John 6 and Eucharist?

[Philthy]

sandusky:

mercygate from your post #2
Philthy’s logical fallacy was begging the question.

Just for the record, Sandusky, I made no logical fallacy. What happened was that you entered the discussion late, without having read all the posts, and attempted to redirect the discussion from “Did the Apostles understand him literally” to your own discussion of “Did they understand him correctly?” This, of course, INCORRECTLY shifts the reference point of my arguments. You then, from your own created reference point of “Did they understand him correctly”, called my post “begging the question”. That of course is simply a mistake on your part, not a logical fallacy on mine. Your point of reference was mistaken.
Following from there, you chose to disagree with Wayne Grudem and I when we contended that intentionally misleading the Apostles and the other disciples through his deceptive speech( if we assume his intended meaning was NOT literal) was something Christ could not be guilty of. You can go search posts yourself and see the reference from his, Systematic Theology, that I provided. You based your disagreement on mostly OT grounds, but, as I pointed out in rebuttal, failed to show relevance to Christ speaking to the apostles, and a NT example where Christ intentionally misleads his Apostles and does not correct their misunderstanding. We all know, and I pointed out, the example of the Apostles misunderstanding Christ and his later explaining his meaning to them-which is a clear argument in favor of the premise that they understood him correctly - is well documented in the NT. You never responded beyond this on the topic.

 

[sandusky]

Mikeledes:

The notion that a supernatural event (i.e. miracles, etc) must be seen is a faulty premise. The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove. For the unbeliver, it would have been simply a dove. For the spiritual person, they would have known that the dove is the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that what was SEEN did not make this fact obvious.

You’re reaching. We know the Dove at Christ’s baptism is the H.S. because the Gospel writers and the Baptist tell us so. Sheesh!
Mideledes:

We know that the Bread and the Wine turn into the body and blood of Christ because Jesus told us so. I don’t need to see anything to believe that transubstantiation occurs. Remember, blessed is he who believes without seeing.

You have taken what Thomas said completely out of context. He was speaking about the risen Christ, not the Eucharist.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Biblical definitions? What does that mean? The bible does not provide definitions.

Sin is lawlessness (1 Jn 3:4); witchcraft is as rebellion; stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Sam 15:23).

I need only one definition to refute your statement; there are three definitions

Philthy:

AaronI has attempted to illuminate this concept to you in reference to the ZIKKARON which you appear to be avoiding IMHO. And with good reason, the JEWISH concept of “in memory of” is completely different than your own(or mine). That changes the entire discussion of the Eucharist radically, which, I suppose, is the reason you prefer not to discuss it.

Discussed this on another thread with the Greek word anamnesis. It was a few months ago under Sacred Scripture and the thread title is 1 Corinthians 11:29, posts #114, and 115.

Philthy:

Just the slightest examination of the issue will reveal that our 21st century, western concept of “rememberance” is barely a shadow of the reality understood by the Apostles. The only question that remains is which one is the “biblical” definition? The modern one, which ignores the historico-cultural context of the term, or the original one which embraces all of that cultural and historical fullness?

You are grasping at straws.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Just for the record, Sandusky, I made no logical fallacy. What happened was that you entered the discussion late, without having read all the posts, and attempted to redirect the discussion from “Did the Apostles understand him literally” to your own discussion of “Did they understand him correctly?” This, of course, INCORRECTLY shifts the reference point of my arguments. You then, from your own created reference point of “Did they understand him correctly”, called my post “begging the question”. That of course is simply a mistake on your part, not a logical fallacy on mine.

Philthy, you did beg the question, and you admitted it on an earlier post.

Philthy:

You can go search posts yourself and see the reference from his, Systematic Theology, that I provided…You never responded beyond this on the topic.

