John 6 and Eucharist?

[Philthy]

sandusky:

You assume that they rightly understood. Could they have misunderstood? So what if Jesus didn’t explain it. His lack of explanation shows one of two things: He meant it literally, or He was content to leave them in their misunderstanding.

Ahhhh Sandusky, how have you been? I can only conclude that you didn’t read the whole thread. For your edification, I will restate the significance of the alleged misunderstanding.
Christ said that we must eat his body and drink his blood.
Everyone there that day understood him to mean it literally - that is why they were all perplex and why some chose to leave him.
It was because of how he chose to express himself that they understood it literally.
This literal understanding caused almost all of them to stop following him.
Now, IF he didn’t mean what he said literally, THEN he is guilty of misleading his disciples and all subsequent readers of the NT.
I thought it was universally accepted by Christians that Christ could not be guilty of misleading someone. Wayne Grudem agrees with me, I’m confident you will too, eventually.
There are several examples from the bible of the Apostles misunderstanding Christ and Christ explaining their error to them. In addition Christ explained Nicodemus’ misunderstanding to him as well in John 3. There is no such explanation from John 6.
Why not?
My answer is that he meant exactly what he said.
Is there any other relevant information? Yes, we have the disciple of the Apostle who recorded this account describing the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” That would be Igatious. It is not Christs spiritual or figurative flesh which suffered for our sins, and it is not his spiritual or figurative flesh which the Father raised up. Christ’s gave us his…body.
I conclude that based on the preponderance of evidence, Scriptural and otherwise, that Christ meant exactly what everyone there that day understood him to mean.

sandusky:

What fascinates me, is that you are willing to take every other metaphor written within in scripture, and in all literature, metaphorically, with this one exception.

That’s not true. I believe there are metaphorical realities as well as the literal one - it is you who have been exclusive in your interpretation, not I. Nice try, though.

sandusky:

Philthy, Jesus said if your right eye sins, pluck it out, and He said that if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and He didn’t explain it.
Therefore, according to your reasoning, if I ever meet you in this life, I expect to see you wearing at least an eye patch and probably even a hook or two.

Hey, I don’t call myself philthy for nothing!
First let me correct your paraphrasing of Scripture: Jesus said, “IF your right eye CAUSES YOU to sin, pluck it out…”
Now Im gonna let you in on a little secret Sandusky. Are you ready?
None of your body parts cause you to sin. You cause your body parts to commit your sin! And the guilt remains upon you - even if you cut off the body part. “it is… what comes out from within you that defiles you.” Our bodies are “very good”. Jesus said what he said to make them realize that it is not their bodies that are the problem; it is their sin nature that is the problem. That is why no one is amputating my friend. And that is why your comment carries no weight relative to the literal interpretation of John 6. Again, though - nice try.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

The Eucharist is…a remembrance, as Jesus said.

I know I’ve heard Scott Hahn comment on this topic. What is the appropriate translation of “in memory of” from the last supper accounts. It meant something very different than we mean it today. It was something like “make it present among yourselves”, but I’m not recalling. Anybody who has info on that particular phrase in Scripture please join my “Do this in memory of me” thread in the Sacred Scripture section of Apologetics.

You too Sandusky!

Phil

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

He offers that you can receive him physically too. It is the same Christ who was on Calvary that we consume during the Eucharistic Celeberation. If I consume something it becomes part of me, you focus only on the spirit while the Eucharist is both spiritual and physical. How can anyone on this earth get closer than the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Christ offered Himself physically on the cross. With respect to the Catholic Eucharist being the same Christ who was on the cross, how can that be? Christ’s sameness now, is in His Spirit; His body is different; it is not the same as the one that died on the cross; I don’t think that body exists anymore.

In Jn 20:17, He tells Mary not to cling to Him. She wanted to hold onto Him physically for fear of losing Him again, but He told Her “do not cling to me [physically].” He next tells Her that He will ascend to His Father, and leave them physically, which He did. Earlier, He told the disciples that when He left, He would send another, the H.S., and He did.

The believer’s closeness with Christ can only be spiritual; it cannot be physical until the believer too is glorified.

