Did he literally say if you eat this bread you will live forever ? Did he say you would also no longer hunger ? I take it you have literally eaten this bread, so do you hunger /eat anymore, and will you die ? That is what He literally said, right ? I literally eat Him the way you literally don’t hunger and will not die.
Howdy, yourself, david ruiz. As a Texan; I like you already.
How does John 6 tell us He is speaking figuratively?
And, if those to whom he spoke understood his words to be figurative; why did many of his disciples say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60)
John 6:52, the Jews disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This would be the perfect time for Christ to explain that He was speaking figuratively. Instead, Jesus said:
. . . ."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.** (John 6:54)
**
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (John 6:55)
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6:56)
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (John 6:57)
This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)
I’m glad you consider Scripture as a whole.
Transubstantiation is an “Aristotelian” explanation of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ upon consecration–with the appearance of bread and wine remaining.
As an Anglican Catholic (not in communion with Rome); I believe the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ upon consecration, which changes the substance—but I do not feel the need to define the metaphysics involved. I yield to the mystery of the Eucharist, in a similar way the Eastern Orthodox do.
My view as an Anglican Catholic is that through the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is brought into the present and includes the Church’s offering. The Sacrifice of Christ is “ever present,” but never repeated.
Hebrews 10: 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Through the Eucharist, we are able to participate in and be united with His Sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 10: 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
We are called, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1)
1 Corinthians 5: 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Ephesians 5: 1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
You will find words from the above Scriptures in the Anglican Liturgy.
Peace,
Anna
david ruiz,
Actually, yes. Jesus said, “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:58)
This is a very peculiar comment. Present tense = figurative?
And here is another example of Jesus speaking in the present tense:
vs48- “I am the bread of life”. vs.-50- “…that a man may eat thereof and not die” vs 35- “I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me (when you eat, do you come to him ?) shall never hunger.” Is the bread figurative or literal ? The effect of eating is literal or figurative ? My definition of figurative is to use an earthly reality to show a spiritual reality. Is there another way that is mentioned where the same blessings can be had without literal eating, indeed any eating ? How does He begin the discourse, eating, not eating, figurative, literal in vs. 35 ?
Hello PRmerger. Are we going backward here with an either /or proposition ? How is saying that he OFTEN spoke figuratively in present tense, insinuate that He always did ? Shall we both say He often spoke figuratively in present tense, as in, “I am the vine…”, and often literally as when he said ,“I am He.” ? Now with that discernment the Lord takes us to humbly approach the understanding of “eating Him”.
Do I have my english right ? “I am the vine”-is the verb present ?This is a very peculiar comment. Present tense = figurative?
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
Jesus is speaking in the present tense. He is only being figurative here?
Ok. Then what criteria do you use to discern whether he was speaking figuratively or literally?
Do you know how many disciples left Jesus when he said he was a vine?
I know. I left it for last, sorry .It deserves more time than I have today. A couple of my answers to others sheds a little light on my “case”. I will leave you with a few questions, if I may .Was Jesus truly human , and did He show the full range of emotions, properly (without sinning) ? Did He ever show frustration (without sinning) ? Was he ever “cutting” or even sarcastic (without sinning) in His statements/responses ? Did he ever “hide/veil” truth other than in parables ? In the end, what two kinds of people has there been since the beginning ? What is the critical factor, the dividing line, between the two ? I believe the answer to those questions helps in proper understanding of John 6.Lord willing I will respond -thanks Texan .david ruiz,
You haven’t made a case for a “figurative” Lord’s Supper. I’m still waiting for your response to my post.
Peace,
Anna
David,
Thank you, Radical.I reckon that it will be the weekend before I get around to posting a response to your earlier 7 posts…but eventually I will get around to answering this question.
Cheers.
We can call it whatever, but the issue is not in the name. I just said “Protestant” because there are some Protestants who believe you can lose your salvation and some who believe you can’t.
