Proof that John 6 and the Last Supper are connected

[MrSnaith]

Remember Jesus also said “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.

Please also compare vv.40 and 54 in Jn 6

Thankyou

The question you have to ask yourself is, “Are Jesus’ words concerning eating His flesh not included in the phrase ‘every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.?’”

How exactly does one live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? Is it through belief? Through obedience? A combination of the two? Or are the words life-giving regardless of our disposition toward them? Are they auto-effective? Do they require cooperation? How exactly do we understand this?

You say to compare vv. 40 and 54, but Lion of Narnia DID that… He showed that 54 is the interpretation of 40. In other words, eating His flesh and drinking His blood is how we “believe in Him.” Belief includes believing what He teaches, what He commands. He commands to eat His flesh. The LAMB commands this at the Passover Feast wherein the Lamb is consumed (as opposed to the Feast of Atonement when the lamb is offered as a holocaust).

Note, in both feasts, the lamb is consumed. At Passover, the lamb is consumed by the covenant faithful. At Atonement, the lamb is consumed by fire for the covenant faithful.

 

[eazyduzit]

I think the pertinent point here is that Jesus doesn’t correct their understanding, when normally He does. Yes, they usually get His teachings wrong, but Jesus normally addresses their error. Here, He merely asks if they, too, will walk away. This difference in reaction to their understanding of His teaching is the strong indicator that they actually understood correctly this time.

The apostles never understood why He should have to die and they never understood his explaination.

 

[slh3016]

Here’s my question for you. Recall that Jesus always uses something physical to illustrate a spiritual reality, not the reverse. I need you to compare vv.40and54. Curiously the results of these two promises are the same, but the two things you must do inherit the promise are different. This only makes sense if one is the real and one is the illustration. Please say which you think is the illustration and which the reality?

I would think that if one believes in Jesus (v. 40), he would trust who Jesus is and what Jesus says in verse 54. I see these as complementary, not conflicting.

Believe in Jesus = Do what He says (i.e., “eat My flesh and drink My blood”) = Eternal Life

Bread = Flesh/Body of Christ
Wine = Blood of Christ

P.S. Did you listen to Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup”? If so, I’d like to know your thoughts.

 

[slh3016]

The apostles never understood why He should have to die and they never understood his explaination.

Are you sure you aren’t my BIL in disguise Thankfully, your inquiry on my OP has received much more proof and explanation that I can forward on to him

But with all due respect, you don’t seem to be understanding any of the explanations already given Since you don’t assent to those explanations, kindly tell me/us how you came to YOUR understanding of what this passage teaches and by what authority do you claim that your interpretation is true, because we can’t all be correct and have the Holy Spirit

 

[eazyduzit]

How a Catholic mind works - "Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” Jn 20:29

And yet everyone in the bible needed to see the Resurrection to believe it. Now your telling me that somehow in this one instance everyone believed WITHOUT seeing!

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

And yet everyone in the bible needed to see the Resurrection to believe it. Now your telling me that somehow in this one instance everyone believed WITHOUT seeing!

Why would our Lord say “blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” if it were not possible? I’ll go with Jesus and the Bible on this one.

How have you come to believe in the resurrection? Did you come to believe with or without seeing?

Personally, I’ve come to believe without seeing both for the resurrection & the Eucharist.

 

[eazyduzit]

Are you sure you aren’t my BIL in disguise Thankfully, your inquiry on my OP has received much more proof and explanation that I can forward on to him

But with all due respect, you don’t seem to be understanding any of the explanations already given Since you don’t assent to those explanations, kindly tell me/us how you came to YOUR understanding of what this passage teaches and by what authority do you claim that your interpretation is true, because we can’t all be correct and have the Holy Spirit

What I’m looking for is an explanation that harmonizes with the whole of scripture. This is because the bible is always perfecly consistent with itself. To blindly accept traditional interpretation just because its old seems dangerous. Remember that the bible warns that false teachers will arrise even from a TRUE church. The biggest church is always going to have an agenda. It wants to keep all the power to itself.

 

[slh3016]

What I’m looking for is an explanation that harmonizes with the whole of scripture. This is because the bible is always perfecly consistent with itself. To blindly accept traditional interpretation just because its old seems dangerous. Remember that the bible warns that false teachers will arrise even from a TRUE church. The biggest church is always going to have an agenda. It wants to keep all the power to itself.

