John 6, Belief, and the Eucharist

[BillTBC]

I have been trying to make sense of John 6 lately, and honestly, a metaphorical interpretation seems best. But I do not think that necessarily means the Real Presence is not true.

I wrote about it on my blog. I’d appreciate comments. We can discuss it here in the forum, but please stick to my argument. Please do not quote other verses in the Bible to support the Real Presence. I never said I denied the Real Presence. I’m just questioning the interpretation of John 6 by Catholic apologists.

Here are my summary points:

• The focus of the Bread of Life discourse is on belief in Jesus as being sent from the Father. This is consistent with the chapters leading up to John 6.
• Jesus continues use of a food and drink metaphor began in John 4.
• The actual “eating” statements are a small portion of the discourse, which occur in the context of belief in Christ.
• His statements were misinterpreted by the Jews for the same reason His statement about rebuilding the temple. The former referred to His crucifixion, the latter to the resurrection.
• The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.
• They left Him because He claimed to be from the Father.
• The Apostles believe in Him and stay, but there is no indication of how they interpreted His words.
• I do not see any reason why this necessarily would invalidate belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[BillTBC]

bump

 

[teachccd]

• The Apostles believe in Him and stay, but there is no indication of how they interpreted His words.

Obviously they interpreted His words differently than all of His previous disciples did because they stayed and the others walked away. Re-read John 6. Jesus never backed down even at the chance of losing His entire Church. Remember He even asked His Apostles if they too wished to leave.

No, Jesus meant exactly what He said and the Apostles knew that. They surely did not fully understand how they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood but they understood that they must.

Have a blessed day…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.

So if Jesus never existed, these people would have gone physically hungry? Your observations are not consistent with Scripture regarding who Jesus’ disciples were. AND as much as you wish, you CANNOT remove the context of the Last Supper in the synoptics with John 6. This is John’s Last Supper discourse. Jesus said, “Take and eat, This is my Body” No metaphors, no symbols…God Bless, Teachccd

 

[Static]

Bill,

What you ask is a difficult task. For us to just camp out in Jn 6 trying to clarify Jesus teachings without using the rest of the scriptures is like you asking us why we believe baptism is more than a symbol from just staying in Jn 3.

I understand that if we do go outside of the scriptures you asked for it would become a very lengthy dialogue which maybe you want to try and stay away from, don’t really know.

I would like to touch on some points to be made out of that chapter without getting long winded though.( hopefully )

In mention of the verses from 51-56:

Let’s take at look at these verses mentioned in another way. Just say Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “ eat my flesh and drink my blood “ He would of been a poor teacher. Why ? Symbolically speaking of eating flesh and drinking blood in scripture means to persecute, do violence to, assault or to murder. A few examples and I will quote Revelation. (Is 9: 18-20, Mi 3:3 and Rev 17:6,16 ) In Rev 17:6,16, “I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus,” and “ The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire.” Now, if Jesus was speaking metaphorically, His listeners would of understood Him as saying, “Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you do violence to me and assault me, you do not have life within you . Whoever persecutes me and kills me I will raise him up on the last day.” As you can clearly see, this makes no sense of the text whatsoever.

As far as the manna vss. Jesus:

Jesus said He is the true bread from Heaven. Recall the manna, did it not come down from Heaven ? Now, according to Heb 8:5,10:1 & Col 2:17- quoting Colossians, the shorter of the three, These are shadows of things to come: the reality belongs to Christ. So, according to these verses, any Old Testament figure
( type ) was just a shadow of the fulfillment we have in the New Testament, which points to Christ. Now, saying that, if the manna came down from Heaven and in the New Testament, the bread that we brake is just that, bread, then that would make Jesus inferior to the Old Testament type. Can this be knowing that Jesus supercedes all Old Testament types ? This would leave us with a big problem since Jesus is the reality that fulfills all Old Testament types, would it not ?

Jesus being the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world should of held up a piece of lamb at the Last Supper not a piece of bread.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[teachccd]

The bigger question here is: Why would one who believes in the Real Presence (as you say that you do) want to undermine the Catholic theology relating to John Chapter Six? You say that whether or not Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically has no bearing on your stance. Then why polarize to the interpretation of those who deny the Real Presence? I am absolutely convinced that the Catholic interpretation is indeed sound and withstanding. Your allowing us not to venture into other Scripture is indicitive of one who finds proof-texting a valuable means of biblical interpretation. This can be expected of many fundamentalist Christians but hardly found in Catholic theology.

