Real Presence Apologetics

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, I appreciate the time you take to try to clarify your position, but I must admit, and I’m sure it’s my fault, that your explanation is not lining up with what I have read in Catholic documentation, and your perspective is a bit… over my head I suppose. I don’t think our continuing conversation would serve much good, as we are obviously talking past one another. Again, thank you for your time.

Your welcome, I enjoyed hearing your view that is a consistent misunderstood view of the Eucharist.

You have made a false claim that my explanation does not line up with Church documentation. I assure you, I have official documentation, offiicial authoritative Church revelation and quotes from Pope’s and Catholic Saints that fully support my explanation in more detail than I have provided.

You have not challenged my sources for each perspective I have given you, which I am prepared to do here. In all fairness to the false claim you made against my perspective of Catholic teaching, is something you have not read from Catholic documentation. I repectfully ask, that your Platonic and Aristotle natural definition of Philosophy never be forced or falsely accused to be the Catholic Church teaching on the Eucharist.

The verbage taken from Aristotle’s Trans. is used for the intellectual, but never the natural definition of Aristotle, yet the Catholic Faith is expressed and defined in spiritual terms understood by the Church, which is never Philosophically proclaimed in faith but lived out.

In summary Aristotle’s scientific trans. is carnal knowledge, which looks to the Church’s definition from the natural as “foolishness” (see 1Cor.2:14) because the carnal mind does not understand that, which the Church defines spiritual realities using spiritual terminology, when the Catholic Church never uses a carnal natural definition to grasp at the mystery of the True Presence.

She raises this natural Truth of Aristotle’s substance change, and raises it into the supernatural realities revealed by God, who say’s "Take eat ALL of you, this is my body, Take drink ALL of you, this is my blood in the NEW and ever lasting covenant.

The Catholic Church’s definition of Trans. never defines How God is present, but declares in faith that a substance change has occurred. You add anything else to this definition of the Church’s Trans. You move away into heresy or into a misunderstood view of the True Presence.

I only pray that you use caution to deny the Eucharist, by not applying Platonic, Aristotle’s philosophy to God’s revelation revealed in the Eucharist. And Learn the faith expressed and lived out by the Catholic faithful first, before applying theological commentaries that at many times is defending the doctrine not explaining the faith from within the revelation of the doctrine. Which is practiced in faith, theological undertakings only describe what is seen. When Faith according to Catholicism is the evidence of things hoped for and things not seen,… for all things visible came from the invisible by the WORD OF GOD. That is a biblical intro. reference to the Church’s definition of a sacrament

God bless and Peace be with you

 

[Kliska]

Gabriel, I will, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in accord with my own conscience and learning, to continue to both learn about the Eucharist, and to teach about it as well, as the situation arises. I apologize if you feel this is unfair, but I have to rely on what I have read and researched on the position of the RCC, including what is included in the CCC, papal documents, etc… and what I have gathered from talking with other Catholics. Of course, I will weigh what you have presented here as well.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

What blood?? "that speaketh (present tense)!!! becareful your starting to sound like a Catholic. Please tell me how that blood that speaketh is made present to you? that convinces your faith that God has saved you?

As we believe " faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the word of God" Rom10:17.
Then your question is ,(as you separate faith from its object ,that is faith in my person) incomprehensible to me : because we believe that faith itself is the gift of God and as such this same faith is for ever united to and inseparable from ,that " precious blood" ,which on its own( through Christ shedding it) purchased for me ( and causing the remission of all my sins) an " eternal inheritance "

To answer the other part of your question of “how that blood that speaketh is made present to you?” “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation”(KJV) Since it’s origins ( for me) are in " the grace of God" and my receiving it was solely by God bringing this salvation( through the shed blood) to me ; then the same grace of God,I believe ,makes it ever present.

Abel’s blood ,we believe ,cried out for vengeance or as it were judgement; but the blood of Christ speaketh judgement( or vengeance ) in another: and so cries a certain justification.

Ok, then Iask you again? How did you become born again? and what was it that changed your corruption to incorruptibility?