For two solid years, I’ve read, researched, and driven myself mad studying Catholic vs. Protestant theology wanting to make sure I “get it right” because of my insane fear of all those false teachers that the Bible warns about.

Guess what? I’m now 99.9% sure that Catholic theology harmonizes the OT Scripture AND the NT Scripture much more rationally and reasonably than any Protestant theology. I used to sit in a pew Sunday after Sunday wondering how it was that I could not see God’s coherent plan for our salvation from the OT to the NT because much of the OT seemed like meaningless rubbish. I could not see the typology between the old and the new in any logical manner. Then I started reading and listening to Catholic theologians and both my husband and myself are so EXCITED to finally “get it”

Have you actually listened or read any Catholic theologians on these matters?

 

[slh3016]

To blindly accept traditional interpretation just because its old seems dangerous.

a) Who said anyone was blindly accepting any interpretation?

b) So, whose interpretation do you trust?

I would think that accepting any interpretation could be dangerous if there isn’t sufficient evidence to support it. But, where do we get that evidence and how do we know it’s reliable? That’s the whole problem with Protestantism.

Remember that the bible warns that false teachers will arrise even from a TRUE church. The biggest church is always going to have an agenda. It wants to keep all the power to itself.

Yep, Martin Luther and John Calvin were both Catholics to begin with

 

[eazyduzit]

Why would our Lord say “blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” if it were not possible? I’ll go with Jesus and the Bible on this one.

How have you come to believe in the resurrection? Did you come to believe with or without seeing?

Personally, I’ve come to believe without seeing both for the resurrection & the Eucharist.

Great for you bro, but I’m not greater than the apostles. Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Great for you bro, but I’m not greater than the apostles. Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

I agree with St. Paul we should prove all things. Hence our presence in this forum But, I also agree with Jesus and believe without seeing. And, I do not demand a visible sign as the pharasies & scribes did.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

I posed this question too you on another thread, and you have not yet answerer. Please forgive me if you have answered and I failed to notice.

Again, do you offer an alternative? How was the gospel, you claim to be true, handed on, orally & written, without corruption for 2000 years? Which person(s) did God designate & guide to preserve His gospel, as you know it, thru the millennia? ?

I believe it is applicable here as well.

How was the teaching on John 6 & the Last Supper, you claim to be true, handed on, orally & written (2 Thess 2:15), without corruption for 2000 years? Which person(s) did God designate & guide to preserve His teaching on John 6 & the Last Supper, as you know it, thru the millennia?

 

[eazyduzit]

Why would our Lord say “blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” if it were not possible? I’ll go with Jesus and the Bible on this one.

How have you come to believe in the resurrection? Did you come to believe with or without seeing?

Personally, I’ve come to believe without seeing both for the resurrection & the Eucharist.

Great for you bro, but I’m not greater than the apostles. Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

 

[eazyduzit]

I agree with St. Paul we should prove all things. Hence our presence in this forum But, I also agree with Jesus and believe without seeing. And, I do not demand a visible sign as the pharasies & scribes did.

The pharasies had a wrong motive but when Gideon asked for a sign God gave it twice and He was not angry about it. Nothing wrong with making sure.

 

[YADA]

Great for you bro, but I’m not greater than the apostles. Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

And St Paul also sais that when we eat and drink the Eucharist we are participating in the death and resurrection of Christ, that we eat and drink while discerning the Body and Blood of Christ and if one eat and drinks the Body and Blood unworthily - one eats and drinks to their peril … that to eat and drink when in a state of sin one can become ill and even die …

Christ to is emphatically - multiple times - in very explicit words that we had to eat His Flesh or we would not have life with in us …

So tell me - Listening to Christ - multiple times and also to St Paul … Tell me - why so you feel your interpretation is correct and the Early Christians who wrote extensively about the Eucharist are wrong and I should take your word for this interpretation and not the Churches

 

[eazyduzit]

For two solid years, I’ve read, researched, and driven myself mad studying Catholic vs. Protestant theology wanting to make sure I “get it right” because of my insane fear of all those false teachers that the Bible warns about.

