Transubstantiation and John 6

[jim1130]

*St Augustine, the Church Fathers and Christians for the first 1600 years after Jesus believed in Transubstantiation.

So you believe in what Jesus said (repeating himself 6 times in succession) but you doubt what he meant! :whacky::whacky:*

I would like to chime in even though I am guessing this may have already been emphasized. For me, it is pretty straight forward because you have the support of the Synoptic Gospels, St. Paul, and Early Church Fathers.

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; this is my blood.

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the [a]covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Mark 14: 22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a]

Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood. Jesus says it is his body; it is his blood.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Justin Martyr wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

John 6:55 “For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.” If Jesus did not mean it literally, why did he say “indeed?”

(The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373):

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

More and more non-Catholics seem to take the “parting meal” position.

 

[spockrates]

*St Augustine, the Church Fathers and Christians for the first 1600 years after Jesus believed in Transubstantiation.

So you believe in what Jesus said (repeating himself 6 times in succession) but you doubt what he meant! :whacky::whacky:*

No, I don’t doubt that he meant what he said, but I do doubt I’m 100% certain that I understand the meaning of what he said. I do agree that the witness of the early Church fathers is mostly in agreement with the current teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence. I do think that if this was a topic of disagreement among early Christians, there would be writings much earlier than the 16th century AD regarding the debate. It seems history is on the side of the Catholic Church.

The only early Church father of whom I’m aware who did not wrote of the bread and wine without supporting the Real Presence was Clement of Alexandria. He wrote of the symbolic significance of the bread and wine. This, however is no proof that he did not believe in the Real Presence. He might have very well have accepted the doctrine, but also believed there was a symbolic significance to the bread and wine in addition to the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[jim1130]

No, I don’t doubt that he meant what he said, but I do doubt I’m 100% certain that I understand the meaning of what he said. I do agree that the witness of the early Church fathers is mostly in agreement with the current teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence. I do think that if this was a topic of disagreement among early Christians, there would be writings much earlier than the 16th century AD regarding the debate. It seems history is on the side of the Catholic Church.

The only early Church father of whom I’m aware who did not wrote of the bread and wine without supporting the Real Presence was Clement of Alexandria. He wrote of the symbolic significance of the bread and wine. This, however is no proof that he did not believe in the Real Presence. He might have very well have accepted the doctrine, but also believed there was a symbolic significance to the bread and wine in addition to the Real Presence of Christ.

To not take Jesus at his word, you take John 6 as figurative. If it is figurative, it reads like this:

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 a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat a cracker which is a symbol of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh grape juice as a symbol of 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 in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, 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 which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, 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 that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood 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 to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?
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.

The clarificaitons from Jesus and the reactions of the disciples do not jive if taken figuratively. I am not sure how else to help explain it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jim,



Yes, John 6 (as written by John…) is very convincing. You know, not one has tried a 100-word summary of John 6. I find that truly telling - so many claiming to have read it hundreds of times and claim to know it - refusing to just to read it once and write down what was said. I really think the meat of the argument lies here - to simply summarize what was written in so few words means that not only must the summary be clear, there is room for evasion.

Ah… the crackers and grape juice was pretty outrageous.

God bless

To not take Jesus at his word, you take John 6 as figurative. If it is figurative, it reads like this:

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 a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat a cracker which is a symbol of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh grape juice as a symbol of 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 in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, 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 which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, 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 that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood 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 to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?
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.

The clarificaitons from Jesus and the reactions of the disciples do not jive if taken figuratively. I am not sure how else to help explain it.

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Jim,



Yes, John 6 (as written by John…) is very convincing. You know, not one has tried a 100-word summary of John 6. I find that truly telling - so many claiming to have read it hundreds of times and claim to know it - refusing to just to read it once and write down what was said. I really think the meat of the argument lies here - to simply summarize what was written in so few words means that not only must the summary be clear, there is room for evasion.

Ah… the crackers and grape juice was pretty outrageous.

God bless

Yes I agree. In fact it is embarrassing for those who avoid your challenge. It is telling!
:ehh:

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Jim,



Yes, John 6 (as written by John…) is very convincing. You know, not one has tried a 100-word summary of John 6. I find that truly telling - so many claiming to have read it hundreds of times and claim to know it - refusing to just to read it once and write down what was said. I really think the meat of the argument lies here - to simply summarize what was written in so few words means that not only must the summary be clear, there is room for evasion.

