John 6 and Eucharist?

[Philthy]

[/color:

sandusky

]
IOW, there is no historical statement anywhere that you can provide that would prove your position.

Sandusky, if there were an absolute proof of either of our positions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Is that what you mean - absolute proof? I can, of course, make the same claim to you with equal force.
[/color:

sandusky

]My position is proven on the basis of the text itself.
No it isn’t - you simply keep repeating your claim. I don’t even know what you mean by “proven on the basis of the text”. Is the “basis” of the text something different than the text itself? Surely you don’t mean to say your little “side by side” comparison is an absolute proof of something do you? That’s not proof, its an argument in favor of your conclusion. But it only has relative weight - not_ absolute_ force - and we can look at other things (like my argument) which may or may not ultimately be judged as more definitive.
[/color:

sandusky

]Both John 6, and the Last Supper accounts, about which John, in His Gospel does not even write about.
You mean John doesn’t “comment on” John 6 outside of recording it and discipling Ignatious? So what?

Philthy:

Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.

What’s my proof for this?
2. The words He chose led all to understand him literally

sandusky:

You cannot prove this.

Correct - I should have simply wrote “What is my argument in favor of this?” I was rushing to leave when I typed it and used the normal connotation or colloquial notion of the term. Sorry…

sandusky:

Perhaps they thought He was crazy; it would seem they took Him literally, but they could also have thought He had lost His mind, and that He had no idea what He was talking about.

Good point…for my side of the argument. If they thought he was crazy because of his speech, he would still be guilty of misleading them into believing he was crazy. And furthermore, why, exactly, would they draw the conclusion from what he said that he was crazy? Do you mean crazy as in he was babbling incoherently (like you and I are sometimes prone to do? )? I don’t think so - there was coherent dialogue. So what was crazy about what he said? It WAS crazy because he said that they must eat his flesh! And if he didn’t mean it the way he lead everyone to understand it, then he mislead them.

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Your failure to prove Premise 2a of your concept, invalidates your conclusion.

Well its good to see that I have had a constructive influence on your reasoning skills. Unfortunately, you’ve overstepped the bounds just a bit: failing to prove a premise does not invalidate a conclusion - it just renders it to the category of opinion rather than absolute fact. It cannot be considered a conclusion OF NECESSITY. You would have to actually prove my premise false to invalidate the conclusion. See the difference? All you have done is questioned the validity of my premise. You have not proven it false. You can’t, of course, just like I can’t “prove” it to be true. All we can do is weigh the relative merits of the arguments presented and come to some degree of agreement or disagreement. That’s all. Scripture alone leaves us with such ambiguities.
[/color:

sandusky

]Philthy, I will help you out, and stipulate that Christ does not mislead people. Even with that stipulation, you cannot offer concrete proof that anyone, at anytime literally ate Christ’s flesh, and drank Christ’s blood. That simply did not happen.
Thank you for intending to help. I can improve only slightly my earlier response to this statement addressed to you:

This approach simply leads to a debate over the meaning of statements such as “This is my body…take and eat”. Some would consider that an example of Christ’s body literally being eaten, some would not. You were rather shortsighted with this suggestion - again.

May I summarize?

You disagree with my CONCEPT argument without being able to overtly invalidate it IMHO. That is OK. Take a deep breath. Just recognize that neither of us has “proven”, absolutely, our interpretation. Nor can I “absolutely disprove” your interpretation, I can simply form a reasonable objection to it based on my understanding of Scripture, history, Jewish culture and the ECF’s. And that is exactly what you have done with respect to my argument.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Phil

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Let me use the Catholic line of reasoning with regard to sola scriptura as you use it to disprove the same.

Where in the Bible are the words real presence?

Right next to where it says that John 6 is a metaphor.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

To deny to questionable nature of Ignatius’ writings is to have your eyes wide shut.

Ignatius’ writings concur with dozens of other writings of the early Church, as Mickey has demonstrated. That any such statement on the Eucharist is attributed to him at all far outweighs the total absence of documentation attesting to the real absence.

