Transubstantiation and John 6

[spockrates]

*So the Disciples turned their backs on a methphor?! No - they turned their back because they understood very well that Jesus was speaking literally! There would have been no need to turn their backs if it were a mere metaphor. *

No, many Protestants believe it was not the metaphor, but the meaning of the metaphor, which prompted several of Christ’s disciples to turn away:

32 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

(John 6)

They believed he was a prophet and even the Messiah, but they could not stomache the truth that he was from heaven. It’s an interpretation I used to buy into, until I took a closer look at John 6. The further I read into the chapter, taking it verse by verse, the more difficult it became to support the metaphor. When I considered verse 55, I could no longer see how it fit the figure of speech.

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Funny how 12 is the Hebrew number representing completeness (for example, Jesus’ choice of 12 disciples was complete) and these words were completely literal in my eyes. I suppose for me the words of Mother Teresa certainly proved to be true:

Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!

For I haven’t been able to unsee that one. I did try, but I made a promise to Jesus that since he is the Truth, I’d follow him wherever the truth about him led me. But it’s not easy for me, as one I love dearly hates the idea of me being Catholic.

 

[Porknpie]

No, many Protestants believe it was not the metaphor, but the meaning of the metaphor, which prompted several of Christ’s disciples to turn away:
Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!

For I haven’t been able to unsee that one. I did try, but I made a promise to Jesus that since he is the Truth, I’d follow him wherever the truth about him led me. But it’s not easy for me, as one I love dearly hates the idea of me being Catholic.

Spock-

Another thing to reflect on is that in the OT, God gave Israel Manna…bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey. This bread from heaven prefigures the bread from heaven…the Eucharist in the NT. It would make no sense that in the OT the Manna is heavenly food while in the NT fulfillment, the food is only symbolic. This is why Jesus says in John 6:

49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

“History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

One of the difficulties I am having is your trying to expalin what others may or may not believe. “Protestnts” is simply too broad a term to make specific statements about what is believed concerning what Caholics call the Real Presence. Really. They are all over the place on virtually everything but one item … that no matter what, the Catholic Church is wrong!

So, if you want to enter the magical world of ‘metaphor’ - then you must deny John 6:52 - “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This statement alone sinks the metaphor argument - the Jews heard what Christ had said, understood it, rejected it and then walked away. Note, there is no, “How can this man give us this metaphor to consider?”

If you want to enter the magical world of the symbolism of Hebrew numbers - if 12 means complete, were there more then the “10” Commandments? And, what happened to the idea that “7” was the complete number? This is honestly one of the major problems Protestants have with personal interpretation of Scripture - who decided just what some thing means? For Protestants - effectively, they decide themselves … and if the local pastor does not like what they come up with - those who now embrace this new interpretation leave and found their own church, or assembly, or tabernacle, or fellowship, or what-have-you. And this scene has repeated itself 30,000 times. This would bring most people to the conclusion that only utter chaos can survive in such environment.

Personally, I think there are enough ‘Protestants’ out there to so as to answer that question for us. As a ‘closet Catholic’ I think it would be awkward to speak for them.

God bless

No, many Protestants believe it was not the metaphor, but the meaning of the metaphor, which prompted several of Christ’s disciples to turn away:

32 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

(John 6)

They believed he was a prophet and even the Messiah, but they could not stomache the truth that he was from heaven. It’s an interpretation I used to buy into, until I took a closer look at John 6. The further I read into the chapter, taking it verse by verse, the more difficult it became to support the metaphor. When I considered verse 55, I could no longer see how it fit the figure of speech.

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Funny how 12 is the Hebrew number representing completeness (for example, Jesus’ choice of 12 disciples was complete) and these words were completely literal in my eyes. I suppose for me the words of Mother Teresa certainly proved to be true:

Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!

For I haven’t been able to unsee that one. I did try, but I made a promise to Jesus that since he is the Truth, I’d follow him wherever the truth about him led me. But it’s not easy for me, as one I love dearly hates the idea of me being Catholic.