If you think by the Word of God? then explain how the Word of God without any true presence saved you? Can you help me here?

cont;
In brief: Christ’s true presence at Golgotha .

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bernard Lyons;11751431]As we believe " faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the word of God" Rom10:17.

Amen. Hearing as you know is revealed always in the present tense. If hearing the Word in the present tense brings faith. Then that Word has to be living and breathing in the present tense never a recalling from a past event like the last supper.

If the Word of God is revealed to be the second person of the blessed Trinity. That Word or person is present in our hearing according to Catholic and biblical principles. And if that Word living and breathing the breath of God, say’s “This is my body, and This is my blood”. Does not biblical faith dictate that the Word became flesh and dwells among us?

That is why I say, you cannot have the Son, if you do not have His True and substantial presence in the present during the celebration of the Last supper and the wedding feast of the lamb.

Then your question is ,(as you separate faith from its object ,that is faith in my person) incomprehensible to me : because we believe that faith itself is the gift of God and as such this same faith is for ever united to and inseparable from ,that " precious blood" ,which on its own( through Christ shedding it) purchased for me ( and causing the remission of all my sins) an " eternal inheritance "

True faith is a gift from God. But the gift is never God. Yet you make the false claim that your faith came by hearing, and your faith in your person claims to the blood of Jesus from a past event, because your faith reject’s or does not understand the True Presence of Jesus incarnate.

Your faith believing in what Jesus did in the past, could never do for you in the present. In other Words simply put. God said “I Love You” at the last supper to his disciples. My Catholic faith and my personal relationship with Jesus. Reveals that Jesus reveals to me in my present time, that Jesus say’s to me also, “I Love You”, when I obey His command to eat and drink HIs body and blood, from my Amen, I say to God, “I Love You”.

Yet if my faith can only recall a past event when God said “I love You” to His disciples when I was not there, and in the recalling from the intellect believe that God is never present in His Eucharist but only symbolizes that he is. My faith becomes a memory and a symbol to a symbolic deity.

To answer the other part of your question of “how that blood that speaketh is made present to you?” “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation”(KJV) Since it’s origins ( for me) are in " the grace of God" and my receiving it was solely by God bringing this salvation( through the shed blood) to me ; then the same grace of God,I believe ,makes it ever present.

Ok, we move from faith to grace here; How does God give His grace to you, if God is never present to you in body and blood? The Catholic church answers through God’s sacraments. How does your faith recieve God’s graces with God never being present to you?

The bible alone does not work here, because now you have limited God’s power and grace to a book. Faith alone does not work here. Because God Himself makes His presence known that calls us to that faith. Faith a gift from God, does not bring His graces without His presence being known?

How does your faith becomes a gift from God when you reject His True presence so that Grace upon Grace can save you. Faith alone does not save you, and scripture never declares such a lie.

Abel’s blood ,we believe ,cried out for vengeance or as it were judgement; but the blood of Christ speaketh judgement( or vengeance ) in another: and so cries a certain justification.

There is only by one blood that the faithful can enter into the Holy of Holies. Hebrews speaks of this Mass gathering in the Holy of Holies. Do you know who is there in the presence of God? All those who came through that blood that speaks more eloquently than Abels. One cannot enter without the True presence of the blood. A symbolic blood can never reach the Holy of Holies. Hebrews 12:22 reveals what happens at Mass at every liturgy of the Eucharist. I hope you have eyes to see that a symbol of Jesus and a memorial of a past event remains still in time and space. But when the True presence of Jesus blood is revealed in the present to all ages once and for all from eternity, we enter into the heavenly Jerusalem in Mt.Zion.

 

[rcwitness]

You guys are intense!:hypno:…

To further acknowledge the acceptable aspects of the symbols of bread and wine in the sacrifice of the Mass;

The gifts of bread and wine are symbols indeed! Yet, the Consecrated bread and wine are no longer ‘mere’ symbols. The power of Christ overshadows them.

