The Symbolism of John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

BA
Just as you do not understand the Catholic teaching of Original Sin, so too, you do not understand the Catholic teaching of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus died once for all time. There is nothing in Hebrews that contradicts the Catholic teaching. It is the same sacrifice at Calvary, which has never ended. I think your difficulty in comprehending the Catholic teaching of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is that you are thinking in human terms. Baptist theology has eliminated God’s mystery, and anything else incomprehensible to the human mind from their theology. God lives outside earthly time. I know that Baptist theology is very simplistic, but please try to enter the Catholic mind when dialoguing on a Catholic forum.
 
The sacrifice for sin has ALWAYS been provided by God. Anything else is nothing more than a golden calf (so to speak).
And he is still providing it right now as we breath agreed?

After all did not John see a LAMB AS IF SLAIN
in revelation.
I don’t respect the sacrament of mass… but I will keep my personal feelings to myself…
And ill keep you in my prayers.
I have no desire to emulate that “true worship” with a fruitless act of religion such as the mass.
Fruitless it is what is takeing place in heaven we are worshiping with the saints and angels. What is so fruitless about that.

Sorry but I thing that simply singing some songs and preaching or sticking to your favoret passages week after week about how you are saved and cant do nothing to lose your salvation avoiding passages such as not everyone who calls me lord lord will enter heaven. compared to the mass is fruitless.
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
BA
so why is he still standing as if slain?
The more I read your explanation of the Mass, the more rediculous it seems. Why do you ignore passages of scripure that insist Christ died once? On one hand you pretend to place yourself at the crucifiction during mass… then you pretend to bring to crucifiction to the present day on the other hand.
WE ARE NOT AVOIDING THEM.
WHY DO YOU AVOID THIS?
**“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Jesus) a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” (Hebrews 8:1-3)

Even though He is sitting down, Christ is still a minister. He is still offering that one sacrifice once for all, otherwise He would no longer be a minister. In fact, verse 3 makes this clear, saying it is necessary for Him to have something to offer. Christ always has something to offer. This passage inarguably teaches that Christ’s offering is going on even now, and that He is still ministering at the Heavenly altar. It connects perfectly to Revelation 5:6, a book written approximately 60 years after the crucifixion, in which John sees Christ in Heaven as “a lamb standing as though slain.” Christ is still presenting His offering to the Father in Heaven even 60 years after His crucifixion.

His offering is perpetual and eternal, which is why He is described as the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” **(Revelation. 13:8). Hebrews 4:3 states that God’s works were completed “from the foundation of the world.” Christ’s work on the cross, His sacrifice, and presentation to the Father, are perpetual and eternal, they exist outside of time. Jesus death on the cross does not contradict the completed works of God before the foundation of the world.

The Mass is no more contradicting than the once for all nature of Christ’s offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God’s work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world. Now when we read the same verse (Hebrews 9:25-26) in the context of this, it becomes much clearer:

“Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

The suffering occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ’s offering is perpetual and eternal. The passages above establish this clearly. Given that, it is clear that (Hebrews 9:25-26) cannot possibly mean that Christ’s offering was a one time, finished and done with thing, because that interpretation clearly contradicts the other verses, both those that say Christ currently and presently has something to offer, and those that say His sacrifice is eternal, having existed since the foundation of the world. Rather, it is the suffering that was a once and done with thing, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly mentions the suffering as being what would have had to happen were He to be sacrificed again.
 
**The Mass, being the Holy Sacrifice is indeed the fulfillment of the command of Christ to “do this in remembrance of me.“ We bring present something that happened in the past. In the Mass this is made a true reality because the acts of Christ permeate all of time. So in the Mass we bring to the present the events of all of salvation history now, in this time, on the altar. And in this we access in time something that is timeless. **
 
You’re right, the passover corresponds to the crucifiction… but it is not a replacement for the crucifiction… it was an illustration. And your mass is not a replacement for the crucifiction although certain elements might illustrate the crucifiction.
BA
How did the Jews understand the Passover?

Ill tell you how from scripture.

**When the Jews celebrated the Passover, they celebrate that very sacrifice that happened when God passed over their houses. Every year the Passover was believed to be part of the original Passover sacrifice.

“When your children ask you what does this rite of yours mean? You shall reply This IS the Passover sacrifice of the Lord who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; when he struck down the Egyptians he spared our houses.” Exodus 12:26-27

And what is the new Passover? In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is called the paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed.

The early Christians believed the same thing about the new Passover meal.
(Hebrews 12:22-24) “No, YOU have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in FESTAL gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel.”

A perfect explanation for what is taking place at the Mass we are having the exact same feast that is taking place in heaven. We are accessing in time something that is timeless.

And this is exactly what John was explaining in Revelation 14:1 “Then I looked and there was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Fathers name written on their foreheads.” John sees the same things that the author of Hebrews was explaining about the Mass. **

My friend you dont know what you are missing.

If any one want to understand more of what I have said you need to read the LAMBS SUPPER by Scott Hann it is the best explenation of the mass it is where I have got most of my information. And if you want to even atemt to understand the book of revelation this is a must read. Including you bibleapologist and your congregation. It will give you something else to preach about. Make your sermons enteresting I know they probably already are but it could spice things up alittle.
 
