Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[Bill_Pick]

This chapter is so important in explaining the “true presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Following is a verse by verse explanation. If you will read the whole chapter, you will not find any verse to indicate Jesus was speaking figuratively, or in parables. He was speaking literally as the context of the chapter plainly shows.
One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it might be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter six, nine different ways, or nine times.
ANY WE ALSO HAVE LUKE22-19;20 AND MATT.26-27 AND ALSO MARK 14-22;24

 

[JonNC]

ANY WE ALSO HAVE LUKE22-19;20 AND MATT.26-27 AND ALSO MARK 14-22;24

There is your proof of the real presence!!

Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

This chapter is so important in explaining the “true presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. If you will read the whole chapter, you will not find any verse to indicate Jesus was speaking figuratively, or in parables. He was speaking literally as the context of the chapter plainly shows.
One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it might be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter six, nine different ways, or nine times.
ANY WE ALSO HAVE LUKE22-19;20 AND MATT.26-27 AND ALSO MARK 14-22;24

 

[Bill_Pick]

This chapter is so important in explaining the “true presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Following is a verse by verse explanation. If you will read the whole chapter, you will not find any verse to indicate Jesus was speaking figuratively, or in parables. He was speaking literally as the context of the chapter plainly shows.
One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it might be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter six, nine different ways, or nine times.
ANY WE ALSO HAVE LUKE22-19;20 AND MATT.26-27 AND ALSO MARK 14-22;24

 

[NDfan]

BILL PICK:
Bill no disrespect but what rules of scriptural interpretation are you following?? Once is figurative, but more than that is literal??

In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Did that need to be repeated 3 times so the Jews would take it literally because it wasn’t?? Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.

Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine? Fruit of the vine by the way doesn’t mean grape juice. It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.

Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.

Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.

Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.

Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.

PEACE

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill no disrespect but what rules of scriptural interpretation are you following?? Once is figurative, but more than that is literal??

In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Did that need to be repeated 3 times so the Jews would take it literally because it wasn’t?? Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.

Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine? Fruit of the vine by the way doesn’t mean grape juice. It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.

Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.

Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.

Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.

Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.

PEACE

i believe john is from the NT==For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

 

[elijio]

Let us not forget that St. Paul explains it as literal in
1Corinthians 10:16 and again in 1Corinthians 11:23-26.

St. John Chapter 6 was critical in my coming back to the Church and now of my daily attendance at mass and adoration on Thursdays including a fast on Fridays. Even the Jews knew he was speaking literally and it’s why they questioned him; St. John 6:52-56 Jesus couldn’t have been more clear of what he meant. Many disciples left Jesus as well; St. John 6:60.

I have often said that many Christians hang their hat on St. John 3:16 but completely ignore St. John Chapter 6. In that chapter, Jesus is telling us that to believe in him is to believe in ALL that he says and not just what we choose. To believe in Jesus is not simply to believe that he is the son of God and died for our sins.

To believe in Jesus is to believe IN him in that everything he spoke to us is the truth. So, when he said that he is the bread that comes down from heaven and that if I do not eat his flesh or drink his blood I will have no life in me, do I believe IN him when he says those things? You better believe I do.

Peace.

 

[NDfan]

i believe john is from the NT==For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

I believe John is from the NT as well. Believing scripture says something it doesn’t does not make you correct. If that’s the best response you can give then obviously your thread is nothing more that just a statement of what you believe. Sorry I wasted my time.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I believe John is from the NT as well. Believing scripture says something it doesn’t does not make you correct. If that’s the best response you can give then obviously your thread is nothing more that just a statement of what you believe. Sorry I wasted my time.

FROM SOME OF YOUR POST I SEE YOU WAST A LOT OF YOUR TIME

 

[NDfan]

Let us not forget that St. Paul explains it as literal in
1Corinthians 10:16 and again in 1Corinthians 11:23-26.

No he does not. Paul still refers to the bread as being bread even after the supposed consecration takes place. As I stated in another thread RC scholars like Bellarmine flat out admit that transubstantiation cannot be gleaned from scripture.

St. John Chapter 6 was critical in my coming back to the Church and now of my daily attendance at mass and adoration on Thursdays including a fast on Fridays. Even the Jews knew he was speaking literally and it’s why they questioned him; St. John 6:52-56 Jesus couldn’t have been more clear of what he meant. Many disciples left Jesus as well; St. John 6:60.

