Transubstantiation and John 6

[maryj]

I believe I have.

“What did He repeat “6 consecutive times”? Is it a matter of which “I Am” is repeated the most? Is it equivilant to taking score in a sports competition? Christ also calls Himself the Good Shepherd. John 10 as a whole is dedicated to Christ as our Shepherd. He also implies it in His prayer in John 17. The Old Testament refers to Him as our Shepherd, so does Peter and Revelation 7:17. There are over 20 “I Am” statements, most of which are repeated more than once. All of them are of equal importance. The context of John 6 is regarding physical food and spiritual food and Christ explaining to the people around Him that while they need physical food to survive, they need HIM to live eternally. He is the True Bread. The Passover points to Christ, Christ replaced the Passover feast the night of the “Last Supper” with what He says we need to do in remembrance of Him. So, taking Christ’s word “remembrance” literally, that is what I do. Christ is my Bread, Shepherd, Gate, Door, Vine, Morning Star, Light, Author and Perfector of my faith, Savior, Lord, Friend, God. He is my lifeline. This is a serious subject to most and once again while most won’t agree with me, I do appreciate this thread. Thankyou.”

I take Christ’s words as they are. He said He is my Bread, Light, Shepherd and so on…all of this I believe. He is the ONLY Way Truth and Life and I will not come to the Father but through HIM. He saved me. I have not saved myself. If I don’t believe in His work for me then I am spiritually dead. If I don’t believe in Him as my lifeline then I will not see Him in Heaven. God gave me life and God gave me eternal life. Christ Jesus is my Bread. Food and drink keeps me physically alive but Christ keeps me alive eternally. He is my Saviour.

At the Last Supper Christ did not say “I am” the bread, he said “This is My Body” not I am the bread. You are taking the word remembrance “literally”…do you know what was meant when the Israelites were told at the Passover to do in remebrance? It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means to make present, as though it were happening now.

 

[BrunoMaria]

…it seems Jesus’ speaking in parables might have the same goal as making ambiguous statements–to obscure the truth from some who should not hear it. The question is this: Why? Why is it sometimes more loving and more wise to keep the truth a secret from many? I have an opinion about that, but I’d like to hear what you think, Bruno.

Well, when our parents in our presence spoke ambiguous among each other, then they did so because they loved us kids, but they knew we would misunderstand anyhow and then misuse their statements for actions and thoughts and behaviors that would in the end have hurt us.

When we today in the presence of an enemy speak ambiguous among friendly parties, then we do so, because these persons might (sinfully) misuse this message against us.

Jesus here in His love knew, that these who in their marrow refuse Him, this way refuse the truth and so struggling would sink even deeper into the quicksand of their sin. Jesus avoided that, by not letting them understand - He “held their eyes and ears” as the Bible says, out of love for His enemies.

Yours
Bruno

 

[GraceSofia]

In the Early Church there was a lot of debate over the Trinity (the Arian heresy).
The same Church Fathers who developed the doctrine of the Trinity also developed the doctrine of the Real Presence. So why do Protestants accept the one but not the other?

It makes no sense to me.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, that makes sense. The devil’s goal is to divide and conquer. But is this his only strategy? Paul writes:

3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

(Galatians 3)

“If you can’t beat them, join them!” Protestants tell me. “Satan has joined the Catholic Church and corrupted her from within!”

Two diabolical strategums of the cold war on the Church–which is the real strategum, and which is the one demonic secret agents have not used, but want others to think they have used? Perhaps the satanic spies are utilizing both to some degree?

The devil attacks all that is good and holy. He divides, as that weakens the Body. Pope Paul VI said that Satan seeps into the Church like smoke through cracks. Yet, the doors are being opened as we speak and the cleansing is occurring. It is not without pain of drama. Simple fact: protestantism goes back 495 years and drops dead at the door of the Catholic Church. It is, in no way, the “original Church.” The Orthodox also rejected protestantism when overtures were made toward them by reformers in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Think for yourself: Christ’s Body has been shredded by heresy since it was established. Is there none occurring today? The Arians were exceedingly popular in the first few hundred years of the Church - yet they were also exceedingly wrong and heretical. Yet, they claimed that the Church was wrong and they were right. Sound familiar?

Which Church is the target of the world’s hatred and animosity? Identify it, and you have a good idea of the true Church.

 

[spockrates]

Why do you call yourself a closet Catholic?:whacky:

I wonder why you ask. What do you believe a Catholic is, Cinette?