The Catholic Eucharist opens up another door of contradiction. Christ will return to the earth once more only, by His own words, and He will come in the clouds, as He left, and His feet will alight in Jerusalem. While the number of times He has returned for the sacrifice of the mass would be hard to calculate, it is many more than the one time promised by the Lord, and it happens in many more places than Jerusalem. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that priest “calls down,” or the wording may even be “commands” Christ to come into the Host; if He is physically present in the Eucharist, then is coming must be physical.

ncgolf:

This revelation [of Real Presence/transubstantiation] came only after the Holy Sprit came over them and they reflected on all that Christ had done and said. But John knew it’s significance hence John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. Holy smokes there is plenty we think we understand now only to find it more complex and intricate than we initially thought … i.e. the world is flat. This is not a reason to doubt Christ’s words and meaning in John 6.

John gives no indication that the discourse in John 6 prefigures the Last Supper; that is a stretch.

In Jn 6:35, Jesus says:

• “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst*.

Jesus equates coming to Him with the alleviation of hunger; and He equates believing in Him with the alleviation of thirst. I have come to Jesus, and still get hungry; and I believe in Jesus, and still get thirsty. Obviously, the hungering and thirsting that He talks about is not physical, but spiritual hunger and thirst.

ncgolf:

Jesus not only wants you to be with Him spiritually, He is also offering Himself physically. It is to know the awesome power and infinite humilty of our Creator. He humbled himself to walk the earth and die for us and still he humbles and offers Himself to us at each and every Mass. He suffers that we move Him through time and space and then eat Him. That is agape. He continually gives Himself so we may come to know Him deeper.

Yes, and the believer is in Him, and He indwells the believer (Jn 14:20; 17:23).

The rest of what you say is lovely, and reverent, but sounding lovely, and reverent, has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.

ncgolf:

What is regeneration?

That is what occurs at salvation, the rebirth, new creation.

 

[Kurt_G]

sandusky:

… While the number of times He has returned for the sacrifice of the mass would be hard to calculate, it is many more than the one time promised by the Lord, and it happens in many more places than Jerusalem.

Malachi 1:11 tells us:
“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” And now, to quote one of our several Eucharistic Prayers for our masses, in prayer to God the Father: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name”.

Notice that the Malachi passage is singular (a pure offering), not plural. This, Sandusky fits exactly with what the Catholic Church teaches.
I’m just curious, what do non-Catholic Christians do with passages like this?

sandusky:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that priest “calls down,” or the wording may even be “commands” Christ to come into the Host; if He is physically present in the Eucharist, then is coming must be physical.

Close…It goes more like this: “Father… let your Spirit come upon these gifts, that they may become for us the body and blood of Your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist.”

sandusky:

John gives no indication that the discourse in John 6 prefigures the Last Supper; that is a stretch.

Come on, Sandusky… to start with, both events were happening during Passover, probably a year apart.

In John 6 Jesus says we must eat his Body,
On Holy Thursday Jesus holds up bread, and then, proclaims the Word, “Take and eat. This is My Body”.

He only told us to "eat His Body in one event, and he only claimed “This is my Body” in one event. I don’t see a stretch, numerous recent well-known converts don’t see a stretch, numerous ECF’s didn’t see a stretch, but you see a stretch. Oh, well…

Hey, at least consider, in your worship services, to incorporate a sharing of communion in the bread and wine a little more often than you might do it now. You never know what positive effect it might eventually have. (If you want numerous examples of how important this communion service was for early Christians, there are many just in the NT. We don’t even have to go to the ECF’s.)
God Bless Us All!

 

[VociMike]

sandusky:

The Eucharist has nothing to do with that, it is, rather, a remembrance, as Jesus said.

I see this argument all the time. It completely ignores the fact that, according to scripture, Christ is actually present even at Protestant Lord’s Suppers. “When ever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.”

So “remembrance” (which isn’t even a very good translation of the Greek word, “anamnesis”) in no way precludes Christ’s actual presence, even in Protestant theology. And yet some try to use this as an argument against the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[sandusky]

Hey Philthy, I am doing well, thank you for asking. How was your mission trip?

Philthy:

For your edification, I will restate the significance of the alleged misunderstanding. Christ said that we must eat his body and drink his blood. Everyone there that day understood him to mean it literally - that is why they were all perplex and why some chose to leave him. It was because of how he chose to express himself that they understood it literally.

Yes, they understood Him to be speaking literally, the question is “did they understand correctly?”

Philthy:

Now, IF he didn’t mean what he said literally, THEN he is guilty of misleading his disciples and all subsequent readers of the NT. I thought it was universally accepted by Christians that Christ could not be guilty of misleading someone.

