R
Returnee
Guest
This is a most unique criticism of the Catholic belief regarding John 6:50 onward. I’ve never heard anyone use such a criticism to circumvent the belief in transubstantiation.Where in any of the supper accounts is eternal life mentioned by Jesus? I have read through all of them and i don’t see any mention of such a thing. Maybe i missed it and if so perhaps you can show me the chapter and verse where it is.
However, it doesn’t seem to really make much sense to me. After all, what you’re saying here is, “The teaching of John 6:50 onward is too difficult for me, so I want validation of this teaching elsewhere in Scripture to convince me that it’s real.”
The problem with this line of reasoning is two fold: One, it implicitly acknowledges the Catholic position in John 6, but simply says, “I don’t want to believe that so I’m going to look for reasons NOT to believe”. Much like some of the disciples in the very same discourse.
Two, and this is perhaps more fatal to your line of reasoning, it’s akin to saying, “Unless a teaching appears more than once in Scripture, I’m not going to believe it”. This is a dangerous hermeneutic to employ, as there are a good number of teachings that don’t appear in Scripture more than once, but yet are quite orthodox in character.
For example, in the Book of Matthew (Matt 28:11-15), we read how a guard assigned to the tomb of Jesus was bribed by some Jews to tell others that the body of Jesus was stolen during the night of the Resurrection. This account doesn’t appear anywhere else in Scripture. Are we to reject the notion that the body of Jesus was stolen, is false? That is, are we to believe someone stole Jesus’ body? Seems to me that’s a pretty important piece of the Resurrection account, but it’s only in Matthew and no where else.
Or another, also in Matthew, (Matt 26:3-10), we read that Judas died. No where else do we read he died, much less how, so are we to believe he didn’t die?
In John 19:31-37, we read about the soldier’s piercing of Jesus’ side, and how blood and water flowed out from the wound. No where else do we read that. And it’s a pretty important passage, not only for the “blood and water” aspect, a foundation of many beliefs in Christianity, not just Catholicism, but also for having fulfilled the prophecy related in John 19:36-37. However, if we are to only believe something that appears 2 times (or more) in Scripture, then we must reject that account as well, which means questioning Jesus’ role as Messiah, much less the saving power of both His Blood (the Eucharist) AND “water” (Baptism)
I could go on, as there are numerous other examples of unique stories in one Gospel account when compared to others. The point should be clear though: Simply because an account only occurs once in the Gospels (or even in all of Scripture, the point is still the same there), doesn’t mean it’s “not important” or has no link to any other part of Scripture.
What do Protestants always say? All Scripture is God breathed, and is profitable for correction, reproof and instruction. 2 Tim 3:16-17. I think that’s good advice here, as it means that all Scripture is of equal weight, and thus, the frequency of a particular account has no bearing on its “importance”, or validity.