The gifts of bread and wine have symbolic meaning. They represent our good work or toil in the field (the bread made by our hands of wheat) and our joy and fellowship (wine for celebration and pleasure). These are offered to God as Christian’s who give thanks for our work and prosperity. Remember the great priest Melchizedek offered bread and wine as a peace gift to Abraham? Yet, these gifts are the good works of the Christian who is able to do them because of God’s grace, and are accepted by God only because of His One eternal sacrifice.

The bread also has a symbol of nurishment. This is what Jesus explains is God’s life giving nurishment as the symbol of bread. We are also told by Him, that we are not to live by bread alone, but by the Word of God! So, we know He is symbolically using the term ‘bread’ to mean He IS the Word of God come down from heaven.

Furthermore, belief is even symbolic of eating! Jesus says this Himself. “Whoever believes has eternal belief.”

Yet, here is the leap of faith!..

Jesus, turns His symbolic Teaching to real substance!!! In John 6:51 Jesus Tells us He will die for our sins. Because we, none of us, have the belief in the Word of God. We all fall short. Jesus needed to perfect our faith (in His flesh). He needed to suffer as a complete man and empty Himself of the gain of His Godliness. This was the great sacrifice of the flesh worthy to merit our salvation.

If we would have believed in His word and laid down our sinfulness at His feet, there would be no Eucharist. But sin was in our nature. We do not merely believe at His word. We killed the Word of God.

So the bodily death and resurrection was the necessary grace in order to give us eternal life. This is the faith of the Eucharist; that the body and blood of our Lord is our salvation. We demanded through sin the death of the Word made flesh, and as new creatures, turned back to Him through conversion, receive this body and blood as the source of our new life.

Peace
Michael

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

You guys are intense!:hypno:…

To further acknowledge the acceptable aspects of the symbols of bread and wine in the sacrifice of the Mass;

The gifts of bread and wine are symbols indeed! Yet, the Consecrated bread and wine are no longer ‘mere’ symbols. The power of Christ overshadows them.

The gifts of bread and wine have symbolic meaning. They represent our good work or toil in the field (the bread made by our hands of wheat) and our joy and fellowship (wine for celebration and pleasure). These are offered to God as Christian’s who give thanks for our work and prosperity. Remember the great priest Melchizedek offered bread and wine as a peace gift to Abraham? Yet, these gifts are the good works of the Christian who is able to do them because of God’s grace, and are accepted by God only because of His One eternal sacrifice.

The bread also has a symbol of nurishment. This is what Jesus explains is God’s life giving nurishment as the symbol of bread. We are also told by Him, that we are not to live by bread alone, but by the Word of God! So, we know He is symbolically using the term ‘bread’ to mean He IS the Word of God come down from heaven.

Furthermore, belief is even symbolic of eating! Jesus says this Himself. “Whoever believes has eternal belief.”

Yet, here is the leap of faith!..

Jesus, turns His symbolic Teaching to real substance!!! In John 6:51 Jesus Tells us He will die for our sins. Because we, none of us, have the belief in the Word of God. We all fall short. Jesus needed to perfect our faith (in His flesh). He needed to suffer as a complete man and empty Himself of the gain of His Godliness. This was the great sacrifice of the flesh worthy to merit our salvation.

Peace
Michael

Hi Michael ,it is refreshing to see an acknowledgment of the overwhelming practice of figurative ( or pictorial) language as seen in both OT and the NT.

We obviously still differ in this fact ,(shown by your own reference to John 6:51) that where you say the symbols suddenly become literal ( or transubstantiated) ,I would ask with what (scriptural) evidence do you support this claim , since there is no direct reference to " the supper" in Johns Gospel ?
I believe john 6:63 is a window ( opened by Jesus) highlighting the continuance of the symbols he in this chapter has been using.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”( or his flesh only seen -in his analogy -in a literal manner) “the words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life.” That is his words were,I believe ,in themselves symbols of a greater spiritual importance.

