To those who deny the true presence

[workingman]

This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

 

[CalCatholic]

Isn’t it amazing how many Christian denominations will quote the Bible letter and verse and condemn others for not following its teachings, but will over look such a vital teaching as this, and dismiss the Lord’s words here as allegory. I don’t know how they do it?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Isn’t it amazing how many Christian denominations will quote the Bible letter and verse and condemn others for not following its teachings, but will over look such a vital teaching as this, and dismiss the Lord’s words here as allegory. I don’t know how they do it?

Very qood question ,not trying to get off thread but tell me how most non-cathloic ignore this verse " When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

 

[JonNC]

This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

I think figurative language in John 6 and the real presence are, to a degree, 2 different issues.
There is language in John 6 that appears figurative, and my expereince is that those who believe in a symbolic presence will stand on this to justify their position.
The accounts of the Last Supper, on the other hand, is literal language. This is the only time that I know of where Christ says “this is me” when he holds the bread at the last supper.
Other times, he says, “I am this”, (this being “the door”, etc) This is figurative. He doesn’t say the door is Him. The language is different.

The Last Supper accounts are just more effective to use to defend the real presence.

Jon

 

[ljubim]

I’m proud to be a Papist too

I once read a conversion story and the man suggested that everybody who wants to learn about Catholics to go to a priest, not some anti-catholic minister, because if you want to know about sightseeing in Norway, that you don’t go to the Swedish Board of Tourism. And the story goes on that as he spoek with the priest, he felt embarrased that he had read all of these verses before and hadn’t understood what they were talking about, because it was so clear.

It seems like if Protestants truly read the Bible, they would all be Catholics. But unfortunately the world isn’t perfect.

 

[TristanCross]

Well, Jesus didn’t even institute the Lord’s Supper yet. Also, you’re leaving out verse 64, which says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” It’s pretty obvious that He isn’t talking about the Lord’s Supper. I even believe in the real presence, but refuse to use this verse as proof. Just like Matthew 16. I don’t believe Peter is the rock. I believe Jesus is. But, I believe the papal beginnings were when Peter was told, “Feed my sheep.” So, I take Augustine’s interpretation.

I don’t force things so I can prove my point. I don’t take it out of context, I don’t pretend that He was talking about the Eucharist. I don’t pretend that that “through fire” verse in Corinthians proves Purgatory. Because they don’t. I don’t know why Catholics keep clinging to the smallest things that MAY be referring to something they believe in. If it isn’t clear, don’t use it. I once believed in the rapture. I found a verse in Scripture and went to a Protestant friend who was also a rapturist to show him my find. I told him, and he said that the verse I found wasn’t talking about the rapture. He could have just lied and said, “Yep. That’s the rapture. Prove it with that.” No, he told me with honesty that it wasn’t referring to the rapture and told me how it wasn’t referring the rapture. Catholics need to take from this example.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

Well, Jesus didn’t even institute the Lord’s Supper yet. Also, you’re leaving out verse 64, which says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” It’s pretty obvious that He isn’t talking about the Lord’s Supper. I even believe in the real presence, but refuse to use this verse as proof.

While He hadn’t yet instituted the Eucharist, I think it is fair to imply that He was alluding to what was to come. As for 64, I’ve never thought that to refer to His own flesh. It can’t, because to do so would deny the importance of the incarnation. I agree with you about using this chapter as proof of the real presence, the Last Supper accounts are much better.

Jon

 

[2nd_Adam]

This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

I think we all take some things in Scripture in a literal sense, and other things in a figurative sense. So, why do you take the saying of Jesus of being literal in regards to his literal flesh, yet you do not take him literally in cutting off your right hand or plucking out your eye?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. - Jesus

 

[workingman]

I think figurative language in John 6 and the real presence are, to a degree, 2 different issues.
There is language in John 6 that appears figurative, and my expereince is that those who believe in a symbolic presence will stand on this to justify their position.
The accounts of the Last Supper, on the other hand, is literal language. This is the only time that I know of where Christ says “this is me” when he holds the bread at the last supper.
Other times, he says, “I am this”, (this being “the door”, etc) This is figurative. He doesn’t say the door is Him. The language is different.

The Last Supper accounts are just more effective to use to defend the real presence.

