The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

[Teflon93]

Then why does this exchange occur AFTER the loaves and fishes in the same chapter?

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Jhn 6:30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?

The chapter and verse separations came later. You may thank the Catholic Church for them.

As for why it appears in this sequence, it happened in that order. The crowd gathered to hear him speak, saw his miracles, and followed him.

When he revealed his commandment regarding the Eucharist, they left.

It is only difficult to understand for those whose traditions make not accepting the plain meaning of the text crucial.

Read numbers 11 if you want to understand why the Jews were repelled.

 

[BrianH]

The chapter and verse separations came later. You may thank the Catholic Church for them.

As for why it appears in this sequence, it happened in that order. The crowd gathered to hear him speak, saw his miracles, and followed him.

When he revealed his commandment regarding the Eucharist, they left.

It is only difficult to understand for those whose traditions make not accepting the plain meaning of the text crucial.

Read numbers 11 if you want to understand why the Jews were repelled.

You said that they would have no problem believing in Jesus because it occured after the loaves and fishes.
I quoted scripture that shows after that they did have trouble believing.
You then make some mention of chapters and verses…
The point is that they did have trouble believing afterwards…correct?
BH

 

[Teflon93]

You said that they would have no problem believing in Jesus because it occured after the loaves and fishes.
I quoted scripture that shows after that they did have trouble believing.
You then make some mention of chapters and verses…
The point is that they did have trouble believing afterwards…correct?
BH

No, the point is your logic is utterly circular.

If they didn’t believe in Jesus, they wouldn’t have followed him in the first place, would they?

1. They came to hear him speak.
2. They witnessed him work a miracle.
3. They followed him to learn more.
4. He told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood or have no life within them (repeated numerous times in the passage).
5. They protest and leave.

These are people whose ancestors were fed by God in the desert, and who themselves had been fed miraculously by Jesus.

It is obvious what they objected to.

 

[Teflon93]

John 6:

1: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2: And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3: And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4: And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5: When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6: And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7: Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8: One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,
9: There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10: And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11: And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12: When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13: Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14: Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. **
15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
16: And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
17: And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
18: And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
19: So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20: But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
21: Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
22: The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23: (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks
24: When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25: And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26: Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30: They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31: Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat**.
32: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34: Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

 

[Teflon93]

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.
36: But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
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 at the last day.
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.
41: **The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. **
42: And they said, **Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? **
43: Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48: I am that bread of life.
49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51: 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.
52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, **This is an hard saying; who can hear it? **
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Note that they murmured when Jesus told them he’d come down from heaven, but “strove [struggled] amongst themselves” and left after he commanded them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

They did not doubt he was a prophet. They did not doubt he was a miracle worker. They did not even doubt that he was the Messiah (else they wouldn’t have tried to make him king).

They were repelled by the Eucharist.

As many remain today.

 

[BrianH]

No, the point is your logic is utterly circular.

If they didn’t believe in Jesus, they wouldn’t have followed him in the first place, would they?

1. They came to hear him speak.
2. They witnessed him work a miracle.
3. They followed him to learn more.
4. He told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood or have no life within them (repeated numerous times in the passage).
5. They protest and leave.

These are people whose ancestors were fed by God in the desert, and who themselves had been fed miraculously by Jesus.

It is obvious what they objected to.

Only when you leave everything else out like you do.

They did not believe and Jesus calls them on it before any mention of Body and Blood.

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Jhn 6:30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?

Jhn 6:35-40 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
"But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
"This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

They do not believe and do not understand. They say:

Jhn 6:42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

You said that after they saw the fish and loaves they believed. But that is not what they said or what Jesus said.

 

[BrianH]

From your version, this perfectly encapsulates my argument:

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BrianH,

You really lost me on 'the crux of it…". You went to great length in quoting John 6 - but, somehow managed to omit any reference of Christ’s command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Yes, indeed, we are to believe in the Word of Christ - and… as the ‘goats’ painfully learned in Matthew 25, we have to act on these same words that we heard (James 1:22).

Believe what? I say believe in him. I do not know what the final straw was. Regardless, the key differences between those who believe in the Real Presence and those who believe in transubstantiation goes way beyond John 6.
Good to be back. Thank you.

