John 6 and Eucharist?

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

…I believe that one is “given” eternal LIFE not BY eating and drinking His literal body and blood, but through BELIEVING in Him, i.e., who He is and all that He did FOR ME. I do not interpret the eating and drinking in John six as literal, but symbolic of belief, and at the time of belief HIS LIFE is given to me and now RESIDES, permanently, IN ME (John 6:35, 48-51)
… Guaranteed by the “bread” He gave for the life of the world (John 6:51).Blessings,
Bene

Bene, you keep citing one of my favorite verses, John 6:51. I think you need to read it to the end again, bene. Jesus tells us:

1. He is the Bread from Heaven.
2. Whoever eats this Bread will live forever.
3. The Bread Jesus will give is His flesh.

Condensed: JESUS=BREAD=WE MUST EAT=HIS FLESH

-Non-believers back then said “But how can we eat his flesh?”
-Believers back then said, “We sure can’t explain it, but we are going to believe what You tell us on faith.”

-Non-believers today say “But how can we eat his flesh?”
-Believers today say “We sure can’t explain it, but we are going to believe what You tell us on faith.”
God Bless Us All!

 

[miguel_delgado]

i used a more “dramatic aproach”

i used john 6 and the last supper part of the gospel, and then i ask:

was Jesus crazy cus he talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood???
they answer: of course not.

then you belive that Jesus body, blood and divinity is on the eucharist??
they answer: i dont belive that

THEN I USED THE LAST BOOK OF THE BIBLE (REVELATION) AND SAID:

jOHN WRITE BOTH HIS GOSPEL AND THE REVELATION BOOK, THOSE WHO DENY THE DIVINITY OF JESUS ARE NAMED IN VERSE 66
JOHN 6,66 (666) IF YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE THE BEAST!!!

---

needless to say that they went speachless and some of them are giving a real loooong hard tought to that passage.

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

Originally Posted by bene7
“Adam and Eve were created in a state of sinlessness, in a state of innocence. They did not possess eternal life. They were capable of sinning. They did. They died spiritually and eventually physically. They didn’t “reject the gift,” they sinned and fell from their created “state” of innocence. You and I, born in Adam, are born in need of new LIFE. And this new LIFE if gifted to the one who has faith in Jesus.”

ncgolf responded:
No, I believe the new life is given by Baptism, not by faith. Baptism removes the stain of original sin and bring us into the Body of Christ. We then belong to Christ. Sin is a product of free will … we don’t lose our free will ever … even in heaven. In heaven we choose never to sin.

Yes, I know. And it is the penetration of this erroneous doctrine into the Church that I consider to be, by far, not only the most damaging and the most injurious, anti-Biblical doctrine, causing the greatest hinderance for men to understand the simple Gospel message of God’s sovereign GRACE toward all who would believe in His Son, but also the most deceptive by causing men to trust in something they did, or something that was done to them - rather than in what God has clearly revealed, through His Word, HE DID FOR THEM according to His infinite mercy through the Person and work of His beloved Son. His substitutionary work on the cross by which God could graciously forgive ALL their sins and not compromise His infinite holiness and justice, and bestow to the believer, gift-wise, salvation (Eph. 2:8-9), justification (Rom . 3:23-24) and eternal LIFE in His Son (Rom. 6:23).

Nowhere is it taught in Scripture that baptism “removes the “stain” of original sin.” This is a man-made doctrine. Men are redeemed through faith in Christ (His work on the cross) from the eternal consequences caused by Adam’s original sin: death, condemnation and judgment (please read Rom. 5:12-21).

1COR. 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from
God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

EPH 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our
trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,”

COL 1:14 "…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

HEB 9:12 …and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own
blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained ETERNAL
redemption.

God is not in the business of erasing “stains” (there’s no such concept in Scripture), but redeeming, forever, through the price of Christ’s shed blood, all those who simply trust what He has revealed concerning His Son. There’s nothing erased or “removed” from the redeemed but, according to God’s Word, the redeemed are actually created NEW “in Christ Jesus” (2 Cor. 5:17-21; Eph. 2:10).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and BELIEVES Him who sent Me, HAS eternal life, and DOES NOT come into judgment, but HAS PASSED OUT OF DEATH (i.e., all the eternal consequences caused by Adam’s sin) into LIFE (i.e., to experience now and into eternity all of the riches of God’s GRACE toward us who have believed in Christ Jesus)” (John 5:24).

EPH 2:7 “…in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”

“For by grace you have been saved through faith…” In Scripture, no one is ever baptized who did not first believe.

I read where the hierarchy of the Roman church is moving to rescind its doctrine of “limbo.” Another man-made doctrine.

