John 6 and Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jim1130:
Not with me you did not because you have no interpretive authority.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see where lining up next to one another, the parallels between plain and figurative language in John 6:40 and John 6:54, is extremely difficult to interpret.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Yes, I can see where lining up next to one another, the parallels between plain and figurative language in John 6:40 and John 6:54, is extremely difficult to interpret.
Click to expand...
That is YOUR interpretation.I can appreciate your confidence, but was was Custer.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Yes Mickey, you and I will answer individually to the Lord for how we have handled His truth.

We can both be wrong, Mickey, but we cannot both be right.
 
40.png
sandusky:
God’s word is living and powerful, and speaks for itself, if you let it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Yes Mickey, you and I will answer individually to the Lord for how we have handled His truth.

We can both be wrong, Mickey, but we cannot both be right.
Click to expand...
Struck a nerve did I ? 😉
 
40.png
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?
Click to expand...
You forgot in 43. The grumbling begins … what are they grumbling about. They are grumbling about 40. Already they do not like the message. Jesus has not even said anything about eating His body yet. This is the easy part. 47. Truly, Truly … He is reiterating who He is. He is the bread of life. 53 Truly, Truly again …you must eat the flesh and drink the blood. He never backed down. This continues until 58.
Then the question about “Do you take offense” and the people dispersing. Even the apostles were asked “Do you want to go away as well?”

What would you have thought or said if you did stay and not go away. This is what you would have thought in your figurative analysis. You would have to think … Jesus, I was worried … for a second I thought you meant what you said. Boy in the future I better be careful in what you say because sometimes you really don’t mean what you say.

How can you make such an assertion. NO WHERE does Jesus even for one line dimish or correct his statements. Where do you get your interpretation. Not from his words. He never did it.

If there is any demarcation line in John 6, it is here, in verse 66. Do you believe in what He said or do you intellectualize it away.
 
Scott Waddell:
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
Click to expand...
Reverse our positions in your statement, and you will have my response to your post.

(trouble interpreting what I said? See my post #228).
 
40.png
sandusky:
The Eucharist is not a miracle.

Where in scripture does God work invisible miracles?

He doesn’t.

Invisible miracles. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
I would think that God justifying a repentant sinner is miraculous.
It’s certainly supernatural and something that we cannot achieve on our own. Doesn’t God work a miracle within us when this happens?

The fruit of that miracle may be visible, but the miracle isn’t.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Reverse our positions in your statement, and you will have my response to your post.

(trouble interpreting what I said? See my post #228).
Click to expand...
Well no. Because I have implied a plausible authority in the Church. You have implied an implausible authorty of Sola Meus with Scrpiture as nothing more than dead proof-texts.

Scott
 
40.png
sandusky:
I don’t agree with your theology, but I do enjoy your humor. 👍
Click to expand...
I can’t make you agree with my theology. It is about 2000 years old. You have adopted a theology that was invented by the reform movement. I can only but plant a seed and pray that the grace of God will let it bear good fruit so as to bring you to the fulness of truth.

God bless you sandusky!

I’m glad you enjoy my humor–not many people do. :o

Peace,
Mickey
 
Here is a question then … in the figurative interpretation the apostles stayed with Jesus. So they must have thought Jesus figuartive, not literal. How then did the Catholic Church end up with the Eucharist. It would have evident to the ECF’s who knew John that Jesus was speaking figuratively. He would have passed down this meaning concerning John 6. We never would have had the Eucharist, the way the Catholic Church teaches if the apostles (the ones who stayed) believed it was figurative. We would be symbolic, more Protestant. The only way the Catholic Church could have the Eucharist is to believe Christ literal. John would have passed down a literal translation as wrong …as wayward theology. I don’t think he did. No way the Early Church would have had the Eucharist if John 6 was figurative.

How do you reconcile that?
 
40.png
Mickey:
I can’t make you agree with my theology. It is about 2000 years old. You have adopted a theology that was invented by the reform movement. I can only but plant a seed and pray that the grace of God will let it bear good fruit so as to bring you to the fulness of truth.

God bless you sandusky!

I’m glad you enjoy my humor–not many people do. :o

Peace,
Mickey
Click to expand...
Mickey, if you ever come to So. Cal. you have to let me know ahead of time.

I insist on sitting down and talking to you, and letting you buy me lunch. 😃
 
Adding to what NCgolf had said, when the early Christians caved in and finally told the Romans what they did in secret on Sunday mornings they revealed that they practiced eating the body and drinking the blood of the Jewish rebel called Jesus. All of the Christians busted by the Romans were doing this.

By the way, NC, what’s your handicap, I’m a 14. hheheh.

in XT.
 
40.png
AquinasXVI:
By the way, NC, what’s your handicap, I’m a 14. hheheh.

in XT.
Click to expand...
What worries me about your hheheh is that it may be only after 9 holes. I played guys who were 14’s and shot 74. Was a 6 but since now I play seasonal golf … once a season I play to a 9.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Mickey, if you ever come to So. Cal. you have to let me know ahead of time.

I insist on sitting down and talking to you, and letting you buy me lunch. 😃
Click to expand...
I have friends in So Cal! Don’t know when I’ll be visiting since I live on the east coast–but let’s do lunch sometime! :yup:
 
40.png
sandusky:
That is an interesting point.
Click to expand...
My “caution” alarms went off immediately when I read this apparant ecumenically altruistic statement…
40.png
sandusky:
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.
Click to expand...
Sandusky, what am I to do with you? 😉 This is not a valid conclusion at all. It would only be valid if you had established that following/abandoning Jesus were a FUNCTION OF correctly understanding him. I don’t see that claim made anywhere, and you certainly haven’t substantiated it. Without that, you are a clanging cymbal!
Those who followed Jesus did so, not because they understood correctly, but because they believed in Him DESPITE their inability to understand. You have missed some of the earlier posts - let me bring one up for you…ahhhh, here it is! Please read the wording carefully on “Reaction 2” - I was careful to say exactly what I meant:
Philthy Post 149:
You know, on reflecting on the meanings of the bread of life discourse I acknowledge that I enter it with a bias. I think we all do. But that is no different than what happened on the day that Jesus said the things he said. And in that account, people had one of two reactions:

Reaction 1: Comprehension of what He said and disbelief that it was possible for him to have meant what they understood him to mean based on their “reasoning” (those who walked away).

Reaction 2: Comprehension of what He said and belief that it was true DESPITE their inability to understand how it was “reasonably” possible for him to have meant what they understood him to mean(Peter, et al)

We all know Christ didn’t mislead them. None of them understood. In the face of not understanding, and, in fact, in the face of something APPARENTLY contrary to reason, the faithful chose to follow Him. Their faith propelled them beyond where reason deserted them.
Click to expand...
I love logic,

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
My “caution” alarms went off immediately when I read this apparant ecumenically altruistic statement…
Click to expand...
Philthy, you are Philthy.

I know my statement is dicey, but posted it anyway.

I have not forgotten your last post to me, just considering my response.
 
40.png
Mickey:
And another one walks no more with Him. :crying:
Click to expand...
I don’t think such a comment is appropriate or constructive.
Are we really to be judging another? bene - I hope you know that I don’t judge you. I can judge your intellectual understandings but not your genuiness in following what you believe to be God’s will in your life. I think most here would agree with me. Either way, such comments, I believe, are a violation of posting protocol, and I think this inadvertantly slipped by the moderaters…

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top