 

[spockrates]

I suppose it has been a litle clearer to me that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. After all, wasn’t Peter’s named changed to mean Rock? Also, Christ talks of Himself as the cornerstone (that which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone). From this perspective, you have your foundation (Peter) and you have your cornerstone (Christ). What am I missing?

I don’t disagree this is a probable interpretation of Christ’s words, Jim. I’m just explaining how Protestant can disagree and still be intellectually honest.



Once you know why they believe, you will be better prepared to reason with them. Here’s what a Protestant who visits the forum will likely say:

“Jesus asked his disciples, ‘Who do you say I am?’ Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘You have answered correctly…and on this rock I will build my Church.’ So the truth about who Jesus is, is the rock.”

I’m not saying Protestants are right. I’m just explaining why they believe they are right.

 

[spockrates]

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors for belief. Certainly there is an example somewhere in either the OT or the NT where eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood means “belief.”

I’d also like to know why Protestants don’t find Jesus’ use of canibalism as a metaphor offensive!



Next time a Protestant suggests the Communion is canibalism, ask her that.

 

[spockrates]

Well, when our parents in our presence spoke ambiguous among each other, then they did so because they loved us kids, but they knew we would misunderstand anyhow and then misuse their statements for actions and thoughts and behaviors that would in the end have hurt us.

When we today in the presence of an enemy speak ambiguous among friendly parties, then we do so, because these persons might (sinfully) misuse this message against us.

Jesus here in His love knew, that these who in their marrow refuse Him, this way refuse the truth and so struggling would sink even deeper into the quicksand of their sin. Jesus avoided that, by not letting them understand - He “held their eyes and ears” as the Bible says, out of love for His enemies.

Yours
Bruno

Yes, I think you might be correct. Consider these words of our Redeemer:

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

(John 9:41)

What I wonder is this: Does Jesus, knowing some will reject the truth, give them a reason to be blind to their rejection? Does he do so out of mercy to keep them from being guilty of willfully rejecting that truth? It seems to me that a Protestant might not be culpable for a sin she fails to see. You see?

 

[MollyMac]

At the Last Supper Christ did not say “I am” the bread, he said “This is My Body” not I am the bread. You are taking the word remembrance “literally”…do you know what was meant when the Israelites were told at the Passover to do in remebrance? It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means to make present, as though it were happening now.

Christ also called the wine the “fruit of the vine”. Mathew 26:29-“I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” This was during the giving of the wine.

I believe it does mean what I think it means with regards to the Passover feast. They were partaking in a feast that was full of symbolism. And the Passover feast points directly to our Saviour’s work of freeing us from eternal bondage in hell(1Cor.5:7, Hebrews10). His body would be hung on the cursed cross and His blood poured out for many. Jesus explains this very clearly at the table that night (the same night that the disciples are still contemplating whether He will be an earthly Messiah). I believe Christ accomplished this brokeness and pouring out with all my heart. And because of His death and resurrection, I am set free. What many are implying here is that somehow my profession of Christ as my Lord and Saviour is null and void b/c I do not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation-that I am anathematized. Christ saved me a sinner. I betray God when I sin, but understand and believe that He is faithful and just to forgive my sins and cleanse me from all unrighteousness(1John1:9). I want to please my Saviour because I love Him more than anything and anyone in this world.

 

[MollyMac]

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors for belief. Certainly there is an example somewhere in either the OT or the NT where eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood means “belief.”

I apologize, I’m not understanding why you are asking this question-if eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors. Where are you going with it?

 

[MollyMac]

This is what I documented in # 208 with 4 small assignments for you on the bottom,which you never answered or completed, which makes me think you prefer to avoid the reality of what Jesus intended his audience to understand in John 6:

Oh, I’m sorry headmaster Jim1130. I did not realize there was a grade or deadline on the assignment. I guess I thought I explained myself in the other posts but I could break down your post since I am apparently being graded…and I’m sure there is ***no ***curve! Give me a little while though as I have other homework to attend to as well.

 

[jim1130]

I apologize, I’m not understanding why you are asking this question-if eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors. Where are you going with it?

You are inferring that Christ was speaking figuratively in John 6; that Christ is speaking figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Therefore, I am asking you to show me where in the Bible that eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood are figurative ways of saying “belief.”

 

[MollyMac]

Oh, I’m sorry headmaster Jim1130. I did not realize there was a grade or deadline on the assignment. I guess I thought I explained myself in the other posts but I could break down your post since I am apparently being graded…and I’m sure there is ***no ***curve! Give me a little while though as I have other homework to attend to as well.