So you worship a piece of bread?? Isn’t that idolatry??

The problem with the Jews is they did take Jesus literally. Not all but many did even after Jesus clarifies HIS teaching. They weren’t seeing that this was a call from Jesus to believe in HIM. Just as we find in the earlier verses of John 6 where Jesus tells us that if we come to HIM we never go hungry and if we believe we never thirst. That the Father’s will is for us to believe and receive eternal life.

I have often said that many Christians hang their hat on St. John 3:16 but completely ignore St. John Chapter 6. In that chapter, Jesus is telling us that to believe in him is to believe in ALL that he says and not just what we choose. To believe in Jesus is not simply to believe that he is the son of God and died for our sins.

It’s not What else are we supposed to believe? Again you refer to John 3:16 which states believe and have eternal life as do the other small sampling of verses:

John 3:15
John 3:36
John 5:24
John 6:40
John 6:47
John 7:38
John 11:25 and 26

I could keep going and going but I think the message is clear that eternal life is ours if we believe in Christ. Yet somehow you want to change that to us having to eat Christ to have eternal life. So is Christ a liar then?? Why does he tell us 2 different things. Is it believe in HIM or eat HIM?? Or can it be that HIS use of the words eating HIM imply believing just as Augustine explains in his dissertation on John 6 when he states: why prepare your teeth when if you believe you have already eaten.

To believe in Jesus is to believe IN him in that everything he spoke to us is the truth. So, when he said that he is the bread that comes down from heaven and that if I do not eat his flesh or drink his blood I will have no life in me, do I believe IN him when he says those things? You better believe I do.

Peace.

I believe Jesus is the bread from Heaven as well which is why I believe in HIM just as HE tells me to. But even I can decipher that HE would never ask me to commit a crime by eating HIS blood which is forbidden by GOD. You need to keep in mind that Jesus was preaching to Jews who knew the law very well. HE wanted them to realize that HE would never ask that they commit a crime against GOD but see through HIS words to get to the real meaning. HE even clarifies the teaching to let them know that it’s not the flesh that profits you. Hence eating HIS flesh profits nothing. It’s believing in HIM in the spirit that gives eternal life.

 

[NDfan]

FROM SOME OF YOUR POST I SEE YOU WAST A LOT OF YOUR TIME

Bill no one wastes their time like you brother. It seems all you can do is resort to name calling and cheap shots. Is your memory that bad or do you just create multiple threads on the same topic because you have nothing better to do

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill no one wastes their time like you brother. It seems all you can do is resort to name calling and cheap shots. Is your memory that bad or do you just create multiple threads on the same topic because you have nothing better to do

WHAT NAME CALLING AND WHAT CHEAP SHOTS ARE YOU TALKING. ABOUT . I,M SORRY BUT YOU NEVER TOLD ME YOUR RULES I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU WILL HAVE ME DO. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN CHARGED,I,M SORRY NO ONE TOLD ME AND I,M NOT YELLING MY KEY BOARD IS NOT WORKING RIGHT I HOPE THAT DOES NOT UPSET YOU TOO

 

[BrianH]

if it is a case of the caps lock getting stuck, do not use caps. i noticed in some of our posts that your keyboard works fine so if that is the problem, just avoid ever using caps. it is better to have all lower case than ALL UPPER CASE.

 

[emarc]

Bill no disrespect but what rules of scriptural interpretation are you following?? Once is figurative, but more than that is literal??

In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Did that need to be repeated 3 times so the Jews would take it literally because it wasn’t?? Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.

Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine? Fruit of the vine by the way doesn’t mean grape juice. It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.

Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.

Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.

Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.

Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.

