John 6 and Eucharist?

[ncgolf]

In John the first miracle he described was the wedding feast at Cana. Water turned into wine.

The event preceding the Discourse is the feeding of the 5000. The multiplication of the loaves.

It cannot be just coincidence that these two items are the ones we Catholics associate with the Eucharist.

This is why the ECF’s did not “invent” some tale about this. They saw the imagery John intended.

Water into wine, 1 loaf into many. Transformed. Hey isn’t that what the Eucharist is??

 

[javelin]

ncgolf:

In John the first miracle he described was the wedding feast at Cana. Water turned into wine.

The event preceding the Discourse is the feeding of the 5000. The multiplication of the loaves.

It cannot be just coincidence that these two items are the ones we Catholics associate with the Eucharist.

This is why the ECF’s did not “invent” some tale about this. They saw the imagery John intended.

Water into wine, 1 loaf into many. Transformed. Hey isn’t that what the Eucharist is??

Yes, and when one starts to understand the implications, they are transforming.

I only recently cmae to a deeper understanding of Luke 22:15, where Jesus says “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you…”. I had always just thought he just wanted to have a final meal with them before His death, and while I’m sure that was true, when you contemplate what he knew he was going to be giving them at that meal, it takes it to a whole new level. Kinda like if someone says “I have eagerly desired to share this time with you”, it takes on a whole new dimension when it is a new husband speaking with his wife on the night of their marriage. Jesus was anticipating his miraculous union with his closest friends through the new covenant.

Without the true Eucharist, these things seem so shallow to me.

Peace,
javelin

 

[ncgolf]

As C. S. Lewis said … paraphrasing

Christ said “Take this and eat” … Christ did not say “Take this and understand.”

 

[sandusky]

Philthy,

After reading your posts #420-422, I think that we have simply come back to square 1.

So let’s start afresh.

I will begin by making three statements for the purpose of illustration:

1. My post #400 is the torpedo that sank your ship.
2. My post #400 is the final nail in your coffin.
3. My post #400 is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Each of those statements is a metaphor. Today, many analogies and illustrations are called metaphors, but a true metaphor is always recognized by the use of the verb “to be” in any of its forms, and a shift of the meaning of one thing onto another thing, so that the one represents, or signifies the other.

Do agree with my definition of a metaphor?

The metaphors above are somewhat complicated, in that only one thing is clearly identified, that being, in the case of metaphor #1, “My Post #400 is the torpedo;” but through the grammatical construction of the metaphor, the reader’s mind “fills in the blank,” as it were, and quickly comes to the understanding that through the representation of my argument as “the torpedo,” that “your ship,” represents, or signifies the argument of another, and that my argument is the winning argument, because as a torpedo, my argument sank your argument. In truth, my argument is not a “torpedo,” and your argument is not a “ship.” That is figurative language.

Now we can debate the truth of that metaphor, but what is not debatable is that it is a metaphor.

Do you agree?

I said that those metaphors were complicated, because only one thing is clearly identified, and that the mind, must understand the grammatical construction, identify them as metaphors, and fill in the blank(s).

Here are a few simple metaphors:

“The field is [represents/signifies] the world”

Is that a metaphor?

“But the tares are [represents/signifies] the children of the wicked one.”

Is that a metaphor?

“The enemy that sowed them is [represents/signifies] the devil.”

Is that a metaphor?

“The Church is the body of Christ”

Metaphor?

Philthy:

Further mired?.. the fact remains that I never made any link from John 6 to the Last Supper to support my application of Grudems concept to John 6…

Fair enough.

Philthy:

…IF he meant the bread of life discourse figuratively(the way you interpret it), THEN he would be guilty of misleading them. So IF you interpret the passage figuratively, THEN I agree with you that he would be guilty of misleading them…

Your contention is that the opposite of the above statement, that is, that the “eat my flesh, drink my blood” passages in John 6, when taken literally, are true, and they are not misleading.

Then all you have to do is demonstrate from scripture that Christ’s flesh and blood were eaten and drunk literally by anyone.

If you are unable to demonstrate a literal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood from scripture, then your argument is sunk, and Christ lied.

Since scripture tells us that Christ cannot lie, and we each agree that He cannot, then, as I contend, the John 6 passages are figurative.

