R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I received the following from a forum member via email:
Thoughts from our separated brethren? Anyone?
Thoughts from our separated brethren? Anyone?
- Status
B
BrianH
Guest
I know that I cannot convince anyone BUT if one hold the Catholic view, they have to believe the author(s) of John made this obvious reference, John 6, to the Eucharist but at the time of the Last Supper, neglected to mention it. We all know that John speaks of the foot washing and glosses right over the Last Supper.
For people who tend to see this from an innerrent standpoint, it does not pose much of a problem. For others who see John as coming from a different stream of the the Jesus movement as opposed to the synoptics, it is a problem, to be sure.
For people who tend to see this from an innerrent standpoint, it does not pose much of a problem. For others who see John as coming from a different stream of the the Jesus movement as opposed to the synoptics, it is a problem, to be sure.
H
heisenburg
Guest
I know you wanted a protestant explaination, but if I may, i wanted to comment on what BrianH Said.
Personally, And forgive me brian if you think I am directing this at you, I try not to pit gospels and letters against each other. All of christianity is not found in the Gospel according to John, otherwise, the bible would jsut be THAT gospel. Fact is, it isnt.
In John 6, Jesus says directly, for salvation, you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. all were confused, and many left. In other Gospels, say, Matthew, Jesus is then heard saying this is my blood, this is my body. He doesnt say, this represents by body, and blood, he says it is…
So… In John 6, he says we must eat and drink of his body… In other gospels it is described what he means… That the Bread IS his body, and wine IS his blood
There werent 4 differnt last suppers because there are 4 differant gospels. They each have a piece to the puzzle… John says what must be done, Matthew (as example) says How… implying that becuase john didnt mention it pits them against each other, which is actually a bigger problem than the one you are proposing, though i do feel it is a valid question.
Hope that helps
In Christ
Personally, And forgive me brian if you think I am directing this at you, I try not to pit gospels and letters against each other. All of christianity is not found in the Gospel according to John, otherwise, the bible would jsut be THAT gospel. Fact is, it isnt.
In John 6, Jesus says directly, for salvation, you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. all were confused, and many left. In other Gospels, say, Matthew, Jesus is then heard saying this is my blood, this is my body. He doesnt say, this represents by body, and blood, he says it is…
So… In John 6, he says we must eat and drink of his body… In other gospels it is described what he means… That the Bread IS his body, and wine IS his blood
There werent 4 differnt last suppers because there are 4 differant gospels. They each have a piece to the puzzle… John says what must be done, Matthew (as example) says How… implying that becuase john didnt mention it pits them against each other, which is actually a bigger problem than the one you are proposing, though i do feel it is a valid question.
Hope that helps
In Christ
R
Reepicheep
Guest
My thoughts on this subject:
In John 6 Christ says “You must eat My Body and drink My Blood. My Body is real food, My Blood is real drink.”
The crowd argue amongst themselves, saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”.
Why would they argue about it if they knew He was speaking in a spiritual sense?
Why did He not correct them if they took it literally but He meant it symbolically? When Christ spoke to Nicodemus of being born again, Nicodemus misunderstood Him, taking it literally. Christ corrected him, explaining that He did not mean literally “return to the womb”.
When in John 6, the crowd took Him literally and argued over it, Christ did not correct them. Instead he repeated his statement with emphasis. “My Body is real food, My Blood is real drink. You must eat and drink, or you will not have life in you. Whoever does eat My Body and drink My Blood, will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Many of His followers deserted Him over this, but He did not call them back to explain. Instead He turned to the Twelve, offering them a choice. “Will you also leave?” He didn’t tell even the Twelve that He meant it symbolically or spiritually. He asked if they would leave Him over this teaching.
As for the Last Supper…in John 6 He said, “You must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood.” At the Last Supper, He said of bread, “This is My Body”…of wine “This is My Blood”.
I don’t see how He could make it more clear than that. He said it explicitely, and He means what He says.
In John 6 Christ says “You must eat My Body and drink My Blood. My Body is real food, My Blood is real drink.”
The crowd argue amongst themselves, saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”.
Why would they argue about it if they knew He was speaking in a spiritual sense?
Why did He not correct them if they took it literally but He meant it symbolically? When Christ spoke to Nicodemus of being born again, Nicodemus misunderstood Him, taking it literally. Christ corrected him, explaining that He did not mean literally “return to the womb”.