Here is your exact quote:

Philthy:

For example, in his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem(Evangelical) uses the impossibility of Christ misleading the disciples as the basis for his argument of the physical nature of a resurrected body by concluding:“If the “customary form” of his resurrection body was nonphysical, then in these repeated physical appearanceas Jesus would be guilty of misleading the disciples(and all subsequent readers of the New Testament) into thinking that his resurrection body remained physical when it did not.” (page 612).

The context of Grudem’s quote is limited to the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances. He nowhere even hints of applying it to John 6.

Your attempt to use Grudem’s context-specific statement in a sweeping generalization is lousy reasoning

 

[bene7]

Mercygate:

If we adhere exclusively to biblical definitions we must dump the Trinity.

But the Trinity is defined BY Scripture. And Scripture uses the term “mystery” and provides FOR us the definition of it.

Nowhere is it suggested that the Bible is all-sufficient to our understanding of these things.

But it does provide for us everything we need to know regarding the faith , which was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). What makes true Christianity superior to all other “religions” on this earth is it’s based strictly on Divine revelation - what He reveals. Not the fertile imaginations of men which they call “mysteries.” God at times entered into this fallen creation, whether directly or indirectly, and these encounters and their Divine purposes were subsequently recorded in Scripture for our instruction, enlightenment and spiritual development.

This is another whole topic but I reiterate that the marriage feast of the Lamb and Eucharist are inseparable.

The “marriage feast of the Lamb” has absolutely nothing to do with the “Eucharist.” That feast is anticipated in Rev. 19, and will be celebrated on earth at Christ’s 2nd Advent during His Kingdom reign. It will include Christ (the groom), His Church (His bride, made up of all true believers during this Church age), believing Israel and Gentile nations that are ushered into the Kingdom at His 2nd Advent.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Oh yes, the “God is outside the constraints of time” argument. Wake up man; it is logically impossible for the mass to be the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. Ask Philthy, he loves logic.

Logically impossible? You would need to demonstrate your argument for me to critique - all you have done here is shared your conclusion. I sense that you are both being a little loose with words. “Same sacrifice” is a little too vague. I will state emphatically however, that as an eternal sacrifice it indeed can be made present repeatedly in time. For example Sandusky, do you not believe that when a person comes to saving faith in Christ that their sins are forgiven them? In a sense the salvific work of Christ, although once for all at a point in time is also eternal, and therefore is applied and made present for people throughout time.

sandusky:

And again, I do not think that the Church teaches the mass as the same sacrifice, but a re-presentation of that sacrifice

AaronI is right. A review of the Hebrew word Zikkaron and what the implications are in the context of Mass would provide some significant context for you in this discussion. Here is a taste of some of those articles:
"Artur Weiser confirmed this idea in his commentary on the book of Psalms, and then went on to explain how these prayers were used in the Temple in order to liturgically enable the worshiping community to “experience the saving acts of the past in the role of witnesses as something which by means of the cult has become for them a present reality” [Weiser, 43]. The cultic ritual "…was understood as a present action of God directed towards the members of the cult community themselves and causing all historical differences of space and time to disappear in face of the reality of God, so that participants in the cult, in facing God, faced the same situation in which the People of God had once found themselves at the time of the Exodus and their entry into the Promised Land" [Weiser, 470].

Dr. Weiser goes on to show that the Psalms are written in such a way as to indicate to the worshiper in the Temple that he is in some sense present with those who were historically present at the event being recalled. An example of this can be seen in Psalm 95:7, which reads “Today, when you hear my voice, harden not your heart, as at Meribah” [Weiser, 44]; another example of this is Psalm 106:6, “Both we and our fathers have sinned” [Weiser, 44]. Because of the way these psalms are written, the person reciting them is put into the historical situation as a witness and a participant.

Interesting.

