John 6 and Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
sandusky:
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.
Wow, that’s harsh.

From where does your certainty arise, if I may ask?

I guess you also believe that all the faithful people who have been miraculously healed at Lourdes were healed by Satan.

Wow, I just don’t know what to say.

May God have mercy on us all…

javelin
 
All I know is that Jesus said the Bread and the Wine were his body and blood. I don’t need any visible signs to prove to me that transubstatiation occurs. The words of Jesus suffice for me.

God Bless
 
40.png
sandusky:
Philthy,

So let’s start afresh.
OK
40.png
sandusky:
Your contention is that the … “eat my flesh, drink my blood” passages in John 6, when taken literally, are true, and that 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.
No - This approach would simply lead to a debate over the meaning of statements such as “This is my body…take and eat”. Some would consider that an example of Christ’s body literally being eaten, some would not. You were rather shortsighted with this suggestion.
40.png
sandusky:
If you are unable to demonstrate a literal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood from scripture, then your argument is sunk
This statement contains a false conditional.Your premise that “IF (I) am unable to demonstrate a literal eating…THEN (my) argument is sunk” is erroneous. With it, you have assumed that this approach is the ONLY way to make the case. It isn’t - there are other ways, and that is what I had done with my argument. You have taken a PARTICULAR method of proof and made it the EXCLUSIVE method of proof without justification.
40.png
sandusky:
Since scripture tells us that Christ cannot lie, and we each agree that He cannot
Well I am glad to see that you have finally agreed that Christ can’t mislead anyone.
40.png
sandusky:
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.
And you believe this because there is no RECORD of anyone eating his flesh? As I said above, this just pushes us onto the question of whether “the breaking of the bread” in Acts or the Last Supper constitutes literally eating Christs flesh. And just so you know, the proof or disproof of something never relies on a recording of the event. Truth is independent of someone recording it. IF a record exists and we know it to be accurate THEN the record can be used as proof of the event. However, the LACK of a record does not constitute a demonstration of anything.

Here’s my argument in a nutshell:

CONCEPT:
Christ can not be guilty of misleading/lying to anyone (Grudem, Philthy, and, finally, Sandusky) Alternatively stated, it is impossible for Christ to mislead/lie to someone.

Premise 1a:Everyone who heard him during the John 6 discourse understood him literally

What’s my proof for this?
  1. He used graphic language
  2. Their reactions (disbelief) indicated that they understood him literally.
  3. Their interaction with him indicated they understood him literlally
  4. The disciple of the author of this passage maintained a literal interpretation of the Eucharist. All his contemporaries did as well.
  5. There is no record of a non-literal interpretation of this passage from the culture of it’s time.
Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.
What’s my proof for this?
  1. He initiated communication with them
  2. The words He chose led all to understand him literally
  3. He failed to clarify any different meaning when they expressed to him that they understood him literally.
Now Im going to combine Premise 2 and our CONCEPT together to arrive at my Conclusion:

Premise 1b: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally
Premise 2b: Christ cannot be responsible for misleading them

Therefore: **Christ could not have meant for them to understand him non-literally **(otherwise he would be in violation of the CONCEPT). Stated in the affirmative: Christ meant for them to understand him literally.

So there it is. A simple syllogism for you to analyze. Note that in such situations you need to challenge one of the premises or challenge the conclusion as not , of necessity, following from the premises.

Peace,

Phil
 
40.png
javelin:
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?
It is a foregone conclusion, based on Scripture, that Jesus Christ was God the Son incarnate. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” But the amazing fact of the incarnation is not that Jesus was God, but that He became one of US. Fully human. And not just the fact that He was incarnated fully man through the virgin birth , but came in the form of a “bond-servant” to God. To live out His entire human life in servitude to His heavenly Father. In His pre-incarnate state He already had as His possession the unique dignity of His place within the Godhead, but in His incarnate humanity He "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (i.e., by asserting His position and power which were His in the Godhead), but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness (or, fashion) of men (Phil. 2:5-6).

The Son didn’t come into this world to display Himself as God, as some sort of “Divine Exhibitionist.” But He made a pre-incarnate choice to set aside (Note: not divest Himself of ) His divine attributes and chose rather to be proclaimed as equal with God, as a man, by God, i.e., as “Lord”, by the acceptance of His destiny as the incarnate and humiliated One (Phil. 2:9-11). Totally unlike the first “man” (Adam) who considered equality with God something he could grasped himself (see Phil. 2:6; compare with, Gen. 3:5).