All of your rebuttal is contained within the first five chapters of John and does not collectively include what Jesus Himself refers to from the Book of Exodus. Even Jesus mentions the manna and how the bread is His flesh given for the life of the world. If we eat this bread we shall live forever unlike your ancestors who ate the manna and died.

You may continue on you journey of eisegesis, as many Protestants do, or do service to yourself and listen to what the Church has taught for 2000 years. I choose the latter. (an informed faith not a blind faith)

God Bless you…teachccd

 

[BillTBC]

Obviously they interpreted His words differently than all of His previous disciples did because they stayed and the others walked away. Re-read John 6. Jesus never backed down even at the chance of losing His entire Church. Remember He even asked His Apostles if they too wished to leave.

No, Jesus meant exactly what He said and the Apostles knew that. They surely did not fully understand how they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood but they understood that they must.

Have a blessed day…teachccd

So if the disciples who left interpreted Jesus literally, and the Apostles interpreted Him differently (your words), then they interpreted Him metaphorically? I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. But it does not follow that because His Apostles stayed that they interpreted Him differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillTBC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.

So if Jesus never existed, these people would have gone physically hungry? Your observations are not consistent with Scripture regarding who Jesus’ disciples were. AND as much as you wish, you CANNOT remove the context of the Last Supper in the synoptics with John 6. This is John’s Last Supper discourse. Jesus said, “Take and eat, This is my Body” No metaphors, no symbols…God Bless, Teachccd

You disagree with my statment that “The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.” But Jesus said in John 6:26, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.”

As for the Last Supper, you are assuming that the word “is” can’t be use metaphorically. But that’s the most basic way a metaphor is used. Think back to what your 3rd grade English teacher taught you.

Let’s take at look at these verses mentioned in another way. Just say Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “ eat my flesh and drink my blood “ He would of been a poor teacher. Why ? Symbolically speaking of eating flesh and drinking blood in scripture means to persecute, do violence to, assault or to murder. A few examples and I will quote Revelation. (Is 9: 18-20, Mi 3:3 and Rev 17:6,16 ) In Rev 17:6,16, “I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus,” and “ The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire.” Now, if Jesus was speaking metaphorically, His listeners would of understood Him as saying, “Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you do violence to me and assault me, you do not have life within you . Whoever persecutes me and kills me I will raise him up on the last day.” As you can clearly see, this makes no sense of the text whatsoever.

That would be true only if a metaphor can have one use. I already show you how Jesus used eating and drinking metaphors for other purposes in the immediate context of the story.

Jesus said He is the true bread from Heaven. Recall the manna, did it not come down from Heaven ? Now, according to Heb 8:5,10:1 & Col 2:17- quoting Colossians, the shorter of the three, These are shadows of things to come: the reality belongs to Christ. So, according to these verses, any Old Testament figure
( type ) was just a shadow of the fulfillment we have in the New Testament, which points to Christ. Now, saying that, if the manna came down from Heaven and in the New Testament, the bread that we brake is just that, bread, then that would make Jesus inferior to the Old Testament type. Can this be knowing that Jesus supercedes all Old Testament types ? This would leave us with a big problem since Jesus is the reality that fulfills all Old Testament types, would it not ?

Jesus being the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world should of held up a piece of lamb at the Last Supper not a piece of bread.

Not relevant to what I’ve said. I never said I denied the Real Presence.

Why would one who believes in the Real Presence (as you say that you do) want to undermine the Catholic theology relating to John Chapter Six? You say that whether or not Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically has no bearing on your stance. Then why polarize to the interpretation of those who deny the Real Presence?

Because bad exegesis can never be justified as an apologetic. *That *what fundamentalists do.

I am absolutely convinced that the Catholic interpretation is indeed sound and withstanding. Your allowing us not to venture into other Scripture is indicitive of one who finds proof-texting a valuable means of biblical interpretation. This can be expected of many fundamentalist Christians but hardly found in Catholic theology.