Phil

 

[NotWorthy]

Sandusky:

And again, I do not think that the Church teaches the mass as the same sacrifice, but a re-presentation of that sacrifice

**[1182](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:OpenPopupWindow%28)** The *altar* of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross,from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, **the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs.** The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen). Notworthy

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

His sacrifice was an historical event in our world system, a once-for-all-time, propitiatory act toward God and for the redemption of mankind, in His blood - applied to all who believe the message concerning His Person and work during this time/space continuum.
Blessing,
Bene

You mean continuously applied throughout time, for all time, right?
Just out of curiosity, from God’s perspective, is Christ’s sacrifice a past event or a present event or simply an event independent of time?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Philthy, you did beg the question, and you admitted it on an earlier post.

Not exactly. Here’s what you said:

Sandusky:

Philthy, I don’t have to time to get into this in detail right now, and probably won’t until after the weekend, but upon re-reading your two “reaction” statements, I believe that in reaction #2 you are “begging the question.”

sandusky:
Actually, I think both statements beg the question.*
To which I responded:
*
Philthy Post 276:
*You are correct: you do need to take the weekend and think about it. **
I did not admit to begging the question at all. I was poking a little fun at your “need to take the weekend to think about it” comment.
*
Philthy Post 276:
Just so we’re clear, the question you believe I have “begged” is, “Were they correct in their literal understanding?” right?
That is kind of the question of the thread.
I was actually addressing that the Apostles had a literal interpretation of Christs words, as did the other disciples. I believe everyone understood him literally. Some had attempted to refute that claim.

---

Here I am explaining the context of the discussion that you jumped into. bene was the one who had attempted to refute the claim that the Apostles had a literal interpretation. That was the context for my comments. Enough already
*

sandusky:
Here is your exact quote:
The context of Grudem’s quote is limited to the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances. He nowhere even hints of applying it to John 6.
Your attempt to use Grudem’s context-specific statement in a sweeping generalization is lousy reasoning*
It is not lousy reasoning, it is perfectly reasonable. He uses a concept, Sandusky. Sheesh! What is the concept? That Christ can’t be “guilty of misleading the Apostles(or every subsequent reader of the NT)”. The fact that a well-known Evangelical theologian uses it gives it some credibility, no? I was simply establishing the VALIDITY of the CONCEPT. The fact that I, as a Catholic, can cite a NON-CATHOLIC in such an endeavor lessons the possible bias of my using the concept and adds credibility to it. You still with me? Now, you do get partial credit for the accurate observation that he “nowhere…hints of applying it to John 6”. That’s what Im here for - to help you and Wayne apply it. Why can’t we apply that CONCEPT to John 6? There’s NO GOOD REASON not to apply it. Only biased ones. When we do apply Grudem’s CONCEPT to John 6 guess what happens? We rapidly come to the conclusion that Jesus meant exactly what he said! It’s very simple, very logical and forceful. Of course Grudem doesn’t apply it to John 6 - it would render most of what he actually records in his text useless. It is also why, rather than actually refute my argument, you will forced to disagree with Grudem’s original CONCEPT(not my application of it BTW) or you will be forced into agreeing with my conclusion. Knowing you, my guess is you and Wayne will be parting ways on this CONCEPT.

Phil

 

[RobNY]

mercygate:

We need to give Bene a point on this discussion. Technically, the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not a miracle. The word ‘miracle’ is frequently used of the Eucharistic transformation but it is inaccurate. A miracle is, as Bene contends, sense-perceptible.

We should be referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a Mystery. This takes nothing away from the event, of course.

Now, the fact that many of us have had sense-perceptible experiences of Christ in the Eucharist (boy! have we!), cannot be demonstrated or measured by anything other than the fruit it bears in our lives, just as the experience of “getting saved” does in the lives of those who have had the experience of “accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior” (as I have).

When the Church speaks of miracles in the technical sense, she means palpable and “measurable.”

A miracle is something that goes beyond and ‘breaks’ the physical laws, or rather, is inexplicable by natural laws. That is why the Eucharist is a mystery and a miracle.

There are actually two miracles which make up the Eucharist-- the first being the changing of the substance from bread and wine substance to Christ substance the second miracle being how the accidents of the bread and wine inhere in nothing even though their original substance is gone.