Blessing,
Bene

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread is about the Eucharist and the real presence. Please remain on topic or open another thread if you have another topic that you wish to get into.

Missing posts have been deleted by me as off-topic and irrlevent to the topic of this thread.

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

You try to rationalize away the words of Christ. First of all neither I nor Christ say anything about it being a “gift” in John 6:54. PLEASE read it again:

“He who eat My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life.”

He doesn’t say is “given” eternal life, He say HAS eternal life. He doesn’t say “hopes” to have eternal life, nor hopes to “keep” eternal lfe. He who eats and drinks HAS eternal life, and Christ emphatically states that He will raise him up on the last day. He doesn’t say He might, if he doesn’t lose it."

The life the eater and drinker HAS, Jesus says, is eternal. If it’s eternal it cannot be snuffed out. Please read it again and don’t rationalize it to fit your theological position.

Blessings,
Bene

Well, the moderator has deleted my example of using angels to prove my point, so I will stick to this.

Is eternal life a gift or not? If not, what is it? If it is a gift, isn’t it always a gift whether John 6 specifically mentions it as a gift or not?

BTW, and I am saying this as gently as possible, I do not appreciate you accusing me of trying to “rationalize away the words of Christ” and trying to “rationalize it to fit your theological position.” I am on an honest search for truth, and I have made no ad hominen attacks on you.

 

[MariaG]

The topic of this thread is John 6 and the Eucharist not whether or not salvation can be lost.

 

[Holly3278]

bene7:

Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.” Don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it is obvious that some things Jesus said were figurative, and it seems obvious to me that this was the case with the bread ad wine as well. He didn’t say, “these have become My body and blood.” And where does He say He gave them the power to miracuously transform the two elements into Himself? And since He was raised with the SAME body with which He was crucified, how could it be His crucified body that is now present in the Eucharist?

Too much makes no sense.

God Bless,
Bene

Bene, look up the Eucharist account in the Gospel of John. It’s right around chapter 6. Read the whole thing. Now read Gospel of John 6:51-58 closely. What do you see? I’ll tell you what I see:

(John 6:51-52)What I see is Jesus referring to the bread as His flesh. The Pharisaiical Jews take him literally and very quickly begin to question Him and His teaching! They ask, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

However, in John 6:53-58, Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation! Instead He eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath (which by the was very strictly prohobited in Judaism).

As a matter of fact, Jesus repeats his point that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood four times! This is why Catholics believe that the Eucharist really is flesh and blood!

My source is here:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

Take a look at it!

 

[bene7]

Kay Cee:

What I seem to be getting from you is that God created the angels, and at this point they existed. Then, later, He granted some of them eternal life. Is that what you’re saying?

I’ll answer this, but in the rest of your reply you did not respond congruently with what I had originally stated in context.

Yes, angels are spirit beings with personality, capable of great intelligence and moral responsibility. Each angel was created individually and separately by God. Unlike mankind where one man and one woman were originally created and the rest of us are born (begotten) from them. All humanity is federally connected to Adam (our federal head), and so when Adam sinned we all sinned (in him, Rom. 5:12). Hence, all of us are “born” sinners - proved by the fact that all of us die whether we’ve personally sinned or not (i.e., infants). When one believes in Jesus Christ (Himself an “Adam,” a new Federal Head) he is created new in Christ and His (Christ’s) righteousness is imputed to him. He cannot lose it because it is not his own.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:19; Phil. 3:9).

Of course God only creates that which is “good” but, like Adam and Eve, angels were created with a free will. And at a certain time a number of them (Scripture seems to allude to a third) rebelled inwardly against God, along with Satan, and they each fell from the state of holiness in which they were created. They’re “fallen” angels, also known as “demons.” God in His sovereignty has provided no plan of redemption for them as He has for the descendants of Adam. They have been “actualized” in their fallen state.

The holy angels were not as you say “granted eternal life.” They never lost the life in which they were created. They remained holy. They are referred to in Scripture as THE “holy angels,” so it is assumed that their state of holiness was actualized - i.e., they will NEVER sin, they will never rebel, they will never fall from that holy state in which they were created and now exist.

There will come a time (at the resurrection of our bodies), when we who have been redeemed, reconciled to God, justified and sanctified through faith in Christ, will also, like the holy angels, be actualized. Our position in Christ will also be our condition. We will not be incapable of ever sinning again. It’s not that we won’t have a free will, but in our glorified state we will have no desire, whatsoever, to sin. We shall be “like Christ” (our new Federal Head, see 1 John 3:2) and remain in perfect fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our fellow brethren in Christ, and the holy angels FOREVER.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Michael Francis:

This thread is about the Eucharist and the real presence. Please remain on topic or open another thread if you have another topic that you wish to get into.

