Protestants: If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, explain this!

[Radical]

Seems that, as you acknowledge, Jesus knew the Advocate/Comforter/Holy Spirit that he was sending would take care of that, through the Church that Jesus did directly found, since he chose to found a Church rather than write a book.

you make it sound as if Christ (aka the Word) had no part in producing the Bible (aka the Word). He chose to found a church and he chose to provide it with a NT.

On what basis do you place more importance on a text and very little by comparison on the Church when Christ did exactly the opposite?

I place more importance on the scriptures b/c they are w/o error….Christ sent his Spirit to guide the church and to inspire the NT and Christ repeatedly referenced the OT in support of his claims…not exactly an example of placing little importance on scripture. Many of his words became scripture, which again, is not exactly an example of placing little importance on what became scripture

If it is possible for the Son, as God, to manifest himself in many other ways besides his singular physical body, can he not choose to manifest himself physically in bread and wine? What evidence is there that he did not do just that?

Is this a trick question? As you say later, the physical properties of the bread and wine remain whilst no physical properties of a body are manifested. Hence no physical manifestation occurs.

Seems the references in Scripture testify more to direct physical presence and manifestation in the very food used in the Communion Supper rather than to some vague spiritual symbolism, by the mere language being used as well as the frequent repetition of the themes.

What vague spiritual symbolism? The bread represents his body which was given for us. The wine represents his blood which was poured out for us. That is specific and not vague.

For if Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then he ignores the very physicality of us that he showed he would NOT ignore by becoming physically human.

Somehow I don’t think an all knowing God needs to be reminded of our physicality…you are merely “rigging the deck” and declaring that, “If God didn’t do it the way I think he should have, then he is ignoring my physicality….”

If Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then the Incarnation meant very little,

So coming down to earth, living and dying for our sins means very little unless it is ratified by a Eucharistic miracle?…sounds like a ridiculous claim from over here.

…. did not dignify our physical being,

That Jesus came to earth and died for me more than dignified my physical being….I would not dare to suggest my physical being needs any more dignifying from my Creator.

…does not testify to a bodily resurrection,

a manifestation and a bodily resurrection are two different things….the scripture’s record is more than enough

… and suggests that the physical aspect of our existence truly is understood better in the Gnostic vision of a despicable, contemptible thing, a prison only fit to be left behind in death.

Talking about the Gnostics have you noted that they believed that it only appeared as if Jesus’s body was present here on earth (when in fact it wasn’t). Compare that to the RC view that it only appears as if the bread is present at the Eucharist (when in fact it isn’t). One of us possesses a metaphysical view that shares things with the Gnostic view….and it ain’t me.

That Jesus remains with us physically in the Eucharist is extremely important. The bread and wine are physically HIM, and thus are his flesh and blood. But since he has made it so, and since he has taken the form of bread and wine as he makes it his flesh and blood, it is not cannibalism. For it still has the physical properties of bread and wine

So Jesus’s body is physical present w/o any physical properties? Does the meaning of “physical” change in mid paragraph?

 

[elvisman]

Is this a trick question? As you say later, the physical properties of the bread and wine remain whilst no physical properties of a body are manifested. Hence no physical manifestation occurs.

What vague spiritual symbolism? The bread represents his body which was given for us. The wine represents his blood which was poured out for us. That is specific and not vague.

Somehow I don’t think an all knowing God needs to be reminded of our physicality…you are merely “rigging the deck” and declaring that, “If God didn’t do it the way I think he should have, then he is ignoring my physicality….”

So coming down to earth, living and dying for our sins means very little unless it is ratified by a Eucharistic miracle?…sounds like a ridiculous claim from over here.

That Jesus came to earth and died for me more than dignified my physical being….I would not dare to suggest my physical being needs any more dignifying from my Creator.

a manifestation and a bodily resurrection are two different things….the scripture’s record is more than enough

Talking about the Gnostics have you noted that they believed that it only appeared as if Jesus’s body was present here on earth (when in fact it wasn’t). Compare that to the RC view that it only appears as if the bread is present at the Eucharist (when in fact it isn’t). One of us possesses a metaphysical view that shares things with the Gnostic view….and it ain’t me.