 

[mikeledes]

To say that Jesus cannot make himself physically present in all the altars of Catholic Churches throughout the world is putting limitations on God. With God, anything is possible. He is not necessarily bound by human logic.

God bless

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

Let me use the Catholic line of reasoning with regard to sola scriptura as you use it to disprove the same.

Where in the Bible are the words real presence?

Don’t you realize that every time you use this reasoning, people will talk about the word “Trinity”.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

What Philthy is attempting to prove has nothing to do with the Eucharist;

Hi Sandusky! :yup:
To say that what I am attempting to prove has “nothing” to do with the Eucharist is a bit of a stretch, no? It’s either that or blatantly false.

sandusky:

Philthy is attempting to prove that Christ’s statements in John 6 were literal, i.e., one must literally eat His flesh and drink and His blood.

Actually, you keep trying to narrow the concept of “literally eating Christ’s flesh” to equate with the consumption of the actual molecules which composed his body 2000 years ago. I never said such a thing. My own preference would be to conceive of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as an “essential” presence; ie that which makes him uniquely himself and distinguishable from everything else that is. Now I hardly expect us to grasp what that means in a truly concrete manner, but it does not mean that we need to eat the molecules that composed his body 2000 years ago. And this seems to be what you are hung up on.

As an aside, it is true, and I think we can ALL agree that Christ’s humanity was manifest in material matter: organic compounds. My question to anyone willing to venture guess is, “Where are the atoms and molecules that composed Christ’s earthly body?” I find this an intriquing question. Without knowledge of that, how can we possibly know whether anyone has eaten them or not?

Phil

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Philthy:

Good point…for my side of the argument. If they thought he was crazy because of his speech, he would still be guilty of misleading them into believing he was crazy. And furthermore, why, exactly, would they draw the conclusion from what he said that he was crazy? Do you mean crazy as in he was babbling incoherently (like you and I are sometimes prone to do? )? I don’t think so - there was coherent dialogue. So what was crazy about what he said? It WAS crazy because he said that they must eat his flesh! And if he didn’t mean it the way he lead everyone to understand it, then he mislead them.

Since when is the event of people misunderstanding Jesus the fault of Jesus?

At His trial His accusers testified that He said that He would destroy “this Temple” and “raise it up again in three days”. Was Jesus to blame for the fact that they assumed He was speaking about Herod’s temple and not about His own body?

I doubt that you would agree that people who disagree with the teachings of the RCC are correct in laying the blame at the feet of the Church.

 

[sandusky]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since when is the event of people misunderstanding Jesus the fault of Jesus?

At His trial His accusers testified that He said that He would destroy “this Temple” and “raise it up again in three days”. Was Jesus to blame for the fact that they assumed He was speaking about Herod’s temple and not about His own body?

I doubt that you would agree that people who disagree with the teachings of the RCC are correct in laying the blame at the feet of the Church.

A very appropriate illustration, thank you, Richard.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Sandusky, if there were an absolute proof of either of our positions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Is that what you mean - absolute proof? I can, of course, make the same claim to you with equal force.

Philthy, on the basis of scripture, alone, I can offer conclusive proof that no one ate Christ’s flesh and blood.

Philthy:

You mean John doesn’t “comment on” John 6 outside of recording it and discipling Ignatious? So what?

No, John’s record of the Last Supper does not include the eating of the bread and wine. John’s focus is Christ’s example of love for the disciples, and that they, as well as all believers, should exhibit that same love toward one another.

I find it extremely significant, that the consumption of bread and wine, and Christ’s words, this is My body, etc., are seemingly of no concern to John, or of so little concern, that he doesn’t even record them in his Gospel.

According to you, those words uttered by Christ at the Last Supper are of a monumental importance, even that they are the key to eternal life, and yet, I say again, John does not even bother to record those words.