The Canon was set at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. So, it is useful to look at the documents of Christians who lived prior to and during that time period to determine their understanding of the Eucharist, an understanding that the men who determined that the Gospel of John was inspired would have also had.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” *Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). *

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200). *

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200). *

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). *

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). *
 
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). *

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359). *

Who did not believe that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist? That’s right. It was those *who did not believe that Jesus was God *who found it false that Christ was truly present.

“Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, ‘This is my body,’ let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! Thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee.” *John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370). *

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” *Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372). *

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” *Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). *
 
“…if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” *Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383). *

“ Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He trans-elements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing." *Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383). *

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” *Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391). *

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” *Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418). *

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken.” *Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461). *

Can the Protestants provided any evidence that the pre-Canon Christians understood the Body and Blood in the same way that you purport them to be today - as symbolic?
 
The Didache is recognized by both Catholics and Protestants as the earliest Christian document known. In this document, which was written within 30 years of Christ’s death and resurrection, Christians considered the Mass to be a sacrifice.

The Didache:

14:1 And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
Code:
14:2 And let no man who has a dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled,** that your sacrifice** may not be defiled;
14:3 For this is the same sacrifice spoken of by the Lord;

14:4 In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;

14:5 For I am a great king, says the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations.
Code:
 [ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm](http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm)
Let’s see. Within 30 years of Christ’s death and resurrection, Christians understood the liturgy as a sacrifice, the same sacrifice spoken of by the Lord, which took place many times.
That sounds like a Catholic Mass to me. It most certainly does not sound like a Baptist service.
 
These are some thoughts that have crossed my mind in regards to the Eucharist.

And what’s to say of all the Eucharistic miracles? Is it just a bunch of garbage?? :confused:

Can you honestly tell me, that the faithful that have gone before us missed it?? :rolleyes:

DId Mother Teresa not fully understand her faith? Did she miss it and continue to approach the banquet in ignorance? Did JP2 miss it?? Did my dear patron saint “The Little Flower” miss it?? Did Augustine miss it?? Did St. Francis de Sales(love this man’s writings) miss it? Could they have been duped and yet lived such a beautiful life in union with our Most Precious Saviour. Just my thoughts…
 
Oh ! and maybe you could explain why many walked away, and why Jesus let them walk away.

They certainly took it literally.
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

It is simply impossible to read that with an open mind and not concede that Christ was talking about His literal flesh. Simply impossible. Which is why no Christians ever denied it for 1500 years, until your forebearers tried to understand with their minds rather than with God’s grace, and got it disasterously wrong.
 
Odell, Your response was fantastic! You said things I wanted to say but didn’t quite know how.

Where did bibleapoloist go? I certainly thought he’d have much to say about all our posts.

Oh, well…
 
Please do not use very large fonts. Huge font size adds nothing to the discussion, is considered rude, and does not strengthen one’s argument.
MF
 
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

It is simply impossible to read that with an open mind and not concede that Christ was talking about His literal flesh. Simply impossible. Which is why no Christians ever denied it for 1500 years, until your forebearers tried to understand with their minds rather than with God’s grace, and got it disasterously wrong.
Couldn’t it also be possible to read that verse and concede that Christ was giving his flesh to be crucified?

Wes
 
After all, if He was telling us to eat symbolic flesh and drink symbolic blood, then it must have been only symbolic flesh hanging on the cross and not the real thing!

This might also explain why he said in John 6:63: “the flesh counts for nothing.” The scourging and the crown of thorns and the nails…it was all symbolic!

What are your thoughts?
Randy,
Here is what Patrick Madrid says about John 6…

"if Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.), He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Christ certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Why would Christ reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively? Now point out how the Lord dealt with other situations where His listeners misunderstood the meaning of His words. In each case, He cleared up the misunderstanding. For example, the disciples were confused about His statement, “I have meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32). They thought he was speaking about physical food, real meat. But He quickly cleared up the misunderstanding with the clarification, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, that I may perfect his work” (Matt. 4:34; cf. 16:5-12). Back to John 6. Notice that the Jews argued among themselves about the meaning of Christ’s words. He reiterated the literal meaning again: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” (verses 53-54). In verse 61 we see that no longer was it just the wider audience but “the disciples” themselves who were having difficulty with this radical statement. Surely, if Christ were speaking purely symbolically, it’s reasonable to expect that He would clear up the difficulty even if just among His disciples. But He doesn’t. He stands firm and asks, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (Verse 62-63). Did Christ “symbolically” ascend into heaven after the Resurrection? No. As we see in Acts 1:9-10, His ascension was literal. This is the one and only place in the New Testament where people abandon Christ over one of His teachings. Rather than try to correct any mistaken understanding of His words, the Lord asks His Apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” (verse 67). His Apostles knew He was speaking literally. St. Paul emphasizes the truth of the Real Presence: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord . . . .Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of the Lord’s body and blood, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. For how can one be “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” if it’s merely a symbol? This Greek phrase for being “guilty of someone’s body and blood” (enokos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kuriou) is a technical way of saying “guilty of murder.” If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ, not Christ Himself, this warning would be drastically, absurdly overblown. "
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html
 
"‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’" *Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418). *

1 John 1

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

… The Body of Christ!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top