This sounds good, but is it?

In Is 6, God sends the prophet to the nation to prophesy, and tells him that people will not listen, nor will they understand.

John reiterates that in Jn 12, and attributes the lack of understanding on the part of the Jews to God’s blinding them and hardening their heart so that they could not perceive with their eyes and their hearts and turn and be converted. Is God guilty of their condemnation? No.

Neither is Jesus if He doesn’t clarify something; have you not read that He spoke in parables, so that the Jews WOULD NOT understand. Your argument as to the guilt or innocence of the Lord is a bad one. He is not guilty in anything that He does, or says; His explaining, or lack of explaining has no bearing on the issue.

It is a red herring.

Philthy:

There are several examples from the bible of the Apostles misunderstanding Christ and Christ explaining their error to them. In addition Christ explained Nicodemus’ misunderstanding to him as well in John 3. There is no such explanation from John 6.

Philthy, I have heard this same line of reasoning elsewhere on this forum, with the addition that in John 6, Jesus spoke in “graphic and violent language,” and because of that, what He says must be taken literally.

Again, Jesus said to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin, and He also said to cut off your hand and foot if they cause you to sin.

That is graphic and violent language, that He does not explain. That is a poor line of reasoning; I am sure that you have neither plucked out your eye, nor have you cut off a hand, or foot.

Philthy:

Is there any other relevant information? Yes, we have the disciple of the Apostle who recorded this account describing the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” That would be Igatious. It is not Christs spiritual or figurative flesh which suffered for our sins, and it is not his spiritual or figurative flesh which the Father raised up. Christ’s gave us his…body.
I conclude that based on the preponderance of evidence, Scriptural and otherwise, that Christ meant exactly what everyone there that day understood him to mean.

I know what Ignatius said, and that He was the apostle who was taught by John.

Paul was an apostle who was taught by the Lord, and in 1 Cor 11, he refers to the Eucharist twice as the “bread” and the “cup,” (vv 26, 27).

You read Ignatius and others too crudely. That they believed in a real presence, I do not deny. But I don’t think that transubstantiation was in their thoughts.

That came much later.

Philthy:

That’s not true. I believe there are metaphorical realities as well as the literal one - it is you who have been exclusive in your interpretation, not I. Nice try, though.

I don’t know what you mean by “exclusive in your interpretation?” A metaphor, is by definition, figurative; what does “exclusivity” have to do with this?

(cont below)

 

[sandusky]

(cont from post 202)

Philthy:

First let me correct your paraphrasing of Scripture: Jesus said, “IF your right eye CAUSES YOU to sin, pluck it out…”

Why are you correcting my paraphrase. If the word if is not within my previous post, I’ll cut off my fingers.

Philthy:

Now Im gonna let you in on a little secret Sandusky. Are you ready?
None of your body parts cause you to sin. You cause your body parts to commit your sin! And the guilt remains upon you - even if you cut off the body part. “it is… what comes out from within you that defiles you.” Our bodies are “very good”. Jesus said what he said to make them realize that it is not their bodies that are the problem; it is their sin nature that is the problem. That is why no one is amputating my friend. And that is why your comment carries no weight relative to the literal interpretation of John 6. Again, though - nice try.

What? Are we reading the same Bible?

What about the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the iniquitous tongue, and adultery in the heart (Mt. 5:28; Rom 13:14; Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3; Jas 3: 2, 8; 1 Jn 2:16)?

Scripture says that every part of us is sinful.

Nice try, though.

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

I see this argument all the time. It completely ignores the fact that, according to scripture, Christ is actually present even at Protestant Lord’s Suppers. “When ever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.”

So “remembrance” (which isn’t even a very good translation of the Greek word, “anamnesis”) in no way precludes Christ’s actual presence, even in Protestant theology. And yet some try to use this as an argument against the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

You are jumping to conclusions; I don’t believe that I have denied real presence in this thread. If I have, show me where, and I will stand corrected.

 

[VociMike]

sandusky:

You are jumping to conclusions; I don’t believe that I have denied real presence in this thread. If I have, show me where, and I will stand corrected.

Well, you made the comment I quoted in response to a comment about the Eucharist being united with Christ’s Sacrifice (I’d have to go back and look at the exact wording), which is what the Real Presence is all about. If I misunderstood the meaning of your comment, I apologize. Even so, I have heard the “remembrance” argument used against the Real Presence many, many times.

