The meaning of verse 57 of John 6 (Catholics & Protestants)

[Tomster]

It’s also clear from Matt 13 and John 12 that Jesus didn’t intend to speak so they could understand.

(I noticed that you ignored being refuted on that point)

Except that the bible stands in direct opposition to your “Common Sense”, because Jesus’ purpose isn’t to have them understand, but rather to be hearing, but never understanding. Again, you ignored my cite of Matthew 13, which clearly stands opposed to you.

Oh… so… if the Jews had understood, then they’d have turned and followed Him, and He would have forgiven them? Did you bother to read Matthew 13? How about John 12?

Your rationalist argument here falls apart when we actually take into consideration what JESUS says about His own mission and about preaching to the Jews.

Christ was anxious to enroll all these Jews among his disciples. That was the only reason for His miracles and preaching. He was aware at once of their unfavorable reaction to his sermon.

Now it was his custom to correct people when they misunderstood Him (John 3;5ff; 4:10-15; 11:11-14; 4:32-34; Matthew 16:6-12). Moreover, it would have been easy to make the correction in this instance. He could have simply told them : “You have understood me too literally. I do not mean that I am going to give you My physical body to eat. I mean that you are to have great faith in Me.”

But what does He actually say? “Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” (v 54).

By the words “amen, amen,” our Lord practically takes an oath that what He says is true. He then proceeds to reiterate in one of the most emphatic ways possible, the doctrine which He had previously inculcated. He retracted nothing! He qualified nothing! If the Jews had understood Him literally even before, they certainly realised now that He would not change His meaning despite their incredulity.

Protestantism = Rationalism

 

[Tomster]

Actually, the Jews were specifically blinded to their Messiah.

Matt 13:10Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Notice that Jesus does NOT speak to them in order to be understood, but rather so that they wouldn’t.

(Which is what the Jews did.)

(Which is what the Jews did.)

Unless they were repeating the metaphor back to him.

Speaking of the Jews present we have the reaction of some of his disciples. “Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it, said: 'This is hard, and who can hear it?” (v 61).

These disciples evidently understood our Lord literally. A mere metaphorical eating of His Body would not have been “hard” for them, but it was hard to believe that He could give them His own physical body to eat. As a result, “after this many of His disciples went back; and walked with Him no more.” (v 67).

Imagine our Lord’s attitude to the unbelief of these disciples. Imagine what the loss of these men meant to Christ. He had loved them in a special way. He had counted on them to be leaders in His cause. Why then did He allow them to walk away?

It would have been simple for Him to tell them that He had not spoken literally. They had misunderstood Him. He had merely been postulating faith in Himself.

But what does our Lord do? He simply lets them walk away (v 68). If they will not accept His words literally, He does not want them to stay with Him, even though He loves them. They must believe in the Real Presence.

Protestantism = Rationalism

 

[Muze]

Speaking of the Jews present we have the reaction of some of his disciples. “Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it, said: 'This is hard, and who can hear it?” (v 61).

These disciples evidently understood our Lord literally.

Ah… but they don’t repeat it back to Jesus… do they… You have to infer this. If they grasp that Jesus is talking about Himself being the New Moses of a New Covenant, they’d say the same thing, here.

So, you’re now imposing on the text.

A mere metaphorical eating of His Body would not have been “hard” for them, but it was hard to believe that He could give them His own physical body to eat. As a result, “after this many of His disciples went back; and walked with Him no more.” (v 67).

This is flat out incorrect. If someone told you that he was going to completely rip out your culture and its hero, and replace it all with himself, you’d find that hard, too. They were expecting Jesus to restore the earthly kingdom under the law of Moses, and He just told them that wasn’t going to happen.

That’s a HARD teaching.

Imagine our Lord’s attitude to the unbelief of these disciples. Imagine what the loss of these men meant to Christ. He had loved them in a special way. He had counted on them to be leaders in His cause. Why then did He allow them to walk away?

Because that was what was in their hearts.

It would have been simple for Him to tell them that He had not spoken literally. They had misunderstood Him. He had merely been postulating faith in Himself.

Unless, of course, they didn’t misunderstand Him, but the metaphorical teaching was hard, which it was…

 

[Tomster]

Ah… but they don’t repeat it back to Jesus… do they… You have to infer this. If they grasp that Jesus is talking about Himself being the New Moses of a New Covenant, they’d say the same thing, here.

So, you’re now imposing on the text.

This is flat out incorrect. If someone told you that he was going to completely rip out your culture and its hero, and replace it all with himself, you’d find that hard, too. They were expecting Jesus to restore the earthly kingdom under the law of Moses, and He just told them that wasn’t going to happen.

That’s a HARD teaching.

Because that was what was in their hearts.