Ok, sorry about the sarcastic “headmaster jim” remark, but I had flashbacks of my grammar school days. Here is my response to your questions-

I can see where you are coming from; however, “vine,” “gate,” “light,” etc. are understood to be metaphors, then as of now. If I said “you are solid as an oak” would that mean you are an acorn-sprouting tree? No. It is a metaphor to describe your strength and stability. When Christ said He “is the cornerstone that the builders rejected” people understood the metaphor. When Christ told St. Peter that he is the foundation on which Christ will build His Church it was understood that St. Peter was not a stone slab.
Can it be used with Christ saying, “I am the bread of life” then? Why is that not a metaphor, why is it an actuality, yet all the other words Christ called Himself are metaphors? (Do I understand you correctly?)

**# 1 - Outside of St. John’s Gospel, Chapter 6, find an example in the Bible where eating someone’s body and drinking someone’s blood are figurative statements associated with faith and love. **
1 Corinthians 11- 23-29.

** # 2 - At Capernaum where Christ addressed the Jews, what did “eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood” mean to the Jews?
**
Eating His body and drinking His blood which because they took Him literally,they believed He was asking them to break the Levitical Law. Jesus brings up the fact immediately that they are only following Him b/c they got a free meal the day before. They were thinking about the physical food that would satisfy their physical hunger. Jesus was there to satisfy their souls, but He knew that that would not be the case for them as He states in verse 36 and 37.

**# 3 - What is the key word in these verses that shows christ is speaking literally rather than figuratively? St. John 6:54-55, Jesus says, “Whosever eats my body and drinks my blood will have eternal life, for, my flesh is indeed food and my blood is indeed drink.” **
You will have to answer this one. This can be applied to any of the “I am” statements.
Example: St. John 15 “I am the true vine and my Father is the Vinedresser.”

# 4 - If the message of Christ at Capernaum was understood to be figurative, why did not Christ call back those who walked away to explain that He was NOT speaking literally? That they misunderstood?

St. John 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Then I continue reading on to St. John 6:60-71, and on to St. John 10 and then read St. John 17. Christ knew the sheep would hear His voice. He did not have to turn around and explain.

I hope this explains the reason I believe what I do. I truly love My Good Shepherd.

 

[MollyMac]

You are inferring that Christ was speaking figuratively in John 6; that Christ is speaking figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Therefore, I am asking you to show me where in the Bible that eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood are figurative ways of saying “belief.”

Why?

 

[jim1130]

Ok, sorry about the sarcastic “headmaster jim” remark, but I had flashbacks of my grammar school days. Here is my response to your questions

I laughed. I went to a Catholic High School. We had a Headmaster.

I can see where you are coming from; however, “vine,” “gate,” “light,” etc. are understood to be metaphors, then as of now. If I said “you are solid as an oak” would that mean you are an acorn-sprouting tree? No. It is a metaphor to describe your strength and stability. When Christ said He “is the cornerstone that the builders rejected” people understood the metaphor. When Christ told St. Peter that he is the foundation on which Christ will build His Church it was understood that St. Peter was not a stone slab.
Can it be used with Christ saying, “I am the bread of life” then? Why is that not a metaphor, why is it an actuality, yet all the other words Christ called Himself are metaphors? (Do I understand you correctly?)

I do not think so. You seemed to be saying a metaphor was being created. I was giving you examples of metaphors that are WELL understood to be metaphors. “Vine, “gate, “light” etc. were examples of metaphors understood by the Jews at that time (and even us). We still use them today. I was asking you to show me where eating flesh and drinking blood in the Bible are metaphors for belief. You did provide one from 1 Corinthians and it was my fault for not stating the question clear: I should have asked for you to clarify that, at the time Jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood, what did the Jews understand it to mean? For that you would have had to visit the OT. Sorry.

**# 1 - Outside of St. John’s Gospel, Chapter 6, find an example in the Bible where eating someone’s body and drinking someone’s blood are figurative statements associated with faith and love. **

This was my fault. I should have clarified that for the Jews listening to Christ at that moment, what would eat my flesh and drink my blood have meant to the Jews. 1 Corinthians 11- 23-29 was not written at the time Jesus spoke at Capernaum. This is my fault. You did what I asked.

** # 2 - At Capernaum where Christ addressed the Jews, what did “eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood” mean to the Jews? **

Eating His body and drinking His blood which because they took Him literally,they believed He was asking them to break the Levitical Law. Jesus brings up the fact immediately that they are only following Him b/c they got a free meal the day before. They were thinking about the physical food that would satisfy their physical hunger. Jesus was there to satisfy their souls, but He knew that that would not be the case for them as He states in verse 36 and 37.