So Jesus’s body is physical present w/o any physical properties? Does the meaning of “physical” change in mid paragraph?

The following verses from John 6 apply to you and all other like you who** reject the Real Presence. If I claimed to be a follower of Christ and rejected the Real Presence like you do – the following verses would scare**** the living heck out of me.**

Verses 6:43-54
**43 *Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves. ***
**44 ****No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. **
**45 ****It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. **
**46 *****Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. ***
**47 ****Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. **

Verses 6:53-56
**53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **
**54 *****Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. ***
**55 ****For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **
**56 ****Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **

Verses 6:63-66
**63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. **
**64 ****But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. **
**65 ****And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." **
**66 *****As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. ***

As for your comment about the Gnostics - you have it all wrong. They, too rejected the Eucharist - as you do. this was summed up by Ignatius of Antioch around the year 110 A.D.:
"They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up."

To borrow a phrase from you:
"(According to Jesus) One of us doesn’t have life within him . . . and it ain’t me."

 

[twohumble]

I realize I’ve successfully derailed the thread. Would you like to continue this discussion on a separate thread?

In the meantime, back to the Eucharist. The evidence for the Real Presence is overwhelming, especially in that the Church Fathers are unanimous in upholding its belief. Add to that all of the prefiguarements in the old testament that are ultimately fulfilled by the truth in the words of consecration (such as the pascal lamb), and taking Jesus’ own words into account and we can see that the Eucharist is the greatest miracle of them all, truely the “living bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:51).

Judechild:
This thread is fine. Too many threads confuse me.
I am not sure we have a big difference of opinion here. I would agree that there is a mystery and a ‘real presence’ in the Lords Supper. I would disagree that the bread becomes flesh, and the wine becomes blood. Jesus routinely used language that opened up the OT scriptures through the imagery, signs, and symbols common to the Israelites. That does not imply that this imagery was not a sign of the Reality that lies within, around and above, and below it(sounds like consubstatiation, but I am not there either). Christ is the Reality behind all the ‘rites’, rituals, ceremonies of the OT and New.
There is real mystery associated with the means of Grace, and that is so very true of The Lords Supper.

 

[twohumble]

I’d also like to get back on the topic of the Eucharist. There are plenty of other threads for dealing with the authority of the Catholic Church.

I am finding it too hard to resist pointing out a couple of things related to that conversation, though.

It seems to me that Elvis and Twohumble have talked across each other without directly confronting one of the major points of their disagreement. Twohumble is refusing to accept Elvis’s premise that the Catholic Church is the same Church, whole and entire, that Jesus founded. If Elvis’s premise is true, then so is his assertion that the Catholic Church did indeed write and canonize the NT, and thus is the group to have the longest and likely greatest familiarity with it (sidenote: the Orthodox were of the same group until the Great Schism). Twohumble keeps trying to redefine Elvisman’s argument as meaning Twohumble’s perception of the Roman Catholic Church as being something different from the original Church Christ founded. Argue the premise, gentlemen, but on a different thread. Speaking of the group responsible for authorship and canonization of the NT will go nowhere if you continue to operate on different definitions and are unwilling to accept the definition of the other.

On another note:

I hear lots of assertions with very little backup from you, twohumble. Such as oral tradition being suspect (not that I think it’s relevant, really), or that you are speaking of what Scripture clearly states–when Scripture is so heavily debated. For you seem to accept Sola Scriptura, and yet the Bible in several places directs people pretty clearly to the Church rather than to Scripture for various things, and defines the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, not the text of Scripture.

What I find more interesting about that quote are the parts that I bolded. If God can protect a text from corruption, why can’t He protect His Church from corruption of the Truth? Seems that Jesus prayed for the unity and holiness of his Church, not of some words on parchment. Seems that, as you acknowledge, Jesus knew the Advocate/Comforter/Holy Spirit that he was sending would take care of that, through the Church that Jesus did directly found, since he chose to found a Church rather than write a book. On what basis do you place more importance on a text and very little by comparison on the Church when Christ did exactly the opposite?