When in John 6, the crowd took Him literally and argued over it, Christ did not correct them. Instead he repeated his statement with emphasis. “My Body is real food, My Blood is real drink. You must eat and drink, or you will not have life in you. Whoever does eat My Body and drink My Blood, will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Many of His followers deserted Him over this, but He did not call them back to explain. Instead He turned to the Twelve, offering them a choice. “Will you also leave?” He didn’t tell even the Twelve that He meant it symbolically or spiritually. He asked if they would leave Him over this teaching.
As for the Last Supper…in John 6 He said, “You must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood.” At the Last Supper, He said of bread, “This is My Body”…of wine “This is My Blood”.
I don’t see how He could make it more clear than that. He said it explicitely, and He means what He says.
B
BrianH
Guest
I do not pit them against one another. That is more in line with radical, although I am not sure one could term it radical anymore, biblical criticism.
Instead, I think of them for what I feel they were, differing accounts based upon the community or school they stem from. From my particular perspective, which obviously differs from Catholicism(although I do not find that Catholic scholars are so different than Protestant ones in the area), one finds the historical truth and the spiritual lessons/truths from reading all four gospels, incomplete or fragments of documents about Jesus, and Paul’s early and accepted letters.
It is too simplistic, for me, to imagine the mental gynastics it takes to lay all four side by side and attempt to come up a story that does not contradict at times. I have already stated why that is not a problem for me.
Back to John, to suggest that John 6 is about the Eucharist, when John does not discuss the Eucharist like the other three do, is wishful thinking to me. John does not mention it in that context. I understand why that is not a problem for some people but it is for me.
J
joshua_b
Guest
It is important too, to bear in mind the audience. Eating flesh and drinking blood, while probably not all that signifigant to Gentiles, would have been absolutely HORRID images to Jews living under the law. The use of this wording is no accident, and the reaction of the crowd is probably understated in John if anything, as this would have been profanation of the Law that they had lived under their whole lives, and subsequently a profanation of God the Father Himself.
The Gospels were written by different people, directed at different audiences, and would use different focal points to appeal to those audiences.
The Gospels were written by different people, directed at different audiences, and would use different focal points to appeal to those audiences.
E
El_camino
Guest
Most theologians/historians believe that John wrote the Gospel after (in fact much later than) the other three had been written. In fact, much later than the Epistles of Paul, which are said to have been written before the Gospels. Some theologians say that John actually wrote the gospel, inspired by God, with the PURPOSE of filling in the many things regarding the life of Jesus the other gospels and Scriptures, were missing. So when John was writing his gospel, he was not going to re-write what the others had already mentioned. If you notice, many things that Matthew, Mark and Luke say, are repetitive in all three. **Not so **with John.
So, knowing that Matthew (Matthew 26:26-27) , Mark (Mark 14:22-23), Luke (Luke 22:19-20) and PAUL himself (1 Cor 11:24-25) had already talked about the INSTITUTION of the Eucharist, John had no reason to REPEAT IT.
What John did have to do, is to express the REAL SIGNIFICANCE of the Eucharist, as he did in John 6, because all the other scriptures did not express it thoroughly.
Many blessings,
E.C.
N
ncgolf
Guest
What John 6 does is make no bones about what it is we are to eat and who it is we are to eat. John 6 makes sure we cannot mistake what the Lord meant by his words “This is my body and this is my blood”, during the Last Supper descriptions of the other 3 Gospel writers. John wants the reader to connect the Lord’s words at Capernum with His words later in the Upper Room.
It is in the use of the phrases like “my flesh is true food” and “my blood is true drink”. John does not want us to mistake or doubt what the bread is Jesus is talking about in the other Last Supper accounts.
B
BrianH
Guest
Well…
Whether or not John had access to the other gospels is and has always been a lively debate. Personally the whole debate about the “Signs Gospel” from which John is futher developed rings true but Lord knows books have been written on this topic…
To say that John fills in missing details, when I am not sure there is any conclusive evidence that his school had even read them, seems…clearner than the whole process appears to be.
Anyway, I little reading that discusses some of the differences for people interested.
P
Philthy
Guest
Thoughts from our separated brethren? Anyone?
