Question For Protestants (if any are here)

[tgGodsway]

As I mentioned before, there is no dichotomy. Spiritual realities can be understood literally and physically in eternity. But let the scripture decide in each case. If the scriptures determines that “His Presence” is found in the bread, let it bare itself out in the passage. If it does not, then you’ve simply read in to it an idea that came from outside the passage.

When Jesus said “… whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” … it was a grand statement. But now you must prove that he meant “eat” of His flesh meant literally eat. and “drink” of his blood, meant drink of it literally. You must prove this in light of the fact that Jesus, just a few verses later, said, my words are spiritual.

The disciples who left, did so, because they did not believe He was the Christ, and refused to wait around for His interpretation. “He who eats this bread will live forever.” 6:58 was not to be understood as a literal loaf or a wafer. He meant it in the same way that He meant that manna would come down from heaven- SPIRITUALLY.

None of my above statement denies the realities of spiritual life in heaven such as to literally sit down, or to physically walk. All of these realities are in tact. Yet the obvious meaning of John 6 can be understood only one way, Spiritually. Any other way causes great problems for you, that you still do not address.

 

[guanophore]

As I mentioned before, there is no dichotomy. Spiritual realities can be understood literally and physically in eternity. But let the scripture decide in each case. If the scriptures determines that “His Presence” is found in the bread, let it bare itself out in the passage. If it does not, then you’ve simply read in to it an idea that came from outside the passage.

I can understand how it would seem that way. But you see, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of it was ever committed to writing. When we read the Scriptures, we understand them in the light of the Once for All divine deposit of faith that was preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

But I do agree, we all read according to our “filters”. Protestants read through the various and sundry lenses produced at the Reformation.

When Jesus said “… whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” … it was a grand statement. But now you must prove that he meant “eat” of His flesh meant literally eat. and “drink” of his blood, meant drink of it literally. You must prove this in light of the fact that Jesus, just a few verses later, said, my words are spiritual.

Actually, we don’t. We accept what He said on faith, just as the Apostles. We trust that He has the words of eternal life, so we accept what He says even without any scientific “proof”.

Yes, His words are Spirit and Life. He also said that the “flesh” is of no avail, but we know He was not referring to His Own flesh, which He gave for the life of the world.

“He who eats this bread will live forever.” 6:58 was not to be understood as a literal loaf or a wafer. He meant it in the same way that He meant that manna would come down from heaven- SPIRITUALLY.

There is a flaw in this comparison, tgG. The manna that came down from heaven was literally eaten for food . This did not make it any less miraculous or “spiritual”.

“Literal” vs “Spiritual” is a false dichotomy.

Yet the obvious meaning of John 6 can be understood only one way, Spiritually.

I accept that you cannot find any other levels of meaning in it, and that you must deny that others have done so. I also accept a figurative/metaphorical sense of the words.

You seem to be stuck in your false dichotomy.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes I agree that the manna was a natural means. But it is obvious to me from John 6 that eating manna in Moses day was not the highest revelation. Eating bread from the sky was not the total and highest truth. Eating manna (spiritually) in Christ is a higher truth. This is why Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” v48. We do not need to return to the days of Moses and literally eat bread. This was a type and shadow, or an object lesion pointing to a higher truth found in the revelation of Christ. This is not a dichotomy at all. A dichotomy is a contrasting principle. there is no contrast between the manna of Moses day and the bread of Jesus say. One is natural, while the other is spiritual.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I agree that the manna was a natural means. But it is obvious to me from John 6 that eating manna in Moses day was not the highest revelation.

That depends upon one’s point of view. Any other “higher” revelation is of no use if you starve in the desert!

Eating bread from the sky was not the total and highest truth.

Perhaps you are poking holes in the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the faith? I do agree with you, the manna was a type and figure of what was to come, like Jonah being swallowed by the whale.

This is why Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” v48. We do not need to return to the days of Moses and literally eat bread.

And indeed, we cannot! He gives us a New Covenant in His flesh and blood. “This is my Body…This is My Blood…unless you eat, you will have no life in you”

A dichotomy is a contrasting principle. there is no contrast between the manna of Moses day and the bread of Jesus say. One is natural, while the other is spiritual.

I would sure like to see a “natural” explanation for the manna (without spiritual cause). The manna had deep spiritual significance on many levels, so much so that Jesus claimed to be the manna that comes down from heaven. Literally, physically, he became present to us, then left us His presence under the appearances of bread and wine.

A false dichotomy is setting “literal” against “spiritual”. The Israelites ate “literal” manna, but they came by it spiritually.

 

[tgGodsway]

Literal” vs “Spiritual” is a false dichotomy.

I have never made this contrast. You did. Moses literally ate the manna. But the manna was literally manna. It was an eatable source. Feeding on the N.T. version of manna is to say I feed on Christ who is the bread of life. My feeding is truly literal, but it is not natural or physical. Why not, because Christ’ physical body is not offered to me. He offered His body 2000 years ago on Calvary’s tree in sacrifice. That same body is now resurrected and he sits at the right hand of the Father to this very day. But I do literally feed on Him with spiritual food. He is my bread from heaven.

This goes back to a point I made with someone else on this site. It is unnecessary to narrow my places to feed on Christ. You say we feed on Him in the Eucharist. Well… I suppose that is one place. But I can feed on Him in my car too. The practice of the Eucharist becomes more than what it was intended. Feeding on Christ has nothing to do with physical bread at all, though in my include it. Feeding on Christ has nothing to do with any type of physical food. It is a spiritual practice to get our nutrition, such as knowledge of His word, and wisdom in applying that word… or… comfort through His manifest presence. All of these things are part of this thing we call “feeding on Christ.” The ritualistic approach is just one narrow venue where Jesus said “do this to remember me in my death.” Agreed. Let’s remember Him in His death, but lets also remember His in His resurrection.

 

[tgGodsway]

His presence under the appearances of bread and wine.

The bible teaching nothing of the sort. He left us His presence when He sent the Holy Sprit to dwell in our hearts. The whole idea of His presence in the wafer was made up by people far removed from the Apostles teaching. His presence through The bread and wine is determined by each believer’s condition of heart. The bread and wine celebration today are symbols, much like a memorial, serving as reminders. We are to remember him in His death through the Eucharist table. It is one way of identifying with Him but it is not one only way.

 

[tgGodsway]

I make a distinction between literal and natural. Something spiritual can literally happen. The O.T. is a collection of natural stories revealed to a natural people who would naturally accept God’s message. In these natural events, the physical and literalness of something was the way God worked. For instance, God physically delivered Israel through the Red sea. It was a natural deliverance to a natural people. Yet the Red Sea crossing has many spiritual ties. But we who are in Christ are not natural people anymore. We were born again into a spiritual family. Therefore our lessons are spiritual. Our Red Sea is spiritual. Natural lessons are okay, but will never drive home the point like a spiritual lesson can. Eating manna in Moses day was a natural lesson and served to naturally feed them. But eating Christ who is the bread of life, is a concept with much greater ramifications. It is a spiritual practice more than natural. So, I can eat of the Lord’s table naturally, and it may or may not move me spiritually. If my heart is closed to Christ, the practice itself is useless. On the other hand if I eat or feed on Christ spiritually, the Lord’s table becomes one of many natural means. But if I wanted to focus specifically on remembering His death, well, then, the Eucharist is the way to go.