M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
It got it wrong very early on, and Jim I can show all kinds of ECF’s whom did not believe in real presence.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No arguments from a Catholic here. This IS exactly what they were thinking, and contrary to your argument below, Jesus does NOT try to correct their misunderstanding - because there was no misunderstanding. He spoke plainly and the Jews got the message!
Heh. Okay…
This is where you have the situation completely backwards, and this is the knockout blow to YOUR argument.
If you declare that the sarx of Jesus profits us nothing, then the crucifixion was of no avail for it was upon the cross that Jesus’ sarx was crucified for our sins. Does that sarx really count for nothing?
Hardly. It appears you’ve danced all around it but overlooked v. 51:
John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Jesus says that the bread he is speaking of is real flesh which he will give for the life of the world. Also, notice very carefully that when he is speaking here he specifically says “my flesh” and not “the flesh” which interestingly you correctly identify as carnal thinking below.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)
These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”
First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:
“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)
At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. It is at this point that Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)
In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:
“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).
Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.
Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.
Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
Hard to say.
The prodigal son was separated from the family just as you are. When he returned, the father said: 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ " (Luke 15:32)
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dean-
My thinking was this: “This is absurd…how do I respond to someone who is so completely off-base?”
And yes, it was your email that got me scratching my head. I have never heard such a twisted interpretation before.
However, being an apologist means being prepared for all possibilities no matter how crazy they may be - so, I’m getting my tool bag in order in case it comes up again.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Compared to eating human flesh to remove sin, your calling my analogy absurd?
Really? seems pretty straight up to me…
J
JimG
Guest
Well, perhaps you should start with these ECF’s.
Or consider what J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant historian, writes about early eucharistic belief: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
If the Church got it wrong from the outset, it would appear that either Jesus did a poor job of teaching, or the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church almost immediately.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We do not eat mere “human flesh” as you call it. We eat the flesh of Jesus as he commanded us to. I didn’t come up with this; He did.
However, it is obvious that you are in the same position that the Jews who rejected Jesus words were in that day in Capernaum? You are saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat. This can’t be true…there must be another explanation.” And you’re relying on your own “flesh” - that is, your carnal reasoning to work out a solution that avoids the plain meaning of the text.
You are forced to go to great lengths to reach an interpretation other than that presented in the plain text, so it is anything but straight up.
It is the “straight up” interpretation that you work so hard to explain away.
A
Atemi
Guest
I totally agree with what he said.
PS - I may be your brethren, but in no way can I be your separated brethren. If that was so, you are just as much separated from me as I am from you.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Randy these were being idiots they thought in human terms not in spiritual terms…Remember that chapter ends with your pope peter saying “where shall we go Lord, **you are the words **of eternal life”
K
kaycee
Guest
Augustine (Faustus 6.5): “while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, sadly, that is correct. We are separated from one another.
This has not always been the case. I was once united with you in being separated from the Catholic Church. However, I took steps to be re-united with the Church, and in doing so, I am now separated from you. I mean no disrespect to you personally when I say that I think I made the right choice.
I hope you’ll choose to join me. :tiphat:
M
mtr01
Guest
K
kaycee
Guest
Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): "The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also **commemorated **by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. . . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is **commemorated **in the sacrament
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dean-
Peter didn’t understand Jesus at the time, either!
Do you think Peter said, “Oh, sure…I understand. Transubstantiation? I have no problem with any of this.”
Dean, Peter was just as clueless as any of those who left, but what separated him and the Apostles from them was FAITH.
K
kaycee
Guest
Church historian Philip Schaff:
"In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. **The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: **the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the** excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age**, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma. The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar…
M
mikeledes
Guest
I am going to repost something I posted in another thread in this one:
John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
John 2:19-21
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
John 4:32-34
"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."
John 8:31-34
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.
So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.
God Bless,
Michael
John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
- **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
- Misunderstanding/ Question
- Clarification
John 2:19-21
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
John 4:32-34
"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."
John 8:31-34
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.
So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.
God Bless,
Michael
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Both/and, Kaycee. The Eucharist is both symbolic and literally true. More Augustine…the Proto-Protestant Poster Boy:
ST. AUGUSTINE
Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
M
mikeledes
Guest
The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are a few more:
John 12:32-33
**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **
John 21:18-19
**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **
Matthew 16:6-12
6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
This does not happen in John 6.
God Bless,
Michael
John 12:32-33
**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **
John 21:18-19
**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **
Matthew 16:6-12
6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
This does not happen in John 6.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
John 6:63
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life
This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:
Galatians 5:16
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.
Romans 8:5-6
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace
So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.
God Bless,
Michael
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life
This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:
Galatians 5:16
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.
Romans 8:5-6
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace
So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.
God Bless,
Michael
K
kaycee
Guest
Clement of Alexandria
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2)
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2)
- Status