Guess what? I’m now 99.9% sure that Catholic theology harmonizes the OT Scripture AND the NT Scripture much more rationally and reasonably than any Protestant theology. I used to sit in a pew Sunday after Sunday wondering how it was that I could not see God’s coherent plan for our salvation from the OT to the NT because much of the OT seemed like meaningless rubbish. I could not see the typology between the old and the new in any logical manner. Then I started reading and listening to Catholic theologians and both my husband and myself are so EXCITED to finally “get it”

Have you actually listened or read any Catholic theologians on these matters?

Thanks for asking me to think back. I’ve have some good memories of several RC theologians. Some you may recognize. Went to a 2 day seminar by Robert Sungenus. Bob is a great guy quite a sense of humor. He is supposed to have a new move out on his earth centric theory,as opposed to heliocentric. Check it out on you tube. Have 2 thick books by Bob but he is so extreme on law keeping. It makes no sense to me but I think his earth centric theory is pretty good.
On the other e d of the spectrum is Peter Kreeft. I think he does believe salvation is by faith alone . I had breakfast with him one day at a conference at Steubenville, But we talked about Christopheny in the OT. Ralph Martin is simular. I’ve studied the new Cat. as well as Trent. I have many more Catholic books.

You said you want to learn how the NT connects to the Old so here’s my favorite guy.Check out Rabbi Kurt Schneider on you tube. Especially like his series on Song of Songs and The Tabernacle.

 

[MrSnaith]

On the other e d of the spectrum is Peter Kreeft. I think he does believe salvation is by faith alone . I had breakfast with him one day at a conference at Steubenville, But we talked about Christopheny in the OT.

Well, this right here does it for me. You appear to be suffering from confirmation bias. I can assure you, having listened to Peter Kreeft extensively, and having some of his books, that while C.S. Lewis is his favorite author, he is thoroughly Catholic.

Kreeft does not believe in “salvation by faith alone.” He, in agreement with the Church and Scripture, believes in salvation by grace alone, and that both faith and works are graces given to us by God. If you think Kreeft believes in Sola Fides, then you’re hearing only what you want to hear. And if that’s the case, then I suppose that’s what you do with Scripture as well.

 

[slh3016]

Thanks for asking me to think back. I’ve have some good memories of several RC theologians. Some you may recognize. Went to a 2 day seminar by Robert Sungenus. Bob is a great guy quite a sense of humor. He is supposed to have a new move out on his earth centric theory,as opposed to heliocentric. Check it out on you tube. Have 2 thick books by Bob but he is so extreme on law keeping. It makes no sense to me but I think his earth centric theory is pretty good.
On the other e d of the spectrum is Peter Kreeft. I think he does believe salvation is by faith alone . I had breakfast with him one day at a conference at Steubenville, But we talked about Christopheny in the OT. Ralph Martin is simular. I’ve studied the new Cat. as well as Trent. I have many more Catholic books.

You said you want to learn how the NT connects to the Old so here’s my favorite guy.Check out Rabbi Kurt Schneider on you tube. Especially like his series on Song of Songs and The Tabernacle.

So, if you have been exposed to so many Catholic theologians, where do you think they go wrong? Your previous post about “trying to keep all the power” sounds like a very biased, uninformed viewpoint and now I ask you to “prove it.”

Prove where the Catholic Church and it’s best theologians have intentionally taught error to maintain this “power.”

Prove that your position is the correct position. How did you arrive at that position or conclusion? Is it supportable by the majority of evidence (i.e., Scripture, early church teaching, etc.)? Or is it simply the opinion of someone with heavily biased anti-Catholic leanings who will not admit that they could be wrong because obviously you did not come into this thread with an open mind.

You still haven’t answered whether or not you listened to the Scott Hahn presentation of “The Fourth Cup” like you said you would to which there are only two feasible scenarios:

a) You listened and were dumbfounded and having nothing to refute, you fall back on unintelligible arguments such as “trying to maintain all the power”, etc.

b) You didn’t listen because even if you had, you knew you’d never change your position because as long as it is coherent with Catholic teaching, you’re never going to admit that they just might be onto something

 

[pablope]

Great for you bro, but I’m not greater than the apostles. Paul said " Proove all things" 2Thes.5:21

And John also said:

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[PRmerger]

On the other e d of the spectrum is Peter Kreeft. I think he does believe salvation is by faith alone .

Nope.

media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif