John 6, Transubstantiation and Protestants

[Nelka]

I was trying to explain transubstantiation with a Protestant at work today that Jesus was talking about His Body and Blood being real food and real drink.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

She said that He was talking about his death and resurrection not transubstantiation and how as He was talking just before He died then He was talking about His Body and Blood in death.

How do I get past this?

Thanks.

 

[QuestLove]

I was trying to explain transubstantiation with a Protestant at work today that Jesus was talking about His Body and Blood being real food and real drink.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

She said that He was talking about his death and resurrection not transubstantiation and how as He was talking just before He died then He was talking about His Body and Blood in death.

How do I get past this?

Thanks.

How do you get past the foundational difference in belief between your church and her church? If that’s what you are asking, you don’t.
One of you will have to change your positions to agree. But I doubt either of you will change your position.
Is she an acquaintance or a close friend?

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t see any way of persuading through words people who have alternate explanations in their minds. I “give the reasons for [my] faith,” as St Peter said I should be able to do, and rely on God for anything more

 

[MarcoPolo]

If we look at all of John 6, Jesus preceded the whole discourse by alerting the audience that his comparison was a type of the Old Testament manna, i.e. bread from the sky. The manna was real, not a metaphor. By making the NT bread only a “symbol,” they make the NT bread even more inferior to the OT bread, which is a basic error when comparing OT and NT types–––i.e. NT types are always superior. See chart here for a visual depiction of what I mean: Is the Eucharist only a symbol of Christ’s body?

Also, the Gospel writer John also places this discourse immediately after the story of feeding 5,000 by multiplying the loaves, then the miracle of walking on water. The interpretation given by your friend departs from the idea of bread and miracles to common metaphor and symbolism. The context does not fit.

Additionally, the people who departed him at that point 6:60ff, understood him quite literally and Jesus did not correct them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I was trying to explain transubstantiation with a Protestant at work today that Jesus was talking about His Body and Blood being real food and real drink.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

She said that He was talking about his death and resurrection not transubstantiation and how as He was talking just before He died then He was talking about His Body and Blood in death.

How do I get past this?

Thanks.

It’s better to break down her trust in what she’s been erroneously taught. You’ll need more than John 6.

Start there at John 6, emphasize that FOLLOWERS of Christ were allowed to leave believing he was literal and Jesus never corrected it. If they took it wrong he would have clarified. He didn’t. …then head over to 1 Corinthians where Paul talks about eating unworthily profaning the body of the Lord.
Then go to the church fathers and show that first century Christians believed as catholics do. The orthodox and catholic teaching aligns with 2000 years of history.

Put the burden of proof on her since her idea is the new invention.

This site will help.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Polycarp1]

I was trying to explain transubstantiation with a Protestant at work today that Jesus was talking about His Body and Blood being real food and real drink.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

She said that He was talking about his death and resurrection not transubstantiation and how as He was talking just before He died then He was talking about His Body and Blood in death.

How do I get past this?

Thanks.

You could ask him how does he know if his translation is right. Who or what protects him from being wrong? If he says the Holy Spirit then he is claiming the gift of infallibility! With 30K plus protestant denominations all translating things a little or a lot differently from one another he would be very fortunate to be in one that had it completely right! You on the other hand are a member of the Church founded and commissioned by Christ to teach the truth and given his guarantee to be kept from teaching error on matters of faith and morals by Him.