The Son didn’t volunteer to come into this world as a man, bodily, to prove to the world that there is a God, thereby displaying Himself as God (another man, with its evil intent, will do that in the not so far future, see 2 Thess. 2:4). God had already revealed Himself to the Jews, and displayed the glory of His power to them throughout their history. But, as a man, the Son came to do the perfect will of the Father, humbling Himself in the form of a bond-servant, becoming obedient, as a man, to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8).

That’s why Jesus said in John five that He can do nothing of Himself, that He can do nothing on His own initiative (I quoted those verses previously). Because such is not the place or the prerogative of a true bond-servant.

The point being, javelin, when the Son incarnated into this world system, He became fully man, even bodily, and did not live out His life on earth in the power and authority of His pre-incarnate position in the Godhead. He did not live out His life on earth “as God,” He did not die “as God,” He was not resurrected “as God,” but, bodily, as a man, a bond-servant of His Father. But it is now God the Father who exalts Him, as a man, to be LORD of all creation (Phil. 2:9-11) by virtue of His obedience, His servitude and the humiliation of His incarnation.

Jesus now resides in heaven with the same physical, human body in which He was incarnated, lived, died and resurrected. A glorified body, yes, but nevertheless the SAME human body. His body after the resurrection did not take on His pre-incarnate, divine attributes. It remains to this day a fully human, though resurrected and glorified body. It cannot be, by virtue of what it is, omnipresent – which is what the doctrine of transubstantiation demands if it was at all true.

And I’m sorry, but your postulation that Jesus is in heaven constantly performing miracles on His physical Person by multiplying it and serving it (like loaves of bread and fish), invisibly, in the Eucharist, to me is a totally unjustifiable and subjective attempt to try to explain a doctrine which cannot, by virtue of its falsity and total lack of Divine revelation, be explained. Which, I must say, has been demonstrated on this thead.

I hope I have sufficiently explained my view. See my post to “mercygate” #480

Blessing,
Bene

P.S. This Christmas don’t celebrate so much that the Son humbled Himself and became a man, but that as a man He humbled Himself and took on the form of a human bond-servant, even to the point of death that your and my salvation and justification be given by God to us “gift-wise.” If you want to rejoice over gifts this Christmas, celebrate, rejoice in these - procured and secured by God’s holy “Bond-servant.”
 
40.png
Mercygate:
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.
Yes, I agree with the Council of Chalcedon that Jesus Christ is the God-Man, one Person possessing two natures, the one human the other divine. I do not embrace, as you falsely accuse, the Nestorian view of a double being with two persons.

But what I do seem to find being expressed on this thread by you Catholics is something closer to the Apollianrian or Monophysite view. A compound view, a middle view, which makes the incarnate Son an amalgam of two natures, more accurately, one nature in which the human is absorbed and deified. Now deny it all you want, but that is exactly how you guys are expressing yourselves on this thread. Especially in all your arguments regarding the Eucharist and transubstantiation. You totally disregard His human nature, especially the spacial limitations of his human, material body, and constantly echo the vacuous response, “He’s God, He can do anything.” He’s not only God, He’s a man as well, and His eternal humanity served and serves a divine purpose.

But against this idea is affirmed by the Chal. Creed that even after the incarnation, and to all eternity, the distinction of the natures continues, without confusion or conversion, yet, on the other hand, without separation or division, so that the divine remains ever divine, and the human, ever human, and yet the two have continually one common life.

See my post #479 to javelin.

Blessings,
Bene
 
40.png
bene7:
Yes, I agree with the Council of Chalcedon that Jesus Christ is the God-Man, one Person possessing two natures, the one human the other divine. I do not embrace, as you falsely accuse, the Nestorian view of a double being with two persons.

But what I do seem to find being expressed on this thread by you Catholics is something closer to the Apollianrian or Monophysite view. A compound view, a middle view, which makes the incarnate Son an amalgam of two natures, more accurately, one nature in which the human is absorbed and deified. Now deny it all you want, but that is exactly how you guys are expressing yourselves on this thread. Especially in all your arguments regarding the Eucharist and transubstantiation. You totally disregard His human nature, especially the spacial limitations of his human, material body, and constantly echo the vacuous response, “He’s God, He can do anything.” He’s not only God, He’s a man as well, and His eternal humanity served and serves a divine purpose.

