read ) said In quoting the sixth chapter of John, as bearing on the Lord’s Supper, it may be well, once for all, to say that it is quoted not on the supposition that it speaks of the Lord’s Supper specifically, but that in stating the general doctrine of the life-giving power of Christ’s flesh and blood, it states a doctrine under which the benefits of the sacramental eating comes a species. If we comr into supernatural, blessed participation of Christ’s body and blood, in an act of faith, without the Lord’s Supper, a fortiori, we have a blessed participation of them in the act of the Lord’s Supper. The sixth chapter of John treats the grand end of which the Lord’s Supper is the grand means. We partake of Christ’s body and blood sacramentally, in order that we may partake of them savingly. Of the latter, not the former, the sixth of John speaks.