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

Christ offered Himself physically on the cross. With respect to the Catholic Eucharist being the same Christ who was on the cross, how can that be?

I love the, “How can it be”. That is the same question, roughly, asked by Mary of the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation. She too wondered how the Angel’s statements could be true. Her response was much different though. “Your will be done”. She did not understand fully but ascented. Remember “Nothing is impossible to God”.

sandusky:

The believer’s closeness with Christ can only be spiritual; it cannot be physical until the believer too is glorified. The Catholic Eucharist opens up another door of contradiction. Christ will return to the earth once more only, by His own words, and He will come in the clouds, as He left, and His feet will alight in Jerusalem. While the number of times He has returned for the sacrifice of the mass would be hard to calculate, it is many more than the one time promised by the Lord, and it happens in many more places than Jerusalem. .

Well that is sort of correct. Jesus in His glorified body will come down once more, but in the Eucharist it is under the elements of bread and wine. It is hidden, not all, obviously, recoginze who He is under those elements. It is a piece of Heaven already available to us. When He comes in glory no one will mistake who He is.

sandusky:

John gives no indication that the discourse in John 6 prefigures the Last Supper; that is a stretch.

Much in the Bible prefigures Christ … Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac. He tells Abraham not to but God does not withhold His Son from us. The posting of the Lamb’s blood to avoid the first born’s death during the plagues on Egypt. You had to eat the Lamb to avoid the curse, not merely slay the Lamb. During the Mass the Priest holds up the Chalice and Host and says, “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, happy are we who are called to His supper.” John in Revelation sees the Lamb. I dont know all of them and I am sure there are others. John is not the only one who joins the sacrifice of Jesus and the consumption of the holocaust.

sandusky:

The rest of what you say is lovely, and reverent, but sounding lovely, and reverent, has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
That is what occurs at salvation, the rebirth, new creation.

If you believed in the Eucharist some may respond that I did not give it enough glory, to the unbeliever it would sound like utter jibberish. I only wrote of what I feel what the Eucharist means to me. I guess that to see Jesus Christ under the ordinary substances of bread and wine does take an inordinate amount of trust in the words of Jesus Christ. I will not say to the Lord, I am sorry but I just could not believe what you said could be true, it just sounded so unbelievable. I absolutely, without question, accept what He says about consuming His body and blood. I don’t have to take anyone’s word for it … most parts of John 6 are Christ’s own words.

 

[sandusky]

Kurt G:

Malachi 1:11 tells us:
“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” And now, to quote one of our several Eucharistic Prayers for our masses, in prayer to God the Father: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name”.

Notice that the Malachi passage is singular (a pure offering), not plural. This, Sandusky fits exactly with what the Catholic Church teaches.
I’m just curious, what do non-Catholic Christians do with passages like this?

I’m unable to give an in-depth comment on the verse; I don’t have time, and it would probably be dismissed anyway.

I can say that the translation is not accurate. As I recall, Justin Martyr first deviated from the truth by changing the word “incense” to “sacrifice.” Incense is used in the LXX.

Next, I would ask you what you think is meant by “pure offering?”

The only sacrifices commanded to be offered by believers in the N.T. are the sacrifices of their bodies for service to the Lord (Rom 12), and the offering of a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips by which we give thanks, and to share what we have (Heb 13:15-16).

I think that is what the “pure offering” is all about as well. Pure worship and praise; if you are expecting me to see the sacrifice of the mass in the Malachi passage, I do not; scripture does not command a “sacrifice of the mass.”

On that basis, I am hard pressed to see Malachi speaking of the RCC, though I do believe that He is speaking of the Gentile church.

I also think the passage is eschatological. There is no specific time given, and, neither at this present time, nor in the past, have I seen God’s name as “being great among the nations.” I think the idea in the language is “global.” I think rather that it is being globally ignored among the nations, more than it is being declared great. The sense of the passage is that everyone will be worshipping the God, and we’ve not seen that in the past, nor do we see it today.

Along that same line, the implication of the “pure offering” speaks with a greater sweep of unity than is seen today as well; the language is more of a universal worship that is the same, and not different as it is today. So I think that what is being spoken of is yet future.

