John 6 and Eucharist?

[bene7]

jim1130:

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

No, the work that He came to do via the cross: the work of redemption.

“He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justifiction. Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 4:25-5:1).

Blessings,
Bene

 

[jim1130]

bene7:

No, the work that He came to do via the cross: the work of redemption.

“He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justifiction. Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 4:25-5:1).

Blessings,
Bene

I had thought that at the Last Supper, Jesus shared 3 cups of wine with the Apostles and that the Passover required 4 cups with the 4th cup on the Cross when he shed his blood for us.

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

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

Of course a human body can miraculously, by the power of God, walk on water. That was my entire point. Jesus, being God, walked on water by His own power. And it is through Christ’s power that Peter also walked on water (Christ commands him to walk).

What I seem to be getting from you is that Jesus had power over natural law, except when it comes to the Eucharist. Jesus had power and authority to heal, walk on water, still a storm, turn water into wine, but not power and authority to turn bread and wine into His body and blood?

Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. Are you saying a person who is 100% God can’t supersede nature? Do you really want to say such a thing is impossible for God?

 

[mikeledes]

We know that the Dove that descennds upon Jesus is the Holy Spirit because the Bible and the Baptist tells us so? Well, we know that the bread and the wine are the Body and Blood of Christ because the Bible and JESUS tells us so. If the Bible and the Baptist had not told us that the dove was the Holy Spirit, would that fact been obvious to us without divine revelation. What was seen did not necessarily reflect what or who it was (the Holy Spirit).

God Bless

 

[sandusky]

Philthy,

In quoting Grudem, you make a weak, misleading, out of context appeal to authority.

Grudem’s full context runs 25 lines from which you pull less than four lines.

Overlaying Grudem’s statement concerning Christ’s resurrection body onto the John 6 passage, specifically the “eat My flesh, drink My blood section, which is your focus, then I must conclude that Jesus did mislead those who were there.

The reason for that is your insistence that the John 6 passage is a prelude to the Last Supper, and therefore, the two passages are inextricably connected (I find that is out of context as well).

However, with that in mind, Christ, in John 6, does withhold vital information from those disciples who left, as well as from those who stayed, in that, He did not tell them that what He meant was that He was going to change bread and wine into His body and blood, and that they would not really be eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but would instead be doing so under the elements of the bread and the wine. Your scenario is further mired, when in Mark, He adds that He will not drink the fruit of the vine, (wine), until He returns, implying that the cup He had just held up and said was filled with His blood, was not blood at all, but was, in fact, just wine.

Instead, His wording, in John 6, misled those present into believing that they would have to eat His flesh, and drink His blood, in the human form in which it stood before them, and so, they left, and who can blame them; what He said they must do, was contrary to the law they were under.

I am certain Grudem would agree with me, that in your scenario, Christ did mislead those present.

In context Grudem’s statement sets up a condition, as shown by the phrase If the customary form….

The customary form Christ presented to those in John 6 was His human body, and not bread and wine, which is the customary form of the Eucharist; that is misleading.

If John 6 is left in context, and not wrongly forced into context with the Last Supper, then Christ did not mislead. He gave them all the information they needed, and as He shifted from plain language to figurative language, they misunderstood Him, and He let them leave, while misunderstanding.

I have illustrated that in my post #226, that puts the parallel passages of John 6:40 and John 6:54 side by side.

Here is a standard illustration of the out of context fallacy you employed:

A movie reviewer writes a review, in which he says, “if you like a movie with no plot, terrible acting, and a script that seems to have been written by two-year-old, then this is the best movie of the year..

The movie’s advertising agency picks up a copy of the review, and makes a billboard using the authors name saying” So and So Reviewer says: …This is the Best Movie of the Year.

That type of out of context appeal to authority, coupled with your begging the question, displays the weakness of your argument.

 

[Mickey]

As a little side note to the issue of authority, let us once again look at a letter from a man who was a disciple of the Apostle St John:

**CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. **
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
St Ignatius of Antioch

 

[sandusky]

bene7:

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.Are you at all familiar with the word "hermeneutics?"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.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

Amen

 

[sandusky]

jim1130:

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

No.

The verb here carries the meaning of “completing one’s task”. Jesus says the same thing in Jn 17:4 as well.

Christ brought to completion the entire work of redemption, ie., He paid the penalty for sin “in full”

The Gk word here translated “it is finished” has been found written on papyri used as receipts for taxes meaning, “paid in full”.

The full payment for the penalty of sin was completed, and the application of that payment to mankind began.

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

What I seem to be getting from you is that Jesus had power over natural law, except when it comes to the Eucharist. Jesus had power and authority to heal, walk on water, still a storm, turn water into wine, but not power and authority to turn bread and wine into His body and blood?