Unless, of course, they didn’t misunderstand Him, but the metaphorical teaching was hard, which it was…

The reaction of St. Peter and the apostles is one of the most touching passages of Sacred Scripture. Even while some of the disciples were yet in sight, abandoning Christ because they would not take His words literally, the Savior looks lovingly at the apostles and asks: “Will you go away too?” So insistent was Christ on the literal meaning of His Eucharistic words that He was willing to give up even His chosen twelve.

St. Peter echoed the sentiments of the twelve when he replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (v v 68, 69).

What did St. Peter mean by these words? Simply this: “Lord, I cannot comprehend “how” you are going to give me Your flesh to eat and Your blood to drink. It is a complete mystery to me. But I know that you are God. Your meaning is plain. You are all-powerful and so could do anything. You could not deceive me. Consequently, even though I do not understand “how” You can do what you promise, I believe it with my whole heart and soul.”

This is the simple faith so pleasing to God. This is intellectual humility. Catholics today and Catholics from the beginning have cherished this attitude of St. Peter. We believe God’s word without question.

Protestantism = Rationalism

 

[Muze]

The reaction of St. Peter and the apostles is one of the most touching passages of Sacred Scripture. Even while some of the disciples were yet in sight, abandoning Christ because they would not take His words literally, the Savior looks lovingly at the apostles and asks: “Will you go away too?” So insistent was Christ on the literal meaning of His Eucharistic words that He was willing to give up even His chosen twelve.

St. Peter echoed the sentiments of the twelve when he replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (v v 68, 69).

Yeah. Peter gets it. He takes the metaphor back to the source… .verses 27-29. He doesn’t say that Jesus has the flesh they have to eat. He say that they BELIEVED.

What did St. Peter mean by these words? Simply this: “Lord, I cannot comprehend “how” you are going to give me Your flesh to eat and Your blood to drink. It is a complete mystery to me. But I know that you are God. Your meaning is plain. You are all-powerful and so could do anything. You could not deceive me. Consequently, even though I do not understand “how” You can do what you promise, I believe it with my whole heart and soul.”

LOL… That’s a nice attempt at an imposition, but when you read the entire narrative, Peter makes a pretty clear reference to believing, which is the source of the metaphor in verses 27-29, 40, and 47.

This is the simple faith so pleasing to God. This is intellectual humility. Catholics today and Catholics from the beginning have cherished this attitude of St. Peter. We believe God’s word without question.

Seems to me that you believe the RCC’s word without question.

 

[Jesus_123]

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .

Miracle of Lanciano***- Wikipedia*

**
The miracle of Lanciano is officially recognized by the Catholic Church as a **
Eucharistic Miracle.

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around 700, a Basilian monk and priest were assigned to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the small Church of St. Legontian. Celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread, that monk had doubts about the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

During the Divine Liturgy, when he said the **Words of Consecration **(This is my body. This is my blood), with doubt in his soul, the priest saw the bread change into living flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size (this number supposedly corresponds to the number of wounds Christ suffered on the cross: one in each hand and foot from the nails, and the wound from the centurion’s spear).

Since 1574, various ecclesiastical investigations of varying degrees of detail have been conducted upon the miracle. The first appears to consist of a weighing, in which each different globule though varying in size, all each weigh the same and always produced the same weight no matter what the amount of these globules was. Thus all of them put together was the equivalent to any one of them or any three or any four all equaled the same weight no matter what combination. Also an examination in 1971 conducted by Professor Doctor Odoardo Linoli which were confirmed by Dr. Bertelli. The flesh was found to be human striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (the heart wall), type AB, and to be absolutely free of any agents used for preserving flesh.[citation needed] The blood at Lanciano has divided into five irregularly shaped pellets. At scientific examinations conducted in 1971 these pellets were found to be human blood, type AB (“the universal receiver”), with proteins normally fractionated and present in the same percentage ratio as those in normal fresh blood.

February 17, 1574 by Bishop Rodriguez
1636 by Father Serafino from Scanno
October 23, 1777 by Bishop Gervasone
October 26, 1886 by Bishop Petrarca
1971, by Professor Odoardo Linoli

This most recent examination[1] was performed by Professor Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy[citation needed], and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1973[2].

The following conclusions were drawn by Odoardo Linoli:

The flesh is real flesh and the blood is real blood

• The flesh and the blood belong to the human species[3]
• The flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart
• In the flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.[4]
• The flesh and the blood have the same blood type, AB
• In the blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood[5]
• In the blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium

**The flesh and blood of the miracle can still be seen today. **The flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in color, and becomes rose-colored when lighted from the back. The blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly color resembling the yellow of ochre.
​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Tomster]

The reaction of St. Peter and the apostles is one of the most touching passages of Sacred Scripture. Even while some of the disciples were yet in sight, abandoning Christ because they would not take His words literally, the Savior looks lovingly at the apostles and asks: “Will you go away too?” So insistent was Christ on the literal meaning of His Eucharistic words that He was willing to give up even His chosen twelve.