Nonsense. My purpose was to keep people from straying away from the topic by trying to prove the Real Presence with other verses. I am not concerned with the Real Presence in itself, but with the exegesis of this chapter.

You may continue on you journey of eisegesis, as many Protestants do, or do service to yourself and listen to what the Church has taught for 2000 years. I choose the latter. (an informed faith not a blind faith)

At this point, the Protestant way is looking more honest.

 

[teachccd]

So if the disciples who left interpreted Jesus literally, and the Apostles interpreted Him differently (your words), then they interpreted Him metaphorically? I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. But it does not follow that because His Apostles stayed that they interpreted Him differently.

No. Now you put words in my mouth. They also interpreted Jesus literally but they knew that what Jesus had to say were the words of eternal life and even all the while not understanding HIm, they chose to wait and see what Christ would reveal to them. And it was revealed at the Last Supper.

You disagree with my statment that “The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.” But Jesus said in John 6:26, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.”

Yes, Jesus did allude to this but are you saying that this is the ONLY reason why people followed Jesus?? This observation is irrelevant to the meaning of the Bread of Life discourse. It was a momentary rebuking to those who did not fully believe. John would not have said that the “disciples” (Jn 6:60 and 61) returned to their former way of living if they had only come to Him for lunch. Please…Context is necessary here…

As for the Last Supper, you are assuming that the word “is” can’t be use metaphorically. But that’s the most basic way a metaphor is used. Think back to what your 3rd grade English teacher taught you.

True, but we also use the term literally. This is my house. This is my car. This is my computer and so on. My third grade teacher would take you to task for implying that she would have taught me that the word “is” never equates to a literal conclusion. Even my math teacher knew that 2+2 IS 4…

Not relevant to what I’ve said. I never said I denied the Real Presence.

Maybe not, but you surely push to find evidence against it.

Nonsense. My purpose was to keep people from straying away from the topic by trying to prove the Real Presence with other verses. I am not concerned with the Real Presence in itself, but with the exegesis of this chapter.

What is it about this Chapter of John that is so offensive if the Real Presence can be proved throughout other Scripture?? If you find that Scripture supports the Real Presence then why are you so adament to deny the real meaning of this Chapter??

At this point, the Protestant way is looking more honest.

Really. So personal interpretation which is anti-biblical, by the way, makes a Christian more honest in his understanding of Christ. The Protestant way is looking more honest because you are looking more Protestant…God Bless…teachccd

 

[Static]

Bill said :

Not relevant to what I’ve said. I never said I denied the Real Presence.​

Yes, from what I can see, you are denying the Real Presence ? By all your responses you are proving that Jesus was a poor teacher. Let me add a bit more to what I have already stated so you can tell me it is irrelevant to what you are asking.

    In (Jn 6:4) we are in the context of the Passover. In the beginning of this chapter we have the multiplication of the loaves which is the only miracle that appears in all 4 gospels, ( Mt 14, Mk 6, and Lk 9) What Jesus is showing us in these passages is how His body will be broken and will feed the multitudes. He even establishes what we call parishes by having the people sit down in companies of fifty. (Lk 9:14) Moving on to vs. 32 we hear Jesus talking of the true bread. What was the holiest thing in the Old Testament ? The Ark of the Covenant. What did the Ark contain ? (Heb 9:4) tells us. We had the Ten Commandments.

(Ex 25:16,21) Jesus is the Word made flesh. (Jn 1:14) We had the staff of Aaron. (Num 17:25 ) Jesus is the true High Priest that which is in the order of Melchizedech.(Heb 3:1, 4:14, 5:6, 6:20, and 7:17) This was the priesthood that God first originated that the Israelites rejected back in the wilderness. There are 3 main points of resemblance between Melchizedech, the prophetic type, and Jesus the fulfillment of this prophecy. Firstly, both are kings as well as priests (Rev 17:14, Gen 14:18) Secondly, both have their priesthood directly from God and not through Aaron since neither belong to the tribe of Levi. And thirdly, the offering of bread and wine to God. The last item in the ark was the manna, the bread from heaven. Jesus says He is the true bread from heaven. (Jn 6:48-51)

Next, in (Jn 6:35) we have an interpretation that many hold that coming to Jesus satisfies our hunger and that believing in Him quenches our thirst. Coming and believing are definite requirements for having the life He promises, but not the only ones. We must read on.