I believe 7:35 that it is also shows how this (symbolic) hunger can be satisfied :" he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst"

Your reference to Melchisedec is also I believe ,only a superficial allusion to ( without direct reference) " the Eucharist" because the elements happen to be the same( bread and wine) but where does Melchisedec change ( in all reference to him in scripture) these elements as you say?
As a former Roman Catholic ,I would have greater respect for your ground of argument if it was acknowledged that it is to tradition that you substantiate transubstantiation .

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Michael ,it is refreshing to see an acknowledgment of the overwhelming practice of figurative ( or pictorial) language as seen in both OT and the NT.

We obviously still differ in this fact ,(shown by your own reference to John 6:51) that where you say the symbols suddenly become literal ( or transubstantiated) ,I would ask with what (scriptural) evidence do you support this claim , since there is no direct reference to " the supper" in Johns Gospel ?
I believe john 6:63 is a window ( opened by Jesus) highlighting the continuance of the symbols he in this chapter has been using.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”( or his flesh only seen -in his analogy -in a literal manner) “the words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life.”

Yes, I will give a response. It might take some time…I need to work now, and will be busy.
The account of Jesus’ bread of life Teaching in John has striking similarities with the Last Supper. And curiously, John only records this, and not the last Supper.

And Catholic Teaching has never rejected the symbolic meanings behind the Bread and Wine. I believe Origen explained the Eucharist in ways of recognizing the symbols. Yet, there is a ‘both/and’ approach to understanding John 6 and thus the Real Presence of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb in the Eucharist.

Michael

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

rcwitness;11752161]You guys are intense!:hypno:…

Your probably right, I got use to conversing with the Orthodox and reading the Church Fathers, that takes the Eucharist into a much deeper contemplative understanding and revelation, that deals with the presence of God and God’s essence. I doubt if protestantism theology could ever reach such depths in the contemplative, holding to a symbolic presence?

To further acknowledge the acceptable aspects of the symbols of bread and wine in the sacrifice of the Mass;

The gifts made by human hands are bread and wine are symbols before the consecration. After the Consecration, these are no longer symbols (speaking of the true presence) they become the body, blood of Jesus Christ, made by the hand of God, “a body you prepared for me”.

The gifts of bread and wine are symbols indeed! Yet, the Consecrated bread and wine are no longer ‘mere’ symbols. The power of Christ overshadows them.

Here we enter the mysteries of the blessed Sacrament; “a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ that parts grace to the believer”. That Power is a person, the Holy Spirit that over shadows, Christ’s body and blood are present in now the Eucharist. When we declare "In Him, With Him and Through Him all glory and honor is given to the Father, when the Trinity is never divided.

Remember the great priest Melchizedek offered bread and wine as a peace gift to Abraham?

Melchizedek was a Priest/King who offered sacrifices to God with bread and wine, His office and His sacrificial offering, that proved to be a foreshadowing of Jesus who is our High Priest and King who offers His sacrifice = body and blood = the bread from heaven to God for the remission of sins.

The symbols of bread and wine are never the True presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. My take here deals with the True presence.

The symbols of bread and wine take on much more diverse subjects, as many fulfillments of prophecy that Jesus fulfills with His True presence in the Eucharist. Not to mention **the "visible signs, bread, wine, water, oil, laying of hands, Jesus uses to make all things new in the Kingdom of God ** Not in the kingdom of men.

Peace be with you

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Amen. Hearing as you know is revealed always in the present tense. If hearing the Word in the present tense brings faith. Then that Word has to be living and breathing in the present tense never a recalling from a past event like the last supper.

If the Word of God is revealed to be the second person of the blessed Trinity. That Word or person is present in our hearing according to Catholic and biblical principles. And if that Word living and breathing the breath of God, say’s “This is my body, and This is my blood”. Does not biblical faith dictate that the Word became flesh and dwells among us?

That is why I say, you cannot have the Son, if you do not have His True and substantial presence in the present during the celebration of the Last supper and the wedding feast of the lamb.

True faith is a gift from God. But the gift is never God. Yet you make the false claim that your faith came by hearing, and your faith in your person claims to the blood of Jesus from a past event, because your faith reject’s or does not understand the True Presence of Jesus incarnate.