I don’t know your eschatology, but I think that there will be a millennial kingdom, and it is only at that time that Christ will receive pure worship globally. Also, the references to the temple in the context indicate temple worship, so again, I think that the prophecy is future.
Kurt G:

Come on, Sandusky… to start with, both events were happening during Passover, probably a year apart.

Yes, and John 6 happens on the heels of the feeding of the 5,000. The chronogical proximity of those two events is much more significant, to me, than the Lord’s Supper which is, at the point of John 6, in the future. Also Christ’s John 6 teaching is set against the backdrop of the feeding of bread, and if you compare v 40, and v 54, a parallel is clearly seen, from plain language in v 40 to figurative language in v 54. Also, v 35 sets up the teaching as well.
Kurt G:

He only told us to "eat His Body in one event, and he only claimed “This is my Body” in one event. I don’t see a stretch, numerous recent well-known converts don’t see a stretch, numerous ECF’s didn’t see a stretch, but you see a stretch. Oh, well…

Yes, many are converting to the LDS, JWs, and Islam, but that is not a sufficient reason for me to believe anything, except that people are converting to many different things. You need a more substantive argument than that.

As far as the ECFs, I do not deny that they speak of a real presence; I do, however, think that Catholics read them too crudely; I think there is real presence, but spiritual, not physical. That that is probably the case with the ECFs, I think can be seen in the time-lag between them and the notion of transubstantiation.

 

[bene7]

sandusky:

The only sacrifices commanded to be offered by believers in the N.T. are the sacrifices of their bodies for service to the Lord (Rom 12), and the offering of a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips by which we give thanks, and to share what we have (Heb 13:15-16).

You’re absolutely right. In the early, post Apostolic church the Eucharist was considered a “thank offering,” which is what the word means. Only later did men change it to a “sacrificial” offering.

I also think the passage is eschatological. There is no specific time given, and, neither at this present time, nor in the past, have I seen God’s name as “being great among the nations.” I think the idea in the language is “global.” I think rather that it is being globally ignored among the nations, more than it is being declared great. The sense of the passage is that everyone will be worshipping the God, and we’ve not seen that in the past, nor do we see it today.

Yes, the passage is totally eschatological. It is *“an oracle of the word of the Lord TO ISRAEL through Malachi” * (Mal. 1:1). And, yes, you are correct, it pertains to the future Millennial, earthly reign of Christ. Our Catholic friends should read the 14th chapter of Zechariah, especially verses 9, 16-21). This Malachi passage has absolutely nothing do with the Catholic Mass, but its setting is future, after this Church age and during the reign of Christ on earth. A major eschatological theme throughout the O.T. prophetic writings, and still anticipated at the the time of Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:6).

Blessings,
Bene

 

[epr1993]

sandusky:

Philthy, I have heard this same line of reasoning elsewhere on this forum, with the addition that in John 6, Jesus spoke in “graphic and violent language,” and because of that, what He says must be taken literally.

Again, Jesus said to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin, and He also said to cut off your hand and foot if they cause you to sin.

That is graphic and violent language, that He does not explain. That is a poor line of reasoning; I am sure that you have neither plucked out your eye, nor have you cut off a hand, or foot.

Compare the ending of the two passages. At the end of John 6 many of His former disciples left him. After telling the crowds to pluck, cut, etc in Matthew, great crowds followed Him when He was done speaking in Galilee. They don’t seem to be confused with what was, and wasn’t, to be taken literally.

 

[bene7]

Kurt G:

This is very telling about where you’re coming from, bene. No one is asking you to ignore anything in John 6, although that is exactly what you ask of us. Your belief in Jesus’ words stops cold, halfway through verse 51. After that point, you are ignoring the rest of John 6.

See my post to “ncgolf” for what Catholics ignore in John 6. Probably the MOST important part of that chapter. I’m not asking you to ignore ANY part of John 6, but to see it in light of its intended metaphorical value.

Kurt, I posted this question to Philthy but he dodged it. Can you show me where it is taught anywhere in the N.T. writings that what Jesus said in John six about eating and drinking His body and blood was literally fulfilled when Christ instituted the “Lord’s Supper,” as the Catholic church teaches?