I don’t think anyone can deny that there are some Protestants (or Christians if you will) who believe in OSAS and some who don’t. The question is, who should I believe? Who should I follow? They both claim to be following the Holy Spirit and both claim that the Spirit is their interpreter; who should I follow and why?
Yes, because and only because that is what He, God, said.
) about the way they understood Jesus and what Jesus could have meant. We have to read the whole Gospel of John and see a pattern of how people kept understanding Jesus. THEY ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD HIM LITERALLY. They NEVER once, EVER, EVER, EVER understood Jesus to be speaking figuratively. Why would they, all of a sudden, believe Him to be speaking figuratively this time? On top of that, why would they understand Him to be speaking figuratively when this is the time where He is more explicit than any other time? Not only that, but the language He uses is more literal than ANY other time. They understood Him LITERALLY. There is really no question about it. Whoever doesn’t agree with this is just closing his/her ears and eyes to a simple reality.Very quickly Lyrikal, but you seem to apply “once saved always saved” to the Catholic Church as, “once right always right”. And remeber OSAS have their scriptural foundation claim also as CC does. Anyways, many people find it “attractive” intelectually to belong to a One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal Church, even though it is by Her say so .Hi David,
Thank you for your response.
We can call it whatever, but the issue is not in the name. I just said “Protestant” because there are some Protestants who believe you can lose your salvation and some who believe you can’t.
I don’t think anyone can deny that there are some Protestants (or Christians if you will) who believe in OSAS and some who don’t. The question is, who should I believe? Who should I follow? They both claim to be following the Holy Spirit and both claim that the Spirit is their interpreter; who should I follow and why?
Actually, since this is a Eucharist thread, let’s forget that question. Let me ask something that is more in context with this thread…
Some Protestants/Christians such as yourself and Radical hold to a symbolic/figurative/or perhaps spiritual view of what the Eucharist is. There are some Protestants/Christians such as Lutherans who believe that the Eucharist is the RBP of Christ. Both types of Christians claim to have the truth and both claim that the Holy Spirit lead them to such a view. Now we have a division. Along comes Lyrikal, a Catholic who is perhaps considering Protestanism. Lyrikal looks at the two views and thinks, “Hmm, they both claim the Holy Spirit as their teacher. Which one has the right view?”
So David, how can I tell who has the right view? JWs claim their view is from the Holy Spirit and as do Mormons. Why should I trust your view on anything and not theirs? How can you prove to me that your view is from the Holy Spirit? Where does your authority come from? Which one of you should I go with?
Also, you seem to have an interest in the Early Church. Do you think there was a such thing as private interpretations? Do you think the Church would tolerate someone coming up with something that is not found in the Apostolic teachings or tolerate someone who teaches contrary to what the Church teaches? The answer is yes, there were such people. Do you know what they were called? Heretics. I am not calling you a heretic but I am pointing out to you that the Church saw these types of people as heretics.
The authority belonged to the Church. When there were different views on doctrine, the Church didn’t say: “Well, read your Bible on your own and hopefully you come up with the right answer for you. Good luck!” No, they held a council and settled the matter. The Bishops settled the matter (Christ’s nature, Divinity, Trinity, Canon of Scripture, etc.). And I’m not talking about a council where several pastors from one church get together and settle a matter. I’m talking about a Council with many Bishops from different churches around coming together to settle matters. Is your church capable of doing this today? Do you have valid Bishops who can trace their ordination back to the Apostles? You may think that isn’t something important, but the Early Church saw that as a NECESSITY and something essential in order to have valid Bishops.
“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).
We’re talking 110 AD here, David. This type of practice is very foreign to a lot of Protestant/Christian churches. Most of the time I hear Protestants complaining to Catholics about how we submit to the authority of the our Bishops. Why should we do otherwise? This is the practice of the Early Church. THEY have the authority; not you, not me, and not anyone else who is a layman.
So why should I trust your view, or Radical’s, or anyone’s and ignore these Bishops? When I say Bishops, I mean the universal beliefs of the Church throughout its 2000 years of history which was given to us by Jesus and the Apostles and passed on to Bishops all over the world.
God bless.