Which brings me to the Eucharist. Scripture regarding the Eucharist must be interpreted in the context of the Church, of Tradition, since Jesus placed his emphasis on the Church and promised the Holy Spirit to IT, not to a text. Others here and many places on these forums have illustrated that Traditional context to varying degrees. I bring up another that is also spoken of in Scripture. Do you believe in Christophanies? Appearances/manifestations of Christ prior to his Incarnation?

If it is possible for the Son, as God, to manifest himself in many other ways besides his singular physical body, can he not choose to manifest himself physically in bread and wine? What evidence is there that he did not do just that? Seems the references in Scripture testify more to direct physical presence and manifestation in the very food used in the Communion Supper rather than to some vague spiritual symbolism, by the mere language being used as well as the frequent repetition of the themes.

So if the Son can manifest himself beyond his human body, then he can manifest himself in the physical bread and wine of the communion meal. In this way he more completely fulfills the Passover meal; fulfills his promise to be with us not just spiritually, but physically; becomes physically incorporated into us as we digest the bread and wine, truly being IN us as we are in him. For if Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then he ignores the very physicality of us that he showed he would NOT ignore by becoming physically human. If Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then the Incarnation meant very little, did not dignify our physical being, does not testify to a bodily resurrection, and suggests that the physical aspect of our existence truly is understood better in the Gnostic vision of a despicable, contemptible thing, a prison only fit to be left behind in death.

That Jesus remains with us physically in the Eucharist is extremely important. The bread and wine are physically HIM, and thus are his flesh and blood. But since he has made it so, and since he has taken the form of bread and wine as he makes it his flesh and blood, it is not cannibalism. For it still has the physical properties of bread and wine.

Arandur:
Your post deserves more of a response than I can give at the moment, I will respond when time allows.

 

[DLClark]

Eating and drinking here is figurative for beliefe, John 6:29, 47.

 

[judechild]

Eating and drinking here is figurative for beliefe, John 6:29, 47.

Yes, you are correct, the first part of the Bread of Life discourse is talking about faith; you must have faith before you can believe in the Eucharist. But Jesus didn’t stop at verse 47. There is probably a break between verses 50 and 51, or at least there is a major change in direction: “this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die / I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” He goes on from there to say - over the objections of the Jews - “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (v. 55) He even goes so far as to state, in rabbonic form, first the negative: “… unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (v. 53), and then in the positive: “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (v.54). There is nothing is the latter part of the Bread of Life discourse that suggests Jesus is **not **speaking literally.

Here’s what St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in AD 110: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

I’m not trying to be inflamatory with this quote, I only want it to show that belief in the Real Presence was believed in the early Church. If we took a time machine back to the first century and went to see the Apostle’s churches, I think Catholics would feel more at home than protestants.

 

[elvisman]

Eating and drinking here is figurative for beliefe, John 6:29, 47.

Eating and drinking are not even entioned here.
Easy-believeism is not alluded to, sither.

Belief - true faith - is accepting and living what Jesus taught. And, in John 6:25-71, Jesus is teaching them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

He didn’t attempt to call those back who left him in verse 66 for a reason:
Because he meant what he said.

 

[Arandur]

you make it sound as if Christ (aka the Word) had no part in producing the Bible (aka the Word). He chose to found a church and he chose to provide it with a NT.

He (God) Inspired the NT, yes, as a support to the Church. The NT directs its readers to the Church. Jesus never wrote any of it himself, seeing more fit to focus on educating his Apostles and disciples and sending the Holy Spirit.

I place more importance on the scriptures b/c they are w/o error….Christ sent his Spirit to guide the church and to inspire the NT and Christ repeatedly referenced the OT in support of his claims…not exactly an example of placing little importance on scripture. Many of his words became scripture, which again, is not exactly an example of placing little importance on what became scripture

Please define in what way you mean “w/o error.” Are you an absolute literalist? Do you believe the Bible is without error in matters scientific and historical? Are there ever errors or weaknesses in translation? What about the passages (thinking mainly of Paul here) where Scripture records the suggestions of an individual who explicitly states that he’s not acting under infallible Inspiration? Surely there ever errors in private interpretation, however, which makes reliance on the Bible alone (privately) truly foolish, as the Bible itself points out. That is why we have the Holy Spirit through the Church.