But against this idea is affirmed by the Chal. Creed that even after the incarnation, and to all eternity, the distinction of the natures continues, without confusion or conversion, yet, on the other hand, without separation or division, so that the divine remains ever divine, and the human, ever human, and yet the two have continually one common life.

See my post #479 to javelin.

Blessings,
Bene
Ah ha. Thanks. That sure isn’t what it looked like earlier on. As to the inconsistency of the Chalcedonian definition with a doctrine of the Real Presence, those Chalcedonian fathers had no problem with it at all.
 
40.png
Philthy:
No - This approach would simply lead to a debate over the meaning of statements such as “This is my body…take and eat”. Some would consider that an example of Christ’s body literally being eaten, some would not. You were rather shortsighted with this suggestion.
IOW, there is no historical statement anywhere that you can provide that would prove your position. My position is proven on the basis of the text itself. Both John 6, and the Last Supper accounts, about which John, in His Gospel does not even write about.
40.png
Philthy:
This statement contains a false conditional.Your premise that “IF (I) am unable to demonstrate a literal eating…THEN (my) argument is sunk” is erroneous. With it, you have assumed that this approach is the ONLY way to make the case. It isn’t - there are other ways, and that is what I had done with my argument. You have taken a PARTICULAR method of proof and made it the EXCLUSIVE method of proof without justification.
IOW, there is no historical statement anywhere that you can provide that would prove your position. My position is proven on the basis of the text itself. Both John 6, and the Last Supper accounts, about which John, in His Gospel does not even write about.
40.png
Philthy:
And you believe this because there is no RECORD of anyone eating his flesh? As I said above, this just pushes us onto the question of whether “the breaking of the bread” in Acts or the Last Supper constitutes literally eating Christs flesh. And just so you know, the proof or disproof of something never relies on a recording of the event. Truth is independent of someone recording it. IF a record exists and we know it to be accurate THEN the record can be used as proof of the event. However, the LACK of a record does not constitute a demonstration of anything.
IOW, there is no historical statement anywhere that you can provide that would prove your position. My position is proven on the basis of the text itself. Both John 6, and the Last Supper accounts, about which John, in His Gospel does not even write about.
40.png
Philthy:
Here’s my argument in a nutshell:

CONCEPT:
Christ can not be guilty of misleading/lying to anyone (Grudem, Philthy, and, finally, Sandusky) Alternatively stated, it is impossible for Christ to mislead/lie to someone.

Premise 1a:Everyone who heard him during the John 6 discourse understood him literally

What’s my proof for this?
  1. He used graphic language
  2. Their reactions (disbelief) indicated that they understood him literally.
  3. Their interaction with him indicated they understood him literlally
  4. The disciple of the author of this passage maintained a literal interpretation of the Eucharist. All his contemporaries did as well.
  5. There is no record of a non-literal interpretation of this passage from the culture of it’s time.
Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.
What’s my proof for this?
  1. He initiated communication with them
  2. The words He chose led all to understand him literally
  3. He failed to clarify any different meaning when they expressed to him that they understood him literally.
Now Im going to combine Premise 2 and our CONCEPT together to arrive at my Conclusion:

Premise 1b: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally
Premise 2b: Christ cannot be responsible for misleading them

Therefore: Christ could not have meant for them to understand him non-literally (otherwise he would be in violation of the CONCEPT). Stated in the affirmative: Christ meant for them to understand him literally.

So there it is. A simple syllogism for you to analyze. Note that in such situations you need to challenge one of the premises or challenge the conclusion as not , of necessity, following from the premises.

Peace,

Phil
IOW, there is no historical statement anywhere that you can provide that would prove your position. My position is proven on the basis of the text itself. Both John 6, and the Last Supper accounts, about which John, in His Gospel does not even write about.
 
40.png
AquinasXVI:
Sandusky:

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.
For the last six months, I have been considering buying the writings of the ECFs, and spent sometime at a seminary library this afternoon looking through the set I intend to purchase.

I began with the epistles of Ignatius, or, to paraphrase the introduction, the spurious and probably not written completely by, or possibly not at all by Ignatius epistles. It also casually mentioned that he was a disciple of John, and said that not much was known about his personal life, could be they talked about justification rather than the Eucharist; nobody knows.