In (Jn 6:44) Jesus said,” No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up on the last day. Jesus point here is that without God’s grace, what he is about to teach us is hard to understand, even to the learned. He reiterates this point in vs. 65.

In (Jn 6:52) the Jews asked, “ How can this man give us His flesh to eat ? Jesus always cleared up His teachings that were misunderstood as in (Jn 4:32, Mk 4:34, Mt 16:5-12 and Lk 8 to mention a few.) So, did Jesus clear up this teaching about eating His flesh ? Sure He did ! In a matter of fact He reiterated Himself 4 times from vs. 53 and following.  Jesus said to them, “ Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood have everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth  in me and I in him . “ He started off by saying, “Amen, Amen”, “ Truly, Truly”, “I mean it, I mean it “ or “ You better believe it ! “ Whatever translation or definition you want to stick with. When Jesus used these types of words starting off one of His teachings, He means business. Something happens with the word ‘eateth’ in these verses as apposed to the earlier verses to vs.53. In the previous verses the Greek word ‘phago’ is used, which is the generic term to eat. In vss. 53-58 there is a word change. The Greek word for eateth changes from ‘phago’ to trogo, a more graphic form of eating. It means to chew, munch, gnaw, a crunching sound. You can see this in Strong’s where it changes from #5315 to #5176.

Moving on to (Jn 6:62) “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before ? Was Jesus speaking in metaphors about His ascension or did He literally ascend into heaven ? (Acts 1:9) states it was indeed literal.

 Now, we have (Jn 6:63) “ It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. “ This is definitely the verse that clears up any type of literal meaning about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, agree ? We must argue the point. Spirit is never used symbolically in scripture. If we look at (Heb 1:14) are we to say that angels are not real ? How about Jn 4:24 ? God is Spirit. Are we to say that God is not real ? Jesus never said His flesh is of no avail because He would of contradicted Himself in what He just stated in the previous verses. He said ‘the flesh’ is of no avail referring to passages such as Rom 8:1-14, Gal 5:16-25 and 1 Cor 2:14 -3:3. Apart from God’s grace as stated earlier in vss. 44 and then again in vs. 65, we, in the flesh, cannot comprehend. Even if Jesus was including His flesh He just told us what kind of flesh will give us life back in vs. 62. What bodily form did he ascend in ? His glorified body ! If we were to just walk up to Him when he was standing there and took a bite out of His arm when he said, ‘ eat my flesh’ it would be to no avail. My guess is, it might even hurt a little.

  If verse 63 was suppose to clear things up for us then why in Jn 6:66, (6-6-6) does is say, ‘As a result of this, many disciples returned to there former way of life and no longer accompanied Him’   His disciples ? of all people ? still walked away ? Why did He not try to stop them by telling them that they totally misunderstood what He was trying to teach them , that He was only speaking symbolically ?

I’ve gone too long, sorry. Will finish what I am saying in the next post.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Static]

continued…

In the very next verse (67) He turned to the twelve and said. “ If you dudes just give me a minute until the crowd clears, I will clear up this misunderstanding of your literal take on this matter. “ NO ! He said, “ Do you also want to leave ?” St. Peter said, “To whom shall we go ? You have the words of eternal life.” All the words of Jesus are of Spirit and Life. Are we to take them all as lightly as many have done with this passage in the sixth chapter of John twisting it to a meaning that was never intended by our Lord ?

See, I tried to keep from getting too lengthy & keep from using scriptures outside of Jn 6 like you asked, but as you can see that is quite the impossible, sorry.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Nita]

I have been trying to make sense of John 6 lately, and honestly, a metaphorical interpretation seems best. But I do not think that necessarily means the Real Presence is not true.

Hi Bill,

I have a question for you (and any others who believe in transubstantiation, yet think John 6 should have a metaphorical interpretation).

First the premise:
Assume you are Jesus. You intend to establish the Eucharist privately with your 12 apostles just before your death. You will take real bread, miraculously replace its substance with your own (in its risen immortal state) - yet allow only the physical accidents of bread to be present for detection by the senses. [Substantially, your real flesh and blood that will look and taste like real bread. And you are going to tell them to physically eat it.]

