Need help biblically addressing the Real Real Presence

[Sir_Knight]

I made this comment …
*

Jesus made it clear in John 6:51 that His flesh is TRUE, REAL FOOD and His blood is TRUE, REAL DRINK (v. 55 alethes = ACTUAL, REAL, “INDEED” not “symbolic” food or drink).

… and had this thrown back at me …

Jesus did say in John 6:35 “I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will not get hungry at all, and he that exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all.”

Does that mean if Catholics eat that bread which they pretend to be real flesh of a living physical Jesus they will not get hungry again? Have you or any one you know not failed to get hungry again after eating that little wafer?

Surely, if the bread is his flesh and it is not a “metaphor,” maybe the hunger is a metaphor.

… any assistance as to why one is to be taken as a metaphor and the other should not?

 

[Kolbe300]

Sir Knight,
Hello there! It’s a good question and one I’ve seen used before. I don’t know if I can help at all but I’ll try. You should direct whoever is asking you this question to look closely at verse 35 again and then compare it to verse 51.

"35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

Notice that here Jesus does not say he who eats the Bread of Life will never go hungry. He says he who “comes to me” will never go hungry. And you could ask your friend about the end of that verse. If he believes in Jesus, as I’m assuming he does, has he never been thirsty? Until we find a believer in Christ who has never been thirsty, we will have to assume Jesus was speaking of our spiritual hunger and thirst, rather than our physical hunger and thirst.

Verse 51, on the other hand, is very clear:

“51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

This verse is, in my opinion, impossible to look at metaphorically. It also doesn’t say that he who eats the bread will never go hungry. So your friend can ask, “If you eat the bread you will live forever?” And you can easily respond, “Yes. The Bible tells us to not eat the bread and drink the cup in an unworthy manner. The Church teaches us the same thing. So, if we receive the Eucharist as we are supposed to then yes indeed, we will live forever.” I hope that helps some.

Peace!

 

[VociMike]

So the question seems to be “if I can find a metaphor in the bible, doesn’t that mean everything in the bible is a metaphor?”

Simply asking the question in this fashion should answer it.

BTW, as is almost always the case in these literal/metaphor challenges, one could just as easily ask an opposite question. In John 6 Christ said he came down from heaven and gives life to the world. Is that a metaphor or is it literally true? If it’s literally true, then shouldn’t all of John 6 be taken as literally true?

Hmmm, works both ways.

 

[Kolbe300]

… any assistance as to why one is to be taken as a metaphor and the other should not?

One more thing, verse 35 can be looked at metaphorically (or spiritually) because we know that everyone, even believers, get physically hungry and thirsty. And the metaphor there isn’t the Eucharist, it’s the hunger. Making a metaphorical case for verse 51 is pretty much impossible, especially when Jesus compares His Body to the manna in the desert. He uses the manna as a specific comparison and I don’t think there is a Christian out there who will argue that the manna was just a metaphor. It was real bread and people really ate it.

Peace!

 

[jcrichton]

I made this comment …
*
… and had this thrown back at me … … any assistance as to why one is to be taken as a metaphor and the other should not?

***Hi, Sir Knight!

…the problem lies in acceptance… if they agree that Catholics are correct, as attested to by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:16-22; 11:23-27), then they fall into the same trap that was prepaired for Jesus when His Authority was challenged (St. Matthew 21:23-27); the last thing they want to do is recognize Biblical Authority so they play it off as the catch-all-language-accident (its only a metaphor). They pretty much resemble the Jehovah Witnesses stance:

“Jesus says the Father is greater/more powerful than He; this must be taken literally–which means He is not God!”

– …yeah, but He also says that “I and the Father are one,” and, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me…”

“No, that is just a metaphor; we have theologians who…”

When engaging in Biblical discourse with non-Catholics I hold this premise in mind: “I am playing against the house, everything is loaded, and they peek at my cards through the video surveillance system!” …still, we must do our best to enlighten them and to pray that the Holy Spirit bring them to the Body of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[mjg7500]

As I recall after Jesus said you must eat MY flesh and drink MY blood His disciples, not apostles, began to walk away. He did not stop them and say oh I don’t mean this literally. He reiterated that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood. If this was only symbolic Jesus would certainly have stopped the disciples who were leaving…but He didn’t. I’m also curious how one can explain Eucharistic mirracles?

 

[Kolbe300]

When engaging in Biblical discourse with non-Catholics I hold this premise in mind: “I am playing against the house, everything is loaded, and they peek at my cards through the video surveillance system!” …still, we must do our best to enlighten them and to pray that the Holy Spirit bring them to the Body of Christ!

So very true! I truly think that is the biggest obstacle. Once the Catholic viewpoint is agreed with on just one point really, all others must then come into question.

Peace!