Missing posts have been deleted by me as off-topic and irrlevent to the topic of this thread.

OOOPS!!! Sorry Michael, I left a reply to an off topic message, tried to go back and delete it but too late to edit. Please delete for me.

I apologize,
Bene

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.” Don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it is obvious that some things Jesus said were figurative, and it seems obvious to me that this was the case with the bread ad wine as well. He didn’t say, “these have become My body and blood.” And where does He say He gave them the power to miracuously transform the two elements into Himself? And since He was raised with the SAME body with which He was crucified, how could it be His crucified body that is now present in the Eucharist?

Too much makes no sense.

God Bless,
Bene

How about these tidbits …talk about not making any sense.

1. God, creator of all things, enters one of His created creatures and takes on a human nature.
2. This same God is killed by His own created creatures.
3. The supposedly killed God rises from the dead after 3 days.
4. This God gives us His body and blood as food for our souls.

The story of Jesus and what happened on earth is a fantastic story. It seems the work of a fantasy writer but we know it is not. I dont believe the “The Lion, the Witch and the Wadrobe”, which is allegory to the story of Christ but I believe story of Christ.

The first 3 are described in the Bible … I believe it, I trust the Gospel writers. The fourth is written in a Gospel but of the four it is the only one where Christ is quoted so heavily on the subject. If you read John 6 and the Body of Life Discourse it is chock full of Christ’s own words, not much by John except for setting the scene.

Why not believe Christ’s own words? If they are not true then the millions of Catholics over time believe in fairy tales. We are adults and are able to know the difference between fact and fairy tale. I think you don’t trust Christ’s words enough because they seem otherwordly. Well the Body and Blood Catholics consume is otherwordly, it comes from heaven.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

I do not interpret the eating and drinking in John six as literal, but symbolic of belief,

May I inquire as to where you derived this interpretation? Is this your own interpretation or has someone, (pastor, relative, friend), taught this to you? Or perahaps you adhere to the teaching of a specific protestant theologian?

 

[Celtic_Son]

I just wrote an English Essay on this , this past semester. And that is exactly what I placed in it. Referenced in the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. Jesus did not say to the one’s who walked away " Oh I was just speaking figurativley" or " hey you guys can’t take a joke? " My paper made my Protestant Instructor think about it again.

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

How about these tidbits …talk about not making any sense.

1. God, creator of all things, enters one of His created creatures and takes on a human nature.
2. This same God is killed by His own created creatures.
3. The supposedly killed God rises from the dead after 3 days.
4. This God gives us His body and blood as food for our souls.

The story of Jesus and what happened on earth is a fantastic story. It seems the work of a fantasy writer but we know it is not. I dont believe the “The Lion, the Witch and the Wadrobe”, which is allegory to the story of Christ but I believe story of Christ.

The first 3 are described in the Bible … I believe it, I trust the Gospel writers. The fourth is written in a Gospel but of the four it is the only one where Christ is quoted so heavily on the subject. If you read John 6 and the Body of Life Discourse it is chock full of Christ’s own words, not much by John except for setting the scene.

Why not believe Christ’s own words? If they are not true then the millions of Catholics over time believe in fairy tales. We are adults and are able to know the difference between fact and fairy tale. I think you don’t trust Christ’s words enough because they seem otherwordly. Well the Body and Blood Catholics consume is otherwordly, it comes from heaven.

In what way does physically eating the body and blood of Christ spiritually “feed” the soul? How can it? And Jesus, in John six, never states that it “feeds the soul.” He emphatically states that he who eats HAS eternal life" (vs. 54. That’s far different from “feeding the soul,” language He never communicates. The whole point He’s making in John six is that He came to give LIFE, through His death on the cross (which is the giving of His flesh for the LIFE of the world, vs. 51), to us who are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins. Men weren’t in need of their “souls” beeing fed (which physically eating anything cannot do), but their spirit made ALIVE through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. For this Jesus emphasized “believeing” in verses 35-48. Eating and drinking is symbolic for believing in Him. He is the true “manna” from Heaven, not to be lilterally eaten, like the manna in the wilderness, but BELIEVED on for LIFE eternal. His disciples (not the 12), in their carnal minds, took Him literally and departed. They could not understand the spiritual significance of His words (vs. 63), so they stumbled. Is it possible you’re stumbling over the spiritual significance of His words also?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

If someone of the reformed faith cannot accept the clarity of teachings from the Gospel of John chapter 6, the institution of the Eucharist in the accounts of the last supper from the three synoptic Gospels, or the writings of St Paul (especially from 1 Cor), then what I am about to write will probably not be accepted either. But here goes:

The Israelites sealed their doorway with the blood of the sacrificial lamb for passover. Jesus is “The Lamb of God”–the perfect Sacraficial Lamb of the New Covenant. The mouth is the doorway of the body and so during reception of the Holy Eucharist, we seal our mouth with the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips. (Psalms 141:3)

 

[bene7]

Mickey:

May I inquire as to where you derived this interpretation? Is this your own interpretation or has someone, (pastor, relative, friend), taught this to you? Or perahaps you adhere to the teaching of a specific protestant theologian?