Philthy:

Good point…for my side of the argument. If they thought he was crazy because of his speech, he would still be guilty of misleading them into believing he was crazy. And furthermore, why, exactly, would they draw the conclusion from what he said that he was crazy? Do you mean crazy as in he was babbling incoherently (like you and I are sometimes prone to do? )? I don’t think so - there was coherent dialogue. So what was crazy about what he said? It WAS crazy because he said that they must eat his flesh! And if he didn’t mean it the way he lead everyone to understand it, then he mislead them.

I have stipulated that Christ cannot mislead anyone, and I stated that scripture everywhere says that we are responsible for the choices we make—that is free will—so whether or not Christ misled anyone in what He said is settled; He did not. As to whether or not Christ is responsible for the choices we make, that too, is settled; He is not.

Philthy:

Is that what you mean - absolute proof? I can, of course, make the same claim to you with equal force.

All we can do is weigh the relative merits of the arguments presented and come to some degree of agreement or disagreement. That’s all. Scripture alone leaves us with such ambiguities.

Above are two different quotes taken from the same post.

With respect to the former claim above, that “absolute proof is impossible,” I can show you absolutely, from scripture, that no one literally ate Christ’s flesh, nor drank His blood; which takes me to the latter claim, that scripture alone leaves us with ambiguities; not with respect to this.

After the John 6 passages in question, John’s narrative continues. Jesus leaves with the disciples, gives other teachings, performs other signs and miracles, shares the Last Passover meal with the disciples, is betrayed by Judas, arrested by the Jews, taken various places, and ultimately is brought before Pilate, who scourges and beats Him, and has Him nailed to a cross. Upon that cross, He dies, is taken down and placed in a tomb, rises from the dead and that tomb, is seen by many until Pentecost, when He goes bodily to the Father, where He sits today.

Notice Philthy, He does all of those things bodily

That is conclusive proof from scripture.

No one ever literally ate His flesh and drank His blood.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Don’t you realize that every time you use this reasoning, people will talk about the word “Trinity”.

Yes, but the trinity can be clearly demonstrated using the O.T. and the N.T.

Matthew 28:19

19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Here Matthew adds a new name, to the many names given God in scripture:

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So too, can it be demonstrated from scripture alone, that no one ever literally ate Christ’s flesh, nor drank His blood.

 

[mikeledes]

I think the words of Scripture are plain regarding the Eucharist. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. Not only is this declared in John 6, but also in 1 Corinthians and by the early Church Fathers.

God Bless

 

[Philthy]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since when is the event of people misunderstanding Jesus the fault of Jesus?

It is not the event of being misunderstood which is being discussed, rather the concept of Jesus being misleading. There is a difference. The concept was introduced to me in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Stated briefly, Jesus can not be guilty of misleading the Apostles ( or any subsequent NT reader).

Richard_Hurtz:
At His trial His accusers testified that He said that He would destroy “this Temple” and “raise it up again in three days”. Was Jesus to blame for the fact that they assumed He was speaking about Herod’s temple and not about His own body?

This is a good point. However, this is different than the John 6 events. During the trial, Jesus is SILENT. He neither confirms nor denies the allegations and does not engage in dialogue aimed at clarification. During the John 6 BOL discourse he dialogues with those he spoke to. They expressed their confusion at what they were understanding him to mean. He reaffirms what he said in increasingly graphic language. If he meant a figurative “eat my flesh and drink my blood” then I say he mislead them. If he meant it more that figuratively(I think he did) then there is no problem, and he didn’t mislead them. I conclude that he meant it more than figuratively.

Richard_Hurtz:

I doubt that you would agree that people who disagree with the teachings of the RCC are correct in laying the blame at the feet of the Church.

Not entirely.

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Hi Sandusky!
To say that what I am attempting to prove has “nothing” to do with the Eucharist is a bit of a stretch, no? It’s either that or blatantly false.

Philthy, when I brought in the Eucharist in my post # 400, at the bottom of page 4 of this thread, you chastised me, and said you were speaking solely of the John 6 passage. Are you changing your mind?

Philthy:

Actually, you keep trying to narrow the concept of “literally eating Christ’s flesh” to equate with the consumption of the actual molecules which composed his body 2000 years ago. I never said such a thing.