 

[jcrichton]

As I recall after Jesus said you must eat MY flesh and drink MY blood His disciples, not apostles, began to walk away. He did not stop them and say oh I don’t mean this literally. He reiterated that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood. If this was only symbolic Jesus would certainly have stopped the disciples who were leaving…but He didn’t. I’m also curious how one can explain Eucharistic mirracles?

***Hi, mjg!

…this is exactly what I mean by selective reading/interpretation… how can a passage of the Bible be scrutinized to the point of infinity, then only the text that supports one’s opinion is found to be correct (made literal or non-literal according to the point of view) while simultaneously rejecting every single portion of the Holy Scriptures that contradicts/do not support the opinion?

…ever seen those Chinese contortionists?.. they have nothing on these interpretational contortionists!

…I also love their “if it’s in Scriptures/if it’s not in Scriptures…” John 6 is a perfect example: Jesus is right there witnessing His audience become incensed, troubled with the idea of canibalism… and Jesus just doesn’t have a clue… He continues to insist on His revelation:

In all truth I tell you,
that if you do not eat
the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood,
you have no life in you.*** (St. John 6:53b)

…so, is it Jesus that didn’t get it or are some Christians contorting the Scriptures to deny Jesus’ own statements?

I side on Jesus behalf!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So very true! I truly think that is the biggest obstacle. Once the Catholic viewpoint is agreed with on just one point really, all others must then come into question.

Peace!

***Hi, Kolbe!

…I was perplexed for a second… I was just working on a post and read your statement which is right in line with it… I though… how can this reply be so quick…

…then I realized you posted on my previous one… wow

…but this is the greatest impass… if we all would read the Scriptures without personal bias we would find that Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church… imagine if the whole of Christendom would truly unite… we would be able to change the face of the world!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Kolbe300]

…I was perplexed for a second… I was just working on a post and read your statement which is right in line with it… I though… how can this reply be so quick…

You’ve discovered my supernatural ability to respond to posts before they are posted!

…then I realized you posted on my previous one… wow

Darn! Okay, maybe it isn’t all that supernatural.

… imagine if the whole of Christendom would truly unite… we would be able to change the face of the world!

Oh what a wonderful thing to imagine! Just one more reason of many to get on our knees and pray!

God bless!

 

[Yearning_Heart]

I tripped over an apologetics website. Not sure if it is catholic but the arguement was pretty good.
biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=20
I’ve taken most of the bible citations referred to in the site and put them below.

This site looks are the last supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke “this IS my body” (not this represents my body)

And then looks at
John 6:51 " I am the living bread"
John 6:53 “I am telling the truth”
John 6: 54 “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”
John 6:55 "My flesh is real food…real drink

The Jews who listened to Jesus took it literally
John 6:52 “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

The disciples took him literally
John 6:60 “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?””

and they LEFT because they could NOT ACCEPT IT
John6:66 “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him”

(Now, the question is raised that if they interpretted Jesus wrongly, then why did Jesus let them leave because of a false idea? Why did he not correct them? )

The apostles took him literally
John 6:67-69 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Direct quote from website "If everyone who heard him speak at the time took Him literally, then my question is: Why does anyone today, 2000 years after the fact, take him symbolically? "

 

[grandfather]

I

Direct quote from website "If everyone who heard him speak at the time took Him literally, then my question is: Why does anyone today, 2000 years after the fact, take him symbolically? "

Those who walked away from Jesus, because they were unable to accept this “hard saying”, indeed walked away from salvation. Those who stayed, because only He had the words of eternal life later were present at the Last Supper, where the saying about eating His Body and drinking His Blood came to literal fruition. Read the account. So in the first scene out of the Bible, Jesus is preparing His apostles for an event that is yet to come. At the Last Supper Jesus gave the apostles what He had previously told them was necessary to eat and drink in order to “have life” in them. Imagine this Last Supper scene taking place without the preparation that let them know something very unusual was coming, how even more shocking it would have been. Protestants today who refuse to accept in faith this “hard”, or difficult teaching of Jesus, as held by the Church from the beginning, do not want to walk away from Jesus entirely as did the Jews, because they do not believe Him in the way the apostles and early Church did, and the Church still does. What they do is say the bread and wine are symbols. It makes the hard saying easy; Jesus did not really mean it literally. He could not have. What they do not realize is that they have walked away from Jesus, who is actually present in the Eucharist. What makes this frightening is Jesus’s own words that caused the Jews to go away. “I am the bread come down from heaven. Unless a man eat my body and drink my blood he has no life within him”. We pray for the salvation of all. Jesus taught us to do this. We pray for the salvation of all including non-believers, enemies, heretics, Jews, and those who reject His sayings and do not come to receive the heavenly “real” food and drink, because they are confused by false teaching.

 

[Ilroy]

I tripped over an apologetics website. Not sure if it is catholic but the arguement was pretty good.
biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=20

Yep…that’s a Catholic site…run by John Martignoni. He has a bunch of good apologetic talks on there for free download…although, a donation would be appreciated. He also does the Monday edition of EWTN Open Line radio show at 3 P.M. Eastern time zone. It’s an apologetic Q&A show.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I tripped over an apologetics website. Not sure if it is catholic but the arguement was pretty good.
biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=20
I’ve taken most of the bible citations referred to in the site and put them below.