From John 6:32-48. Please compare verse 40 with 54 and then read verse 63 and 64.

“But there are some of you who do not BELIEVE.”

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

Eating and drinking is symbolic for believing in Him.

Since you find it difficult to believe in the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to read something from a man who was taught by St John the Apostle. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John:

**CHAPTER VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. **
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (From the epistle of St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyraeans)

Did St John teach him incorrectly?

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

From John 6:32-48. Please compare verse 40 with 54 and then read verse 63 and 64.

“But there are some of you who do not BELIEVE.”

Blessings,
Bene

This does not answer my question.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

His disciples (not the 12), in their carnal minds, took Him literally and departed. They could not understand the spiritual significance of His words (vs. 63), so they stumbled.

As has already been pointed out, if this were the case then Christ would be guilty of misleading them. I believe Christians universally reject such a possibility. For example, in his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem(Evangelical) uses the impossibility of Christ misleading the disciples as the basis for his argument of the physical nature of a resurrected body by concluding:“If the “customary form” of his resurrection body was nonphysical, then in these repeated physical appearanceas Jesus would be guilty of misleading the disciples(and all subsequent readers of the New Testament) into thinking that his resurrection body remained physical when it did not.” (page 612). In addition, there are biblical examples, precedents you might say, where the disciples mistook him to be speaking literally when he was actually was not in John 4:31-34 and Matt 15:5-12, and he corrects there misunderstanding. Why should the Bread of Life discourse be any different?

bene7:

Is it possible you’re stumbling over the spiritual significance of His words also?

Blessings,
Bene

I don’t think so. The acceptance of the Real Presence does not preclude a figurative and spiritual dimension to the teachings of Christ - it simply embraces a fuller understanding in addition to them.
On a more practical note, where do we suppose this teaching of the Real Presence eminates from? Clearly it is an early christian belief, and those who no longer followed him understood him literally - it certainly didn’t come from them, they rejected the teaching. So who’s left? The apostles, who, if you have it right, came to understand the spiritual intent of His teaching and would have been very careful to make sure such a heresy would not survive. Why? Because it was the single and definitive cause of such an incredible falling away from Christ in their very midst (and in His presence). Yet what do we know from history? We know that this teaching was prevalent among early christians and specifically endorsed by none other than Ignatious who was Johns disciple! Almost any other Church Father would give some wiggle room to the “spiritual intent only” crowd. But Ignatious?! How are we to explain this? Are we to ignore it because it’s not “biblical”? Hardly, we apply reason to our discussion, and we all have embraced it. So was Ignatious corrupted? No, I know not. His faith is “revealed by his works”, as James would say, and this demonstration occured right up until the point where he dies for his faith in Jesus Christ. And it is immediately prior to that death(just to eliminate the “not a true christian at the time he wrote it” theory) - that he proclaimed the Eucharist as the flesh of our Lord that died for our sins. We can discuss theology all we want, but facts are facts: Christ said it, John recorded it, Ignatious et al believed it - I can’t place my understanding above such witnesses, and thankfully there is no need for me to.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Mickey
May I inquire as to where you derived this interpretation? Is this your own interpretation or has someone, (pastor, relative, friend), taught this to you? Or perahaps you adhere to the teaching of a specific protestant theologian?

bene7:

From John 6:32-48.
Blessings,
Bene

Good one bene! Way to stick to your guns! It comes from…the bible!

Phil

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

In what way does physically eating the body and blood of Christ spiritually “feed” the soul? How can it?

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Jesus said this … not me.

If Jesus abides in me then if He abides both in body and soul and I in him that is the Real Presence … but what you miss is this both physical and spiritual. For whatever reason you cannot see this … take off the blinders.

How does this happen? Actually I dont know exactly … it is a mystery but not a fantasy … but I believe it. Your quote “How can it.” is eerily similiar to Mary’s response to the angel, “How can this be since I know not man” at the Annunciation. Yet she responded “but according to your will.” She did not fully understand either but believed and trusted God.