Ah… the crackers and grape juice was pretty outrageous.

God bless

Tom:

I’ve finished my 100-word summary. Thanks for challenging me.

 

[spockrates]

Yes I agree. In fact it is embarrassing for those who avoid your challenge. It is telling!
:ehh:

Sorry to make you blush, Cinette!

 

[Cinette]

Sorry to make you blush, Cinette!

*I don’t mind blushing! It makes my cheeks rosy! So where is the 100 word summary?

Cinette*

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

Why am I not surprised

It must be very difficult to change positions with every post - personally, you may really need just to find one position and clearly say what you mean and mean what you say. This does not seem to be difficult for anyone else on this thread.

I gather you have not yet had time to look at that encyclical from JP II? I really think it would cut through these games. To believe one’s words but doubt their intent - is meaningless
Christ identified that there is a Hell, that it last forever, and it is a place of constant torment - yet there are those who claim to follow Christ who doubt the meaning of any of this and claim that God is too good and merciful to allow for eternal suffering. Those who claim to believe Christ words actually believe their meaning, too! And, the way we know His Meaning is to listen to the Church He founded on Peter, believe that the Gates of Hell will not prevail and that His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) can not teach error. And it is as simple as that.

As you plow through the writings of St. Augustine - there is no evidence of this ‘double-speak’: to believe the words but to insert one’s own meaning to make the words now believable. Actually, none of the ECF were ambiguous about the Real Presence - they believed it totally and without reservation. So, it makes no sense to me that you are waving the banner of the ECFs yet doubting what they meant. And this is just what you are presenting.

And, in thinking about what the founder of the Protestant revolt had to say about the Real Presence - check out this site: bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/

Concerning Luther’s believe in Mary being the Mother of God and her perpetual virginity - check out this site: orthodoxyforlutherans.blogspot.com/2010/09/martin-luther-on-mother-of-god.html

Seriously, I am begining to fatigue of these games you are plalying. I suggest you engage, identify what you believe and provide some references that actually back up your position. Note, you have been given an abundane of sites to look at, read, study and meditate upon. There is no evidence that any of this actual work has taken place. So, I conclude you are not serious about this very Sacred Topic. The ball is in your court and I suspect that you will just dribble for the remainder of this thread.

God bless

Tom:

Yes, sorry for trying your patience. I suppose if you’ve prayed for more patience, lately, I might be God’s answer to your prayer!



For as Socrates said, “I have, I fear a tedious way of asking a simple question.” But my questions are not a game. They are sincere in intent and Socratic in method and their design is to increase my wisdom, and so strengthen my faith. As I’ve said, I do have faith that the Catholic Church teaches the truth about Jesus, but it is weak at best. I want to increase my faith in the truth by first increasing my wisdom about the truth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Ahhhhhhhhh… I see you noticed that omission, too…

God bless

*I don’t mind blushing! It makes my cheeks rosy! So where is the 100 word summary?

Cinette*

 

[spockrates]

*I don’t mind blushing! It makes my cheeks rosy! So where is the 100 word summary?

Cinette*

I’ve got it, here. Sounds like you want me to post it. That would be beyond my ability, as I post my replies using a smart phone. My thumbs would cramp up, or my battery would die before I could possibly finish typing it!



But I’ll be happy to answer your questions. What do you want to know about my essay?

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Cinette,

Ahhhhhhhhh… I see you noticed that omission, too…

God bless

Hey, Tom. Please see my next reply to our friend.

 

[Cinette]

I’ve got it, here. Sounds like you want me to post it. That would be beyond my ability, as I post my replies using a smart phone. My thumbs would cramp up, or my battery would die before I could possibly finish typing it!



But I’ll be happy to answer your questions. What do you want to know about my essay?

What is the point of hiding the 100 word summary from us? You were supposed to share it with us!!:crying::crying:

 

[spockrates]

What is the point of hiding the 100 word summary from us? You were supposed to share it with us!!:crying::crying:

How am I supposed to type 100 words with an iPhone?



My thumbs can handle a brief summary, if you like.