Honest, Brian, you don’t have to go, “…way beyond John 6…” if you want to find the meaning in Christ words on the Eucharist - He spells them out clearly and over and over again. Can you find any other place in the NT where Christ went over and over the same material (“Unless you eat My Flesh…you have no life in you.”) until a very clear division existed: those who left because, “this is a hard saying - who can listen to it?” and the majority those who stayed (Judas did not believe, but stayed, the others probably did not understand, but believed that, as Peter said, Christ had, “…the words of eternal life”? This is the only place in NT Scripture where this type of repitition happens to the best of my knowledge.

In every other instance, Christ gave a parable and then moved on. Few of those assembled (if any) ‘got it’. Frequently the Apostles had to ask Christ what He meant by a particular parable. But, notice, this is not the case in His explanation of the Eucharist. It really just boils down to this: believe Christ is the Son of God and can do ANYTHING (including being physical present under the appearance of bread and wine) He wants to do - or - He was misquoted in the Bible (of course, this would mean an error in the Bible…) - or - belive that for 1600 years the Holy Spirit was not really guiding the Church on this very important matter of Faith and the entire doctrine, up to the time of the Reformation, was just a lie (of course, this would mean another type of error in the Bible).

I am really at a loss for coming up with any other explanation. But, if you don’t believe that the Eucharist is actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ can you tell me why Christ’s words on this subject are not correct?

God bless

 

[BrianH]

Hi, BrianH,

You really lost me on 'the crux of it…". You went to great length in quoting John 6 - but, somehow managed to omit any reference of Christ’s command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Yes, indeed, we are to believe in the Word of Christ - and… as the ‘goats’ painfully learned in Matthew 25, we have to act on these same words that we heard (James 1:22).

Honest, Brian, you don’t have to go, “…way beyond John 6…” if you want to find the meaning in Christ words on the Eucharist - He spells them out clearly and over and over again. Can you find any other place in the NT where Christ went over and over the same material (“Unless you eat My Flesh…you have no life in you.”) until a very clear division existed: those who left because, “this is a hard saying - who can listen to it?” and the majority those who stayed (Judas did not believe, but stayed, the others probably did not understand, but believed that, as Peter said, Christ had, “…the words of eternal life”? This is the only place in NT Scripture where this type of repitition happens to the best of my knowledge.

In every other instance, Christ gave a parable and then moved on. Few of those assembled (if any) ‘got it’. Frequently the Apostles had to ask Christ what He meant by a particular parable. But, notice, this is not the case in His explanation of the Eucharist. It really just boils down to this: believe Christ is the Son of God and can do ANYTHING (including being physical present under the appearance of bread and wine) He wants to do - or - He was misquoted in the Bible (of course, this would mean an error in the Bible…) - or - belive that for 1600 years the Holy Spirit was not really guiding the Church on this very important matter of Faith and the entire doctrine, up to the time of the Reformation, was just a lie (of course, this would mean another type of error in the Bible).

I am really at a loss for coming up with any other explanation. But, if you don’t believe that the Eucharist is actually the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ can you tell me why Christ’s words on this subject are not correct?

God bless

Two things. I believe in the Real Presence. Next, I do not think it is what he is talking about in this passage.
I said such earlier.

 

[NotWorthy]

Then why does this exchange occur AFTER the loaves and fishes in the same chapter?

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Jhn 6:30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?

I think you are inserting the disciples into the crowd at this point. It is the crowd who followed Jesus across the Lake who are asking for signs. The disciples wouldn’t be following Jesus for some time and then ask for a sign. Jesus would tell them, “what do you think I’ve been doing since that Wing-Ding we did at the wedding”?

The Disciples would have been following Jesus through His Teachings and miracles. Only when He goes “out there” with this talk of eating His Flesh and Blood that they join the crowds in murmuring and questioning.

 

[BrianH]

I think you are inserting the disciples into the crowd at this point. It is the crowd who followed Jesus across the Lake who are asking for signs. The disciples wouldn’t be following Jesus for some time and then ask for a sign. Jesus would tell them, “what do you think I’ve been doing since that Wing-Ding we did at the wedding”?

The Disciples would have been following Jesus through His Teachings and miracles. Only when He goes “out there” with this talk of eating His Flesh and Blood that they join the crowds in murmuring and questioning.

Teflon made reference to the “crowd”. They did not believe. The Jews did not believe. The disciples, some of them, did not believe. It is tough to sort out but that is what I was saying originally.

 

[NotWorthy]

Teflon made reference to the “crowd”. They did not believe. The Jews did not believe. The disciples, some of them, did not believe. It is tough to sort out but that is what I was saying originally.