PEACE

i posted this on another thread but thought it’s relevant here. pls explain why below and many other Eucharistic miracles happen. what could God’s message to us, believers, be?
*a monastic priest in lanciano, italy during the 700 a.d. doubted whether the Body of Our Lord was truly present in the consecrated Host. he celebrated Mass and when he said the words of consecration, he saw the host turn into Flesh and the wine turn into Blood. everything was visible to those in attendance. the Flesh is still intact and the Blood is divided into five unequal parts which together have the exact same weight as each one does separately. the miracle was the object of several official acknowledgements on the part of ecclesiastical authorities between 1574 and 1886, not to mention most recently in 1971, when it was subjected to a scientific examination carried out by doctors linoli and bertelli in sienna,italy w/c concluded: "The Flesh is true human flesh (formed by muscular tissue from the heart); the Blood is true blood(belonging to the same blood type, AB, as the flesh) the component substances are those of human tissues, normal and fresh. the conservation of the Flesh and the Blood, left in their natural state for 12th centuries, and exposed to the influence of atmospheric and biological elements, remains an extraordinary phenomenon (the Linoli Report). visitors can still witness the Body and Blood at st. francis church after more than 1200 years of existence. there are many more miracles of hosts turning into his Body and Blood, but for the unbelievers, no proof is enough, as their eyes are permanently veiled. *
God bless.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

So you worship a piece of bread?? Isn’t that idolatry??.

We don`t worship a piece of bread, we worship the Bread of Heaven.

The problem with the Jews is they did take Jesus literally. Not all but many did even after Jesus clarifies HIS teaching. They weren’t seeing that this was a call from Jesus to believe in HIM. Just as we find in the earlier verses of John 6 where Jesus tells us that if we come to HIM we never go hungry and if we believe we never thirst. That the Father’s will is for us to believe and receive eternal life…

You did not even explain why Jesus Christ didn`t clarify His teachings while they were leaving. He just asked “does this offend you?”. That right there is proof that Jesus Christ was talking literly about offering His Body and Blood.

It’s not What else are we supposed to believe? Again you refer to John 3:16 which states believe and have eternal life as do the other small sampling of verses:

John 3:15
John 3:36
John 5:24
John 6:40
John 6:47
John 7:38
John 11:25 and 26

I could keep going and going but I think the message is clear that eternal life is ours if we believe in Christ. Yet somehow you want to change that to us having to eat Christ to have eternal life. So is Christ a liar then?? Why does he tell us 2 different things. Is it believe in HIM or eat HIM?? Or can it be that HIS use of the words eating HIM imply believing just as Augustine explains in his dissertation on John 6 when he states: why prepare your teeth when if you believe you have already eaten…

Reciving the Holy Eucharist is all about BELIEVING Jesus Christ is really present. But youre faith is waaay to immature to accept that. We dont “eat” Him in a sense we eat a pieace of banana and then later on digest it and so on. We “recicieve” Jesus Christ in our Souls. His Flesh and Blood satisfies our soul not our earthly needs. It gives us strength to grow in faith, just like how earthy products give us strenth to make our human bodies grow. Beliving is the KEY you are absalutly right, but to be honest you don`t truly believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings. You only believe in a few selected verses you or your pastor picked out from the Bible to suit your man-made doctrines. That is the difference.

I believe Jesus is the bread from Heaven as well which is why I believe in HIM just as HE tells me to. But even I can decipher that HE would never ask me to commit a crime by eating HIS blood which is forbidden by GOD. You need to keep in mind that Jesus was preaching to Jews who knew the law very well. HE wanted them to realize that HE would never ask that they commit a crime against GOD but see through HIS words to get to the real meaning. HE even clarifies the teaching to let them know that it’s not the flesh that profits you. Hence eating HIS flesh profits nothing. It’s believing in HIM in the spirit that gives eternal life.

You do NOT believe Jesus Christ is the Bread of Heaven, you mean you believe He is SYMBOLICALY the Bread of Heaven. We Catholics accept everything Jesus teaches us, we don`t make our own interpretations of His words.

Eating flesh from an ordinary human being is a crime forbidded by God. But reciving the Flesh of Jesus Christ is something way above our human reasoning. It is a mysterious gift from God that we can not with our human logic hundred percent comprehend. Like I said, you can NOT compare reciving the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ and eating a human body or anything else for that matter. But then again, your faith is too immature to accept that. I humbly suggest to devout yourself more into prayer and fasting. Plus the Bible you are reading, are you not reading a Bible that has only 66 books due to Martin Luther who had no authority to reduce the Holy Bible. And if you are not, are you not quoting from a book that the Catholic Church compiled together? So why are you intepreting the verses into your own liking, rather accepting The Churchs that Jesus found? Think about that.

 

[Benadam]

A common misconception among non-believers in regards of the Catholic Church’s doctrin concerning the Sacraments is that they are intellectual concoctions meant to support a belief that serves some alterior motive other than to preserve truth.