Direct quote from website "If everyone who heard him speak at the time took Him literally, then my question is: Why does anyone today, 2000 years after the fact, take him symbolically? "

Yes, John Martignoni certainly is Catholic!

Chris

 

[jcrichton]

Oh what a wonderful thing to imagine! Just one more reason of many to get on our knees and pray!
God bless!

***Hi, Kolbe!

…you bet: “…pray for one another to be cured;” St. James speaks of the power of prayer… Jesus began the communion of the saints in a prayerful request to the Father to send more able workers to the fields… I believe that we can change the world through earnest prayer–and the prayers need not be be syncronized… they simply need to be made in Jesus for the healing of His Body!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sir Knight,
Hello there! It’s a good question and one I’ve seen used before. I don’t know if I can help at all but I’ll try. You should direct whoever is asking you this question to look closely at verse 35 again and then compare it to verse 51.

"35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

Notice that here Jesus does not say he who eats the Bread of Life will never go hungry. He says he who “comes to me” will never go hungry. And you could ask your friend about the end of that verse. If he believes in Jesus, as I’m assuming he does, has he never been thirsty? Until we find a believer in Christ who has never been thirsty, we will have to assume Jesus was speaking of our spiritual hunger and thirst, rather than our physical hunger and thirst.

Verse 51, on the other hand, is very clear:

“51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

This verse is, in my opinion, impossible to look at metaphorically. It also doesn’t say that he who eats the bread will never go hungry. So your friend can ask, “If you eat the bread you will live forever?” And you can easily respond, “Yes. The Bible tells us to not eat the bread and drink the cup in an unworthy manner. The Church teaches us the same thing. So, if we receive the Eucharist as we are supposed to then yes indeed, we will live forever.” I hope that helps some.

Peace!

Impossible from our POV, in our (non-Semitic, & otherwise very different) culture But in His ? Not necessarily:​

• Psa 27:2 When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
• Eze 39:17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.
• Mic 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
• Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
• 1Cor 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
  ISTM, that what we have in John’s text is a perfect example of what is called by scholars “Johannine Misunderstanding” - Jesus says one thing, His hearers understand another. And what the hearers do, is understand correctly to some degree - He is Food, He is a King (see 18.36), but miss the main point. There are other enemy-eating passages too.

So, I think that He is using a familiar metaphor - & going beyond it, full-filling the words in a wholly new & individual way. The OT passages are metaphors for pursuing an enemy to his death - & that is what “the Jews” (as John always call them) will in fact do.

IOW - He is saying they will kill Him Whom they tried earlier in the chapter to make their king; & that He is in all truth their Manna. There is a great deal here. The notion of its being metaphor is part of the truth - but it does not go far enough to do justice to the specifically Christian & Johannine meaning of the passage.

Hope that helps

 

[Kolbe300]

meaning of the passage.

Hope that helps

So fascinating! Thank you very much. I will go to bed knowing I learned something today!

 

[Church_Militant]

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So fascinating! Thank you very much. I will go to bed knowing I learned something today!

You’re welcome - I’ll see what else I can find in the way of enemy-eating passages ​

 

[jcrichton]

So, I think that He is using a familiar metaphor - & going beyond it, full-filling the words in a wholly new & individual way. The OT passages are metaphors for pursuing an enemy to his death - & that is what “the Jews” (as John always call them) will in fact do.

IOW - He is saying they will kill Him Whom they tried earlier in the chapter to make their king; & that He is in all truth their Manna. There is a great deal here. The notion of its being metaphor is part of the truth - but it does not go far enough to do justice to the specifically Christian & Johannine meaning of the passage.

Hope that helps

***Hi, Michael!

…on the surface you and the scholars seems to be right on the money…

…but only on the surface:

1. Jesus did not use metaphor when He spoke to the disciples about His death on the hand of the Jews (how they would hand Him over to the foreigners to be Killed.
2. When facing His accusers and those who wished Him ill He would not use metaphor to charge them about their desire to Kill Him: “…why do you wish to kill me?” “…every day I preached in the Temple, why are you seeking Me as though I were a criminal?” “…you have no power over Me, if it had not been given to you from above… that’s why those who handed Me over to you will have to account more dearly than you” (paraphrased)
3. In John 6 Jesus is not addressing those who are seeking His Death; He is addressing His intimate disciples (12) and His general audience (general disciples and the curious) so there is no need for Him to go into some metaphoric discourse about the Jews wanting Him Dead.
4. Jesus’ insistance in using the those very precise terms over the visible objection of His audience clearly demonstrates that they (Jesus and the audience) were on the same plane of communication and both understood each other as having an exchange on actual language rather than metaphorical euphemism!

Maran atha!

Angel***