I think this is a reasonable analysis of John 6, though it is by no means conclusive. It is simply an opinion - among several equally possible opinions - which can be justified from the text. IF we are meant to understand specifically what Christ meant from this discourse “without someone to teach us” then God did a poor job of communicating something relatively easy to say, and many of us will arrive at falsehood instead of truth. From this perspective it makes more sense to me that such writings are meant to verify oral teachings rather than form them. The formed oral teaching from the earliest of times is that the Eucharist was the very body and blood of Christ. The Didache and the ECFs bear witness to this. Even Acts describes the first disciples as being devoted to “the prayers” and to “breaking bread”. Such writings confirm the teachings we have received, they do not form them 1500 or 2000 years after the fact…
One specific criticism of the analysis that I have is the initial conclusion that the fact that the Last Supper had not occurred renders John 6 into the world of the metaphorical. I dont see how that follows at all - it might simply be a form of prophecy rather than a metaphorical discourse.
D
DRIVING_BEAR
Guest
First off the gospel of John was not written by John. It was written by the Holy Spirit through John.
Is Brian H implying that the Holy Spirit has a bad editor.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really? Can you provide a passage of scripture that specifically says that?
I don’t think so because it doesn’t exist.
There is a difference between the Holy Spirit writing something (of which we have no examples) and the Holy Spirit inspiring men to write things, of which we have entire volumes of examples.
B
Brenda4God
Guest
I think the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write and both the Holy Spirit and the men are authors. It sounds a little like the hypostatic union…both/and not either or? Is that right?
V
VociMike
Guest
This would be my understanding as well. God does not control us like marionettes, but rather invites us to accept His grace and to work with Him in all good things. Writing the scriptures would have been one special case of this.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
Flesh and spirit…what do they mean in John 6:63? What has Jesus been saying all the way up to verse 61?? Over and over – you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. He has said this a number of times. What response does he get??
John 6:52 KJV 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
They were thinking carnally – literally. It is silly for one to try to get out of this one by thinking that this could mean anything else but that. They are thinking…how are we going to eat His flesh and drink His blood…this is outrageous?!!
So…Christ attempts to help them to see that this is not what He is proposing. He says…
John 6:62 KJV 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
They had taken offence because he said he came down from heaven. Instead of explaining that away, he proceeds to state another doctrine quite as offensive to them–that he would reascend to heaven. As Jesus was to ascend to heaven, it was clear that he could not have intended literally that they should eat his flesh.
Then comes the knockout blow to your theology…
John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Flesh is sarx in Greek:
Sarx: probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):–carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).
Carnal thinking – he was correcting a literal (name removed by moderator)erpretation that they were going to actually eat His flesh.
Spirit: pneuma - from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy Spirit:–ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590.
HIS WORDS were to be taken from a spiritual perspective – He is defining faith and his words were not to be taken literally. Faith is more than mere knowing about Christ or knowing facts - it is a full spiritual eating and drinking of Christ - a wholehearted faith and trust in Christ - devouring Him for all that He is - an intimate relationship and marriage. This statement is at the beginning of this discourse on eating and drinking Him…
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
He then…from here…begins to speak about eating and drinking…
Also, we should not be called “separated brethren” - we have no life in us. With you interpretation, we are going to have to believe that ONLY people that take your communion have eternal life. We know this is not true.
John 6:53 KJV 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
============================
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
K
kaycee
Guest
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
35 "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. Hunger and thirst are metaphors for spiritual hunger and thirst. Those who receive communion will hunger and thirst again in the physical sense!
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and** I will raise him up at the last day.**
3 parralel verses the first 2 literal, the third, metaphor. All have the same result,
"I will raise him up at the last day".
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
35 "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. Hunger and thirst are metaphors for spiritual hunger and thirst. Those who receive communion will hunger and thirst again in the physical sense!
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and** I will raise him up at the last day.**
3 parralel verses the first 2 literal, the third, metaphor. All have the same result,
"I will raise him up at the last day".
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Thoughts from our separated brethren? Anyone?
Randy,
This looks familiar, this must’ve got ya thinkin eh?
I’d say the analogy is spot on!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Kaycee summarize the OP perfectly.
Thanks!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Oh and by the way it should probably read fundamental/evangelical view of John 6, as many protestants view is closer to the Catholic view.
J
JimG
Guest
By the time John wrote his gospel, the Eucharist had already been celebrated continuously for several decades. Probably he saw no need to present another account of its institution. But he does supply the preamble to it in John 6.
Strange that the Church got this wrong for 1500 years. Was Christ so poor a teacher?
Strange that the Church got this wrong for 1500 years. Was Christ so poor a teacher?
- Status