Your faith believing in what Jesus did in the past, could never do for you in the present. In other Words simply put. God said “I Love You” at the last supper to his disciples. My Catholic faith and my personal relationship with Jesus. Reveals that Jesus reveals to me in my present time, that Jesus say’s to me also, “I Love You”, when I obey His command to eat and drink HIs body and blood, from my Amen, I say to God, “I Love You”.

Yet if my faith can only recall a past event when God said “I love You” to His disciples when I was not there, and in the recalling from the intellect believe that God is never present in His Eucharist but only symbolizes that he is. My faith becomes a memory and a symbol to a symbolic

Dear Gabriel of 12,
In your valiant attempts to understand the basis of my faith ,I believe you misunderstand where I see its foundation .
With your fervent Zeal for what you call the " Eucharist “and perhaps since this is your own focus( which is not surprising: since your salvation depends on it) ,
you can only see my focus or understanding if it also is viewed as being fervently upon " the Lord’s supper” .
Almost as if I am believing ,through receiving the supper ,that I also am saved by it ,but with this difference: by my believing the “symbol” of the bread and cup ,I am somehow saved,that is when I participate in its repetition .

Because so much of your Horizon is upon this ordinance ( think not that I am criticising your Zeal as such,for it is the lukewarm is it not ,whom Christ threatens to “spew” out of his mouth?)
It does not mean mine is .
I am convinced that the NT focus was upon preaching( especially as seen in the book of Acts) Paul’s focus would you not agree,was preaching the gospel?does he not say Christ sent " me not to baptise"?Then what of the “Eucharist” ?

This I believe, is how (Heb3:15) the Lord from Glory ,still communicates to us .The basis yes is in the past( at Golgotha) but his voice ( and presence) are continue sounding ,especially through the preach word.1Peter1:12
." Them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven"
The Holy Ghost ,we believe is ever connected to ,not an inanimate book( the Bible) but with the preaching ,of those who embody that “book” in their person,and by that gospel which they proclaim.
As to faith being only in a past event what about Christ who is its “author and finisher” of it:if he indeed has started the work will he not surely complete it?

 

[JonNC]

Dear Gabriel of 12,
In your valiant attempts to understand the basis of my faith ,I believe you misunderstand where I see its foundation .
With your fervent Zeal for what you call the " Eucharist “and perhaps since this is your own focus( which is not surprising: since your salvation depends on it) ,
you can only see my focus or understanding if it also is viewed as being fervently upon " the Lord’s supper” .
Almost as if I am believing ,through receiving the supper ,that I also am saved by it ,but with this difference: by my believing the “symbol” of the bread and cup ,I am somehow saved,that is when I participate in its repetition .

Because so much of your Horizon is upon this ordinance ( think not that I am criticising your Zeal as such,for it is the lukewarm is it not ,whom Christ threatens to “spew” out of his mouth?)
It does not mean mine is .I am convinced that the NT focus was upon preaching( especially as seen in the book of Acts) This I believe, is how (Heb3:15) the Lord from Glory ,still communicates to us .The basis yes is in the past( at Golgotha) but his voice ( and presence) are continuance ,especially through the preach word.1Peter1:12.

Just curious, Bernard. Why is it necessarily either/or? From at least a Lutheran POV, it is both/and; both the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments. God offers in a real sense His grace through both. Indeed, this is the message of the Gospel.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Michael ,it is refreshing to see an acknowledgment of the overwhelming practice of figurative ( or pictorial) language as seen in both OT and the NT.

We obviously still differ in this fact ,(shown by your own reference to John 6:51) that where you say the symbols suddenly become literal ( or transubstantiated) ,I would ask with what (scriptural) evidence do you support this claim , since there is no direct reference to " the supper" in Johns Gospel ?
I believe john 6:63 is a window ( opened by Jesus) highlighting the continuance of the symbols he in this chapter has been using.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”( or his flesh only seen -in his analogy -in a literal manner) “the words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life.” That is his words were,I believe ,in themselves symbols of a greater spiritual importance.