St. Peter echoed the sentiments of the twelve when he replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (v v 68, 69).

What did St. Peter mean by these words? Simply this: “Lord, I cannot comprehend “how” you are going to give me Your flesh to eat and Your blood to drink. It is a complete mystery to me. But I know that you are God. Your meaning is plain. You are all-powerful and so could do anything. You could not deceive me. Consequently, even though I do not understand “how” You can do what you promise, I believe it with my whole heart and soul.”

This is the simple faith so pleasing to God. This is intellectual humility. Catholics today and Catholics from the beginning have cherished this attitude of St. Peter. We believe God’s word without question.

Protestantism = Rationalism

Muze,

We can now embark on a simple exercise. An exercise that is so simple all we have to do is examine the writings and practices of the early Church regarding belief in the Real Presence.

There will not be any documentation from any Protestant sect, mind you, since as we both know they did not exist at this time.

You are aware that Protestantism did not exist at this time aren’t you?

 

[Muze]

This appears to stand in direct opposition to Trent and Aquinas, who clearly stated that in transubstantiation, the accidents of the appearance of the bread and wine do NOT change…
(was in reference to the large article two posts up.)

 

[Muze]

Muze,

We can now embark on a simple exercise. An exercise that is so simple all we have to do is examine the writings and practices of the early Church regarding belief in the Real Presence.

There will not be any documentation from any Protestant sect, mind you, since as we both know they did not exist at this time.

You are aware that Protestantism did not exist at this time aren’t you?

First you need to demonstrate that ALL the practices and writings of the early church and ECFs were infallible. Otherwise, they may simply have been in error on this.

 

[Tomster]

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .

Miracle of Lanciano***- Wikipedia*

**
The miracle of Lanciano is officially recognized by the Catholic Church as a **
Eucharistic Miracle.

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around 700, a Basilian monk and priest were assigned to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the small Church of St. Legontian. Celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread, that monk had doubts about the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

During the Divine Liturgy, when he said the **Words of Consecration **(This is my body. This is my blood), with doubt in his soul, the priest saw the bread change into living flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size (this number supposedly corresponds to the number of wounds Christ suffered on the cross: one in each hand and foot from the nails, and the wound from the centurion’s spear).

Since 1574, various ecclesiastical investigations of varying degrees of detail have been conducted upon the miracle. The first appears to consist of a weighing, in which each different globule though varying in size, all each weigh the same and always produced the same weight no matter what the amount of these globules was. Thus all of them put together was the equivalent to any one of them or any three or any four all equaled the same weight no matter what combination. Also an examination in 1971 conducted by Professor Doctor Odoardo Linoli which were confirmed by Dr. Bertelli. The flesh was found to be human striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (the heart wall), type AB, and to be absolutely free of any agents used for preserving flesh.[citation needed] The blood at Lanciano has divided into five irregularly shaped pellets. At scientific examinations conducted in 1971 these pellets were found to be human blood, type AB (“the universal receiver”), with proteins normally fractionated and present in the same percentage ratio as those in normal fresh blood.

February 17, 1574 by Bishop Rodriguez
1636 by Father Serafino from Scanno
October 23, 1777 by Bishop Gervasone
October 26, 1886 by Bishop Petrarca
1971, by Professor Odoardo Linoli

This most recent examination[1] was performed by Professor Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy[citation needed], and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1973[2].

The following conclusions were drawn by Odoardo Linoli:

The flesh is real flesh and the blood is real blood

• The flesh and the blood belong to the human species[3]
• The flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart
• In the flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.[4]
• The flesh and the blood have the same blood type, AB
• In the blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood[5]
• In the blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium

**The flesh and blood of the miracle can still be seen today. **The flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in color, and becomes rose-colored when lighted from the back. The blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly color resembling the yellow of ochre.
​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

Thank you!

 

[Tomster]

First you need to demonstrate that ALL the practices and writings of the early church and ECFs were infallible. Otherwise, they may simply have been in error on this.

If that were the case, then in all fairness, you would have to submit to the same scrutiny which I know you will not and cannot do. For you see, Muze, you are just a fallible person. You are trying very hard to present yourself as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. In reality you are simply a “fallible protester” to the two thousand year history of Christ’s true Church.

Essentially that’s how you are viewed here.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

The reaction of St. Peter and the apostles is one of the most touching passages of Sacred Scripture. Even while some of the disciples were yet in sight, abandoning Christ because they would not take His words literally, the Savior looks lovingly at the apostles and asks: “Will you go away too?” So insistent was Christ on the literal meaning of His Eucharistic words that He was willing to give up even His chosen twelve.

