Physical manna; physical death. Literal Christ; literal death?

[bjford]

…Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die…

I’m having trouble refuting this passage. My opponent states that logically, if our ancestors ate physical manna and died a physical death; that my position must be that if the bread is physically Christ, then the death I am saved from is physical death.

Now, I understand that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is actual, not physical. But does that make the death actual as well? If so, what does that mean? That we have all the characteristics of somebody who is alive, but we are truly dead? Wouldn’t that mean that we are spiritually dead, and therefore the eucharistic is only spiritual?

Thanks!

 

[Emmaus]

And what does your friend think the promise of the resurrection of the body is, if not salvation from physical death as well as salvation from spiritual death? For Adam first died spiritually and then much later physically. So we are save first from spiritual death and then much later from physical death.

 

[metal1633]

bjford:

Now, I understand that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is actual, not physical.

Well part of the problem is your misunderstanding of the Real Presence. His Presence in the Eucharist is REAL as in it includes every type of reality. He is REALLY Physically Present. He is Really Spiritually Present. He is Actually Present in Everyway.

Now as to your opponent…

I’m having trouble refuting this passage.

First I want to know why your trying to refute the Passage when the Passage is TRUTH.

My opponent states that logically, if our ancestors ate physical manna and died a physical death; that my position must be that if the bread is physically Christ, then the death I am saved from is physical death.

He is right and wrong. We are saved from physical death in that our death is temporary, we shall be raised PHYSICALLY from the dead to live eternally with God. We will not suffer the “Second Death” after the Judgment when God destroys both BODY and SOUL in Gehenna.

 

[bjford]

My understanding was that it’s not physically Christ since if it were physically Christ it would have earthly characteristics of Christ. However, the Eucharist has the characteristics of bread, not of Christ himself. Therefore, the Eucharist isn’t physical, but actual.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

bjford:

…Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die…

I’m having trouble refuting this passage. My opponent states that logically, if our ancestors ate physical manna and died a physical death; that my position must be that if the bread is physically Christ, then the death I am saved from is physical death.

1. First of all, there is nothing about John 6:49 that implies that Jesus is referring to only physical death and not spiritual death. By the same logic, then how does your opponent know that John 11:26 (“everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”) isn’t referring only to physical death?

2. If eating Christ’s physical flesh only saves from physical death, then why doesn’t Christ’s physical death and resurrection only save us from physical death?

**3. **John 3:6 makes it very clear that flesh born of spirit is spirit. Jesus’ flesh is flesh born of spirit. Therefore His flesh is different than mere physical flesh (flesh born of flesh.) Read John 3:6.

4. Jesus makes it very clear that bread from heaven is much more that mere physical flesh. He forcefully expresses that repeatedly in John 6. To purposefully ignore this, or to purposefully try to find some way around this is really dishonest and low. No sincere Christian should operate that way. You cannot love Jesus and try to deny His words.

I would be very happy to help with any further rebuttals of this from your “opponent”.

Also, there is such a thing as having a “spirit of honesty” or a “spirit of evasion” about Scripture. Tell your friend he may have a “spirit of evasion” and ask him if he really thinks he’s being honest in his approach or just trying to find a loophole around John 6.

Never let anyone throw you about John 6. It may seem like there are tricky arguments around it, but there really is no way around it. I think John 6 is iron clad because to deny the truths in John 6 means you have to deny essential truths of Christianity. Protestants shoot themselves in the foot in every direction they try to escape John 6. John 6 is one of the greatest exposers of Protestant error in my opinion.

Greg

 

[jeffreedy789]

Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, just not in the ‘accidentals’, to use the platonic term. in other words, He really is there, physically. we don’t perceive Him, because the essence and not the accidentals of the bread has changed. but you might note eucharistic miracles, where even the accidentals are changed. you can go to luciano, italy right now and see a host that was miraculously (no MORE miraculously than in mass every sunday, i’d point out) changed into flesh. it is, according to the doctors who examined it in 1971, flesh from a human heart.

so - He’s physically present in the Eucharist. He just doesn’t usually change the accidents into flesh. for which, i’m very grateful.