I believe 7:35 that it is also shows how this (symbolic) hunger can be satisfied :" he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst"

Your reference to Melchisedec is also I believe ,only a superficial allusion to ( without direct reference) " the Eucharist" because the elements happen to be the same( bread and wine) but where does Melchisedec change ( in all reference to him in scripture) these elements as you say?
As a former Roman Catholic ,I would have greater respect for your ground of argument if it was acknowledged that it is to tradition that you substantiate transubstantiation .

Jesus begins, in John chapter 6 with feeding the multitude bread and fish. He withdraws up to a mountain, and many follow him up. Notice verse 4, “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand.” Jesus tests them about how to feed everyone, and they bring one boy’s lunch to Him. He tells the people to sit, then multiplies the food, and directs the disciples to, “Gather up the fragments, that nothing may be lost.”

Sounds like the form of a Mass.

Then the disciples got into the boat in the evening to cross the sea. Jesus came to them in mid journey during stormy weather and they immediately were at their destination on the other side.

Now the crowd is very curious to search for Jesus and question Him. Jesus tells them their intentions are superficial, that they must believe that;

Vs 32, “For the bread of God is HE who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Notice He says He is the bread. Not to REPLACE ‘life’ through spirit, like you keep thinking it must be one or the other… Jesus’ flesh (body and blood) OR His Word. But rather His Word is on Jesus bodily. Verse 27, “…For on Him God the Father has set His seal.”

Jesus said all this in the synagogue during the Passover.

Now we see that many who heard this Teaching could not accept it. There is where Jesus tells them, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail.”

This is what you see as His interpretation that His flesh is merely symbolic only. Yet this is NOT what the disciples see, for vs 66 comes after that, “After this many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.”

He was actually telling them the Spirit gives belief, from the Father, in order to believe in the Son of God. It is nothing of our senses or natural reasoning that we will come to believe on Jesus.

Then Peter professes, through faith, belief on behalf of the Twelve. And like the Last Supper, Jesus recognizes the one who stayed, yet did not believe unto Salvation, who was going to betray Him. This was a sign of the Lords Supper.

Peace
Michael

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General note:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/3.
Please remain on topic.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Jesus begins, in John chapter 6 with feeding the multitude bread and fish. He withdraws up to a mountain, and many follow him up. Notice verse 4, “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand.” Jesus tests them about how to feed everyone, and they bring one boy’s lunch to Him. He tells the people to sit, then multiplies the food, and directs the disciples to, “Gather up the fragments, that nothing may be lost.”

Sounds like the form of a Mass.

Hi Michael ,I believe you are correct in your starting point here ,and that the feeding of the five thousand was indeed set in the shadow or in the light of " the passover,a feast of the Jews ,was nigh".
If so then was not the symbolic lamb ( of God) eaten at the Passover ,the context in which to see the feeding of the " five thousand “?
That lamb which we both would accept ,was the figure( of Christ) then in usage .The LORD thus showing through the sacrificial lamb and the eating of the " meat” thereof ,by what means he would bring in ( or feed with) everlasting life unto all who believe?

If so ,would you accept here also ,that in providing bread and meat for their sustenance or in other words : the "feeding "of the five thousand: Jesus also is setting the scene (using graphic pictorial imagery) for all that should follow in the remainder of chapter 6?

(Verse 35) And Jesus said unto them,I am the bread of life:he that cometh to me shall never hunger ,and he that believeth on me shall never thirst".

You mention also that Jesus instructs the disciples " to gather up the fragments ,that none may be lost"
I make no more of this than the striking comparison seen in verse 39:
“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me ,that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing” " but should raise it up again on the last day"

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Now the crowd is very curious to search for Jesus and question Him. Jesus tells them their intentions are superficial, that they must believe that;

Vs 32, “For the bread of God is HE who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Notice He says He is the bread. Not to REPLACE ‘life’ through spirit, like you keep thinking it must be one or the other… Jesus’ flesh (body and blood) OR His Word. But rather His Word is on Jesus bodily. Verse 27, “…For on Him God the Father has set His seal.”

Jesus said all this in the synagogue during the Passover.