If both of those happen, as Catholics certainly allege, then the Eucharist is a miracle, because both are inexplicable by natural laws.

 

[mercygate]

RobNY:

A miracle is something that goes beyond and ‘breaks’ the physical laws, or rather, is inexplicable by natural laws. That is why the Eucharist is a mystery and a miracle.

There are actually two miracles which make up the Eucharist-- the first being the changing of the substance from bread and wine substance to Christ substance the second miracle being how the accidents of the bread and wine inhere in nothing even though their original substance is gone.

If both of those happen, as Catholics certainly allege, then the Eucharist is a miracle, because both are inexplicable by natural laws.

Mmm. Here’s where I wish I had the fingertip command of my sources, the way itsjustdave1988 has. It may be that the definition of “miracle” I cited was one applied specifically in the matter of causes for Saints. But I am strongly persuaded that the definition of Eucharist as ‘miraculous’ does not fit the paradigm in the sense that it is employed here. Not that it changes the facts.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Someone may have already brought this up, but the word used here for “flesh” is “sarx” and it means a hunk of meat. Doesn’t sound very symbolic to me. The early Christians weren’t called cannibals for “accepting Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior”…

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

Actully, that happens all the time - only it isn’t cleverly disguised as a “mystery”, its matter-of factly stated as simply “the Word of God”. I say be careful bene, you are leading down the road of Tradition

You make no sense to me here. Nor am I going down the road of tradition. I supplied Mercygate with the Biblical definition of “mystery” and various examples of “mysteries” in the Word of God.

The potential abuse that you describe is only possible in a vacuum of personal interpretations devoid of history, historical context, and a divinely guided authority to expose such deviations from the faith.

Are you at all familiar with the word “hermeneutics?”

your concern of invented doctrine by “anyone” is not possible in the Catholic Church.

Actually, you are only semi-correct. What the church of Rome has been able to successfully develop in time, beginning with the middle ages, via the withholding of the written Word of God from the laity, is a universal conformity to the teachings of its hierarchy. Convincing the masses of its infallibility. But this is tremendously dangerous, because whatever false or “invented” doctrines infiltrate its “infallible” hierarchy go completely unchallenged and become church dogma. You’re under the delusion that this kind of ecclesiastical system safeguards the masses from error but, in fact, often times safeguards the error from ever being challenged.

AaronI has attempted to illuminate this concept to you in reference to the ZIKKARON which you appear to be avoiding IMHO.

I didn’t avoid it at all. I made a reply to his assertion. The idea of a “zikkaron Passover” may be the teaching of a certain historical Rabbi, but I assure you it is not a universal, Jewish teaching. I have attended several Jewish Saders, both Messianic and Orthodox, and I have yet to understand it being taught in such a manner. Judaism is not monolithic, hence, one must go back to the written Word of God and read what has been recorded, via the Holy Spirit, regarding the Passover at the time it was instituted as a Jewish ordinance. Have you ever read it for yourself? Somehow I don’t pick up you’re much of a Bible student. Only an impression, I may be wrong.

"EXODUS 12:14 “Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it
as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as
a permanent ordinance.”

It was an annual feast by which they would remember what God had graciously done for them through the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. All subsequent Passovers were different from the first in that they never again put the blood of the sacrificed lamb on their door posts and lintels. They didn’t need to, that night they were delivered, once for all, from the angel of death that passed over, and their Egyptian bondage. All subsequent Passovers celebrated in the promised land were to be observed as a memorial of the first, when Israel escaped death under the blood of the Passover lamb and was delivered (past tense) from the bonds of Egypt.