Philthy, your point has been that very thing. Remember your chastising me for bringing that up in my post #400.

John 6:53-56

*53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him*.

Those are the passages in question. If He meant something other than the flesh and blood He stood in before them, then He mislead them, as I pointed out in the post that I referenced.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

I think the words of Scripture are plain regarding the Eucharist. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. Not only is this declared in John 6, but also in 1 Corinthians and by the early Church Fathers.

God Bless

Post the verses; I would like to see those you are referring to, please.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Yes, but the trinity can be clearly demonstrated using the O.T. and the N.T.

Matthew 28:19

19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Here Matthew adds a new name, to the many names given God in scripture:

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So too, can it be demonstrated from scripture alone, that no one ever literally ate Christ’s flesh, nor drank His blood.

You persist in your obdurate refusal to understand that the Real Presence involves the Risen and Ascended Lord.

We do not record a celebration of the Eucharist at any point between the Last Supper and Pentecost.

The Resurrection Body, even before the Ascension, did not behave as it did before the Crucifixion. When Christ appeared to Mary, she didn’t recognize him (kind of like you). When he appeared later to Paul, it was as a blinding light.

You claim that the only possible understanding of “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” requires chomping on human tissue and guzzling gore.

That is not Catholic doctrine. Never has been. Never will be. And since you claim to have been Catholic, you KNOW that your simplisitic blood-and-guts view of the Real Presence is a sham. That the presence of Christ is real, because Jesus SAID so, is something the Church acknowledged from the beginning. Go back to I Corinthians & Hebrews. Since you claim to have been an educated Catholic, I will not patronize you by offering chapter and verse.

Quoting you from your post #331: “I left the church 40 years ago. I know what it teaches;” Sorry. Your limited view that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist must mean carcass-eating eloquently belies your claim.

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

You persist in your obdurate refusal to understand that the Real Presence involves the Risen and Ascended Lord.

You are not following what Philthy and I are talking about.

But, you do base your theology upon the words This is My Body and This is My Blood spoken at the Last Supper, when Christ had neither been crucified, nor had He risen, neither had He ascended to the Father.

Are you now saying that the bread and wine at the Last Supper were truly bread and wine?

mercygate:

We do not record a celebration of the Eucharist at any point between the Last Supper and Pentecost.

Yes, but you do record it at the Last Supper, and you claim that is the first changing of the elements; isn’t that correct? And, that conflicts with what you just said about it being confined to the Risen and Ascended Lord.

mercygate:

You claim that the only possible understanding of “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” requires chomping on human tissue and guzzling gore.

From your post, I get the feeling that you are angry with me, and that is because you are not following the discussion Philthy and I are having. Philthy said that Christ’s meaning in John 6 is literal, and that is why those who left Christ, left Him.

John 6 requires blood and guts, because He stands before them in His flesh and blood.

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

When Christ appeared to Mary, she didn’t recognize him (kind of like you).

Yea, but she had seen Him before; I have never seen Him.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Yea, but she had seen Him before; I have never seen Him.

Then blessed are you because you have not seen and yet believe.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

You are not following what Philthy and I are talking about.

Fair enough. Although I AM following, I am not engaging in that. I was responding to your imagery.

Yes, but you do record it at the Last Supper, and you claim that is the first changing of the elements; isn’t that correct? And, that conflicts with what you just said about it being confined to the Risen and Ascended Lord.

In the hands of the Person of Christ, I accept, with Augustine, that “he held himself in his own hands.” In the hands of her priests *in persona Christi *-- that requires the charism of Easter night and of Pentecost: for it is the Body of Christ which celebrates the Eucharist. That identity is not infused until Pentecost.

John 6 requires blood and guts, because He stands before them in His flesh and blood.

It does not require blood and guts. Jesus does not invite the disciples at that moment to come up, slurp some barbecue sauce on his big toe and take a bite. He does not say: Eat my flesh right here and now; drink my blood right here and now.