Christ referenced the OT in support of his claims, as you note. The Scriptures are a support of the Church. They do not contain all of Christ’s message (as they also explicitly state), and reading OT Scripture or crafting NT Scripture is not what Jesus spent much time on, per our records of his public ministry.

Is this a trick question? As you say later, the physical properties of the bread and wine remain whilst no physical properties of a body are manifested. Hence no physical manifestation occurs.

Maybe I can explain better. You are hung up on “flesh and blood” as requiring a cannibalistic consumption of actual human flesh and blood. But Jesus is not just human. He is also God. I brought up pre-Incarnation Christophanies to point out that the Son can and has manifested himself as a presence in our physical world in forms other than human.

This he does with the bread and wine. One could say he becomes bread and wine in the Eucharist, for he does just that. But it is much greater than that, because once he has manifested himself in physical form, he is not merely any mundane substance. We call it his “flesh and blood” because this manifestation is a specific remembrance of his bodily sacrifice, and indeed a participation in that original Last Supper instance, just as the Passover meal is understood by Jews as a participation in the actual, original Exodus Passover meal. Neither is a mere repetition of an event, but a communion with the actual event, transcending time in a divinely-instituted way. To complete that, Jesus, the Bread (manna) from Heaven, born in the House of Bread (Bethlehem), the Passover Lamb that must be eaten, the once-hidden third matzoh of the Seder, striped and pierced as baked, unleavened matzoh is striped and pierced, physically becomes the bread and wine of our sacrificial meal. In this way, he IS wholly, physically present and with us, until the end of the age, though not yet in his glory but in the perfect humility of assuming the base form of bread and wine (which is why we still pray at that very time that he come in his full glory). He is present as he was at the Incarnation, body, soul, and divinity, flesh transformed into food indeed and blood into drink indeed. Thus we take him into ourselves physically as well as spiritually, and insodoing share in the most complete and intimate of communion, taking his own eternal life into ourselves. That is what Jesus was referring to
in John 6; to divorce a physical presence from the Eucharist is to divorce the meaning from the passage.

What vague spiritual symbolism? The bread represents his body which was given for us. The wine represents his blood which was poured out for us. That is specific and not vague.

But you don’t believe that you actually take him into yourself when you consume the Sacrament. So what does it avail you? What does it actually DO? You might as well join Benny Hinn and just say the words “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ” to invoke the same, for those words are a representation and remembrance, are they not? What matter the bread and wine, then?

 

[Arandur]

Somehow I don’t think an all knowing God needs to be reminded of our physicality…you are merely “rigging the deck” and declaring that, “If God didn’t do it the way I think he should have, then he is ignoring my physicality….”

No, I am not claiming what He should have done. I am repeating what the Church who is Christ’s Body (another reality only made complete by the physical consumption and incorporation of Jesus through his physical presence in the bread and wine)* knows* and teaches with the absolute authority of the Holy Spirit. I myself long resisted the doctrine of transubstantiation, until he made himself known to me in the breaking of the bread (as he did to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, who recognized his physical presence and identity only with the Eucharist, though he stood before them!), so this has no origin in me.

So coming down to earth, living and dying for our sins means very little unless it is ratified by a Eucharistic miracle?…sounds like a ridiculous claim from over here.

He said it himself in John 6. Unless we can participate in his living and dying for our sins and redeeming us, unless we can participate wholly (physically and spiritually) in his eternal life, how can we hope to have it? If we participate only spiritually, then we humans, who are defined and separate from the angels by being both physical and spiritual, split ourselves off from our physical reality and attempt to be only spiritually alive. How can you have hope of a bodily resurrection without such a thing? Surely the Lord can make special exception for the imperfect state of our fallen world and the insufficiencies of our transmission of the Sacrament, but why would He not complete His plan by providing a way for us to participate physically in His eternal life, in His redemption, and not just spiritually? What more beautiful way to do this than to actually provide us with physical sustenance,* food and drink*, that we must regularly receive, just as He nourishes us spiritually?