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

Water into wine

That was seen by all.

ncgolf:

1 loaf into many.

Actually, it was 5 loaves, but that was seen by all.

ncgolf:

Transformed.

Nobody has ever seen this.

 

[javelin]

sandusky:

Then all you have to do is demonstrate from scripture that Christ’s flesh and blood were eaten and drunk literally by anyone.

“Take and eat, for this is my body”
“Take and drink, for this is my blood”

There!

Also see 1 Cor 11:23-29

Peace,
javelin

P.S. I know these have been thrown out there several times, but you have to admit you were asking for it, Sandusky

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

That was seen by all.
Actually, it was 5 loaves, but that was seen by all.Nobody has ever seen this.

You know what … nobody ever saw the transformation. They just saw the result. They saw the effect of the transformation not the transformation. So we take it on faith (we trust Jesus at His word) that it was transformed. Hmm sounds familiar. We see by faith the effect of the transformation.

Why is the wedding feast at Cana taken literally and not figuartively? Jesus is quoted even less in that passage. How do you pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuartively?

Not to be a pain but how do you take Revelation, literally or figuratively. That is in the future and came to John through visions I believe. That imagery is rather spectacular! What are the foundations you base these decisions?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Sandusky:

I think we are all impressed on how much contortion of rhetoric you are capable of. Even if you blow away every one of the Papists here through your tenacity, the same questions remain.

Do give us a historical track of quotations that support your symbolic eucharist that will trump the quotes that Mickey provided. Your arguments are not just with us really, its the entire edifice of orthodox Christianity from the beginning.

I want to see your 50 or so year old brain wrestle with 2000 years of collective and coherent understanding of this dogma in earnest.

Thanks.

in XT.

 

[bene7]

Kay Cee:

According to my dictionary, omnipresence is defined as “the quality of being everywhere present at the same time.” That is not what we claim for the Eucharist. We don’t claim that the Eucharist is present everywhere.

And from where in my posts did you get the idea I was?

We do claim that Christ is both fully present in the Eucharist and fully present in Heaven. It is “both/and,” not “either/or.” How this happens is a mystery. Are you saying God cannot accomplish this?

My argument is not about what God can and cannot do. But what is not being done by God based on the “nature” of the things we’re talking about.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

You know what … nobody ever saw the transformation. They just saw the result. They saw the effect of the transformation not the transformation. So we take it on faith (we trust Jesus at His word) that it was transformed. Hmm sounds familiar. We see by faith the effect of the transformation.

That they saw the effect of the transformation is the point, ncgolf. They saw that the loaves had been multiplied, John attests to that.

I don’t doubt that you have faith that a transformation has taken place in the Eucharist, but you do not “see” it by faith, but believe that it has occurred on the basis of faith; there simply is no outward visible evidence that a transformation has taken place.

Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” I believe that, not because I saw it done, but, as you say, because I see the result of it—it is tangible, material, and I live on the earth, and see and touch the things that God has made. That is not the case with the Eucharist.

ncgolf:

Why is the wedding feast at Cana taken literally and not figuartively? Jesus is quoted even less in that passage. How do you pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuartively?

It is not a question of how much, or how little Jesus says, it is what He says, and how He says it. John attests to the fact that Jesus changed water into wine, and others saw it, and I believe it on the veracity of John’s testimony; he was an apostle, a “sent one,” from God, picked by God for the task that he performed.

ncgolf:

Not to be a pain but how do you take Revelation, literally or figuratively. That is in the future and came to John through visions I believe. That imagery is rather spectacular! What are the foundations you base these decisions?

One of the hermeneutical guidelines that I, and many others, adhere to is, if scripture is not speaking figuratively, or parabolically, understand the author’s literal meaning. In Revelation there is much that is fantastic, and much of it I take literally. I believe that all of the judgments will happen as they are described. If God could send plagues against Pharaoh and his gods, and part the red sea, and feed the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years by sending the manna, and keep their clothes from wearing out, He can certainly send the judgments that John describes, as he describes them.

 

[bene7]

javelin:

I believe that Jesus was fully human, just as you do. But He was also fully God. That is the mystery of the Incarnation and the Trinity.

From what in my posts do you conclude that I do not believe Jesus was fully God?