I did not get beyond the fascinating reading of the introduction, which I read several times to be sure I was understanding it correctly.

It seems the feelings expressed on this forum for the writings of God’s word should be transferred over to Ignatius as well. I will be purchasing my ECF set and should be able to begin reading in the new year. At that time, I will re-read the introduction to the section on Ignatius, just to be sure I read it correctly today.

Very interesting so far.
 
40.png
Philthy:
Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.
What’s my proof for this?
  1. He initiated communication with them
Re-read the passage Philthy; Jesus did not initiate the communication see John 6:22-25.
40.png
Philthy:
Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.
What’s my proof for this?
2. The words He chose led all to understand him literally
You cannot prove this. Perhaps they thought He was crazy; it would seem they took Him literally, but they could also have thought He had lost His mind, and that He had no idea what He was talking about.
40.png
Philthy:
Premise 2a: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally.
What’s my proof for this?
3. He failed to clarify any different meaning when they expressed to him that they understood him literally.
That is ridiculous!

It assumes that He meant what He said literally.
It is equally possible that He meant it figuratively.

You have not proven your concept.
40.png
Philthy:
Now Im going to combine Premise 2 and our CONCEPT together to arrive at my Conclusion:

Premise 1b: Christ is responsible for their understanding him literally
Premise 2b: Christ cannot be responsible for misleading them

Therefore: Christ could not have meant for them to understand him non-literally (otherwise he would be in violation of the CONCEPT). Stated in the affirmative: Christ meant for them to understand him literally.
Your failure to prove Premise 2a of your concept, invalidates your conclusion.

Scripture is very clear, we are all responsible for the choices we make. I believe you call that free-will.
40.png
Philthy:
So there it is. A simple syllogism for you to analyze. Note that in such situations you need to challenge one of the premises or challenge the conclusion as not, of necessity, following from the premises.
Done.

Philthy, I will help you out, and stipulate that Christ does not mislead people.

Even with that stipulation, you cannot offer concrete proof that anyone, at anytime literally ate Christ’s flesh, and drank Christ’s blood.

That simply did not happen.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Ah ha. Thanks. That sure isn’t what it looked like earlier on.
If you go back and read the posts, they look exactly like that. It’s just that you fail to understand a Biblical view of the incarnation of the Son, and everything you read is filtered through your own religion’s view. And when what you read does not conform you’re far too quick to call someone a heretic!
As to the inconsistency of the Chalcedonian definition with a doctrine of the Real Presence, those Chalcedonian fathers had no problem with it at all.
As I stated before, “Real Presence” is an ambiguous term. And it certainly isn’t Biblical. When Jesus broke the bread He didn’t say, “In this I am really present.” And the doctrine of Transubstantiation demands far more than just a spiritual presence in the host.

Blessings,
Bene
 
40.png
bene7:
But the amazing fact of the incarnation is not that Jesus was God, but that He became one of US. Fully human…"
100% human and 100% divine.
40.png
bene7:
To live out His entire human life in servitude to His heavenly Father
100% human and 100% divine.
40.png
bene7:
But, as a man, the Son came to do the perfect will of the Father, humbling Himself in the form of a bond-servant, becoming obedient, as a man, to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8)
100% human and 100% divine.
40.png
bene7:
The point being, javelin, when the Son incarnated into this world system, He became fully man
And fully divine.
40.png
bene7:
Which, I must say, has been demonstrated on this thead.
And I must say that nothing of the sort has been demonstrated on this thread. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
sandusky:
I will be purchasing my ECF set and should be able to begin reading in the new year.
Welcome to the beginning of your journey back to the Catholic Church! 👍
 
40.png
bene7:
It’s just that you fail to understand a Biblical view of the incarnation of the Son, and everything you read is filtered through your own religion’s view.
Why must you be so rude? 😦
40.png
bene7:
As I stated before, “Real Presence” is an ambiguous term. And it certainly isn’t Biblical.
"For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed". That’s quite biblical.
 
Sandusky:

Great! There’s a book out by Rob Bennett called the Four Witnesses. It’s an easy to read ECF book.

Have a great one.

in XT.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Re-read the passage Philthy; Jesus did not initiate the communication see John 6:22-25.
You cannot prove this. Perhaps they thought He was crazy; it would seem they took Him literally, but they could also have thought He had lost His mind, and that He had no idea what He was talking about.
That is ridiculous!

It assumes that He meant what He said literally.
It is equally possible that He meant it figuratively.