 

[metal1633]

bjford:

My understanding was that it’s not physically Christ since if it were physically Christ it would have earthly characteristics of Christ. However, the Eucharist has the characteristics of bread, not of Christ himself. Therefore, the Eucharist isn’t physical, but actual.

I fail to see the distinction between what you are calling “Actual” and “Physical”. Our Lord is Actually Physically Present in our Churches. If He were not, Eucharistic Adoration would be Idolotry. Really Truly Present, His BODY, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

It is said that 70% of American Catholic do not believe in the Real Presence. Its become clear now that some of them just dont know what it is anymore.

 

[jeffreedy789]

speaking of john 6, greg. (and anyone who wants to chime in) how would you refute the argument that in every chapter of John, Jesus uses a metaphor, not to be taken literally. the metaphor, then, in 6 is that we should literally eat and drink.

here is his summary of the ‘metaphors’ -

"Chapter One – The Word

This is obvious…

Chapter Two – Destroy this temple

Again, not referring to the Temple, but His body

Chapter Three – You must be born again

Not a literal second birth, but a spiritual birth

Chapter Four – Living Water

Not referring to physical water

Chapter Five – The Dead will hear the voice of the Son of God

Not referring to the literal dead, but the spiritually dead

Chapter Six – Eat my flesh and drink my blood

…

Chapter Seven – If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink

Not literal thirst…nor a literal drink

Chapter Eight – if anyone keeps My word he will never see death

Again, not physical death but spiritual death

Chapter Nine – For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind

Was He talking about literal eyes?

Chapter Ten – I am the good shepherd

I thought he was a carpenter… "

i know how i answered him, but i was wondering what you would say.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Jeff,

Chapter One – The Word

“…the Word was God”
I suppose “God” is also a metaphor?

Chapter Two – Destroy this temple

Again, not referring to the Temple, but His body

It is clear that the temple refers to his real body.

Chapter Three – You must be born again

Not a literal second birth, but a spiritual birth
This is not a metaphor using physical birth to convey the meaning. In fact it was misunderstood as physical birth and Jesus corrected this misunderstanding. Born is the valid word for this new concept Jesus is introducing. Explaining a misunderstanding is a far cry from purposefully using a metaphor.

Chapter Four – Living Water

Not referring to physical water
Yes, that is a metaphor.

Chapter Five – The Dead will hear the voice of the Son of God

Not referring to the literal dead, but the spiritually dead
I think He is referring to both.

Chapter Six – Eat my flesh and drink my blood

…

Chapter Seven – If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink

Not literal thirst…nor a literal drink
Yes, that is a metaphor.

Chapter Eight – if anyone keeps My word he will never see death

Again, not physical death but spiritual death
That’s not a metaphor that’s a connotation.

Chapter Nine – For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind

Was He talking about literal eyes?
Blindness is not so much a metaphor but a connotation (similar to born).

Chapter Ten – I am the good shepherd
I thought he was a carpenter… "
Yes, that is a metaphor.

Yes, Jesus speaks metaphorically in some of the above instances.

John 1:14 refers to **real **flesh.

Speaking metaphorically does not in any diminish the reality of the object of the metaphor and in fact enhances understanding of the object of the metaphor. Also, the object of the metaphor is a reality.

Let’s look at the objects of the metaphors:

Word became flesh. Literal flesh.
Born of spirit. Literal spirit.
What reality does living water refer to?
What reality does thirst refer to?
Good shepherd refers to Jesus.

These metaphors are really no argument at all because they all refer to realities. In John 6 bread from heaven is the metaphor for the real flesh of Jesus. The object of the metaphor is real.

In fact in John 6 Jesus spells the meaning of the metaphor out.