Same with Communion for the true Church. There was ONE historical sacrifice which now delivers all true believers from Divine judgment and bondage of their sins. Communion is to be celebrated, as Jesus explicitly taught His Apostles, in remembrance" of Him, i.e., His historic sacrifice. Only ONE sacrifice was needed for believers to forever escape Divine judgment and deliverence from the bondage of their sins. Communion is now to be celebrated by believers in memory (memorial) of that once-for-all-time. efficacious sacrifice. Just as Paul says, “For Christ our Passover also HAS BEEN sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7).

As the Israelites were delivered that night from Egypt and headed out for the promised land, even so, all true believers are now delievered, through the sacrifice of God’s Lamb, from the domain of darkness and transferred to the Kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom they have redemption, the forgiveness of their sins (Col. 1:12-13).

Pray about understanding these truths, Phil.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Kay Cee:

I said that God is not limited by time and space. Jesus performed miracles from a distance, didn’t he? (Matthew 8:5-13 and John 4:46-54) He was not limited by where His physical body was because He is both human and divine. He is a divine human being. The limitations you talk about are true for non-divine human beings. Someone could just as easily say that a “physical, human, material body” could not walk on water and that one who did “can no longer be defined as human.”

I guess what I shared with you went right over your head. Please read the Matthew 8:5-13 account again. Jesus did not have to be in the presence of the Centurion’s servant to cure him because of His authority. He merely had to speak it and it was done. The Centurion recognized this. He too was in a position of authority and could command things to be done, and they were without him being there. This account has nothing to do with Jesus being, bodily, omnipresent.

Did you even think about what I replied to you? A human body can miraculously, by the power of God, walk on water (Peter did for a little while). But a material, human body cannot be in more than one place at one time. It is a part of this material universe. Jesus, in His human, bodily form cannot be in more than one place at a time (omnipresent), otherwise he was/is not truly human. He cannot be, in bodily form, in Heaven and millions of places on earth at the same time.

We wait for His bodily return.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

You mean continuously applied throughout time, for all time, right?

No. Appllied once for all time to the believer at the moment of personal belief.

just out of curiosity, from God’s perspective, is Christ’s sacrifice a past event or a present event or simply an event independent of time?

God transcends time (and you can’t fully comprehend this truth), but we don’t. The sacrifice of Christ occurred in THIS creation. The Son became a man and was born into this time/space continuum. He was born in it and He died in it. To us it’s an historical event. On the cross He said, “it is finished.” Those are time related words.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

No. Appllied once for all time to the believer at the moment of personal belief.

No? At what point in time is there not someone in the world entering into the “moment of personal belief”? Is that not virtually continuous or at least daily?

bene7:

God transcends time (and you can’t fully comprehend this truth), but we don’t. The sacrifice of Christ occurred in THIS creation. The Son became a man and was born into this time/space continuum. He was born in it and He died in it. To us it’s an historical event. On the cross He said, “it is finished.” Those are time related words.
Blessings,
Bene

It is certainly true that God transcends time and that the sacrifice of Christ occured in THIS creation. That does not, of necessity, limit it to the space/time continuum, however. It would only limit the physical events. And it certainly doesn’t limit Gods perspective on it either.
I read your other post as well regarding Zikkaron-thank you, it was informative and I will continue to absorb and pray for understanding.
You are correct; like 99.9% of Christians I am no biblical scholar. I have read the entire Bible, however, and have a knowledge of the Passover celebration. What I lack is the perspective of the people who were celebrating at the time Christ spoke and how that perspective would influence my understanding today. Such a perspective would best be appreciated by reading what the people close to the time of the event had to say, whenever possible.
Peace,

Phil

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

A Biblical “mystery” is not defined as a miracle that cannot be perceived by the senses, but** a truth now revealed to us by God concerning some part of His whole plan of redemption. **

We must stick to what and how God’s Word defines the word “mystery.” Otherwise Christianity begins to resemble the pagan, mystery religions prominent in the first century.

Blessings,
Bene

Re the bolded sentence: Yes. That is how we view the Eucharist. And it is a mystery. The term “mystery” is used by the earliest writers to describe the Eucharist, and that word alone is still used today in the Orthodox Churches.

Mystery religions prominent in the first century? Give me a break.

A brief paragraph in the EWTN archive states the scriptural concept of mystery as understood by Catholics, particularly in relation to the sacraments:

Many times in Scripture God’s action, presence, or the working out of His plan in history is said to be a mystery. The “mystery” is known to Him alone and those to whom He reveals it (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9). Only by faith in Divine Revelation can the spiritual truth behind actions and events be discerned. The Incarnation is such a mystery, since only by faith do we believe that the man Jesus Christ whom we see, read about, or have preached to us, is God. Further, Jesus is a mystery concealing not just His divinity but His Father. As he told Philip, “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Thus, we can say that Christ is a sacrament of His Father. The Church is a mystery, since it is the mystical Christ, Head and members. Vatican II speaks of the Church as the sacrament of Christ. Finally, the seven sacraments are mysteries which unfold in our souls and in our lives the working of Christ and His grace.

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

. . . Jesus did not have to be in the presence of the Centurion’s servant to cure him because of His authority. He merely had to speak it and it was done. The Centurion recognized this. He too was in a position of authority and could command things to be done, and they were without him being there. This account has nothing to do with Jesus being, bodily, omnipresent.

Truly, you are not far from the Kingdom. Authority is the key. The difference between us lies in Who that Authority is and how he chooses to exercise it.

Did you even think about what I replied to you?

Do you even think before you cast your questions in such a negative way?

A human body can miraculously, by the power of God, walk on water (Peter did for a little while). But a material, human body cannot be in more than one place at one time. It is a part of this material universe. Jesus, in His human, bodily form cannot be in more than one place at a time (omnipresent), otherwise he was/is not truly human. He cannot be, in bodily form, in Heaven and millions of places on earth at the same time.

You seem to hold the view that Jesus’ Resurrection Body – the Body present in the Holy Eucharist – is limited to the kind of animal body we all walk around with on earth. Clearly, his Resurrection Body is demonstrably quite “other” than his pre-Resurrection body. That fact that it will come again in personal form does not detract from his ability to be with us in the Blessed Sacrament as well. According to his own words: “I am with you always.” The Eucharist is one of the ways in which he is with us.

Bene, you have the advantage in discussions such as these because it is so much more ‘reasonable’ to dismiss hard sayings, while we, in our naivete, attempt to make sense of their apparent incomprehensibility.

*Non nota non possumus amare. *

 

[jim1130]

bene7:

No. Appllied once for all time to the believer at the moment of personal belief.God transcends time (and you can’t fully comprehend this truth), but we don’t. The sacrifice of Christ occurred in THIS creation. The Son became a man and was born into this time/space continuum. He was born in it and He died in it. To us it’s an historical event. On the cross He said, “it is finished.” Those are time related words.

Blessings,
Bene

Quesiton: When Jesus said “It is finished” was he referring to the completion of the Passover meal that had begun on Holy Thursday?

 

[ncgolf]

mercygate:

The difference between us lies in Who that Authority is and how he chooses to exercise it.

That is what it comes down to.

If one was to believe in the interpretation from either Bene or Sandusky, that person would have to take them as an authority, especially if they were ignorant of Christ and the Bible. They continually speak of the writings of mere men and yet they would expect someone to believe them … based on what??

It comes down to trust. The Church has 2000 years and the writings of great saints from Ignatius to JP II. Where is the other side?

They have not yet answered though how those early chuch fathers got everyone to believe what they were saying about the Eucharist. On the surface the explanations of Bene and San. are much more reasonable, more plausible for this world. It seems it would have been much easier to spread the Good News with that explanation. Let us gather and share a meal in remberance of Christ’s death. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me … but that is not what happened. The Church said no … this is Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity. What happens … the Church grows.

Your argument boils down to the fact you have to think we believe in a fairy tale. You then have to think that we are unable to discern what is fairy tale and what is reality.