John 6...the elusive question finally asked!

[martino]

Reformed Rob:

Ok, I thought I had it, but I guess I lost the jist of your question in the midst of my post. Anyways, I was trying to say that they left because they didn’t believe (there’s the “what”) that unless God drew them, they wouldn’t come. Nevertheless, that’s not what they are mumbling about in the earlier verse that I quoted.

Well no I said that at the bottom of my post, they left because they didn’t believe in God’s sovereign grace. Nonetheless, that causes many people to “leave” today, no?

Can you honestly tell me after reading the entire passage that the truth that Jesus revealed to them that they did not believe was anything other than his command to “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”? With all due respect, I just dont see how you can say that and still maintain your intellectual honesty.

 

[BibleReader]

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is taught elsewhere in Scripture: In the Nativity story in Luke, Jesus is wrapped in swaddling clothes, so that He looks like a cadaver wrapped in a shroud, and He is laid in a manger, a feeding trough for yoked animals. It is a picture of THE ACTUAL BODY OF DEAD JESUS BEING SERVED ON A KIND OF “DINNER PLATE.”

And where does this take place? In “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread” – a bakery.

So, what do we see being served in the “House of Bread”? BREAD on a serving dish? No! Instead we see the ACTUAL BODY OF CHRIST, HIMSELF, BEING SERVED AS FOOD!

Here’s another place where the concept is taught…

Christ is the sinless “blemishless lamb.” 1 Peter 1:19. And none of His bones were broken. John 19:33-36.

Now, what did the Israelites actually eat in the first Passover meal? Lamb chops?

Nope. THEY ATE THE ACTUAL FLESH OF THE “BLEMISHLESS LAMB,” EXODUS 12:5, WHOSE BONES WERE NOT BROKEN, Exodus 12:46.

 

[tkdnick]

BibleReader:

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is taught elsewhere in Scripture: In the Nativity story in Luke, Jesus is wrapped in swaddling clothes, so that He looks like a cadaver wrapped in a shroud, and He is laid in a manger, a feeding trough for yoked animals. It is a picture of THE ACTUAL BODY OF DEAD JESUS BEING SERVED ON A KIND OF “DINNER PLATE.”

And where does this take place? In “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread” – a bakery.

So, what do we see being served in the “House of Bread”? BREAD on a serving dish? No! Instead we see the ACTUAL BODY OF CHRIST, HIMSELF, BEING SERVED AS FOOD!

Here’s another place where the concept is taught…

Christ is the sinless “blemishless lamb.” 1 Peter 1:19. And none of His bones were broken. John 19:33-36.

Now, what did the Israelites actually eat in the first Passover meal? Lamb chops?

Nope. THEY ATE THE ACTUAL FLESH OF THE “BLEMISHLESS LAMB,” EXODUS 12:5, WHOSE BONES WERE NOT BROKEN, Exodus 12:46.

WOW! Very good! I knew about the Passover connection, but that stuff about Jesus’ birth was new to me!

 

[Shoshana]

BibleReader:

The Doctrine of the Real Presence is taught elsewhere in Scripture: In the Nativity story in Luke, Jesus is wrapped in swaddling clothes, so that He looks like a cadaver wrapped in a shroud, and He is laid in a manger, a feeding trough for yoked animals. It is a picture of THE ACTUAL BODY OF DEAD JESUS BEING SERVED ON A KIND OF “DINNER PLATE.”

And where does this take place? In “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread” – a bakery.

So, what do we see being served in the “House of Bread”? BREAD on a serving dish? No! Instead we see the ACTUAL BODY OF CHRIST, HIMSELF, BEING SERVED AS FOOD!

Here’s another place where the concept is taught…

Christ is the sinless “blemishless lamb.” 1 Peter 1:19. And none of His bones were broken. John 19:33-36.

Now, what did the Israelites actually eat in the first Passover meal? Lamb chops?

Nope. THEY ATE THE ACTUAL FLESH OF THE “BLEMISHLESS LAMB,” EXODUS 12:5, WHOSE BONES WERE NOT BROKEN, Exodus 12:46.

:clapping: :dancing:

 

[petra]

Great thread! And thanks for the insights everyone–especially Martino.

Here is another thought:
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the Real Presence. I would ask Protestants: “Were they not reformed enough?”

 

[Reformed_Rob]

martino:

Can you honestly tell me after reading the entire passage that the truth that Jesus revealed to them that they did not believe was anything other than his command to “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”? With all due respect, I just dont see how you can say that and still maintain your intellectual honesty.

Martino, good question, and though a few years ago, I thought for a short while that what I once maintained was a good answer, it soon after became evident that it wasn’t.

I’ll refer back to what I said in my first post:

Not that I’m all sure of this (actually, I don’t think it’s a very great answer now), but it’s what I once was led to years ago in a campus ministry study of this portion of Scripture.