OK, then let’s reboot:

a) The crowds ask for a sign (the disciples have no reason not to believe at this point).
b) Jesus chastises them and teaches them (this is similar teaching then we have documented in the 4th and 5th chapter, so common sense tells us that the disciples would still believe).
c) The crowd gets a little miffed with Jesus - again, this has happened already in John, so its nothing new to His disciples.
d) Jesus starts speaking of eating His Flesh and Blood.
e) The crowds dis-believe. Some of the disciples dis-believe. One can see why they dis-believe, where in the previous 30 verses, there was nothing new to cause them to question Jesus.

But the Bread of Life Discourse? That came out of Left Field to these guys. That’s why they dis-believe, IMO.

 

[jean8]

I’m sorry, but who said we don’t receive the Body and Blood? (Wow, is this deja’ vu? Do I smell “Old Scholar” lingering around?)

The Church teaches that we receive His Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

Or are you referring to the claim that you receive HIs Body (only) in the bread and His Blood (only) in the wine or grape juice? I hope that’s not the case.

What dies the Bible teach?
See 1Cor.11:24-25, Mk.14:22-23

God bless,
jean8

 

[grannymh]

Quote from Tqualey Post 228
Just trying to understand how more than two interpretations are possible from the actual words used in the text is my question:

1.) Christ’s claim to the Son of God and statement that unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us … or…

2.) Chirst’s Diety claims were false and His exortation to cannibalism were the ravings of a mad man and should be ignored - or, simply re-interpretated as one of His metaphors.

Hi Tom,
I’m having great fun with family. And this is just a break catching up on posts.

I can’t resist pointing out an example of two diferent interpretations of Scripture passages that can refer to the Messiah concept

I saw this in one of the posts:

They [the Jews] did not doubt he [Jesus] was a prophet. They did not doubt he was a miracle worker. They did not even doubt that he was the Messiah (else they wouldn’t have tried to make him king).

The is true. Some of the Jews interpreted Hebrew scriptures as describing the Mesiah as the One Who would overthrow the Romans. Seeing Jesus as the Messiah,(refer to above quote) naturally, they tried to make Him king. He did indicate that His kingdom was at hand.

Other Jews interpreted the Messiah as a different kind of king.
Peter recognized that the Messiah was not an earthy Savior, but One that promised eternal life, etc. etc. Jesus’ kingdom that was at hand was the Kingdom of God, etc. etc.

Hold that thought while I shft to your two points.

Briefly your points 1) and 2) above can be reworded as

1. Chirst is God.

or

1. Christ is not God.

This would be considered a mutually exclusive “or”. In other words Christ is one or the other. He can’t be both at the same time.

Now read Isaiah chapter 55.

There are some ways that it can point to a Messiah. Those Jews who were anxious about getting rid of the Romans could see Isaiah pointing to a new king replacing the one currently in power. Other Jews could read verses 9 - 11 and begin to wonder if the promised Messiah would be something different than expected. John the Baptist was preaching something other than overthrowing Rome. Jesus was using symbols for Himself, especially the Good Shephard which certainly was not the interpretation which would go with being the leader of an army rescuing the Jews from Roman occupation. I’ve heard about some Hebrew scripture passages which refer to the suffering servant, not the king thing.

Jesus, Who quoted from Isaiah, was the Messiah announced in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, one can see there were two interpretations of the Messiah’s mission.

Jesus recognized the two interpretations when He suggested to His listeners that they render the things of Caesar (the coin) to Caesar and the things of God to God. This was followed by no man can serve two masters.

History settled the issue.

The point is that there can be two different interpretations of the same thing, such as the coming of the Messiah.
And both can exist at the same time at least for a while.

Here is the tricky part.

There was a flurry of posts about the reason (singular) some of the Jews left in John Chapter 6.

My posts 218 & 226 broaden the discussion so that different interpretations of the exit of some of the Jews could be considered. I was concentrating on the Jews and not Chirst.

Above, I used an example that there were two quite different interpretations of Who the Messiah would be and what His mission would be.

Let us move on.

Following John Chapter 6, there was the Last Supper, Christ giving up His Life on the Cross, Christ rising from the dead with His glorious Body, Chirst ascending into Heaven. The coming of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s followers carring out the true Mission of Christ into history that reaches to 2008.

Obviously, and I am sure we all agree, that currently there are various interpretations of the real meaning of John, Chapter 6.

It is my point that it is possible to understand the different interpretations of John Chapter 6 and related passages. This is similar to understanding the motives that prompted the exit of some of the Jews in Chapter 6. I am not focusing on Christ’s words. I am focusing on the people around me. I respect God’s gift of free will.