St. Peter echoed the sentiments of the twelve when he replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (v v 68, 69).

What did St. Peter mean by these words? Simply this: “Lord, I cannot comprehend “how” you are going to give me Your flesh to eat and Your blood to drink. It is a complete mystery to me. But I know that you are God. Your meaning is plain. You are all-powerful and so could do anything. You could not deceive me. Consequently, even though I do not understand “how” You can do what you promise, I believe it with my whole heart and soul.”

This is the simple faith so pleasing to God. This is intellectual humility. Catholics today and Catholics from the beginning have cherished this attitude of St. Peter.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make - that the apostles stayed b/c of their faith IN JESUS, not necessarily b/c they htought that Jesus would make His literal flesh and blood literal food and drink.

The church survived quite well before its doctrine of transubstantiation. And there are those (like myself) who don’t believe we have “walked no more with” Jesus b/c we don’t understand or embrace that doctrine. Had I stood with Jesus when He said these words, I might not understand them fully (as I certainly don’t today), but I would not then simply leave Him, having faith in Him already.

Those who left lacked faith. Jesus said so Himself:

26Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

 

[Tomster]

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make - that the apostles stayed b/c of their faith IN JESUS, not necessarily b/c they htought that Jesus would make His literal flesh and blood literal food and drink.

The church survived quite well before its doctrine of transubstantiation. And there are those (like myself) who don’t believe we have “walked no more with” Jesus b/c we don’t understand or embrace that doctrine. Had I stood with Jesus when He said these words, I might not understand them fully (as I certainly don’t today), but I would not then simply leave Him, having faith in Him already.

Those who left lacked faith. Jesus said so Himself:

Re-read your first paragraph.

They stayed because they did believe Jesus’ words, literally!

 

[Muze]

If that were the case, then in all fairness, you would have to submit to the same scrutiny which I know you will not and cannot do. For you see, Muze, you are just a fallible person. You are trying very hard to present yourself as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. In reality you are simply a “fallible protester” to the two thousand year history of Christ’s true Church.

Essentially that’s how you are viewed here.

Well, I can’t help people who make up things about me. I’ve never claimed infallibility. I appeal to that which I consider to be infallible, that being the bible.

 

[Tomster]

Well, I can’t help people who make up things about me. I’ve never claimed infallibility. I appeal to that which I consider to be infallible, that being the bible.

Which [the Bible] you must admit was given to you by the Catholic Church.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Regarding Lanciano: It isn’t even necessary for Catholics to believe in such miracles or even apparitions. It hardly helps a non-Catholic to see the Scriptural nature of the teaching of Transubstantiation.

 

[Tomster]

Well, I can’t help people who make up things about me. I’ve never claimed infallibility. I appeal to that which I consider to be infallible, that being the bible.

I’m so glad to hear you say that you have never claimed to be infallible. Now we are at last free to accept or reject anything you have say concerning Sacred Scripture. Your Scriptural exegesis is now a matter of just personal opinion by your own admission.

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Jesus_123]

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .

Transubstantiation*****- Wikipedia***


Part of the series on Communion, also known as “The Eucharist”, “The Lord’s Supper”, “Divine Liturgy” or “Sacrament”

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance (what the thing is in itself - see “Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation”, below) of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the **Body and Blood **(respectively)[1] of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the species or appearances) remains as before.[2][3][4]

Some Greek Orthodox Church confessions of faith use the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis), but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of “substance” and “accidents”, while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the** body and blood of Christ** during a valid Divine Liturgy. Other terms such as “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis) and “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis) are more common among the Orthodox.

The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[5] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood".6] …

The Council of Trent in its thirteenth session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as **“that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining **– which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[9] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[10] with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[11] …

(end of Part 1)​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord Jesus+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Tomster]

Regarding Lanciano: It isn’t even necessary for Catholics to believe in such miracles or even apparitions. It hardly helps a non-Catholic to see the Scriptural nature of the teaching of Transubstantiation.

Then look to the Church’s teachings for yourself. Either you accept them or walk away from them.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Re-read your first paragraph.

They stayed because they did believe Jesus’ words, literally!

Actually, I stressed that they stayed b/c they believed in JESUS, not b/c they believed His words literally. Can you prove from the text the reason why they stayed?

Peter said “you have the words of everlasting life”. He did not say the words were to be taken literally. He also said he believed Jesus was the Christ.

It isn’t clear exactly how Peter understood Jesus’ saying, but it is clear that Peter stayed b/c of his faith in Jesus. This faith does not require him to accept Jesus’ saying as literal, in only requires him to trust that the saying has deep spiritual meaning - something those who left did not see. They had only sought Jesus because their bellies were full.