No.

I made that point on another post on this thread.

I believe I used His turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, and a few others, and your’s that He turned water into wine is good also.

That Jesus had the power to do what you claim He did is not the issue.

The issue is, was that His intention, ie., a “transubstantiated” Eucharist with all of the accompanying pomp and mystery Catholics attach to it, or was His a intention for the Eucharist one of a simple, though vivid, remembrance of Him and what He did on the Cross for lost men.

To me, the scriptural lack of any articulation resembling what you believe, and the humble nature of His first coming suggests the latter.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Jim:

The answer is YES. The Last Supper and the Sacrifice at Calvary is one and the same reality given to us with two expressions. That is why the Catholic Church practices the Holy Mass (re doing the Last Supper) and the Crucifixion of Christ. All of history comes together at this Christ instituted rite. Is it any wonder that the passover lamb was slaughtered on an altar, and that upon every altar there is a Crucifix on it or behind it?

How is it possible to make present something that happened 2000 years ago? CHRIST is true God and true man. Him being man was able to do this sacrifice personally at a precise time in history. As God he can make present his flesh in any fashion. And the fashion he chose is via the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine.

in XT.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

No.

I made that point on another post on this thread.

I believe I used His turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, and a few others, and your’s that He turned water into wine is good also.

That Jesus had the power to do what you claim He did is not the issue.

The issue is, was that His intention, ie., a “transubstantiated” Eucharist with all of the accompanying pomp and mystery Catholics attach to it, or was His a intention for the Eucharist one of a simple, though vivid, remembrance of Him and what He did on the Cross for lost men.

To me, the scriptural lack of any articulation resembling what you believe, and the humble nature of His first coming suggests the latter.

I guess you didn’t read the earlier posts between bene and me.

Our discussion was whether or not Jesus could occupy more than one space at the same time, not whether or not He actually did this.

 

[jim1130]

AquinasXVI:

Jim:

The answer is YES. The Last Supper and the Sacrifice at Calvary is one and the same reality given to us with two expressions. That is why the Catholic Church practices the Holy Mass (re doing the Last Supper) and the Crucifixion of Christ. All of history comes together at this Christ instituted rite. Is it any wonder that the passover lamb was slaughtered on an altar, and that upon every altar there is a Crucifix on it or behind it?

How is it possible to make present something that happened 2000 years ago? CHRIST is true God and true man. Him being man was able to do this sacrifice personally at a precise time in history. As God he can make present his flesh in any fashion. And the fashion he chose is via the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine.

in XT.

Thank you. Jim

 

[Mickey]

**“Do this in memory of me” **

---

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.

---

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord’s command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers… Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

---

1343 It was above all on “the first day of the week,” Sunday, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, that the Christians met “to break bread.” From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church’s life.

---

**1344 **Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus “until he comes,” the pilgrim People of God advances, “following the narrow way of the cross,” toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

 

[NotWorthy]

"Do this in memory of Me"

I know it’s been covered before, but it needs to be repeated.
The Jews celebrated the Passover feast as a memorial of the first Passover. For the ancient Jews, a liturgical memorial did much more than simply recall a past event. It made that past event present. As a memorial, this annual meal celebration was believed to make the first Passover in Egypt mystically present to those celebrating the ritual. This is why the Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes commented that when they celebrated the Passover meal each year, it was as if they themselves were walking out of Egypt with their ancestors in the Exodus. But the Passover meal also looked to the future. There was hope that on some Passover night in the future, God would send the Messiah to the city of Jerusalem to liberate the people. On that much-anticipated night, God would rescue the Jews from their present-day oppressors, just as he freed them from the Egyptians on the night of the first Passover.

Notworthy

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

That Jesus had the power to do what you claim He did is not the issue.

Bene said in a previous post it is not possible … that makes it an issue because this eliminates one of your arguments.

sandusky:

The issue is, was that His intention, ie., a “transubstantiated” Eucharist with all of the accompanying pomp and mystery Catholics attach to it, or was His a intention for the Eucharist one of a simple, though vivid, remembrance of Him and what He did on the Cross for lost men.

To me, the scriptural lack of any articulation resembling what you believe, and the humble nature of His first coming suggests the latter.

Not true … there is plenty of scriptual evidence and imagery to support it. You may not agree with the conclusion Catholics come to but it is there. That statement is a bit disingenious.

But I agree the issue is either Christ meant what He said and its accompaning theology or His words were figuartive, misunderstood by those who left Him. So it comes down to how do you trust your source. We both look at the Bible so is that not the answer? We reach different conclusions.

Mercygate stated it earlier … it is a question of authority. My belief rests in the Bible and those that help define what it is telling me through the Catholic Churches 2,000 year history. Those lead me to people such as Acquinas and John Paul II or else if not the Church then to someone like you.