----- This does not mean that all the interpretations are true. Plus, I am not bound to agree with them. Non-theists don’t agree with any of them.

But I do have the responsibility, if I am a Christian theist, to find the true interpretation of John Chapter 6 and then live it out.

As I sorted through the dueling scripture quotes (I found that description in a post.) my first reaction was that there must be a more gentle way to find the truth.

For me, I like to use a suggestion that appears in books by Franklin Covey – respectfully understand where a person is coming from and be sure to understand what is being presented.

For me personally I like to broaden the discussion and consider other possibilities. Sometimes discarding possibilities or other conclusions helps to affirm the correct conclusion.

Good night everyone,

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

Delete this post

 

[grannymh]

quote=tqualey;4479530]

Quote from Tqualey Post 228
. John the Baptist was preaching something other than overthrowing Rome. Jesus was using symbols for Himself, ]

Jesus, Who quoted from Isaiah, was the Messiah announced in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, one can see there were two interpretations of the Messiah’s mission.

Jesus recognized the two interpretations when He suggested to His listeners that they render the things of Caesar (the coin) to Caesar and the things of God to God. This was followed by no man can serve two masters.

History settled the issue.

The point is that there can be two different interpretations of the same thing, such as the coming of the Messiah.
And both can exist at the same time at least for a while.

Here is the tricky part. There was a flurry of posts about the reason (singular) some of the Jews left in John Chapter 6.

My posts 218 & 226 broaden the discussion so that different interpretations of the exit of some of the Jews could be considered. I was concentrating on the Jews and not Christ.

Above, I used an example that there were two quite different interpretations of Who the Messiah would be and what His mission would be.

Let us move on.

Following John Chapter 6, there was the Last Supper, Christ giving up His Life on the Cross, Christ rising from the dead with His glorious Body, Christ ascending into Heaven. The coming of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s followers caring out the true Mission of Christ into history that reaches to 2008.

Obviously, and I am sure we all agree, that currently there are various interpretations of the real meaning of John, Chapter 6.

It is my point that it is possible to understand the different interpretations of John Chapter 6 and related passages. This is similar to understanding the motives that prompted the exit of some of the Jews in Chapter 6. I am not focusing on Christ’s words. I am focusing on the people around me. I respect God’s gift of free will.
----- This does not mean that all the interpretations are true. Plus, I am not bound to agree with them. Non-theists don’t agree with any of them.

But I do have the responsibility, if I am a Christian theist, to find the true interpretation of John Chapter 6 and then live it out.

As I sorted through the dueling scripture quotes (I found that description in a post.) my first reaction was that there must be a more gentle way to find the truth.

For me, I like to use a suggestion that appears in books by Franklin Covey – respectfully understand where a person is coming from and be sure to understand what is being presented.

For me personally I like to broaden the discussion and consider other possibilities. Sometimes discarding possibilities or other conclusions helps to affirm the correct conclusion.

Good night everyone,

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

quote=tqualey;4479530]

Quote from Tqualey Post 228 "Just trying to understand how more than two interpretations are possible from the actual words used in the text is my question:

1.) Christ’s claim to the Son of God and statement that unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us … or…
2.) Christ’s Deity claims were false and His exhortation to cannibalism were the ravings of a mad man and should be ignored - or, simply re-interpreted as one of His metaphors."

Hi Tom,
I’m having great fun with family.

I can’t resist pointing out an example of two different interpretations of Scripture passages that can refer to the Messiah.

I saw this in one of the posts: They [the Jews] did not doubt he [Jesus] was a prophet. They did not doubt he was a miracle worker. They did not even doubt that he was the Messiah (else they wouldn’t have tried to make him king).

This is true. Some of the Jews interpreted Hebrew scriptures as describing the Messiah as the One Who would overthrow the Romans. Seeing Jesus as the Messiah,(refer to above quote) naturally, they tried to make Him king. He did indicate that His kingdom was at hand.

Other Jews interpreted the Messiah as a different kind of king. Peter recognized that the Messiah was not an earthy Savior, but One that promised eternal life, etc. Jesus’ kingdom that was at hand was the Kingdom of God, etc.

Hold that thought while I shift to your two points

Briefly your points 1) and 2) above can be reworded as

1. Christ is God.
   or
2. Christ is not God.

This would be considered a mutually exclusive “or”. In other words Christ is one or the other. He can’t be both at the same time.