You have not proven your concept.

Your failure to prove Premise 2a of your concept, invalidates your conclusion.

Scripture is very clear, we are all responsible for the choices we make. I believe you call that free-will.

Done.

Philthy, I will help you out, and stipulate that Christ does not mislead people.

Even with that stipulation, you cannot offer concrete proof that anyone, at anytime literally ate Christ’s flesh, and drank Christ’s blood.

That simply did not happen.
To say that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in their essence in the Eucharist under the forms for bread and wine, not in their accidents, which remain bread and wine, is not to say that we nosh on the fingers and toes of the Lord.

Although bene7, with all of his formidable theological sophistication, rejects the term “mystery” – that is what it has been called since the earliest times. It is not the resuscitated carcass but the Resurrection Body that is present: of its exceptional qualities we have ample evidence in the Gospels.

As for the reliability of Ignatius: we are still waiting for your comparable early source claiming the real absence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
40.png
bene7:
If you go back and read the posts, they look exactly like that. It’s just that you fail to understand a Biblical view of the incarnation of the Son, and everything you read is filtered through your own religion’s view. And when what you read does not conform you’re far too quick to call someone a heretic!As I stated before, “Real Presence” is an ambiguous term. And it certainly isn’t Biblical. When Jesus broke the bread He didn’t say, “In this I am really present.” And the doctrine of Transubstantiation demands far more than just a spiritual presence in the host.

Blessings,
Bene
Well, yes. Everything we believe IS filtered through the teaching of the Catholic Church because she has the mandate and the charism entrusted to her as “the great commission” to TEACH. If a teaching does not conform to the orthodox formulation, then it is heretical. Nothing personal. A person can stop holding heretical beliefs in a heartbeat.

Yes: Real Presence is an ambiguous term. That is not a problem. No problem with that at all for 800 years (the Orthodox still adhere to the non-explication of the concept and accept it as a mystery). Then it took another 400 years to formulate an explanation, known as transubstantiation.

Not biblical? Of course it is biblical. Real presence is certainly biblical. It corresponds to “eat my flesh” and “This is my body.”
 
40.png
mercygate:
To say that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in their essence in the Eucharist under the forms for bread and wine, not in their accidents, which remain bread and wine, is not to say that we nosh on the fingers and toes of the Lord.

Although bene7, with all of his formidable theological sophistication, rejects the term “mystery” – that is what it has been called since the earliest times. It is not the resuscitated carcass but the Resurrection Body that is present: of its exceptional qualities we have ample evidence in the Gospels.
What Philthy is attempting to prove has nothing to do with the Eucharist; Philthy is attempting to prove that Christ’s statements in John 6 were literal, i.e., one must literally eat His flesh and drink and His blood.
40.png
mercygate:
As for the reliability of Ignatius: we are still waiting for your comparable early source claiming the real absence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is interesting that you cite Ignatius so highly, without mentioning the questionable nature of his writings until I mention them.

You engage in deception while you fight for truth. Your position is weak, and the fact that you did not mention the questionable nature of Ignatius’ writings, weakens it further in my eyes.

I am still waiting for any documentation that Christ’s flesh and blood was literally consumed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
 
40.png
sandusky:
What Philthy is attempting to prove has nothing to do with the Eucharist; Philthy is attempting to prove that Christ’s statements in John 6 were literal, i.e., one must literally eat His flesh and drink and His blood.

It is interesting that you cite Ignatius so highly, without mentioning the questionable nature of his writings until I mention them.

You engage in deception while you fight for truth. Your position is weak, and the fact that you did not mention the questionable nature of Ignatius’ writings, weakens it further in my eyes.

I am still waiting for any documentation that Christ’s flesh and blood was literally consumed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
I do not believe Ignatius is questionable. You do. We are still waiting for your equivalent source documenting a belief in the Real Absence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Not biblical? Of course it is biblical. Real presence is certainly biblical. It corresponds to “eat my flesh” and “This is my body.”
Let me use the Catholic line of reasoning with regard to sola scriptura as you use it to disprove the same.

Where in the Bible are the words real presence?
 
40.png
mercygate:
I do not believe Ignatius is questionable. You do. We are still waiting for your equivalent source documenting a believe in the Real Absence of Christ in the Eucharist.
To deny to questionable nature of Ignatius’ writings is to have your eyes wide shut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top