That Jesus came to earth and died for me more than dignified my physical being….I would not dare to suggest my physical being needs any more dignifying from my Creator.

Why then would both you and He ignore the physical after that moment in favor of just a spiritual relationship with God? With the Eucharist He gives us the chance to also experience Him on the physical level, an integral part of our being.

a manifestation and a bodily resurrection are two different things….the scripture’s record is more than enough

If our bodies have no means by which to physically participate in the eternal life of Jesus, then how can they be restored eternally in a bodily resurrection? They wither and die, remaining ever mortal, without the nourishment of Christ physically through the Eucharist, for there is no other eternal physical nourishment.

Talking about the Gnostics have you noted that they believed that it only appeared as if Jesus’s body was present here on earth (when in fact it wasn’t). Compare that to the RC view that it only appears as if the bread is present at the Eucharist (when in fact it isn’t). One of us possesses a metaphysical view that shares things with the Gnostic view….and it ain’t me.

The reason that Gnostics have to make that distinction is that they cannot accept that matter is good. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The distinction of the illusory body would not exist without the insistence that matter is evil.

On the other hand, the Eucharist is truly and physically God because matter is good and has been redeemed! It is quite the opposite of what the Gnostics believed. To believe not take Jesus at his word and believe that Jesus could not or would not make himself physically present in the bread and wine is to perpetuate the lie that matter is evil, or unworthy in some manner. That is what you share with the Gnostics.

So Jesus’s body is physical present w/o any physical properties? Does the meaning of “physical” change in mid paragraph?

You’re still hung up on human flesh and blood and cannibalism. This is Jesus, who can manifest himself as a burning bush or a lamppost. If he came to me in either form you better believe you should bow down and worship. He chooses to come to us and remain with us physically in the form of bread and wine. Transformed in such a way, it is effectively his body and blood, as he says, not just bread and wine. Nor is he there only spiritually represented, for how would that be different than how he is spiritually present in any other way?

 

[Radical]

Elvisman, the OP asked for an explanation of John 6 from my point of view and I provided it at post # 40 of this thread. At one point in that post I said:

(c) Regarding the interpretation of this passage Augustine wrote: “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” As such, Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of “eating Jesus’s flesh”. Augustine recognized that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would require one to commit the crime of cannibalism. In a literal eating of flesh one would actually gnaw at Jesus’s flesh with one’s teeth…but of course, RCs don’t believe that any gnawing of flesh actually takes place at their Eucharist. So when you observe: " Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” I can only wonder what point you think you are making. What is it going to be? Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?

Neither Holly nor you answered my questions….so let’s look at that passage some more and maybe I’ll get some answers this time.

*28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ " 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. *

With respect to this portion of the passage please clarify:

a) regarding the true bread that the Father gives, do you understand that literally and believe that Jesus is actually bread or do you understand “bread” to be used in a non-literal manner?

b) Regarding “will never be hungry”, is Jesus talking about physical hunger or spiritual hunger?

c) Regarding “will never be thirsty”, is Jesus talking about physical thirst or spiritual thirst?

• 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.*

With respect to this portion of the passage please clarify:

a) When Jesus talked about someone eating this bread that comes down from heaven, was Jesus talking about literal “bread”?

b) When he said that the person who eats the bread will not die, was he saying that the person would not physically die?

c) When Jesus talked about eating his flesh, did he mean that you would actually bite into his physical flesh and chew it?

d) When Jesus said that his blood was true drink, did he mean that you would actually and physically swallow his blood and then digest it?

e) When Jesus said that whoever ate his flesh and drank his blood would abide in him, was he speaking about a physical abiding or a spiritual abiding?