One reason, Christ is repeating what He said back in 6:44. And back in that section, well, 6:41 says that the Jews murmured because Christ was teaching Irressistable Grace, NO>>> the Jews murmured because Christ said " I am the bread which came down frm heaven."

Ok, let me restate it in simpler terms:

Concerning my answer, which I set forth briefly, namely that certain disciples left because they did not believe (in answer to the original question ‘what did they not believe’) in God’s sovereign grace, I categorically affirm that I do not believe that to be a good answer at all! Mainly because, Scripture says in John 6:41 that the Jews murmured because Christ said “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” Apparently, what they had trouble believing was something related to the proposition “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

So, a great verse to use to show that some disciples left Christ because of the scandal caused by having to eat Christ’s flesh would be John 6:41. Verses 52 and 53 are excellent as well. There was something about that proposition that they didn’t like, ie. failed to believe.

 

[AquinasXVI]

The opposing typology of the apple in the garden when EATEN brought death. It was real. And they really ate it. And they eventually really died. I think ALL Christians have no problem believing this…yet when we come to the Most Holy Eucharist, which Christ reitterates must be eaten (like the way they ate the real Passover Lamb) it is doubted that when EATEN will bring Eternal Life.

The faith that God asked of our first parents not to eat is the same faith that Christ asks us to eat. In the act of eating, man destroyed his original justice and by the same act he is to restrore his dignity. The designs of God truly is mysterious and beautiful at the same time.

in Xt.
A.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

petra:

Great thread! And thanks for the insights everyone–especially Martino.

Here is another thought:
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the Real Presence. I would ask Protestants: “Were they not reformed enough?”

Yeah, but Martin Luther said that the Popish mass was an abomination, and John Calvin, along with John Knox maintained the same.

In his Institutes, Calvin uses the verse in Hebrews (9:22) about shedding of blood being necessary for forgiveness, and says that since Romanists claim the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, then there’s no forgiveness.

They believed in “the real presence” but not a real presence anywhere like transubstantiation. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just dialoguing, like Vatican 2 wants Catholics to do, so consider these 2 quotes:

Now if Christ consecrates the bread, when he declares to us that it is *his body, *we must not suppose that there is any change of the substance, but must only believe that it is applied to a new purpose. And if the world had not been long ago so bewitched by the subtlety of the devil, that, when the monster of transubstantiation had once been introduced, it will not now admit any light of true interpretation on these words, it would be superfluous to spend any more time in investigating their meaning. (Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Vol 3, Matthew 26:26-30)

And

It is a Father who testifies, “That the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ.” This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.
(Institutes, Prefatory Address to King Francis)

Petra, what were you thinking of when you said those 2 men believed in the real presence? I don’t mean sarcastically “what were you thinking !!” I mean it like, “you said that based upon something, what did you mean and what led you to say that, because I’m sure you’re right according to what you meant.”

 

[gusano]

martino:

One of the biggest divisions between Protestants and Catholics is the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Eucharist.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After the disciples become distraught over this teaching, Jesus says to them, “…’there are some of you that do not believe’ For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.” This verse (64) clearly shows that the disciples did not leave because they did not understand Him, they left because they did not believe Him!

So my new question to all my Protestant friends is this: What truth did Jesus reveal in John 6 that they did not believe?

I believe the TRUTH Jesus revealed was;
THE NEW COVENANT.
He is now making His flesh and blood available for them / us to eat and drink… inorder to seal the New Covenant with you and I.

Lev.17:11 says; **“since the life of a living body is in it’s blood, I have made you put it on the ALTAR, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.”

“I will place my law within them…”** Jer.31:33 / 2Cor.3:3-6
He places His law within us as we eat and drink His own Life (His flesh and blood).

"The law of the Spirit, the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus…" Rom.8:2
That same law is the law of …
THE SPIRIT, THE WATER AND THE BLOOD and these three are of one accord." ( 1 John 5:8 )
"Whoever possesses the Son …(verses 6,7) …posseses life."

"Lord, to whom shall we go?..you have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)
Peter and the disciples who stayed with Him, here expressed the same kind of FAITH as Abraham…“Fully persuaded that God could DO whatever he had promised.” Rom.4:21

So they saw Him DO IT at His Passover the night before he died. (Matt.26:28
today we see Him do it, He makes available what he wants us to eat and drink…in order to fulfill the New Covenant within us.

Those disciples who left, were not fully persuaded that Jesus could DO what he had promised.

God draws those who believe.
those who do not, he leaves alone…untill someone persuades them to BELIEVE.

"My just man will live by faith,
and if he draws back
I take no pleasure in him." Heb. 10:38

gusano

 

[st_julie]

In one way both sides are right. Without a valid priesthood then their Eucharist is symbolic All symbols point to a truth. In this case it points to the valid Eucharist of the Catholic and Orthodox Church
st julie