Protestant Explanation of John 6

[DJim]

Kaycee–

Are we now in agreement that the crowd (the “Jews”) and the disciples were different groups in John 6? That the “disciples” really don’t figure in the conversation until after the discourse…

DJim

 

[mtr01]

And Luke explains when Jesus precisely says that:

17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

The “fruit of the vine” refers to a different cup.

God Bless,
Michael

I asked about this in post #97 and no one has addressed it to this point

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe the pattern itself is meaningless. There are many patterns of conversation from Jesus that do not fit. The content of the conversation is the only means to find out the meaning.

Was it meaningless to the Apostle John who used the literary device to tell his story?

Sheesh, you really have to want to deny something pretty badly to ignore a dozen examples of John’s methodology, Kaycee.

I’m having a hard time believing you are being intellectually honest at this point.

 

[DJim]

I asked about this in post #97 and no one has addressed it to this point

This issue poses a problem of sorts since in Matthew and Mark the “fruit of the vine” phrase does refer to the Eucharistic cup, it seems to me.

As it is likely that Luke wrote last of the three, perhaps we could agree that this was one of those elements Luke clarifies after the personal investigation he does (mentioned in the Gospel prologue)? Such that, Jesus did say this at the Last Supper about a Passover Cup, just not the “cup of blessing” which became His Precious Blood–even though Mt and Mk “conflate” the cups into the one description?

Interesting.

DJim

 

[mtr01]

Jesus or the Evangelist tells us when He speaks in metaphors. Moreover, either He or the evangelist explains the most difficult metaphors immediately after He uses them to His disciples. He does not do that in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

Actually He does do that in John 6, just not the way most people think. Our Lord does use a metaphor in John 6: when He says “I am the Bread of Life”, in verse 35, He is using a metaphor. As usually happens, the crowd didn’t understand the metaphor (vs 41-42). So as Our Lord normally does, he explains the metaphor in verses 51-52:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

He doesn’t “explain” the “metaphor” of eating His flesh and drinking His blood because that IS the explanation of His metaphor.

 

[mtr01]

This issue poses a problem of sorts since in Matthew and Mark the “fruit of the vine” phrase does refer to the Eucharistic cup, it seems to me.

As it is likely that Luke wrote last of the three, perhaps we could agree that this was one of those elements Luke clarifies after the personal investigation he does (mentioned in the Gospel prologue)? Such that, Jesus did say this at the Last Supper about a Passover Cup, just not the “cup of blessing” which became His Precious Blood–even though Mt and Mk “conflate” the cups into the one description?

Interesting.

DJim

Very good points indeed. Actually when I was referring to those who didn’t respond, I meant those who would use “fruit of the vine” an an attempt to claim the Eucharist is symbolic only.

 

[Kazige2007]

Yeah, well I can’t tell that from the Word of God. Moreover…I have yet to see the first opposing viewpoint that didn’t require me to do mental and theological gymnastics to even begin to buy into it.

Simon, you can say all that…but I don’t see you answering the facts that I have set before you.

St. Paul…and St. Ignatius both make it VERY plain that they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Paul especially so when he tells us outright that to receive unworthily is to become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?

Now expect a lot of stammering about being respectful of what the crackers and grape juice represent, and how EVERY Protestant communion service is so special because they only do it twice a year and it means so much go them, and the church is packed on communion Sunday, and how they have a great sermon and special music blah, blah, blah whereas when they used to be a Catholic, they knew people who went to communion every Sunday wearing shorts and flip flops or while chewing gum or whatever, how the priest seemed bored, and how the whole thing just seemed to be so routine, disrespectful, done out of habit, etc., etc.

 

[Stephen_C]

People don’t reveal truth, the Holy Spirit does.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I’ve been marked with THAT seal my friend.

Simon,
What are you saying here? Please expand…
Are you saying your interpretation is infallible?
And you are protected/guided by the holy Spirit to not error on issues of faith and morals?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is a link on the Church Fathers and the Eucharist:

Thanks for this.

 

[mikeledes]

You’re welcome!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You’ve been presented with the Truth, here. What else do your require?

People don’t reveal truth, the Holy Spirit does.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I’ve been marked with THAT seal my friend.

Simon,
What are you saying here? Please expand…
Are you saying your interpretation is infallible?
And you are protected/guided by the holy Spirit to not error on issues of faith and morals?

The HS indwells within me and guides me daily toward all truths. It’s called being a regenerate born again Christian!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The HS indwells within me and guides me daily toward all truths. It’s called being a regenerate born again Christian!