 

[spockrates]

To not take Jesus at his word, you take John 6 as figurative. If it is figurative, it reads like this:

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 a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat a cracker which is a symbol of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh grape juice as a symbol of 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 in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, 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 which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, 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 that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood 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 to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?
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.

The clarificaitons from Jesus and the reactions of the disciples do not jive if taken figuratively. I am not sure how else to help explain it.

Actually, Protestants tell me he meant this:

51 I am [like] living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man** [believes in me]**, he shall live for ever; and…I will give…my flesh…for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless you** [believe in]** the Son of Man and…**[the sacrifice of] **his blood, you will have no life in you.

54 Whosoever** [believes in me]** has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day.

55 For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.

56 He that **[believes in me] ** dwells in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that [believes in] me shall live by me.

58 This is that** [one who]** came down from Heaven. Your fathers ate manna and are dead; he that** [believes in me]** shall live for ever.”

59 These things said He in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Many of His disciples therefore, when they had heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, “Does this **[idea that I came from heaven] **offend you?

62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are [spiritual and symbolic], and they are life.

So what should you and I say to Protestants who tell us the words, “eat my flesh and drink my blood” mean, “believe in me and my sacrificial death”?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

I don’t know how things are out your way … but over here, every public library has computers with internet access. Even if you are traveling, you can stop off at a library, let them hold on to your drivers license, and you can catch up on your e-mails, serf-the-web, and do all kinds of things.

When my wife and I go on vacation, there are these ‘Internet Cafe(s)’ in the vrious cities - essentially, you rent out the use in 15 - 30 minute blocks… and you have total access to everything you want.

In a very real sense - especially with e-mail - you can keep in touch with all the people you are used to receiving posts from. Amazing what this technology can do, if you just think about it.

So, do you have such internet access and availability out your way?

God bless

What is the point of hiding the 100 word summary from us? You were supposed to share it with us!!:crying::crying:

 

[jim1130]

Actually, Protestants tell me he meant this:

51 I am [like] living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man** [believes in me]**, he shall live for ever; and…I will give…my flesh…for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless you** [believe in]** the Son of Man and…**[the sacrifice of] **his blood, you will have no life in you.

54 Whosoever** [believes in me]** has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day.

55 For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.

56 He that **[believes in me] ** dwells in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that [believes in] me shall live by me.

58 This is that** [one who]** came down from Heaven. Your fathers ate manna and are dead; he that** [believes in me]** shall live for ever.”

59 These things said He in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Many of His disciples therefore, when they had heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, “Does this **[idea that I came from heaven] **offend you?

62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are [spiritual and symbolic], and they are life.

So what should you and I say to Protestants who tell us the words, “eat my flesh and drink my blood” mean, “believe in me and my sacrificial death”?

There are a few keys in reading this part of John 6:

1 - The most obvious is the reaction of those around him. Based on the addition of the figurative meaning, their reaction does not accurately correspond with what they are hearing. It is as if the two sides are having two distinctly separate conversations (i.e. one person is talking about the weather and another is talking about carpet fiber count).​

2 - At the time Jesus spoke, what did it mean to those hearing him when he said eat my flesh and drink my blood? “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215).​

3 - Word such as “vine,” “oak,” “light,” “door,” etc. lend themselves to figurative interpretations; however, eat my flesh and drink my blood does not lend itself to metaphors as non-Catholics believe. All you have to do is find in the OT what it meant to eat flesh and drink blood and you will note that it does not mean “believe.” Refer to Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26. If Jesus was changing the understanding of eat my flesh and dirnk my blood, based on what the Jews understood it to mean, he certainly would have clarified (i.e. “Eat my flesh and drink my blood used to mean one thing, but now I am changing it to mean belief.”). Imagine someone changing “strong as an oak tree” to meaning someone who has Dutch elm disease.​

4 - Jesus would not allow such an important message to go uncorrected. Christ had corrected misunderstandings before (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3:3-5, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6) so if Jesus was misunderstood then why did he not clarify and correct any misunderstanding? In fact, he did: “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.” In other words, Jesus did clarify. He said eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.​

5 - For me the Passover lamb was real and eaten (it was not figurative). On the non-Catholic version, the Passover would have meant belief and was not literal (no lamb was slaughtered or eaten; it was a metaphor). The manna from heaven was real and eaten (not figurative). Instead, the forefathers “believed” in the manna from heaven, but did not actually eat it even though they did eat it. Are not eating the lamb and eating the manna precedents? Now Jesus is saying eat my flesh and drink my blood and suddenly it is figurative in contrast to what he has laid out? I do not see it.​

6 - A key word is indeed: “6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Jesus is emphasizing that, indeed, his flesh is meat indeed and blood is drink indeed. Again,he is clarifying.​

I hope that this is helpful and that this makes sense. Utlimately, no one here can convince you otherwise.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jim1130,

An excellent post!

I agree with your ending.

God bless

There are a few keys in reading this part of John 6:

1 - The most obvious is the reaction of those around him. Based on the addition of the figurative meaning, their reaction does not accurately correspond with what they are hearing. It is as if the two sides are having two distinctly separate conversations (i.e. one person is talking about the weather and another is talking about carpet fiber count).​

2 - At the time Jesus spoke, what did it mean to those hearing him when he said eat my flesh and drink my blood? “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215).​

3 - Word such as “vine,” “oak,” “light,” “door,” etc. lend themselves to figurative interpretations; however, eat my flesh and drink my blood does not lend itself to metaphors as non-Catholics believe. All you have to do is find in the OT what it meant to eat flesh and drink blood and you will note that it does not mean “believe.” Refer to Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26. If Jesus was changing the understanding of eat my flesh and dirnk my blood, based on what the Jews understood it to mean, he certainly would have clarified (i.e. “Eat my flesh and drink my blood used to mean one thing, but now I am changing it to mean belief.”). Imagine someone changing “strong as an oak tree” to meaning someone who has Dutch elm disease.​

4 - Jesus would not allow such an important message to go uncorrected. Christ had corrected misunderstandings before (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3:3-5, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6) so if Jesus was misunderstood then why did he not clarify and correct any misunderstanding? In fact, he did: “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.” In other words, Jesus did clarify. He said eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.​

5 - For me the Passover lamb was real and eaten (it was not figurative). On the non-Catholic version, the Passover would have meant belief and was not literal (no lamb was slaughtered or eaten; it was a metaphor). The manna from heaven was real and eaten (not figurative). Instead, the forefathers “believed” in the manna from heaven, but did not actually eat it even though they did eat it. Are not eating the lamb and eating the manna precedents? Now Jesus is saying eat my flesh and drink my blood and suddenly it is figurative in contrast to what he has laid out? I do not see it.​

6 - A key word is indeed: “6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Jesus is emphasizing that, indeed, his flesh is meat indeed and blood is drink indeed. Again,he is clarifying.​

I hope that this is helpful and that this makes sense. Utlimately, no one here can convince you otherwise.

 

[rfournier103]

To not take Jesus at his word, you take John 6 as figurative. If it is figurative, it reads like this:

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 a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat a cracker which is a symbol of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh grape juice as a symbol of 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 in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, 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 which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, 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 that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood 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 to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?
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.

The clarificaitons from Jesus and the reactions of the disciples do not jive if taken figuratively. I am not sure how else to help explain it.

That is too funny! I LOVE that!!! Thank you for sharing!!!

 

[Cinette]

Actually, Protestants tell me he meant this:

51 I am [like] living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man** [believes in me]**, he shall live for ever; and…I will give…my flesh…for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless you** [believe in]** the Son of Man and…**[the sacrifice of] **his blood, you will have no life in you.

54 Whosoever** [believes in me]** has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day.

55 For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.

56 He that **[believes in me] ** dwells in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that [believes in] me shall live by me.

58 This is that** [one who]** came down from Heaven. Your fathers ate manna and are dead; he that** [believes in me]** shall live for ever.”

59 These things said He in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Many of His disciples therefore, when they had heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, “Does this **[idea that I came from heaven] **offend you?

62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are [spiritual and symbolic], and they are life.

So what should you and I say to Protestants who tell us the words, “eat my flesh and drink my blood” mean, “believe in me and my sacrificial death”?

*Oh man! I just did a word count on this post and it is 314! You are playing games with us. You are not serious my friend!

:banghead::tsktsk:*