Jon

Hi Jon, You are right in saying some language in chapter six can be figurative. I do find it a week argument though to justify that position. The Last Supper accounts are better in the wording of it being a literal presence. I did make a slip in not including some verses though. I will correct this in a bit.

 

[workingman]

Well, Jesus didn’t even institute the Lord’s Supper yet. Also, you’re leaving out verse 64, which says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” It’s pretty obvious that He isn’t talking about the Lord’s Supper. I even believe in the real presence, but refuse to use this verse as proof. Just like Matthew 16. I don’t believe Peter is the rock. I believe Jesus is. But, I believe the papal beginnings were when Peter was told, “Feed my sheep.” So, I take Augustine’s interpretation.

I don’t force things so I can prove my point. I don’t take it out of context, I don’t pretend that He was talking about the Eucharist. I don’t pretend that that “through fire” verse in Corinthians proves Purgatory. Because they don’t. I don’t know why Catholics keep clinging to the smallest things that MAY be referring to something they believe in. If it isn’t clear, don’t use it. I once believed in the rapture. I found a verse in Scripture and went to a Protestant friend who was also a rapturist to show him my find. I told him, and he said that the verse I found wasn’t talking about the rapture. He could have just lied and said, “Yep. That’s the rapture. Prove it with that.” No, he told me with honesty that it wasn’t referring to the rapture and told me how it wasn’t referring the rapture. Catholics need to take from this example.

God bless.

I did make a bobo in not including something from the chapter. So let me continue John 6
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

Now not to cherry pick but if Christ was not talking about his literal body and blood why in verse 67 would many of the disciples leave?

 

[workingman]

I think we all take some things in Scripture in a literal sense, and other things in a figurative sense. So, why do you take the saying of Jesus of being literal in regards to his literal flesh, yet you do not take him literally in cutting off your right hand or plucking out your eye?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. - Jesus

Please see above for a complete finish of the OP. I goofed and made a mistake and cut it short. As JohnNC pointed out we can bring up the last supper language also.

See 1Corr 11:24-25, Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20.
The word is means just that is as in it is…

 

[CalCatholic]

Well, Jesus didn’t even institute the Lord’s Supper yet. Also, you’re leaving out verse 64, which says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” It’s pretty obvious that He isn’t talking about the Lord’s Supper. I even believe in the real presence, but refuse to use this verse as proof. Just like Matthew 16. I don’t believe Peter is the rock. I believe Jesus is. But, I believe the papal beginnings were when Peter was told, “Feed my sheep.” So, I take Augustine’s interpretation.

I don’t force things so I can prove my point. I don’t take it out of context, I don’t pretend that He was talking about the Eucharist. I don’t pretend that that “through fire” verse in Corinthians proves Purgatory. Because they don’t. I don’t know why Catholics keep clinging to the smallest things that MAY be referring to something they believe in. If it isn’t clear, don’t use it. I once believed in the rapture. I found a verse in Scripture and went to a Protestant friend who was also a rapturist to show him my find. I told him, and he said that the verse I found wasn’t talking about the rapture. He could have just lied and said, “Yep. That’s the rapture. Prove it with that.” No, he told me with honesty that it wasn’t referring to the rapture and told me how it wasn’t referring the rapture. Catholics need to take from this example.

God bless.

Catholics don’t rely on a verse or two of scripture to pass on teachings such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Trinity or Communion of the Saints, etc. We have the authority of the Magisterium of the Church to interpret scripture, as it has for the last 2000 years. These teachings didn’t drop out of the sky, they were passed on from the Apostles (written and oral) throught the early Church Fathers, and through the Popes and thier Bishops till present time. How do we know that teachings like the rapture are true, because they were not passed on for the 1800 years prior to thier development in the mid-nineteenth century.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Reading the narrative, one thing becomes a bit hard to ignore. That many left him after this hard teaching.

Now, catholics will find this to be additional evidence that it was evidence he meant it to be literal. To be honest- forgetting that part, I lean to the literal on this passage if one was making a choice.

But, the double edged sword here is, Jesus also wished they all be “one”.

Yet, he did not go after the ones who found it a hard teaching, and he knew why they would as a practicing faithful Jew.

I don’t want to say that was cruel, but it was like expecting someone to throw away everything they were ever taught, and dismiss it with no explaination given.

Confusing.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well, Jesus didn’t even institute the Lord’s Supper yet.

