Preperation of counter arguement against John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter JediSisko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JediSisko

Guest
I have an anti-Catholic friend who once asked me where in the Bible eucharist is needed for salvation. Yesterday in light of Corpus Christi I pointed out John 6. He responded saying when he has time that he will respond to it. As I can only see John 6 for what it says, I am trying to prepare what his response might be.
 
He will say that Christ was speaking only symbolically, not speaking of real food. But that’s refutable.

He might also say that elsewhere Jesus referred to Himself as a gate, but we know that he’s not really a literal gate. Again, it’s refutable.

Here is a good article to help prepare you:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

When it really comes down to it, here is a big, big point that solidifies your position:
Since there are different ways to interpret metaphors or other confusing things in Scripture, doesn’t it make sense to look to an authority outside of Scripture to settle an argument? Yes, it does, and that authority is the visible Church. Show him that ALL of the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Jesus (another article to help with this angle is at:
catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence)
 
Since he is making the accusation, the burden is upon him. Do you have a catechism?

Ask him why the New Testament is actually called the New Testament. The answer is the Eucharist. The consecration in the upper room is the only place in the scriptures where the words “new testament” are used - and Christ used them. Remember also that it is a commandment of Christ. From the King James Version:

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
 
He will probably tell you it was symbolic, and point to John 6:63 " It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." That is when you ask your friend why he believes Jesus would go on a rant about the importance of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then wait until the nonbelievers left to explain the truth? Jesus wasn’t that mean, was he? Instead, Jesus was adding to his original statement by explain the flesh is useless without the spirit, meaning without the consecration of the Eucharist all you have is bread and wine. Receiving the Body and Body of Christ without the spirit makes it only a remembrance. Your friend may also claim that Jesus was referring only to his words as spirit and life, to which you humbly explain that Jesus’ words are to eat his flesh and drink his blood with his spirit in it.
 
JediSisko said:
I have an anti-Catholic friend who once asked me where in the Bible eucharist is needed for salvation. Yesterday in light of Corpus Christi I pointed out John 6. He responded saying when he has time that he will respond to it. As I can only see John 6 for what it says, I am trying to prepare what his response might be.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what your friend believes, but some christians say that you have to receive Jesus or have Jesus on the inside, to be saved. Catholic christians receive Jesus and get him on the inside, by eating and drinking the bread and wine.
 
PNEUMA said:
I don’t know what your friend believes, but some christians say that you have to receive Jesus or have Jesus on the inside, to be saved. Catholic christians receive Jesus and get him on the inside, by eating and drinking the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
…which have become His Body and Blood.
 
PNEUMA said:
I don’t know what your friend believes, but some christians say that you have to receive Jesus or have Jesus on the inside, to be saved. Catholic christians receive Jesus and get him on the inside, by eating and drinking the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
…which have become His Body and Blood.
 
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Click to expand...
John 6:66

Why did they leave? It sounds like they interpreted Him to mean literally eating His flesh.

If they were wrong in that interpretation, why didn’t He correct them?
 
Joe_Kelley said:
John 6:66

Why did they leave? It sounds like they interpreted Him to mean literally eating His flesh.

If they were wrong in that interpretation, why didn’t He correct them?
Click to expand...
Good point, they were not wrong ! The gospel of John is pure magic 👍
 
JediSisko said:
I have an anti-Catholic friend who once asked me where in the Bible eucharist is needed for salvation. Yesterday in light of Corpus Christi I pointed out John 6. He responded saying when he has time that he will respond to it. As I can only see John 6 for what it says, I am trying to prepare what his response might be.
Click to expand...
In all probability your friend will make the allegation equating Jesus’use of the word ‘spirit’ as meaning some form of figurative language. But that is not so. Read John 6 (after the multiplication of the loaves) Jesus is speaking to the Jews and reminds them of the OT story of the manna in the dessert. The manna was a material food provided by God that sustained the Jews in the wilderness. The Jews knew this story very well. They understood this story to be literally true. So they understood it literally and materially . So when Jesus starts to speak about the NT manna, the food from heaven which is His flesh; the Jews were ahast. They are thinking that Jesus is talking of cannabalism because they are still thinking literally of a material food.

Now Jesus knows they are misunderstanding Him. As a teacher He has a duty to correct any misunderstandings and He does so… He corrects their misunderstanding of the New Testament manna being a material food. He says His words are spirit not material. Notice He says nothing to correct their understanding that He was speaking literally. He doesn’t have to because there is nothing to correct. He was speaking literally of a spiritual food. The scripture tells us that many walked away from Him at that time but He did not call them back.
 
He got back to me. He went through a lot of the talking points in the thread. He ended up going into overload mode where he just kept sending me a lot of argument. I decided to just address the most recent argument he had against the Church. We eventually ended up about interpreting scripture. I asked him if I must personally interpret scripture. He answered yes. He also posted a video for me to watch that he made about John 6.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2LbSOera0E
 
Am I reading your post correct – he claims that each Christian must interpret Scripture for himself or herself?

If that’s true, then you have an easy task ahead of you in dismantling that little tidbit.
 
surritter said:
Am I reading your post correct – he claims that each Christian must interpret Scripture for himself or herself?

If that’s true, then you have an easy task ahead of you in dismantling that little tidbit.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. Because then he can’t say that anyone else’s interpretation is incorrect. In other words if everyone interprets scripture for themselves then everyone is correct. This is why protestantism has gone to the so called ‘Big Tent’ concept otherwise known as the ‘I’m okay, you’re okay’ idea because private interpretation prevents anyone from saying what is truth and what is not. It is all relative to one’s interpretation. So there is no one in protestantism to proclaim, “Thus sayeth the Lord” as the OT Jews or as the NT Catholic Church does. So protestantism keeps devolving into more and more denominations. In protestantism where there are three protestants with two different opinions the result is one new denomination.
 
I asked him if my interpretation was different than his, then what? I’m not sure if he read that or not, but he replied that it isn’t according to what I want. If this is so, than he is either in the mind set that everyone should be able to interpret the same way, or he is trying to best the Catholic with his/her own argument.
 
JediSisko said:
I asked him if my interpretation was different than his, then what? I’m not sure if he read that or not, but he replied that it isn’t according to what I want. If this is so, than he is either in the mind set that everyone should be able to interpret the same way, or he is trying to best the Catholic with his/her own argument.
Click to expand...
Press him on that point. Pin him down to an answer. Tell him that it is vital that he present a defense for what he believes for that is what the scriptures say. There are thousands of protestant denominations all with different interpretations of the scriptures. Ask him which one is correct and how can he prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top