Also, where in the N.T. does it say Jesus gave power to His Apostles (and their “successors”) the power to turn common bread and wine into His body and blood by quoting in Latin His words, “This is My body” (hoc est corpus meum)?" Can you show me even one example of the Apostles doing this? Since it’s such a major belief and doctrine in Catholicism, which claims it gets its teachings straight from the Apostles, I would think this would have been often illustrated in Scripture, especially in the historical Book of Acts. But I fail to find even one example of the Apostles doing this. But, hey, it’s always possible I still may have missed it. Please help me out, would you?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

Nah … I didn’t avoid it. You asked where Jesus says it’s food and I gave Christ’s own words. If I eat the Body and Blood of Christ, if I eat anything it is food. If it is truly Christ’s body then it does more than food from earth can do. That can only nourish the body, Christ’s body and blood must also nourishes the soul as well, that nourishment is what Grace is.

But again, “nc,” where does Jesus say in John six that literally eating and drinking His body and blood “nourish the soul”? Where do ANY of the N.T. writers teach such a concept? Actually, the only one who says anything about it outside the Gospel accounts is Paul to the Corinthians, and he doesn’t say anything to them about it “nourishing the soul.” This is a unique teaching passed down from the heirarchy of your church, it does not find its origin in Apostolic teaching or from the literal words of Christ.

Christ explicitly says in John 6:54 that whoever eats and drinks HAS eternal life. Not hopes to have, not one day might have, but HAS eternal life. You challenge me for not taking His words literally, but you refuse to take Him literally here. But of course you don’t drink, you only eat - even though Christ explicitly says “eats” and “drinks.” When He gave them the bread He said “this is My body.” He didn’t say regarding the bread, “this is my body AND blood.”

Internalize … that is what we do … literally. You have to believe in Jesus and what He did on Calvary to believe in the Eucharist.

Where are we ever instructed to believe “in the Eucharist?” When I celebrate Communion I do it in remembrance of Him, just as He instructed. Of course I can’t do it in “remembrance” of Him unless I first believed in Him. My faith rests IN HIM alone, just as He instructed (Jn. 14:1; 17:20-21), and the work He accomplished on the cross on my behalf 2000 years ago - not the bread and wine of which I partake. The idea of “believing in the Eucharist” is a Catholic concept, not a Biblical one.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Aaron_I]

bene7:

But again, “nc,” where does Jesus say in John six that literally eating and drinking His body and blood “nourish the soul”? Where do ANY of the N.T. writers teach such a concept? Actually, the only one who says anything about it outside the Gospel accounts is Paul to the Corinthians, and he doesn’t say anything to them about it “nourishing the soul.” This is a unique teaching passed down from the heirarchy of your church, it does not find its origin in Apostolic teaching or from the literal words of Christ.

Well, if giving eternal life counts as “nourishing the soul”, then you gave the verse yourself in the following quote.

bene7:

Christ explicitly says in John 6:54 that whoever eats and drinks HAS eternal life. Not hopes to have, not one day might have, but HAS eternal life. You challenge me for not taking His words literally, but you refuse to take Him literally here. But of course you don’t drink, you only eat - even though Christ explicitly says “eats” and “drinks.” When He gave them the bread He said “this is My body.” He didn’t say regarding the bread, "this is my body AND blood."Where are we ever instructed to believe “in the Eucharist?” When I celebrate Communion I do it in remembrance of Him, just as He instructed. Of course I can’t do it in “remembrance” of Him unless I first believed in Him. My faith rests IN HIM alone, just as He instructed (Jn. 14:1; 17:20-21), and the work He accomplished on the cross on my behalf 2000 years ago - not the bread and wine of which I partake. The idea of “believing in the Eucharist” is a Catholic concept, not a Biblical one.

Blessings,
Bene

First, you state that we have eternal life now. You covered this in another thread. I tried to respond to this yesterday, but my internet went down. Here’s what you wrote,

bene7:

Well, I don’t think you’ll ever get everyone to agree on this one. Although there is a root definition of “eternal life” in Scripture provided by Christ Himself:

JOHN 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”

Like “ncgolf” stated, the “eternal” part of the term “eternal life” should be obvious. It could also be translated “everlasting” life, as it is in some translations. But according to Christ’s definition it’s not so much having to do with existing forever, but an eternal quality of “LIFE” that unbelievers, the unredeemed, those not reconciled to God, living in (spiritual) darkness, do not now possess, but is now possessed by those who have truly believed in Jesus Christ, redeemed (“purchased”) by His shed blood, and no longer living in darkness.
Paul, addressed believers in Galatia with an interesting statement:

GAL 4:9 "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God,
how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things,
to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

Those Galatian believers had the “life” Jesus defines above because through faith in Him they knew God, even better, they were known BY God.