In connection to those seeking Jesus ( who were numbered with the five thousand) " ye seek me not because you saw the miracles ,but because ye did eat the loaves, and were filled "(26)

As was said by another ( in this thread) these were those who desired of Jesus ,an earthly kingdom and Jesus like David of old : it’s king ( verse 15) " Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force ,to make him king"

Is it not true that these ,are likened to : " your fathers did eat manna and are dead" (verse 58) that is ,as they sought a physical kingdom,they only sought a literal bread and not the kind ,that: " he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever"?

When Jesus tells them that their intentions,as you say ," are superficial " ,that is in relation to him being “the true bread from heaven”( 32) he then rebukes them in verse 27," labour not for meat that perisheth" " but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life"

By Jesus using ( for his comparison ) the bread that they sought after; and calling it “meat” Is he not by so doing ,making it a symbol of that which he is recommending to them?
That is himself ( in symbolic reference) " that meat" which endureth unto everlasting life"?

If not ,then why did his hearers understand( the only time they did) the spiritual significance of these words of Jesus?
( verse28)
" what shall we do ,that we might work the works of God?"
Finally on this point is the reply to them by Jesus in verse 29: " this is the work of God,that you believe on him whom he hath sent"
Jesus’ emphasis is upon believing here and not doing as such: even ( in this section anyway) " eating".( bread)

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Vs 32, “For the bread of God is HE who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Notice He says He is the bread. Not to REPLACE ‘life’ through spirit, like you keep thinking it must be one or the other… Jesus’ flesh (body and blood) OR His Word. But rather His Word is on Jesus bodily. Verse 27, “…For on Him God the Father has set His seal.”

I would like to expand on your point " one or the other" : either I am not being clear enough, ( in expressing myself) or you misunderstand the spiritual significance I am attempting to relate .
The " body and blood" ( Jesus’s flesh ) are themselves the words he uses ( I believe) in a symbolic manner ,to show a greater (spiritual) significance.
So as they both are one and the same : why do you claim I divide them in twain? ( by saying “OR His Word”)

The benefit or spiritual significance of these words are no less meaningful ( everlasting life)if understood spiritually .
And to all ,given by the Father( verse 37 " All the Father give the me shall come to me")
to believe ( that his body was broken for them and his blood was shed on their behalf) them he will raise up ( justified) " at the last day" .
Verse 40
“And this is the will of him that sent me,that every one which seeth the Son,and believeth on him ,may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”

To me then it is not a matter of " one or the other" but singular :entrance into " everlasting life" by believing ( or eating his flesh and drinking of his cup) his word.

Verse51 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread,he shall live for ever:and the bread that I will give is my flesh,which I will give for the life of the world"

 

[rcwitness]

Bernard,

With respect to all your effort, Im not convinced the faith intended by Jesus is to regard His instituted Communion Supper to be separate from His life giving Body and Blood.

I tell you, that as a sinner who recognizes the voice of the Holy Shepherd of God in Jesus, I am Confirmed both in Spirit and in the Church that God gave His life in fullness to Jesus. Jesus, in the same manner, that is through His Word, gave us this Life at the cost of His body and blood. It is easier for me to receive, that Jesus becomes the bread at consecration than that the bread becomes Jesus (not that it matters to you )

The reason I became a Catholic Christian was because the Eucharist posseses the fullness of Christ. This is the gospel more accurately than a divided body of believers. I found union with Him, and in Him there is union. I will be judged according to what the Father is delivering to me, so even though another man may show better Christian behaviour than myself yet rejects the Catholic Communion, it does not mean that I would do better for rejecting the same. We all will benefit more through faith in His Eucharist. That is my faith.

I have shared the belief i have which is the benefit of an Evangelical symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper. It is not without grace. It is a reverence to Christ’s passion death and suffering. But it can never be a full participation in Him, nor can it bring the full grace of God to us. It is a Communion still wanting and lacking. Just as a Catholic who receives with a disfunctional faith will also be lacking. Though there is more judgment with the one who receives what is made holy by God.