I strongly suspect that as you read through John 6 you flip-flop and understand that Jesus was speaking about physical realities at some points and that he was speaking about spiritual realities at other points. I also strongly suspect that you would like to claim that you take Jesus’s words literally, but in fact, you are far from a purely literal interpretation. If I am right about you in this regard, it tells me that you really don’t understand the passage and don’t understand what you are doing and as such, I do not need to worry about the implications of your interpretation

 

[historyb]

(Joh 6:48 RSV) I am the bread of life.
(Joh 6:49 RSV) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50 RSV) This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
(Joh 6:51 RSV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) 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;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” No, he said to the twelve disciples “Do you also wish to go away?” and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus responds and says, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He was of course referring to Judas Iscariot who was to betray him as we learn in John 6:71. But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Quite simply you have made the mistake as the Lady at the well, Christ gives us spiritual drink so we may never thirst again. Catholics seem to look for nourishment of elements, we Protestants understand that the elements are meaningless and it is Christ that is our sustenance, not bead and wine.

10 Jesus replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.” 11 “But sir, you don’t have a rope or a bucket,” she said, “and this well is very deep. Where would you get this living water? 12 And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”
13 Jesus replied, “Anyone who drinks this water will soon become thirsty again. 14 But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again. It becomes a fresh, bubbling spring within them, giving them eternal life.”

John 4:10-14

 

[judechild]

Elvisman, the OP asked for an explanation of John 6 from my point of view and I provided it at post # 40 of this thread. At one point in that post I said:

(c) Regarding the interpretation of this passage Augustine wrote: “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” As such, Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of “eating Jesus’s flesh”. Augustine recognized that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would require one to commit the crime of cannibalism. In a literal eating of flesh one would actually gnaw at Jesus’s flesh with one’s teeth…but of course, RCs don’t believe that any gnawing of flesh actually takes place at their Eucharist. So when you observe: " Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” I can only wonder what point you think you are making. What is it going to be? Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?

I strongly suspect that as you read through John 6 you flip-flop and understand that Jesus was speaking about physical realities at some points and that he was speaking about spiritual realities at other points. I also strongly suspect that you would like to claim that you take Jesus’s words literally, but in fact, you are far from a purely literal interpretation. If I am right about you in this regard, it tells me that you really don’t understand the passage and don’t understand what you are doing and as such, I do not need to worry about the implications of your interpretation

I’m afraid you have misunderstood St. Augustine; he did not believe in a figuarative presence:

“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]). - Both examples taken from Catholic.com’s faith - library section.

In regard to your first questions a-c I say again that the Bread of Life Discourse has two parts, the first (up to verse 51) deals primarily with faith itself. The second part refers to the sacramental reality.
Your second set of questions a-e can best be answered, I believe by an understanding of what the Eucharist truely is. The Eucharist is a Sacrament, meaning that it not only makes Christ present, but actually through physical means imparts true spiritual grace. These “signs” were instituted by Christ Himself to give Grace. In the Eucharist, Christ is fully and substantially present even in the smallest parts of this gift. In this way, it is a non-bloody re-presentation of the one true sacrifice of Calgary. Therefore, Jesus did indeed tell us to physically eat His flesh, and to do it in a way that does not involve cannibalism.

Dr. Scott Hahn has an interesting presentation of the Eucharist as the fulfillment of all of the Old Testament Covenants. All the covenants deal with the family and God usually says something like “I establish my covenant with you…” (I’ll have the actual verses later).

1- Adam - this convenant involved a single marriage
2- Noah - His family
3- Abraham - One tribal family
4- Moses - 12 tribes that make up one family
5- Jesus - The whole world

Where does Jesus establish this final covenant? Luke 22:20: " And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” This is the only place where Jesus uses the word “covenant”; this cup is the same covenant that Catholics participate in at every mass. The Eucharist is THE GREATEST **miracle **ever!

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman, the OP asked for an explanation of John 6 from my point of view and I provided it at post # 40 of this thread. At one point in that post I said:

(c) Regarding the interpretation of this passage Augustine wrote: “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” As such, Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of “eating Jesus’s flesh”. Augustine recognized that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would require one to commit the crime of cannibalism. In a literal eating of flesh one would actually gnaw at Jesus’s flesh with one’s teeth…but of course, RCs don’t believe that any gnawing of flesh actually takes place at their Eucharist. So when you observe: " Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” I can only wonder what point you think you are making. What is it going to be? Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?