Now read Isaiah chapter 55.

There are some ways that it can point to a Messiah. Those Jews who were anxious about getting rid of the Romans could see Isaiah pointing to a new king replacing the one currently in power. Other Jews could read verses 9 - 11 and begin to wonder if the promised Messiah would be something different than expected. John the Baptist was preaching something other than overthrowing Rome. Jesus was using symbols for Himself, especially the Good Shepherd which certainly was not the interpretation which would go with being the leader of an army rescuing the Jews from Roman occupation. I’ve heard about some Hebrew scripture passages which refer to the suffering servant, not the king thing.

Jesus, Who quoted from Isaiah, was the Messiah announced in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, one can see there were two interpretations of the Messiah’s mission.

Jesus recognized the two interpretations when He suggested to His listeners that they render the things of Caesar (the coin) to Caesar and the things of God to God. This was followed by no man can serve two masters. History settled the issue.

The point is that there can be two different interpretations of the same thing, such as the coming of the Messiah.
And both can exist at the same time at least for a while.

Here is the tricky part. There was a flurry of posts about the reason (singular) some of the Jews left in John Chapter 6.

My posts 218 & 226 broaden the discussion so that different interpretations of the exit of some of the Jews could be considered. I was concentrating on the Jews and not Christ.

Above, I used an example that there were two quite different interpretations of Who the Messiah would be and what His mission would be.

Let us move on. Following John Chapter 6, there was the Last Supper, Christ giving up His Life on the Cross, Christ rising from the dead with His glorious Body, Christ ascending into Heaven. The coming of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s followers caring out the true Mission of Christ into history that reaches to 2008.

Obviously, and I am sure we all agree, that currently there are various interpretations of the real meaning of John, Chapter 6.

It is my point that it is possible to understand the different interpretations of John Chapter 6 and related passages. This is similar to understanding the motives that prompted the exit of some of the Jews in Chapter 6. I am not focusing on Christ’s words. I am focusing on the people around me. I respect God’s gift of free will.
----- This does not mean that all the interpretations are true. Plus, I am not bound to agree with them. Non-theists don’t agree with any of them.

But I do have the responsibility, if I am a Christian theist, to find the true interpretation of John Chapter 6 and then live it out.

As I sorted through the dueling scripture quotes (I found that description in a post.) my first reaction was that there must be a more gentle way to find the truth.

For me, I like to use a suggestion that appears in books by Franklin Covey – respectfully understand where a person is coming from and be sure to understand what is being presented.

For me personally I like to broaden the discussion and consider other possibilities. Sometimes discarding possibilities or other conclusions helps to affirm the correct conclusion.

Good night everyone,
Blessings,
grannymh

 

[NotWorthy]

What dies the Bible teach?
See 1Cor.11:24-25, Mk.14:22-23

God bless,
jean8

The Bible teaches that the Church has authority to teach, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As you may know, the Priest repeats these words in the Consecration. In both Scripture verses, these words are Jesus’ as He offers his Body up for Sacrifice. The Body and Blood separated represent death.

But the Christ that we receive in the Eucharist is Jesus’ Glorified Body, meaning the Body and Blood are together again. Since Catholics don’t believe in crucifying Christ all over again, we partake of HIs Glorified Body.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon made reference to the “crowd”. They did not believe. The Jews did not believe. The disciples, some of them, did not believe. It is tough to sort out but that is what I was saying originally.

But they did. John 6:

14: Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

They believed in him enough after the miracle of the loaves and fishes to make him their king.

It completely refutes your “believe in Jesus” argument, which is why you seek to confound your errant tradition’s concept of “belief in Jesus” with the term as Jesus uses it in this passage: “Believe what I tell you.”

What he tells them is that the Eucharist is his flesh and his blood, which they must consume or not have life within them.

The disciples accept this, as did all early Christians. The others do not.

As many Protestants do not.

 

[brownjt]

Can you prove that they didn’t? And why would that matter?

What you’re really asking is, “Where is that in the Bible?”

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

Really - I was just asking the question as it reads. I am a high episcopalian defector and would like to know - well, of course it does not say that in the Bible…I am sure ti is not in the deposit of faith as it were - you would have told me if it was. Please tell me since it is not in the SACRED scriptures (the Word of god) - at what point did it become SACRED traditioon. I am in RCIA and trying to tie all of these things together. Your angst with evangelicals shows, but they have brought alot of people into the chruches for Christ… Your answer reagrding Indulgences…?