**Now for the question:
How would you explain such a phenomenon to the people **prior to the actual institution - especially since they would not be present when the actual institution takes place and you will no longer continue to publically teach after your death?

---

IMO, knowing how difficult it would be to accept the reality of such a miraculous gift, Jesus wanted the people to hear it proclaimed directly by Him. It’s not as tho this was to be just a one time private act that would never involve them. It was to be the very center of the New Covenant Jesus was establishing - the New Covenant ritual sacrifice and its greatest sacrament.

Again,I think Jesus knew how important it was that the people hear it directly from Him. It was important not only then but throughout the ages. It is the two teachings together (John 6 and Last Supper narratives) that give us the full picture.

Nita

 

[rocketrob]

Please do not quote other verses in the Bible to support the Real Presence.

See, I tried to keep from getting too lengthy & keep from using scriptures outside of Jn 6 like you asked, but as you can see that is quite the impossible, sorry.

This whole premise of limiting discussion to a particular passage is faulty for the very reason that confusion and incorrect interpretation can result. The Magisterium of the Church has taught us how to correctly interpret Sacred Scripture. For any discussion related to the interpretation or meaning of Scripture, the following principles **must **be followed (articles from the Catechism):

111
But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

**112 **

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

**114 **
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

rocketrob

 

[Static]

Bill,
Just wanted to add a bit more to understanding why we believe what we believe. Hopefully you will get this. If your time is like my time, I know it could be weeks before you get to check back in again.
…
In the book of Exodus on the Passover ( Ex 12 :1-14 ) In
( 1Cor 5:7 ) we see that Jesus = Passover. “ Christ our Passover is sacrificed “ In ( Ex 12:3 ) it states, “let every man take a lamb by their family and houses” A man being the head of the household ( some might argue that point these days ! ) procures a lamb to feed his family. So, just as a father feeds his family, so does a priest ( spiritual father ) feeds his parish family, or you might say, the church. In ( Ex 12: 3,8,11 ) we see that we are to eat the lamb. Jesus is described as the Lamb numerous times in scripture, just to quote a few ( Jn 1:29,36, Acts 8:32f as stated in Is 53:7 ). ( Ex 12:5 ) states that it is to be an unblemished lamb as found in ( 1 Pet 1:19 ) “ but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb. In ( Ex 12:14 ) we see this feast as an everlasting observance, a perpetual institution as St. Paul states in ( 1Cor 5:8 ) “ let us keep the feast” and as St. Paul tells us in ( 1 Cor 11:26f ) “ Do this in remembrance of me “ A quick note to what the word remembrance meant to a Jewish person back in the time. Remembrance is taking an event from the past and reliving that event in the present. Also, this word has sacrificial language attached to it. Strong’s # 364 ( amnamesis ) has a base word # 3145 ( massaomai ) which means to chew or gnaw. This, I got into when I talked about Jn 6 already. In
( Rev 5:6 ) St John, who hasn’t seen Jesus in who knows how long, portrays Jesus as,” a lamb standing as it were slain” Now why, in all places, if the crucifixion is a past event and we as Christians should have emphasis on the resurrection, is Jesus referred to as the’ Lamb’ 28 times in Revelation as opposed to only 4 times in the rest of the New Testament ? It seems that the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus’ sacrifice. If this is of such importance to us in the afterlife, it should be just as real to us now.
Jumping back to ( Ex 12:3,6 ) we see there is a span of four days between getting the lamb and then sacrificing it. Why ? Moses didn’t know. You would think in four days time that your kids would not only have given the lamb a name but had made it their pet. And then what ? You got to slay it ! What’s up with that ? Well, it just happened to be the time frame that occurred between the time that the chief priests and the scribes sought to kill Jesus and His crucifixion.

I will try to get back and post more on this soon. Time to bolt to work ! Seeeeeeee Ya !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1 :15 )

 

[guanophore]

I have been trying to make sense of John 6 lately, and honestly, a metaphorical interpretation seems best. But I do not think that necessarily means the Real Presence is not true.

I wrote about it on my blog. I’d appreciate comments. We can discuss it here in the forum, but please stick to my argument. Please do not quote other verses in the Bible to support the Real Presence. I never said I denied the Real Presence. I’m just questioning the interpretation of John 6 by Catholic apologists.