If we both believe the Bible to be true … then what else can we rely on, whom do you trust?

 

[javelin]

I think this discussion only illustrates that the Bible can not, nor was it meant to, be a proof-text for the Christian faith.

What good is an authoritative source if we do not have access to an authoritative, infallible interpreter? Was God so short-sighted that He would not provide us with such a critical thing?

I honestly don’t think so. Right now, I simply can’t believe He would leave us that much alone.

I also have a fundamental problem believing that all the division and confusion is of His Will. How can that be?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Aaron_I]

sandusky:

No.

The verb here carries the meaning of “completing one’s task”. Jesus says the same thing in Jn 17:4 as well.

Christ brought to completion the entire work of redemption, ie., He paid the penalty for sin “in full”

The Gk word here translated “it is finished” has been found written on papyri used as receipts for taxes meaning, “paid in full”.

The full payment for the penalty of sin was completed, and the application of that payment to mankind began.

What you have to realize is that we agree with this point. The sacrifice is completed. Nothing more is needed.

The point we are making is that we are participating in the same sacrifice. Now yes, I have caught up reading the posts and I do realize that you have answered this claim. I must add, however, that you have answered it rather poorly. Basically, you claim that zikkaron is not universally held now among Jews. My problem is that you provide no documentation (whereas Philthy provided a JEWISH source) for this. You attended a Passover service and didn’t realize that the past was made present. I have a strong feeling that if you were to attend a Catholic mass, you wouldn’t have gathered that that is a zikkaron event either.

Also, consider that when “Adam knew Eve” they had sex. Knowledge to the Jews implied an intimate experience. How much of a stretch is it that memory implies that same intimate experience.

Don’t dismiss the zikkaron argument without documentation.

 

[jim1130]

ncgolf:

Bene said in a previous post it is not possible … that makes it an issue because this eliminates one of your arguments.
Not true … there is plenty of scriptual evidence and imagery to support it. You may not agree with the conclusion Catholics come to but it is there. That statement is a bit disingenious.

But I agree the issue is either Christ meant what He said and its accompaning theology or His words were figuartive, misunderstood by those who left Him. So it comes down to how do you trust your source. We both look at the Bible so is that not the answer? We reach different conclusions.

Mercygate stated it earlier … it is a question of authority. My belief rests in the Bible and those that help define what it is telling me through the Catholic Churches 2,000 year history. Those lead me to people such as Acquinas and John Paul II or else if not the Church then to someone like you.

If we both believe the Bible to be true … then what else can we rely on, whom do you trust?

And this is the reason Jesus established the visual Church, to settle such disputes, because the Bible (which did not exist in Jesus’ time as we know it) is not self-interpreting, right?

 

[jim1130]

Aaron I.:

What you have to realize is that we agree with this point. The sacrifice is completed. Nothing more is needed.

The point we are making is that we are participating in the same sacrifice. Now yes, I have caught up reading the posts and I do realize that you have answered this claim. I must add, however, that you have answered it rather poorly. Basically, you claim that zikkaron is not universally held now among Jews. My problem is that you provide no documentation (whereas Philthy provided a JEWISH source) for this. You attended a Passover service and didn’t realize that the past was made present. I have a strong feeling that if you were to attend a Catholic mass, you wouldn’t have gathered that that is a zikkaron event either.

Also, consider that when “Adam knew Eve” they had sex. Knowledge to the Jews implied an intimate experience. How much of a stretch is it that memory implies that same intimate experience.

Don’t dismiss the zikkaron argument without documentation.

Sandusky admitted in an earlier post that he was Catholic (40 years ago or so, right?).

 

[javelin]

jim1130:

And this is the reason Jesus established the visual Church, to settle such disputes, because the Bible (which did not exist in Jesus’ time as we know it) is not self-interpreting, right?

That is exactly what I believe. I honestly see no other viable choice right now.

For example, I talked with a couple of Mormons who came to my door the other day. They firmly beleive that Jesus was not God, that the Keys of authority were lost long ago and restored to their “prophet” who now leads their church. They cite Scripture that appears on the surface to backup their beliefs and emphatically believe they have had a real revelation from the Holy Spirit that “Mormonism” is God’s True and only will for us.

Without a true authoritative interpreter of the Bible, cults like that have fertile ground in which to develop their doctrines from the writings of the Sacred Scriptures.

Someone needs to have the authority to simply say “NO! The Bible does NOT say that! Jesus is God, period.” Who else but a visible Church whose authority is derived from Christ Himself, with the protection of the Holy Spirit could definitively deny false, insidious, poisonous doctrine?

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant…

Peace,
javelin