You are making a couple assumptions here. First, you define eternal life as knowing God. Clearly there are varying degrees to which we can know God. At what point does it become eternal life? Answer: the beatific vision when we see God to the fullness of our ability.

Also, regarding your example from Gal, yes, they came to know God. I would hesitate to say that they were now known by God. After all, God knew us in our mothers womb (somewhere in the Bible, don’t remember the verse). Also if you continue reading to Gal 4:11 “I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain.” See how this knowledge of God is NOT YET eternal, otherwise how could it be lost.

So why does God say “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction if eternal life can be lost? Not at all. I can’t attest to the grammar of the original language, but reading it in English I can certainly understand it to mean “eats” on a regular basis. Think about verse 56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” I think that eating within the context of a regular, repeated actions makes more sense. Think about it like this: if you persevere in faith (by eating the eucharist), you will remain in me. To me this makes more sense than “if you ate my flesh, you remain in me”.

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

But again, “nc,” where does Jesus say in John six that literally eating and drinking His body and blood “nourish the soul”? Where do ANY of the N.T. writers teach such a concept?

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will quote a piece of 2837.
"The Eucharist is our daily bread. The power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive … This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgramage. 131
The Father in heaven urges us, as children of heaven, to ask for the bread of heaven. [Christ] himself is the bread who, sown in the Virgin, raised up in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the tomb, reserved in churches, brought to altars, furnishes the faithful each day with food from heaven. 132

131 St. Augustine, Sermo 57,7L 38, 389
132 St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 67L 52, 392;cf. Jn 6:51

bene7:

When I celebrate Communion I do it in remembrance of Him, just as He instructed. Of course I can’t do it in “remembrance” of Him unless I first believed in Him. My faith rests IN HIM alone, just as He instructed (Jn. 14:1; 17:20-21), and the work He accomplished on the cross on my behalf 2000 years ago - not the bread and wine of which I partake. The idea of “believing in the Eucharist” is a Catholic concept, not a Biblical one.

I will quote again from the Catechism 1336, though not the whole of 1336. "The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you go away?”: the Lord’s question echoes through the ages , as a loving invitation to discover that only he has the “words of eternal life” and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself. "

These are under the heading “The Celebration of the Christian Mystery”. It is apporpriate it should be there because it is something we can only partially understand and comprehend.

You will never receive this Gift without asking for it. It sounds like you will never ask for it, for if you did God would answer you, “All who seek find”.

Peace, Bene

 

[sandusky]

epr1993:

Compare the ending of the two passages. At the end of John 6 many of His former disciples left him. After telling the crowds to pluck, cut, etc in Matthew, great crowds followed Him when He was done speaking in Galilee. They don’t seem to be confused with what was, and wasn’t, to be taken literally.

That is an interesting point.

What you are saying is that those in Mt 18 and elsewhere, were not confused as to what was to be taken literally, and so they continued to follow Jesus.

Then you say that those in John 6 also were not confused as to what was to be taken literally, but rather than continuing to follow Jesus, they left Him.

Essentially you say that:

ABANDONING JESUS = CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HIM

and

FOLLOWING JESUS = CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HIM

Those statements cannot both be true; one of them is false.

Which of those equations do you think is true?

Do you think that abandoning Christ indicates a correct understanding?

or,

Do you think that following Christ indicates a correct understanding?

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Hey Philthy, I am doing well, thank you for asking. How was your mission trip?

It was excellent - thanks for asking. It was me and a bunch of Evangelicals/Southern Baptists - I was right at home! Some serious bonding/fellowship in the service of others in the name of Christ. It was truly a blessing and I am grateful…

sandusky:

Yes, they understood Him to be speaking literally, the question is “did they understand correctly?”

Why would we need to ask such a question? Is there reason to believe otherwise? We are not privy to such info. All we know is that everyone understood him to mean exactly what he said, including Ignatious. On what basis are we to doubt such testimony? Certainly not on the need to conform Scripture to our theology.

sandusky:

This sounds good, but is it?

Yes it is. Ask Wayne Grudem.

sandusky:

John reiterates that in Jn 12, and attributes the lack of understanding on the part of the Jews to God’s blinding them

John 12 says nothing about “understanding” and the fulfillment of Isaiah. They did not BELIEVE him, that was their problem. they understood him just fine. No correction was required to clear up a misunderstanding based on his manner of speech. John12:37 “Although he had performed so many signs in their presence they did not BELIEVE in him, 38 in order that the word which Isaiah the prophet spoke might be fulfilled:” Misunderstanding and not believing are different issues.
In addition, we are talking not about “Jews”, we are talking about the Apostles - their is a difference in this respect as well.
For both of these reasons - understanding vs belief and Jews vs Apostles - I dont think your analysis holds up as well as you believe it to.

Sandusky:
Neither is Jesus if He doesn’t clarify something; have you not read that He spoke in parables, so that the Jews WOULD NOT understand. Your argument as to the guilt or innocence of the Lord is a bad one.

You keep comparing the Jews to the Apostles, which is a misapplication. The apostles understood his parables, and when they did not, he would enlighten them so that they would understand. I have Scripture to back that up.

sandusky:

He is not guilty in anything that He does, or says; His explaining, or lack of explaining has no bearing on the issue.
It is a red herring.

That is your opinion and nothing more. Wayne Grudem and I disagree with you. There is a difference between explicitly stating a truth and people not believing you; and deceptively stating a truth and re-emphasizing the deceptiveness of the statement and thereby FORCING them to misunderstand you. The former case is Christlike the latter is not.

sandusky:

Philthy, I have heard this same line of reasoning elsewhere on this forum, with the addition that in John 6, Jesus spoke in “graphic and violent language,” and because of that, what He says must be taken literally.

It is not simply that he spoke in graphic terms, but he spoke in INCREASINGLY graphic terms IN RESPONSE to the requests for clarification by those who heard him. It was clear in the exchanges that they were understanding him to mean it literally. In response to their attempts at understanding He became INCREASINGLY more graphic to re-emphasize that He meant exactly what he said. There is no other logical explanation.

con’d

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Again, Jesus said to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin, and He also said to cut off your hand and foot if they cause you to sin. That is graphic and violent language, that He does not explain.

There is no indication that anyone understood it literally
There is no dialogue between them where he repeatedly becomes more graphic in response to their misunderstandings.
No one stopped following Him because of the teaching
There is very little to compare between this situation and John 6

sandusky:

That is a poor line of reasoning; I am sure that you have neither plucked out your eye, nor have you cut off a hand, or foot.

In addition, as I told you, your body is incapable of causing sin per se - it does not cause sin, at the very most, it simply completes it. And when it does, it is at the command of your will. As Augustine said, “I command my body and it obeys…” Your notion of a sinful body, wasn’t that part of the Manichean heresy - Spirit good, body bad?

sandusky:

You read Ignatius and others too crudely. That they believed in a real presence, I do not deny. But I don’t think that transubstantiation was in their thoughts. That came much later.

First off, I didn’t quote anyone using the term “real presence” - so your comment is off base from the get go. You’d like to remain in the “real presence” arena because you like to think it gives you more wiggle room. What I quoted Ignatious as saying was that the Eucharist was “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Do you see the term real presence there? I don’t. You claim Im reading Ignatious too crudely. I think you are subconsciously ducking this quote. Why don’t you offer your insights on the exact quote of Ignatious I provided and tell me what he is trying to say there and how that reveals my crude understanding? No offence, but I won’t hold my breath.
Now on to the topics you introduced: the real presence and the term “transubstantiation”. Real, actual presence. Not symbolic presence , not simply spiritual, but really present. Do you no think the terms “spiritually present” and symbolically present adequately communicate themselves? Is it really your position that “real presence” is an attempt to articulate one of those realities? That is not convincing to me.
Transubstantiation did develop as a doctrine primarily in response to people such as yourself during the reformation - what’s your point? Christian doctrine can develop specificity in response to intellectual dissent- like the Trinity doctrine has - that is natural, unavoidable and valuable. I don’t have a problem with it.

sandusky:
I don’t know what you mean by “exclusive in your interpretation?” A metaphor, is by definition, figurative; what does “exclusivity” have to do with this?
(cont below)
And you called me crude! I meant that your interpretation EXCLUDES the possibility of a simultaneous **literal, **metaphorical, **and **spiritual interpretation. You exclude the literal interpretation present in John 6, I exclude none of those approaches.

Phil