Neither Holly nor you answered my questions….so let’s look at that passage some more and maybe I’ll get some answers this time.

With respect to this portion of the passage please clarify:

a) regarding the true bread that the Father gives, do you understand that literally and believe that Jesus is actually bread or do you understand “bread” to be used in a non-literal manner?

b) Regarding “will never be hungry”, is Jesus talking about physical hunger or spiritual hunger?

c) Regarding “will never be thirsty”, is Jesus talking about physical thirst or spiritual thirst?

a) When Jesus talked about someone eating this bread that comes down from heaven, was Jesus talking about literal “bread”?

b) When he said that the person who eats the bread will not die, was he saying that the person would not physically die?

c) When Jesus talked about eating his flesh, did he mean that you would actually bite into his physical flesh and chew it?

d) When Jesus said that his blood was true drink, did he mean that you would actually and physically swallow his blood and then digest it?

e) When Jesus said that whoever ate his flesh and drank his blood would abide in him, was he speaking about a physical abiding or a spiritual abiding?

I strongly suspect that as you read through John 6 you flip-flop and understand that Jesus was speaking about physical realities at some points and that he was speaking about spiritual realities at other points. I also strongly suspect that you would like to claim that you take Jesus’s words literally, but in fact, you are far from a purely literal interpretation. If I am right about you in this regard, it tells me that you really don’t understand the passage and don’t understand what you are doing and as such, I do not need to worry about the implications of your interpretation

Augustine believed in the Real Presence - that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of our Savior:

**“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, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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).
**"[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

 

[judechild]

10 Jesus replied,

“If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.” 11 “But sir, you don’t have a rope or a bucket,” she said, “and this well is very deep. Where would you get this living water? 12 And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”
13 Jesus replied, “Anyone who drinks this water will soon become thirsty again. 14 But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again. It becomes a fresh, bubbling spring within them, giving them eternal life.”

John 4:10-14

Yes, and when she misunderstood, Jesus set her right, and she became His disciple. He did no such thing at the Bread of Life Discourse. I don’t understand why you say the physical elements are meaningless, please explain more.

 

[historyb]

Yes, and when she misunderstood, Jesus set her right, and she became His disciple. He did no such thing at the Bread of Life Discourse. I don’t understand why you say the physical elements are meaningless, please explain more.

They are just bread and wine, nothing more. Christ s what sustains us, yet the emphasis is to much placed upon the bread and wine.

 

[judechild]

They are just bread and wine, nothing more. Christ s what sustains us, yet the emphasis is to much placed upon the bread and wine.

Of course Christ is what sustains us, but He chose to communicate that through the Eucharist. I’m sorry, we don’t agree. But please explain why you believe the physical elements are meaningless.

 

[historyb]

Of course Christ is what sustains us, but He chose to communicate that through the Eucharist. I’m sorry, we don’t agree. But please explain why you believe the physical elements are meaningless.

Because they are just things

 

[judechild]

Because they are just things

Why is it important that Jesus’ bones not be found? If some archeologist discovered the bones of Christ, wouldn’t that repudiate all of Christianity?

 

[historyb]

Why is it important that Jesus’ bones not be found? If some archeologist discovered the bones of Christ, wouldn’t that repudiate all of Christianity?

Huh? What I am saying is Catholics put to much emphasis on the bread and wine I really have no idea what your talking about here. Christ bones would never be found because He is alive

 

[judechild]

Huh? What I am saying is Catholics put to much emphasis on the bread and wine I really have no idea what your talking about here. Christ bones would never be found because He is alive

Sorry I wasn’t being clear; I’m attempting to show that the physical **does **matter. You’re right, Christ’s bones cannot be found because He rose bodily. Why is it important that the connection between the phyisical and the spiritual is stressed here? I believe it is because the phyisical is good, not evil. The things that are physical are not worthless just because they are physical, in my understanding; Christ Himself was physical. If Christ assumed physical form, it seem to make sense that He would continue to come to us through physical things. After all, we aren’t angels, we aren’t just disembodied spirits, we are human beings with physical bodies and senses.