I don’t think you will get to far with this method. Basically what you are mandating is that the passage be taken out of context. The context of John 6 is squarely within the remainder of the NT and the early Church. One of the main reasons that people don’t understand Catholic teaching is this taking it out of context method. Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Living Tradition that produced it, and doctrine is no composed (for CAtholics anyway) using isolated passages. To be undestood best, it must be taken as a whole. That includes other passages and the understanding of the early Church.

 

[Static]

Somemore little points for you Bill:

   Gonna hop into the Last Supper to make a few points. We see the description of this in Mt 26, Lk 22, Mk 14 and 1 Cor 11. In each of the Gospel accounts we see that when it comes to the Passover language that  the word, ‘eat”  the Passover is used instead of, ‘celebrate’ the Passover. We must consume the Lamb. 

  Historically, there are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. Any Jew would recognize this Passover language. The first cup is the ( Kiddush ) Blessing of the Festival. This was blessed at the beginning of the Passover. The second cup was the blessing at the beginning of the liturgical meal. After this blessing Psalm 113 was sung. This was one of the famous Hillel Psalms that recalled the deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt. The third cup is the Cup of Blessing. This is where we catch the language of the Last Supper. This was done during the meal. The fourth cup is the Cup of Suffering. (Consummation) They sing Psalms 114-118, then proceed to the

4th cup. This was the climax of the Passover.

   What happened to the 4th cup ? They all walked out into the night ! What happened ?  Look in Mk 14:35f . Verse 36 , “ Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will. ‘ Jesus is the 4th cup ! Backing up one verse in 35 Jesus said, “ Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. “ In Matthew, Mark & Luke, Jesus does not drink of the wine. He refuses the wine in Mt 27:48, Mk 15:23 & in Lk 24:36, why ? Because, none of these gospel writers were present at the cross. Who was present at the cross ? John ! Let’s go to his gospel in chapter 19. 

   In Jn 19:23-30, vs. 23 talks about this seamless garment. What is so significant about this ? Ex 28 describes this as being the garment that the High priest wore. So, Jesus was both High Priest & sacrifice, Jn 10:17f. He offered Himself. I need point out real quick why the little tidbits. In Jn 20:30, St. John tells us that everything written in his gospel account has salvific meaning.

   Now, in Jn 19:28, St. John said that everything was finished. What was finished ? What scripture was fulfilled ? All the Passover language from the Old Testament that pointed to Jesus. Jesus then proceeded to say, “I thirst.” Verse 29, has this hyssop that held the sponge with vinegar (sour wine, in Greek, oxos ) on it. This happens to be the same reed used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and lintel back in the

Passover. (Ex 12:22) In Jn 19:30, Jesus words from the cross was, “ It is finished “ In older translations of the scriptures it states that Jesus said, “ It is consummated .” If we recall earlier, the 4th cup was called the Cup of Consummation. These were the same Hebrew words that were prayed over the last cup in the context of the Passover ! It’s been said that the ‘ It is finished’ was said to mean that nothing else need be done, that what was finished is the redemptive work of Christ. True ! His redemptive work has to be applied to us by the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s been stated that by being obedient & continuing to abide in Christ is adding to His finished work. Not so ! Was there anything else that Jesus needed to do ? Yes ! In Rom 4:25, St. Paul states that Jesus had to be resurrected ! Many say you have to accept Jesus as personal Lord & Savior. Isn’t that doing something ? .

continued…

 

[Static]

continuation from #15…

We know that Jesus did win all the graces & merits to save a million earths, but the text in context is about the consummation of the Passover being finished. All the scripture that pointed to Christ as the fulfillment of the Passover is complete.

 Jesus time upon the cross happens to be the same time frame that the lambs for the Passover were being slain. If “It is finished” meant that nothing else need be done, then when St. Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7, “ For our paschal lamb, Christ is sacrificed” the next verse should say Amen ! Alleluia ! It is finished ! Not, let us keep the feast. Back in the Exodus passage that was stated earlier we saw that the head of the household had to sacrifice a lamb for his family. Everyone had to partake of the lamb or the Passover was not complete. If your firstborn did not partake of the eating of the lamb, what would happen ? He would die ! It wasn’t enough to just slaughter the lamb, you had to eat the lamb. 1 Cor 10:16 states, “ The cup of blessing that we bless ( chalice of benediction - act of blessing as at a close of worship ) is it not a participation ( Greek : koinonia-social intercourse ) in the blood of Christ ? The bread that we brake, is it not a participation ( koinonia ) in the body of Christ ? Notice it does not say the cup of blessing that we bless is it not a symbol in the blood of Christ ? The bread that we brake is it not a symbol in the body of Christ ?