Bene

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

I don’t doubt that you have faith that a transformation has taken place in the Eucharist, but you do not “see” it by faith, but believe that it has occurred on the basis of faith; there simply is no outward visible evidence that a transformation has taken place.

The problem with the miracles is almost no one sees them and even people who were there may even deny it. People deny today the Apparitions of the Virgin Mary and there may still be people alive today who were present at Fatima. Much of faith requires that we don’t see it … it remains hidden.

sandusky:

It is not a question of how much, or how little Jesus says, it is what He says, and how He says it. John attests to the fact that Jesus changed water into wine, and others saw it, and I believe it on the veracity of John’s testimony; he was an apostle, a “sent one,” from God, picked by God for the task that he performed.

This is the one I have a bone to pick. John writes that Jesus said "Amen, Amen I say to you three times or in some others "Truly, Truly I say to you. It seems you believe John’s writings but not Jesus’s quotes. The only emphasis Jesus gives in the discourse is the repeating Amen, Amen or Truly, Truly. That is the emphasis I pick up on. He is saying to them I am speaking the truth, trust me … over and over. And yet you say he intentionally misled them. In Chapter 6, John does not add much commentary except to set the stage. He let’s Jesus’s words predominate yet for some reason you think Jesus intenionally let His words be misunderstood. I believe John knew this had to come from Christ himself … in His own words so as not to be misunderstood … if John had tried to explain it on his own he would have fallen on his face. He knew the Truth could explain the truth.

sandusky:

One of the hermeneutical guidelines that I, and many others, adhere to is, if scripture is not speaking figuratively, or parabolically, understand the author’s literal meaning.

To me this sounds like a fancy way of saying if you don’t like the way it comes one way try the other.

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

The problem with the miracles is almost no one sees them and even people who were there may even deny it. People deny today the Apparitions of the Virgin Mary and there may still be people alive today who were present at Fatima. Much of faith requires that we don’t see it … it remains hidden.

God’s external, supernatural revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. As John tells us in 1 John, it is the Holy Spirit that guides God’s people now, and reveals truth to them through His word. I do not deny that people saw an apparition of Mary at Fatima, in fact, I very much believe that they did; I am certain, however, that the vision was not sent from God.

ncgolf:

This is the one I have a bone to pick. John writes that Jesus said "Amen, Amen I say to you three times or in some others "Truly, Truly I say to you. It seems you believe John’s writings but not Jesus’s quotes. The only emphasis Jesus gives in the discourse is the repeating Amen, Amen or Truly, Truly. That is the emphasis I pick up on. He is saying to them I am speaking the truth, trust me … over and over. And yet you say he intentionally misled them. In Chapter 6, John does not add much commentary except to set the stage. He let’s Jesus’s words predominate yet for some reason you think Jesus intenionally let His words be misunderstood. I believe John knew this had to come from Christ himself … in His own words so as not to be misunderstood … if John had tried to explain it on his own he would have fallen on his face. He knew the Truth could explain the truth.

Yes, well, perhaps you are right. As many here have said, you have two thousand years of tradition to back you up.

ncgolf:

To me this sounds like a fancy way of saying if you don’t like the way it comes one way try the other.

Indeed. What can I say?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Sandusky, philosophically speaking it all comes down to translation and trust, can you trust the writings of what are supposedly the Apsotles etc, can you trust those who say they are/were the writings of the apostles, can you trust any of those after the apostles to be accurate in their rendering of the interpretations of the Apostles, eg, can you trust Ignatius that he really was giving us the teachings/meanings of John’s gospel.

I fyou choose at any pointnot to trust any source or particular sources then onwhat basis are you trusting the sources, how do you acurately determinewhich sources may or may not be true.

For your interpretatinsto be corect then you must be willing to at least concede that Christ was not guiding christianity in its teachings from at the very least the second century on. If you do trust Christ to be guiding then tell me how you distingusih exactly what is and is notguided by Christ and on what basis.

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

From what in my posts do you conclude that I do not believe Jesus was fully God?

Bene

You *do *say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. You also indicate that those natures are somehow separate, and state that the Resurrection body differs in no point from the body that was placed in the tomb. But the Resurrection body appeared through locked doors, was not immediately recognized by people who knew him well, and ascended from the earth . . . So, we kind of scratch our heads over that.