Although the bible is inspired by God, it is written by men. The gospel of John was written by the apostle John at least 20 years after the resurrection.

By that time, it is likely that John had participated in hundreds of eucharistic services.

John knew exactly what he was writing.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the apostle John, wrote this about the gnostics in about 110 AD:

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).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Reading the narrative, one thing becomes a bit hard to ignore. That many left him after this hard teaching.

Now, catholics will find this to be additional evidence that it was evidence he meant it to be literal. To be honest- forgetting that part, I lean to the literal on this passage if one was making a choice.

But, the double edged sword here is, Jesus also wished they all be “one”.

Yet, he did not go after the ones who found it a hard teaching, and he knew why they would as a practicing faithful Jew.

I don’t want to say that was cruel, but it was like expecting someone to throw away everything they were ever taught, and dismiss it with no explaination given.

Confusing.

I believe that Jesus said that he wished all Christians to be one, not all people.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I believe that Jesus said that he wished all Christians to be one, not all people.

I assumed the reader would realize that obvious detail.

For clarity, yes- he meant all that believed in him should be one

I hope that is clear to anyone if they bother to read the narrative.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I assumed the reader would realize that obvious detail.

For clarity, yes- he meant all that believed in him should be one

I hope that is clear to anyone if they bother to read the narrative.

Given that we agree on this point, I’m not sure what point you were making with your post.

Could you clarify?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Given that we agree on this point, I’m not sure what point you were making with your post.

Could you clarify?

Here it is in a nutshell.

If, as you and I agree he was literal on this one, then it would be a rejection of him to take it in any other way. (let’s not bicker about points of degrees or knowledge, lack of, and so on for now)

Yet, we have a Christ who wishes all believers to be one.

And the ones that left saying it was a hard teaching had been following him, listening to him, and cleary were a willing audience.

He says he wants them all that believe in him to be one, but would let many who apparently did or wanted to hear him out, leave.

Confusing.

It’s like expecting a 3 year old to be able to forget all the times mom and dad told him not to touch a hot stove. For believing Jews, this is a really contrary teaching to what they always knew.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One translation from the original language Jesus uses in John 6;… from the “eat my flesh and drink my blood” is translated “gnaw, or munch down” giving the true expression of consuming or truly eating his flesh and drinking his blood. In the hearing of the first century disciples of Jesus, who understood that they “must eat the passover lamb” in order to fulfill the law, understood Jesus speech as literal, and that is why many of them left Jesus, This teaching of Jesus was too hard for their hearing (faith).

This same reasoning reaches the new 18th century non catholic interpretation when non catholics try to force the words of Jesus when he speaks of the “Spirit and the flesh”, as if Jesus is talking figuratively because most non catholics from the 18th century on… are taught that “Spirit” in the bible can mean figuratively. Never in scripture does Spirit imply a symbolic or figurative spirit. They cannot accept this teaching from Jesus as literal speech, because it confirms the 2000 year old Apostolic Teaching of the Eucharist. So they rest on a new man made invention of a symbolic spirit to justify their New late Christian teachings from the 18th century…

IF God can breathe his Spirit into the body of dust and water and give it life as he did the first Adam, it is not difficult for God to speak to the bread and wine with the lamb present to become his body and blood for the sins of the world. The Law requires that the believer eat the lamb which God provides himself and Jesus commands all his followers to “Eat his flesh and drink his blood” which he himself provides in the Eucharist. Today for those non catholics who refuse this first century literal translation are those who dont follow Jesus in his teaching have heard it and walked away from his “True Presence”.
Peace be with you

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Here it is in a nutshell.

If, as you and I agree he was literal on this one, then it would be a rejection of him to take it in any other way. (let’s not bicker about points of degrees or knowledge, lack of, and so on for now)

Yet, we have a Christ who wishes all believers to be one.

And the ones that left saying it was a hard teaching had been following him, listening to him, and cleary were a willing audience.

He says he wants them all that believe in him to be one, but would let many who apparently did or wanted to hear him out, leave.

Confusing.

It’s like expecting a 3 year old to be able to forget all the times mom and dad told him not to touch a hot stove. For believing Jews, this is a really contrary teaching to what they always knew.

I understand your point now.

I guess the unknown here is the reason that these people were following him. I don’t think this is different from the situation of any temporary follower of a particular faith.

You are a member only to the extent that you follow the beliefs and practices of the organization.