We know that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively, because to the Jews of his day “eating someone’s flesh and drinking his blood” was the idiomatic phrase synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder. It was not a good thing. This is clear from such passages as Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26.

Micah 3:1-3 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

Isaiah 9:20 20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isaiah 49:26 26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.
Above is what the Jews understood at that time Jesus spoke.

And I showed you examples where Jesus corrected misunderstanding. Where were the corrections to the misunderstandings this time? None. Christ has corrected misunderstandings before (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3: 3, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6) so if Jesus was NOT to be understood as speaking literally then why did he not clarify and correct any misunderstanding? Christ confirms their literal acceptance at the risk He will lose some or all of them. Which group would you have been?

 

[jim1130]

**# 3 - What is the key word in these verses that shows Christ is speaking literally rather than figuratively? St. John 6:54-55, Jesus says, “Whosever eats my body and drinks my blood will have eternal life, for, my flesh is indeed food and my blood is indeed drink.” **

You will have to answer this one. This can be applied to any of the “I am” statements. Example: St. John 15 “I am the true vine and my Father is the Vinedresser.”

Again, “vine” is an understood metaphor. The key word in “Whosever eats my body and drinks my blood will have eternal life, for, my flesh is indeed food and my blood is indeed drink” is the word “INDEED.” Why is the word “indeed” used? My flesh is food INDEED. My blood is INDEED drink."

INDEED.

Why did he not say “My flesh is LIKE food” (figurative) and “my blood is LIKE drink” (figurative). Because he wanted to emphasize that “My flesh is INDEED food” and “My blood is INDEED drink.” Why did he use the word INDEED? Because he meant if literally. His flesh is food and his blood is drink.

# 4 - If the message of Christ at Capernaum was understood to be figurative, why did not Christ call back those who walked away to explain that He was NOT speaking literally? That they misunderstood?
St. John 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Then I continue reading on to St. John 6:60-71, and on to St. John 10 and then read St. John 17. Christ knew the sheep would hear His voice. He did not have to turn around and explain.
I hope this explains the reason I believe what I do. I truly love My Good Shepherd.

I think this portion of your answer truly answers all of my questions. All non-Catholics use John 6:35-36 as the big scale tipper. No surprise there. The fact that you opted to skim to verse 60 shows me that you would rather avoid the verses since it does not align with your opinion. By skipping over the verses you deprive yourself of what was intended. It is like having a cinematic climax in the middle of the movie rather than the end.

Six times Christ says to eat His flesh and drink His blood, with Christ’s oath, 6:54 “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” and re-emphasized in 6:56 "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Where does Christ clarify “Amen, amen, I say to you, that bread is figurative for belief in me and blood is figurative for belief in me.” After all, he clarified other moments of confusion (see: Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3: 3, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6).

Lastly, look at where the word “is” is placed in Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25. Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood.

 

[jim1130]

Why?

Because for you to understand what it means you have to understand what it meant to the Jews at the time of Christ.

To the Jews, eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood was not a good thing. it was the idiomatic phrase synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder. This is clear from such passages as Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26.

Micah 3:1-3 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

Isaiah 9:20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isaiah 49:26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

Above is what the Jews understood at that time Jesus spoke.

 

[Cinette]

I wonder why you ask. What do you believe a Catholic is, Cinette?

*You are not answering my question!
*

 

[Cinette]

I’d also like to know why Protestants don’t find Jesus’ use of canibalism as a metaphor offensive!



Next time a Protestant suggests the Communion is canibalism, ask her that.

I find this talk of cannibalism offensive in the extreme. Protestants who find Jesus’ discourse in John 6 “repulsive” find Jesus repulsive. They deny what Jesus said with emphasis. They know better! Sad.

 

[fnr]

One word I never see brought into the conversation (sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread; just joined and I’m skimming): epiousios. It’s the “daily” in the “daily bread” of the Lord’s Prayer in both Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3. Except “daily” isn’t a particularly good translation. The actual meaning comes from Greek roots: “epi-” meaning beyond or across and “ousios” meaning substance. Literally, it means “beyond substance.” Another way of phrasing it in English is “trans-substantial.”

The word epiousios appears no where else in the Hellenstic world. Literally, if we are to translate the Greek properly, we should read the Lord’s prayer as “give us this day our transubstantial bread.”