I asked earlier, but it probably got lost in the shuffle, whether your credal stance encompasses the Chalcedonian definition, since without an orthodox Christology, it is not possible even to begin a discussion of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I don’t know how to sort that out for the purposes of this thread without going completely off topic. But as you wisely observe, theology is all connected.

 

[javelin]

sandusky:

I don’t doubt that you have faith that a transformation has taken place in the Eucharist, but you do not “see” it by faith, but believe that it has occurred on the basis of faith; there simply is no outward visible evidence that a transformation has taken place.

Historically, there have been times where the bread and/or wine were transformed visibly into flesh and blood. These accounts were corroborated by witnesses, and in one case at least, the flesh and blood has been miraculously preserved to the present day.

We certainly do not base our faith on these events, but they are witnesses to the truth of the doctrine nonetheless.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

bene7:

From what in my posts do you conclude that I do not believe Jesus was fully God?

Bene

I admit I was a bit confused as to your emphasis the Jesus emptied Himself to take the form of a man, to the point that He “could do nothing” Himself, almost as though you were saying that He had completely forsaken His divinity (was no longer really God) while He was on earth. I am not yet convinced, though, that it is directly pertinent to this particular discussion.

But please clarify, as mercygate has also requested – what do you believe regarding the nature of the Incarnation?

As for the Eucharist, is there nothing more you have to say in response to my recent posts? What I am trying to do is show you that it is at least possible for Christ to have done what the Catholic Church proclaims. You seem to hold that it is rationally and logically impossible, but your reasoning for such is faulty, I believe. If we can establish that it is, at least, possible, then we can actually begin talking about whether or not it is likely. But until you acknowledge that it is possible, any discussion of probability will be fruitless – for both of us.

Peace to you,
javelin

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

there simply is no outward visible evidence that a transformation has taken place.

Perhaps you are the ultimate skeptic? Do you need outward visible evidence to believe?

sandusky:

I believe that, not because I saw it done, but, as you say, because I see the result of it—it is tangible, material, and I live on the earth, and see and touch the things that God has made. That is not the case with the Eucharist.

Oh, if only you knew. :crying:

sandusky:

It is not a question of how much, or how little Jesus says, it is what He says, and how He says it.

Exactly! “For my flesh is food** indeed** and my blood is drink indeed”.

sandusky:

If God could send plagues against Pharaoh and his gods, and part the red sea, and feed the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years by sending the manna, and keep their clothes from wearing out, He can certainly send the judgments that John describes, as he describes them.

And He can certainly consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Redbandito]

Quatsch:

I understand that, but how do you explain the part of Jn 6:63 where Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail”? Obviously he is not saying we should not eat his flesh, but what is he talking about?

He directly contrasts the “spirit that gives life” with “the flesh is of no avail.” This means that the flesh does not give life. He then says, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” I understand this to mean that his words come from the spirit and not from the flesh (i.e. they are not human ideas void of divine inspiration). Since words of man, not coming from the spirit, do not give life, the flesh is of no avail.

I wish I were a little more eloquent (is there a patron saint for eloquency? ), but that’s kind of my take on this verse. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Blessings,

Kyle

This is very simple actually. Jesus is making the distinction between our flesh and living in the spirit. Jesus is clearly not talking about His flesh, because he just got finished saying “whoever does not eat my flesh, and drink my blood, has no life within him”. It would make no sense for Jesus to contradict everything he just said by making this statement. If you look at the verses, they would be directly contradictory.

Furthermore, it would be an untrue statement for Jesus to say HIS FLESH does not give life, because it absolutely did. Without His flesh being crucified, there would be no salvation. Thus, it is simply taking this verse out of context to say that Jesus was referring to His flesh here. He is referring to our flesh. Our flesh does not give life. The Holy Spirit gives life through the sacraments (most specifically the Eucharist).

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

And from where in my posts did you get the idea I was?

I got that idea from your statement “For the host to become the actual, physical body of Christ, His material body must be omnipresent” in post 439.

My argument is not about what God can and cannot do.

Then you admit it is possible?

But what is not being done by God based on the “nature” of the things we’re talking about.

Blessings,
Bene

Sorry, I find that confusing. That’s not even a sentence.