Peace
Michael

 

[Kliska]

I would like to expand on your point " one or the other" : either I am not being clear enough, ( in expressing myself) or you misunderstand the spiritual significance I am attempting to relate .
The " body and blood" ( Jesus’s flesh ) are themselves the words he uses ( I believe) in a symbolic manner ,to show a greater (spiritual) significance.
So as they both are one and the same : why do you claim I divide them in twain? ( by saying “OR His Word”)

The benefit or spiritual significance of these words are no less meaningful ( everlasting life)if understood spiritually .
And to all ,given by the Father( verse 37 " All the Father give the me shall come to me")
to believe ( that his body was broken for them and his blood was shed on their behalf) them he will raise up ( justified) " at the last day" .
Verse 40
“And this is the will of him that sent me,that every one which seeth the Son,and believeth on him ,may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”

To me then it is not a matter of " one or the other" but singular :entrance into " everlasting life" by believing ( or eating his flesh and drinking of his cup) his word.

Verse51 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread,he shall live for ever:and the bread that I will give is my flesh,which I will give for the life of the world"

And it is this line of thinking that I personally see, as we as what I believe many of the ECF’s are communicating. If we put the discourse in light of the gospel of John, and the other rich symbolic language pointing to a literal truth, I do believe we can see that this particular speech recorded in John, isn’t in strict reference to the Passover supper that they would be eating shortly, but rather is connected to the direct context of the happenings and words surrounding it.

 

[rcwitness]

And it is this line of thinking that I personally see, as we as what I believe many of the ECF’s are communicating. If we put the discourse in light of the gospel of John, and the other rich symbolic language pointing to a literal truth, I do believe we can see that this particular speech recorded in John, isn’t in strict reference to the Passover supper that they would be eating shortly, but rather is connected to the direct context of the happenings and words surrounding it.

The Passover Supper recognizes that the means to us receiving the Word of God, that is the bread of life, was through the Word become flesh in Mary. It recognizes in concrete reality, the fact that we, through sin, were the cause of the Word (made flesh) suffering unto death.

Peter and the Apostles stayed with Jesus because of special graces given from the Father through the merit of Jesus. NOT because flesh and blood revealed it to them!

John 6 happened during the Passover!

Peace
Michael

 

[Kliska]

The Passover Supper recognizes that the means to us receiving the Word of God, that is the bread of life, was through the Word become flesh in Mary. It recognizes in concrete reality, the fact that we, through sin, were the cause of the Word (made flesh) suffering unto death.

Peter and the Apostles stayed with Jesus because of special graces given from the Father through the merit of Jesus. NOT because flesh and blood revealed it to them!

John 6 happened during the Passover!

Peace
Michael

That is certainly one way of viewing it, but given the context and the content of John, I just don’t agree at this point.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard,

With respect to all your effort, Im not convinced the faith intended by Jesus is to regard His instituted Communion Supper to be separate from His life giving Body and Blood.

(1) Of his truth Michael ,I am also convinced .
I do not say that they are separate .
As It was Christ speaking both in John 6 and him speaking (by Paul )in reference to the (right) practice of the supper 1Cor10:16 then we should expect the language he uses in both places ,to be complimentary one to the other.

In both places, the symbolic lessons ( we both would accept) of the Passover ( lamb) are set as a background to that which in both examples ,is still an event to be fulfilled in the future.
This being so ,and that the actual "lamb of God " was still to be sacrificed and the bread was still to be broken or cup still to drunk and be emptied of its bitter contents ( at the cross) I still maintain that in both John 6 and the accounts of the supper there is no conflict of interest and my spiritual interpretation in both ,is compatible the one with the other.

At the supper ,the words spoken about the bread,were uttered in the unbroken wholeness of his actual body.They were these: “This is my body”.Then and there present tense.This is my body.But it was not his body.Yet he said that it was.How could it be his body at the time ?It was his body doing those things to the loaf.They could see plainly that it was a loaf of bread.It is therefore my opinion that it was impossible for that to be his body in fact.then ,to me then,it must have been his body in a figure.