 The ultimate goal is to restore communion & restore fellowship with God. How do we do this ? Who shares a common meal ? The family ! What does this signify ? A covenant ! What is a covenant ? A sacred family bond ! Heb 12:22ff- But you are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels, And to the church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaketh better than that of Abel. We are the church of the first born. We must all eat the Passover. 1 Cor 10:17 - Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 The only time that Jesus makes reference about a new covenant, ( some translations might word it testament, either, or ) happens to be in Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, & Lk 22:20, which is in the language of the Last Supper. In each passage of the Last Supper discourse he says “ Take, eat, this is my body & drink, this is my blood. Notice, He does not say, Take, eat, this is a symbol of my body nor drink, this is a symbol of my blood.

In 1 Cor 11:23-29, quoting verse 27 - Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord - St. Paul has always does an excellent job of making clearer the teachings of Christ in the Gospel. An example would be Mt 19:9 about adultery. In 1 Cor 7:10f we see that St. Paul clears up any misconceptions about what Jesus meant. So also he does in chapter 11 on the Blessed Sacrament. In these verses about the bread of life discourse, if we still believe that Jesus’ teaching is just a mere symbol, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. How can we be guilty of a symbol ? His saying here is a technical way of saying, “ guilty of murder ! “ To reiterate, if the Eucharist is merely a symbol and not Christ himself, this warning of St. Paul would be considered out of line.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[po18guy]

I have been trying to make sense of John 6 lately, and honestly, a metaphorical interpretation seems best. But I do not think that necessarily means the Real Presence is not true.

I wrote about it on my blog. I’d appreciate comments. We can discuss it here in the forum, but please stick to my argument. Please do not quote other verses in the Bible to support the Real Presence. I never said I denied the Real Presence. I’m just questioning the interpretation of John 6 by Catholic apologists.

Here are my summary points:

• The focus of the Bread of Life discourse is on belief in Jesus as being sent from the Father. This is consistent with the chapters leading up to John 6.
• Jesus continues use of a food and drink metaphor began in John 4.
• The actual “eating” statements are a small portion of the discourse, which occur in the context of belief in Christ.
• His statements were misinterpreted by the Jews for the same reason His statement about rebuilding the temple. The former referred to His crucifixion, the latter to the resurrection.
• The disciples came to Jesus because they were filled with food.
• They left Him because He claimed to be from the Father.
• The Apostles believe in Him and stay, but there is no indication of how they interpreted His words.
• I do not see any reason why this necessarily would invalidate belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Does “bad catholic” mean Protestant? Either way, better look to what Luther said about the Eucharist, since the Catholic and Lutheran are the only two plausible interpretations of John 6. And they agreed on it, differing only in theological conclusions regarding the process of substantiation.

 

[DianJo]

Static! I don’t know who you are or where you came from but…
That was an absolutely magnificent explanation of the Real Presence!!! I’ve read many and even written a few to help explain but yours was concise and “on the money!”

Thank you for that. I’m even gonna print it off to see if it will help explain this to my Protestant husband!

Thanks again!

Diana

 

[Static]

Static! I don’t know who you are or where you came from but…That was an absolutely magnificent explanation of the Real Presence!!! I’ve read many and even written a few to help explain but yours was concise and "on the money! Thank you for that.
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.

Hey Diana,

I have had serious computer problems for more than a month or so and still don’t think all is okay right now . I can’t even access my e-mail ! Anyway, the thanks need go to people like Carl, Tim. Scott, John, Jimmy, Patrick, Rosalind, Steve, Marcus & people like that, not me, but thanks anyway. Catholics & Converts like them have come along and kicked us a few times in the backside to get us rolling to learn, and then share our faith with whoever we come in contact with. Again, thanks, but the thanks should go to them.
I’m even gonna print it off to see if it will help explain this to my Protestant husband!
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.

Your husbands name is not BillTBC is it ? ( lol )

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )