John 6 and Eucharist?

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

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?.. But, hey, it’s always possible I still may have missed it. Please help me out, would you?
Blessings,
Bene

Glad to help out, Bene. (Sorry for delays, but you guys are moving fast, and keep each other plenty busy without me!)

Anyway, 1 Cor. 11:11, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Here’s one way to look at it: Jesus valued his eucharistic action (of that Passion Thursday night) so highly that He even gave it, apparently in private spiritual revelations, directly to Paul. He did that because it was of ultimate importance, and Paul wasn’t there for the “first time through”. And of course, every time you see in NT Letters “the breaking of the bread” we must suspect that those same words and actions are in play for those events as well.

So, bene, if your question was “Where in Scripture do we see the early Church performing the “Catholic” eucharistic action?”, I would answer - Every place you see “the breaking of the bread!”.
God Bless Us All!

 

[jim1130]

Philthy:

Hi bene7

Ah, Im sure that is what you would like to believe (since most of them,historically, disagree with you) but isn’t that the paradox of paradoxes. We aren’t to believe men, but only the “word of God” which, of course, has been revealed to us through…men and handed down to us through what?

Direct Divine revelation from God? NO

Through the Apostles orally? YES

And the Scripture we now have, that you cling to? Is it even the original - nope - copies of copies of a THEORETICAL original. We rely on absolutely nothing more than the words of men that Scripture is what it is. Fuss and pout all you want, but Scripture was not written into stone like the 10 commandments. We can accept it only by virtue of the men who have passed it on to us.

Phil

I may be mistaken, but did not scripture come AFTER the Church? And when Jesus said that man was not made for the Sabbth, but the Sabbath for man that you could imply that the Bible was meant for man rather than the opposite?

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

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)?"

Well, he *did *say, “This is my body . . . *Do this in remembrance of me.” *Now, either they “do it” or they don’t “do it.” The Church says that “they do.” The matter of successors is settled in the *Acts of the Apostles *I:16-26.

Latin? The original language of the liturgy was Greek. The concession to vernacular Latin did not come until the 4th Century. It isn’t about Latin. It is about “doing this” - in Greek, Coptic, Latin, Syriac . . . .

The definition that sacramental transformation occurs at the words of institution is another of those matters that was forged in the crucible of dissent. Where a doctrine remains unchallenged, it need not be narrowly defined.

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?

Kurt did a good job of showing how this appears in Scripture.

 

[bene7]

Aron I:

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

It doesn’t. And that’s where you miss the whole point Christ makes in John six. He compares Himself to the manna God gave the Israelites to eat in the wilderness to “nourish” their physical bodies, thereby sustaining their lives. But, still, they eventually died in the wilderness (vs. 49). It didn’t give their bodies eternal life. He, on the other hand, is the TRUE Bread that comes down out of Heaven, not to nourish the physical body, which is what literally eating does, but to impart eternal life through faith in Him (vs. 40, 47). So, in comparison He’s far superior to the “bread” that was given to their ancestors in the wilderness.

"I am the bread of life" (Jn. 6:48). This statement in verse 48 is the line of demarkation in chapter six, where Jesus makes the transition from communicating to them in plain language
(verses 35-47) regarding believing in Him for eternal life, to figurative language, building upon the nonliteral, spiritual concept of He being “bread” from Heaven and the consuming of Him (believing) for eternal life (vs. 54).

Through believing in Him, and the work of His substitutionary sacrifice, which required the death of His fleshly body (vs. 51) and the shedding of His blood for our redemption from sin, there results a union between Christ and the believer (vs. 56). By employing the metaphor of “eating” and “drinking” He was figuratively expressing the assimilation of one body by another, whereby LIFE is transferred from the “eaten” (Christ, the TRUE bread of life) to the “eater” (the believer). He’s not talking about literally eating here, but metaphorically of LIFE, His resurrected, glorified life, being eternally transferred to the one who believes in Him.

It’s really quite simple and like His unbelieving disciples, you stumble over it.

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).

Why do you hesitate? I didn’t say it, Paul, through the Holy Spirit did. Of course God knows all things, He knew you even before you were in your mother’s womb. There never was a time when He didn’t know you; there never was a time when He did not know all things; there will never be a time when He won’t know all things. He’s God, the SOURCE of ALL knowledge. Apart from Him there is no knowledge at all. He is knowledge.

But Paul is exressing an intimacy between God and the believer, based on the union he (the believer) now has with His Son through faith in Him (see John 17:20-21). This union, this intimacy between God and the believer in Christ is the LIFE part of “eternal life.” This union, this intimacy, goes on forever, from the moment he believed. Compare this with Matt. 7:21-23; 25:12. That’s why salvation is through faith and cannot be through baptism.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

He’s not talking about literally eating here

And another one walks no more with Him. :crying:

 

[jim1130]

Mickey:

And another one walks no more with Him. :crying:

I do not understand why some people are so adamant about taking scripture literally then turn around and dismiss something specific as “figurative.”

 

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

It doesn’t. And that’s where you miss the whole point Christ makes in John six. He compares Himself to the manna God gave the Israelites to eat in the wilderness to “nourish” their physical bodies, thereby sustaining their lives… So, in comparison He’s far superior to the “bread” that was given to their ancestors in the wilderness.Blessings,
Bene

(Very quickly, we are all short of time, occasionally…)
Bene, God’s people wandering in the desert 40 years prefigures our lives on this earth. Finally entering Jerusalem prefigures heaven. The manna stopped at that time because the goal had been reached. I think we can all agree (mostly) on that much.
We believe the miracle of the manna is surpassed infinitely by the miracle of the Eucharist. We believe it both Spiritually and physically, because Scripture impells us to do so.
Jesus teaches us in prayer “Give us this day our daily bread”.
We would recognize this as both Spiritual and Physical.
You would recognize it as only Spiritual, and insist that we are denying the Spiritual.

You don’t necessarily misunderstand, Bene. You just don’t carry the implications of Jesus’ discourse to their fullness. *You keep insisting that to take a Catholic position we must throw away the Spiritual Truths. *We agree with you on (most) everything spiritual you have to say! We just see more than you do, because God’s Holy Word in Scripture gives us more to see. You fail to see it (so far) because, obviously, to see it would mean some adjustments in your faith.
God Bless Us All!

 

[ncgolf]

jim1130:

I do not understand why some people are so adamant about taking scripture literally then turn around and dismiss something specific as “figurative.”

Because that line is the limit of where faith rests. If you cannot cross that line it has to become figurative to reconcile your own thoughts to the reality. So John 6 becomes literal … literal … figurative …literal … figurative. The supposedly figurative language Christ spoke are the toughest to reconcile faith wise, they stretch the bonds of faith to the brink, of our thinking of what is possible with God to the brink. Those are the phrases where one says … No way could he have meant that! Good heavens that is impossible. So the next action is to say he means faith in him only … Oh! I can do that, that’s a lot easier than the literal meaning.

 

[jim1130]

bene7:

It doesn’t. And that’s where you miss the whole point Christ makes in John six. He compares Himself to the manna God gave the Israelites to eat in the wilderness to “nourish” their physical bodies, thereby sustaining their lives. But, still, they eventually died in the wilderness (vs. 49). It didn’t give their bodies eternal life. He, on the other hand, is the TRUE Bread that comes down out of Heaven, not to nourish the physical body, which is what literally eating does, but to impart eternal life through faith in Him (vs. 40, 47). So, in comparison He’s far superior to the “bread” that was given to their ancestors in the wilderness.

"I am the bread of life" (Jn. 6:48). This statement in verse 48 is the line of demarkation in chapter six, where Jesus makes the transition from communicating to them in plain language
(verses 35-47) regarding believing in Him for eternal life, to figurative language, building upon the nonliteral, spiritual concept of He being “bread” from Heaven and the consuming of Him (believing) for eternal life (vs. 54).

Blessings,
Bene

Hi.I am just curious how you came upon this interpretation of John 6, particularly where verse 48 ends the literal and begins the figurative. Scripture reference aside, is this something your denomination preaches? Or is this something that originated directly from your study of scripture? I hope that this sounds respectful because it is intended. Thanks. Jim

 

[sandusky]

bene7:

It doesn’t. And that’s where you miss the whole point Christ makes in John six. He compares Himself to the manna God gave the Israelites to eat in the wilderness to “nourish” their physical bodies, thereby sustaining their lives. But, still, they eventually died in the wilderness (vs. 49). It didn’t give their bodies eternal life. He, on the other hand, is the TRUE Bread that comes down out of Heaven, not to nourish the physical body, which is what literally eating does, but to impart eternal life through faith in Him (vs. 40, 47). So, in comparison He’s far superior to the “bread” that was given to their ancestors in the wilderness.

“I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:48). This statement in verse 48 is the line of demarkation in chapter six, where Jesus makes the transition from communicating to them in plain language
(verses 35-47) regarding believing in Him for eternal life, to figurative language, building upon the nonliteral, spiritual concept of He being “bread” from Heaven and the consuming of Him (believing) for eternal life (vs. 54).

Amen!

This is not for you, bene7…you got it!

John 6:40 parallels John 6:54.

John 6:40 is stated in plain language; John 6:54 is stated in figurative language.

Below is are the two passages broken down,

John 6:40…John 6:54

Plain language…Figurative language

everyone who…He who

beholds the Son…eats My flesh

and…and

believes in Him…drinks My blood

may have eternal life…has eternal life

and…and

I Myself will raise him up…I will raise him up

on the last day…on the last day

What an amazing God!

Amen, bene7?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

sandusky:

Amen!

This is not for you, bene7…you got it!

John 6:40 parallels John 6:54.

John 6:40 is stated in plain language; John 6:54 is stated in figurative language.

Below is are the two passages broken down,

John 6:40…John 6:54

Plain language…Figurative language

everyone who…He who

beholds the Son…eats My flesh

and…and

believes in Him…drinks My blood

may have eternal life…has eternal life

and…and

I Myself will raise him up…I will raise him up

on the last day…on the last day

What an amazing God!

Amen, bene7?

Great. Now all you need is some actual authorty to make this calim.

 

[sandusky]

jim1130:

I do not understand why some people are so adamant about taking scripture literally then turn around and dismiss something specific as “figurative.”

I wonder about the reciprocal.

(some advice: it is never a good idea to use an argument that can be applied to yourself as well; it makes you look foolish.).

 

[sandusky]

Scott Waddell:

Great. Now all you need is some actual authorty to make this calim.

Struck a nerve, did I?

God’s word is living and powerful, and speaks for itself, if you let it.

 

[jim1130]

sandusky:

I wonder about the reciprocal.

(some advice: it is never a good idea to use an argument that can be applied to yourself as well; it makes you look foolish.).

I take John 6 literally, but you do not?

 

[sandusky]

Kurt G:

We believe the miracle of the manna is surpassed infinitely by the miracle of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is not a miracle.

Where in scripture does God work invisible miracles?

He doesn’t.

Invisible miracles. Sheesh!

 

[sandusky]

jim1130:

I take John 6 literally, but you do not?

Obviously I do not.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

sandusky:

Struck a nerve, did I?

God’s word is living and powerful, and speaks for itself, if you let it.

Look, all you have demonstrated is that you can interperet the passage differently. What else is new? What you decidely have not done is rendered the Catholic interpretation impossible. For that we are back to the question of authority which the non-Catholic position is nothing more than a than a triumphal cry of “We’ve got the Holy Spirit, yes we do! We’ve got the Holy Spirit how about YOU!” Of course when we leave the Catholic Church I guess we are supposed to figure out which of the plethora of denominations is screaming it the loudest.

Scott

 

[sandusky]

Kurt G.:

You fail to see it (so far) because, obviously, to see it would mean some adjustments in your faith.

Back atcha.

(see my post #228).

 

[jim1130]

sandusky:

Struck a nerve, did I?

God’s word is living and powerful, and speaks for itself, if you let it.

Not with me you did not because you have no interpretive authority.

 

[Mickey]

Jesus says, "This is my body… This is my blood.” Now, on Judgment Day, if I am wrong in taking those words literally, and Jesus rebukes me, “Why did you misunderstand my Supper?” I will be able to answer, **“Lord, I was simply taking you at your Word.” **

But if Jesus intended those words to be taken literally, and I have taken them figuratively, what will be my answer? All I could say would be, **“I trusted my reason more than your words.” **

I would rather be rebuked for taking Jesus at His word, than for not doing so.

Jesus meant what He said. Those who deny the Real Presence have to prove that He didn’t. The only way they can do that is by forcing Jesus’ words to conform to the dictates of their reason.