The Sacraments as we understand them are first and foremost signs that developed from acts of obedience to Jesus. Jesus wanted us to make the breaking of bread a central component of remembering Him. In obedience to Him that was faithfully done. In doing so the faithfull experienced the graces attached to the act of obedience. In the beginning there was no need to make doctrinal statements concerning what was experienced but how to respond properly became subjects of instruction. Such as Paul’s admonition to eat the bread keeping in mind that it had a definite impact on the life of the participants.

What the faithfull were experiencing in the Sacraments became doctrin when it became necessary to preserve the true meaning of the Sacraments.

They aren’t intellectual concoctions but explanations for divine action that could never IMHO be imagined or concocted.

 

[NonCatholic]

This chapter is so important in explaining the “true presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Following is a verse by verse explanation. If you will read the whole chapter, you will not find any verse to indicate Jesus was speaking figuratively, or in parables. He was speaking literally as the context of the chapter plainly shows.
One of the basic rules of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it might be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter six, nine different ways, or nine times.
ANY WE ALSO HAVE LUKE22-19;20 AND MATT.26-27 AND ALSO MARK 14-22;24

Unless you are blind to the truth. Jesus clearly explained what he meant in previous and subsequent versus. All one has to do, which no one is willing to do, is look at the Lords Supper as presented in Luke and 1 Corinthians and see exactly what Jesus said.

John 6 is the message of salvation and shows there are the many who disbelieve and the few that do, which is consistent with the New and Old Testaments. John 6 has nothing at all to do with the Lord’s Supper, which wasn’t instituted until later and than there was no cannibalization of Jesus at that supper or any other meal Jesus ate. Wouldn’t you think if they were going to eat Jesus, that would have been the perfect time while He was still fresh?

Does anyone out there know that “eat” was a common Jewish euphemism?

 

[NonCatholic]

A common misconception among non-believers in regards of the Catholic Church’s doctrin concerning the Sacraments is that they are intellectual concoctions meant to support a belief that serves some alterior motive other than to preserve truth.

The Sacraments as we understand them are first and foremost signs that developed from acts of obedience to Jesus. Jesus wanted us to make the breaking of bread a central component of remembering Him. In obedience to Him that was faithfully done. In doing so the faithfull experienced the graces attached to the act of obedience. In the beginning there was no need to make doctrinal statements concerning what was experienced but how to respond properly became subjects of instruction. Such as Paul’s admonition to eat the bread keeping in mind that it had a definite impact on the life of the participants.

What the faithfull were experiencing in the Sacraments became doctrin when it became necessary to preserve the true meaning of the Sacraments.

They aren’t intellectual concoctions but explanations for divine action that could never IMHO be imagined or concocted.

So why don’t the very ones who administer them follow them? Isn’t marriage one of them? Vow of chastity doesn’t mean you can’t get married does it? Do you know the when and why of the elimination of marriage among illegitimate priests? I give you a hint: Power, greed and corruption is the history.

 

[NonCatholic]

There is your proof of the real presence!!

Jon

Actually if you understand English and actually read what is there, you will come to the opposite conclusion, but your mind cannot conceive of this,can it?

 

[Benadam]

So why don’t the very ones who administer them follow them? Isn’t marriage one of them? Vow of chastity doesn’t mean you can’t get married does it? Do you know the when and why of the elimination of marriage among illegitimate priests? I give you a hint: Power, greed and corruption is the history.

You are right there. The priesthood was becoming corrupt as priests ordained their own sons and dynasties were developing. The reformation for that corruption rose out of the monastic movement among lay folk who lived celebate lives. Incidentally the vows of celebacy for the married lay folk who entered that movement did not destroy the vows of chastity attached to marriage but enhanced their marital bonds by raising them from earthly dignity attached to earthly purposes to divine dignity because they bshared in the more perfect bond of the bridegroom to His spotless bride.

Over time as the monastaries began providing the Church with priests it became evident that the holiness provided by the monastic life formed holier Priests. Thus the celebacy of the monastic life became a dicipline required to become a priest in order to maintain a level of holiness in the formation of Priests.

Marriage is not denied anyone. As Jesus taught Celebacy is a call for the sake of the Kingdom of God.