Protestants will try to turn the argument into something it’s not. Then you start arguing other points beside the main point. Don’t let them do this. Instead give them the true explanation of John 6, and tell them to explain why the correct meaning is not possible. Don’t let them make us chase fifty different arguments and errors. Rather make them try to show that the true meaning cannot be valid and make them try to explain why. Always put it back on them so they can’t get away with this game.

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Continued…

Abortionists for example might say we have to prove to them that fetuses are really unborn human beings and have a right life. No, the abortionist is the one doing the killing, it is they who must prove that the fetus is not a human being.

By the same token, Catholics do not have to explain away every Protestant argument to John 6 (even though we could but this game jut goes on and on and that’s what they like). Rather Protestants broke away from the true Church that already understood this meaning and even Luther understood John 6. They better have a very strong reason why the Catholic explanation of John 6 is not right to even dare be separate from the true Church. The burden lies squarely on them and never let them forget it. We don’t have to cower and struggle with their nonsense excuses about John 6, they need to be embarrassed at their inability to discount the correct Catholic explanation for John 6. Then say, since the correct meaning cannot be proven wrong, then how could you separate from the Church of the apostles that always understood this meaning?

They’re the ones who better have an answer regarding John 6 - not us - never let them forget it. Never let them get away with it.

 

[metal1633]

jeffreedy789:

speaking of john 6, greg. (and anyone who wants to chime in) how would you refute the argument that in every chapter of John, Jesus uses a metaphor, not to be taken literally. the metaphor, then, in 6 is that we should literally eat and drink.

here is his summary of the ‘metaphors’ -

"Chapter One – The Word

This is obvious…

Chapter Two – Destroy this temple

Again, not referring to the Temple, but His body

Chapter Three – You must be born again

Not a literal second birth, but a spiritual birth

Chapter Four – Living Water

Not referring to physical water

Chapter Five – The Dead will hear the voice of the Son of God

Not referring to the literal dead, but the spiritually dead

Chapter Six – Eat my flesh and drink my blood

…

Chapter Seven – If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink

Not literal thirst…nor a literal drink

Chapter Eight – if anyone keeps My word he will never see death

Again, not physical death but spiritual death

Chapter Nine – For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind

Was He talking about literal eyes?

Chapter Ten – I am the good shepherd

I thought he was a carpenter… "

i know how i answered him, but i was wondering what you would say.

The Metaphor in John 6 is not “My Flesh” but rather what he says first. “Bread from Heaven, Manna” is the metaphor. His Flesh explains the metaphor.

 

[bjford]

What my opponent is trying to prove, though, is that it is senseless to believe that we are saved from physical death. I’m trying to prove that John 6:49 is Christ talking about him being the bread of life; the manna in the desert, and that from it we’re saved from spiritual death.

Now, I’m assuming by your explainations that Christ is saying that the manna our ancestors ate gave them no salvation, but the bread that turns into Christ gives us salvation?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

bjford:

What my opponent is trying to prove, though, is that it is senseless to believe that we are saved from physical death.

We don’t believe that we are saved from physical death, so there is no issue.

bjford:

Now, I’m assuming by your explainations that Christ is saying that the manna our ancestors ate gave them no salvation, but the bread that turns into Christ gives us salvation?

Yes. Consider this idea: Why would Jesus have to tell the people that their ancestors who ate manna died, if He was only referring to physical death? Obviously they knew their ancestors had physically died so Jesus did not need to reveal that to them. Jesus was revealing to them what they did not know: that their ancestors also died spiritually (at least in the sense that they could not see heaven until Jesus came).

Also, use my previous explanations and Jeff’s and Metal’s. Don’t let him off the hook and don’t be shaken by supposed stumbling blocks.

Best,
Greg

 

[bjford]

Thanks. Yes, I do know that we are not saved from physical death from communion, but my opponent was trying to prove how senseless the Catholic Church is for having that belief

Thanks a lot, I’ll certainly post here again if I have more questions!