If you have all truths then it stands to reason that we must cede to you rather than the Magisterium. Correct?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

If you have all truths then it stands to reason that we must cede to you rather than the Magisterium. Correct?

Knock it off…I said guiding me daily toward. Don’t twist my words.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Knock it off…I said guiding me daily toward. Don’t twist my words.

So, if the HS indwells within you and guides you daily toward all truths, then we must cede to you and not the Magisterium. Right?

 

[jpaul]

The HS indwells within me and guides me daily toward all truths. It’s called being a regenerate born again Christian!

Jist like Saint Paul was to the jews, so are we to the Evangelical fundamentalist. Saint Paul said about them: *“Indeed, I can testify that they are zealous for God though their zeal is unenlightened. Unaware of God’s justice and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the justice of God.” *(Romans 10: 2-3).

The Evangelical fundamentalist are unenlightened and did not subject themselves to the justice of God by believing non-biblical teachings and disobeying to the one Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Among their errors are:

1. Sola Scriptura (This is non-biblical. Not the Holy Bible, but the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the pillar and bulwark of truth. (Read 1 Tm 3:15).
2. Salvation by faith alone. (This is non-biblical. The Holy Bible indicate that Charity is essential for justification and does not state that “by faith” alone are we justified. Read James 2:14-26; Mt. 25: 31-46).
3. Rejecting the Sacraments. (Esp. the Holy Eucharist [Mt. 26: 26-28; John 6:53-54] and Baptism [Mark 16:16; Rom. 6: 3-5].
4. Rejecting the one Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church (Read Mt. 16:18; Luke 10:16).

“But there is no other. Some who wish to alter the gospel of Christ must have confused you. For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him.”* (Gal. 1: 7-8).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01 gave us this link to Scott Hahn’s application of the Passover rituals to the the Last Supper and then to the Crucifixion.

The Fourth Cup

Does anyone else see a link between life and death and bread with Elija and the raven and later the poor woman in 1 Kings 17?

 

[mayra_hart]

Jesus Foretells the Insitution and Meaning of the Eucharist
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Notice that the crowds clearly understand him to say that to live they must eat his flesh (v. 52), and, although they understand him in a carnal way (not seeing that his flesh will be veiled under the appearance of bread and wine), they grasp the basic truth of his words. The proof is that he does not try to correct them as if they had misunderstood, but rather reiterates and amplifies what they have understood from his saying in verse 51. Notice with what solemnity (``Truly, truly…’’) and how many times he reaffirms this teaching (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). Each of these verses is a categorical affirmation of the crowd’s understanding of his words. There is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively here; we must humbly accept the words of our Lord, even though if it require a great leap of faith. THIS I QUOTED FROM : APOLOGETICS TOOLKIT:THE AUGUSTINE CLUB. O most holy apostle, St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus, people honor and invoke you universally, as the patron of hopeless cases, of things almost despaired of. Pray for me, for I am so helpless and alone. Please help to bring me visible and speedy assistance. Come to my assistance in this great need that I may receive the consolation and help of heaven in all my necessities, tribulations, and sufferings, particularly (state your request) and that I may praise God with you always.”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, if the HS indwells within you and guides you daily toward all truths, then we must cede to you and not the Magisterium. Right?

I pray one day for you to understand what I am saying! it pains me terribly to see you making a mockery of the HS, its clear to me you have no understanding of scripture, or the power given to us through the HS.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

myfavoritmartin:

I pray one day for you to understand what I am saying!

You were cross because I did not use your exact words. So I used your exact words. Is that not understanding what you are saying?

myfavoritmartin:

it pains me terribly to see you making a mockery of the HS

This is a terrible accusation to make against anyone especially when you do not substantiate what you say. Simply because one does not agree with your point of view, does not mean that one is mocking the Holy Spirit.

Do you equate your point of view with the promptings of the Holy Spirit? If so, then you should be able to prove your point of view. Why? Because truth cannot contradict Truth.

If what you are saying is true, then you only have to prove it to us and we will say: yes, what you are saying is true. So why do you not prove it to us?

Why do you descend instead to accusing folks of mocking the Holy Spirit? Do you believe that your accusations come from God? 'Thought I’d ask just to clarify.

myfavoritmartin:

, its clear to me you have no understanding of scripture, or the power given to us through the HS.

How is this clear to you? What is your answer?

btw normally when folks have run out of substantive information to add to the discussion they either concede or descend to personal attacks. Interestingly enough, by descending to personal attacks, they concede.