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

One of the difficulties I am having is your trying to expalin what others may or may not believe. “Protestnts” is simply too broad a term to make specific statements about what is believed concerning what Caholics call the Real Presence. Really. They are all over the place on virtually everything but one item … that no matter what, the Catholic Church is wrong!

So, if you want to enter the magical world of ‘metaphor’ - then you must deny John 6:52 - “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This statement alone sinks the metaphor argument - the Jews heard what Christ had said, understood it, rejected it and then walked away. Note, there is no, “How can this man give us this metaphor to consider?”

Saint John the apostle indicates there was much debate among those listening to what Jesus said that day. Why would they argue about what he meant if they were all in agreement?

If you want to enter the magical world of the symbolism of Hebrew numbers - if 12 means complete, were there more then the “10” Commandments? And, what happened to the idea that “7” was the complete number? This is honestly one of the major problems Protestants have with personal interpretation of Scripture - who decided just what some thing means? For Protestants - effectively, they decide themselves … and if the local pastor does not like what they come up with - those who now embrace this new interpretation leave and found their own church, or assembly, or tabernacle, or fellowship, or what-have-you. And this scene has repeated itself 30,000 times. This would bring most people to the conclusion that only utter chaos can survive in such environment.

Yes, I suppose I’m more of a prodigal Catholic, currently.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

You really are going to have do to much better - especially for someone who has read John 6 so many times.

I gave you a specific verse that shows a clear understanding after a long discourse - the Jews were not confused and John spells this out clearly. These Jews did not leave Christ in the beginning of the Discourse - after all, they came for another free meal. They didn’t leave in the middle of the Discourse - they were still pondering the ‘Bread come down from heaven’ statement. No. They left Christ at the end of the Discourse - after they rejected what he said. And, it is this part that we are discussing. So, please, even as a ‘prodigal Catholic’ don’t be evasive. Hit this topic head on!

It is you and your belief that I am addressing. Only a few posts ago, it is was you who stated: “I think Jesus summarized it best in just 12 words: “For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” (John 6:55).” Now you seem to be moving away from this clear statement. So, what is it?

Seriously, just look at the content of other posts. You will find many clear statements of belief in what Christ said. Of course there are those who do not believe Christ’s words - would much rather the intrepretation of men - while rejecting the Chruch Christ founded on Peter (but, of course, Protestantism had to deny that, too!) So, where do you stand?

God bless

Saint John the apostle indicates there was much debate among those listening to what Jesus said that day. Why would they argue about what he meant if they were all in agreement?

There were actually more than 400 commandments in the Old Testament. Ten was far from complete.



The Hebrew number 7 represents God and perfection. The Hebrew number 6 represents man and imperfection. The number 40 represents a generation, or a long but undetermined time–like the Jewish people wandering the desert for 40 years, or the rain falling for 40 days and 40 nights in Noah’s time. It’s a Hebrew numerology thing that has many parallels in scripture.

Yes, I suppose I’m more of a prodigal Catholic, currently.

 

[Porknpie]

Of course there are those who do not believe Christ’s words - would much rather the intrepretation of men - while rejecting the Chruch Christ founded on Peter (but, of course, Protestantism had to deny that, too!) So, where do you stand?

God bless

(To believe that Christ was speaking symbolically) I would add that you have to both reject Christ’s words on the Eucharist and then again, not believe his words in sending the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth. The early church fathers definitely believed in his real presence in the Eucharist. John 14:26 below.

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you

(“Insufficient facts always invite danger”, Spock, Space Seed)*

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Spockrates,

You really are going to have do to much better - especially for someone who has read John 6 so many times.

I gave you a specific verse that shows a clear understanding after a long discourse - the Jews were not confused and John spells this out clearly. These Jews did not leave Christ in the beginning of the Discourse - after all, they came for another free meal. They didn’t leave in the middle of the Discourse - they were still pondering the ‘Bread come down from heaven’ statement. No. They left Christ at the end of the Discourse - after they rejected what he said. And, it is this part that we are discussing. So, please, even as a ‘prodigal Catholic’ don’t be evasive. Hit this topic head on!

It is you and your belief that I am addressing. Only a few posts ago, it is was you who stated: “I think Jesus summarized it best in just 12 words: “For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” (John 6:55).” Now you seem to be moving away from this clear statement. So, what is it?

Seriously, just look at the content of other posts. You will find many clear statements of belief in what Christ said. Of course there are those who do not believe Christ’s words - would much rather the intrepretation of men - while rejecting the Chruch Christ founded on Peter (but, of course, Protestantism had to deny that, too!) So, where do you stand?

God bless

*I have often said that had I been amongst the crowd (John 6) I too would probably have turned my back on Jesus. However, yesterday I re-read and reflected on John 6:

“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day”

“for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them”

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
whoever eats me will live because of me”*

I thought of Jesus’ many miracles and the recent feeding of the multitudes and how I too would not have understood Jesus’ words and been confused. However, by then, like the Apostles I would have grown to love Jesus and come to be in awe of him and as a result I would have been with Peter and the Apostles when Peter responded to Jesus with “Where shall we go Lord? – you have the words of eternal life!”

Add to this the fact that we have the witness of the Church Fathers, the development of doctrine and 2000 years of growth and learning. This leads me to be certain of my belief in Jesus’ words despite not understanding them. I trust Jesus.

 

[Cinette]

No, many Protestants believe it was not the metaphor, but the meaning of the metaphor, which prompted several of Christ’s disciples to turn away:

32 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

(John 6)

They believed he was a prophet and even the Messiah, but they could not stomache the truth that he was from heaven. It’s an interpretation I used to buy into, until I took a closer look at John 6. The further I read into the chapter, taking it verse by verse, the more difficult it became to support the metaphor. When I considered verse 55, I could no longer see how it fit the figure of speech.

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Funny how 12 is the Hebrew number representing completeness (for example, Jesus’ choice of 12 disciples was complete) and these words were completely literal in my eyes. I suppose for me the words of Mother Teresa certainly proved to be true:

Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!

For I haven’t been able to unsee that one. I did try, but I made a promise to Jesus that since he is the Truth, I’d follow him wherever the truth about him led me. But it’s not easy for me, as one I love dearly hates the idea of me being Catholic.

*You try too hard to understand. St Augustine said something about one does not have to understand in order to believe but believe in order to understand. This is where faith comes in.

If the one you love dearly loves you she would love you despite your being
Catholic. My husband was Atheist most of his life and when I returned to the Church he began to witness the many little miracles in our lives which in part drew him to the Church.
Jesus comes first.

*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,

That is one of the biggest puzzles I have come across. Ignoring those who came directly after Christ and the Apostles seems to defy logic. If any group of people would know what was passed on from Christ and the Apostles - it would be the Early Church Fathers. And then after the Early Church Fathers we have all of those faithful Catholics who for over 1,000 years who believed Christ’s words.

So, for 1,600 years we have an amazing history of consistency. (Now, from time to time beginning with the Judiazers that St. Paul contended with - right up to the Modernists of today - Catholic teaching has not been accepted by all. And, the Church defined its dogma Council after Council. Our focus here is on the Council of Trent as it provided genuine teaching against those in revolt.)

The position that Christ was speaking ‘symbolically’ only can be put forward if one simply erases all of that history… and dismisses everyhing that Christ said.

God bless

(To believe that Christ was speaking symbolically) I would add that you have to both reject Christ’s words on the Eucharist and then again, not believe his words in sending the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth. The early church fathers definitely believed in his real presence in the Eucharist. John 14:26 below.

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you

(“Insufficient facts always invite danger”, Spock, Space Seed)*

 

[Porknpie]

Hi, Porknpie,

That is one of the biggest puzzles I have come across. Ignoring those who came directly after Christ and the Apostles seems to defy logic. If any group of people would know what was passed on from Christ and the Apostles - it would be the Early Church Fathers. And then after the Early Church Fathers we have all of those faithful Catholics who for over 1,000 years who believed Christ’s words.

So, for 1,600 years we have an amazing history of consistency. (Now, from time to time beginning with the Judiazers that St. Paul contended with - right up to the Modernists of today - Catholic teaching has not been accepted by all. And, the Church defined its dogma Council after Council. Our focus here is on the Council of Trent as it provided genuine teaching against those in revolt.)

The position that Christ was speaking ‘symbolically’ only can be put forward if one simply erases all of that history… and dismisses everyhing that Christ said.

God bless

Tom, well said. I’ve listened to many of the Journey Home episodes on EWTN and there is a consistent or at least frequent message from converts that reading the early church fathers helped guide them to the Catholic Church. At the same time, they begin to correctly interpret the bible and their man-made lens falls away.

God bless too. Time for shut eye and I look forward to my morning coffee. It was a good day. :coffeeread:

 

[BrunoMaria]

When reading in this and all other Christian forums, I find it most surprising, that so many posts come up with ifs and buts.
Now just imagine these doubters - and what else but doubts are ifs and buts - would in a friendly circle to all sorts of statements friends would add and contribute to the agenda, interpose suchlike ifs and buts that indicate that the speaker who just formulated and analyzed his thoughts of outmost rhyme and reason, must, or at least could be wrong here in this and many other points.
This person very soon would be cast out of the circle, because those who declared the truth with outmost commitment and devotion and love and engagement - IN THE CASE OF BIBLICAL THRUTH IT’S JESUS CHRIST - would certainly express his surprise and displeasure about so many pleas.

So, as said before, we all ought to think twice before we upload all these buts and ifs upon Jesus’ word, for we do it in His face. Since we know, that Jesus is the truth itself, we know that the gospel is the absolute truth. Our ifs and buts so are but our incomprehension. Being aware of this, we really must try with those verses we don’t understand on the spot, simply to accept as these Children do. The time will come that we will understand fully, for if we really want to, we are given understanding.

Yours
Bruno

 

[odhiambo]

When reading in this and all other Christian forums, I find it most surprising, that so many posts come up with ifs and buts.
Now just imagine these doubters - and what else but doubts are ifs and buts - would in a friendly circle to all sorts of statements friends would add and contribute to the agenda, interpose suchlike ifs and buts that indicate that the speaker who just formulated and analyzed his thoughts of outmost rhyme and reason, must, or at least could be wrong here in this and many other points.
This person very soon would be cast out of the circle, because those who declared the truth with outmost commitment and devotion and love and engagement - IN THE CASE OF BIBLICAL THRUTH IT’S JESUS CHRIST - would certainly express his surprise and displeasure about so many pleas.

So, as said before, we all ought to think twice before we upload all these buts and ifs upon Jesus’ word, for we do it in His face. Since we know, that Jesus is the truth itself, we know that the gospel is the absolute truth. Our ifs and buts so are but our incomprehension. Being aware of this, we really must try with those verses we don’t understand on the spot, simply to accept as these Children do. The time will come that we will understand fully, for if we really want to, we are given understanding.

Yours
Bruno

I could not agree more with you Bruno.
I never can understand the reason for the arguments, the denials, est.
At the risk of repeating what points have already been made, many of the disciples of Jesus in fact found it hard to accept what Jesus was saying, just like many people today; they said to themselves: “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?”
Jesus, being God, knew what was in their hearts and His answer to them then as it is now to those of us who still refuse to believe in “ The Real Presence” was:…. “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life but there are some among you who do not believe”….

“Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”.
Matthew 13: 13

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

You really are going to have do to much better - especially for someone who has read John 6 so many times.

I gave you a specific verse that shows a clear understanding after a long discourse - the Jews were not confused and John spells this out clearly. …

Yes, Tom, John did not say they were confused, but he did say they argued. That’s why I wonder if what you say is true, when you say they were all in agreement about what Jesus meant.

Then the Jews began to *argue sharply *among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

(John 6:52)

 

[spockrates]

Spock-

Another thing to reflect on is that in the OT, God gave Israel Manna…bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey. This bread from heaven prefigures the bread from heaven…the Eucharist in the NT. It would make no sense that in the OT the Manna is heavenly food while in the NT fulfillment, the food is only symbolic. This is why Jesus says in John 6:

49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

“History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.”

Hey, Pork. Not sure I understand. Why would it make no sense?

 

[spockrates]

You try too hard to understand. St Augustine said something about one does not have to understand in order to believe but believe in order to understand. This is where faith comes in.

Yes, and Socrates said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense, so let us try to understand him.” Do you understand Augustine to mean we should believe what we know us true, or did he instead mean we should believe what we don’t know is true?

If the one you love dearly loves you she would love you despite your being
Catholic. My husband was Atheist most of his life and when I returned to the Church he began to witness the many little miracles in our lives which in part drew him to the Church.
Jesus comes first.

Thanks for the encouragement Cinette.

 

[Wiseowl]

Most important is to have communion be it Catholic or Lutheran,

 

[Cinette]

Yes, and Socrates said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense, so let us try to understand him.” Do you understand Augustine to mean we should believe what we know us true, or did he instead mean we should believe what we don’t know is true?

Thanks for the encouragement Cinette.

*I think Augustine meant that we should believe in the word of the Lord even if we do not understand - to trust in Jesus with all our heart. We always want things to “make sense” to us. Our perception is totally different from that of God. Remember He said “Your ways are not my ways”. We cannot conceive what God is. We can only look at creation and say to ourselves that our creator is wonderful. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God - what that means exactly we do not know. However, when we contemplate that God took our human nature to live among us, to teach us, to provide for us, to create His Kingdom among us, to establish all the resources through His Church for our benefit and salvation and to die for us we can only wonder… When I think of the many holy, highly educated, dedicated priests (some are not) who could live affluent lives but instead choose to give up everything to dedicate their lives to God I believe more. Their vocations is to me further proof of eternal life - their vocations come from God and they are here to work in God’s Kingdom.

There is also the witness of the communion of Saints.

Before my husband converted he would attend Mass with me on Sundays and he told me that one of the things that inspired him was the worshippers in the Church. To witness their prayerful fervour and intensity inspired him. He was sometimes reduced to tears. It is the same for me in regard to people of Faith, both in the Catholic Church and outside the Church. Their Faith is a witness and an inspiration.

*

 

[spockrates]

*I think Augustine meant that we should believe in the word of the Lord even if we do not understand - to trust in Jesus with all our heart. We always want things to “make sense” to us. Our perception is totally different from that of God. Remember He said “Your ways are not my ways”. We cannot conceive what God is. We can only look at creation and say to ourselves that our creator is wonderful. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God - what that means exactly we do not know. However, when we contemplate that God took our human nature to live among us, to teach us, to provide for us, to create His Kingdom among us, to establish all the resources through His Church for our benefit and salvation and to die for us we can only wonder… When I think of the many holy, highly educated, dedicated priests (some are not) who could live affluent lives but instead choose to give up everything to dedicate their lives to God I believe more. Their vocations is to me further proof of eternal life - their vocations come from God and they are here to work in God’s Kingdom.

There is also the witness of the communion of Saints.

Before my husband converted he would attend Mass with me on Sundays and he told me that one of the things that inspired him was the worshippers in the Church. To witness their prayerful fervour and intensity inspired him. He was sometimes reduced to tears. It is the same for me in regard to people of Faith, both in the Catholic Church and outside the Church. Their Faith is a witness and an inspiration.

*

So are you saying Augustine would have you and I believe only what we don’t understand and not believe what we do understand? Or do you think the wise saint would have us believe both what we don’t understand and what we do understand?

 

[Cinette]

So are you saying Augustine would have you and I believe only what we don’t understand and not believe what we do understand? Or do you think the wise saint would have us believe both what we don’t understand and what we do understand?

Would you not believe in something you understand? Come on spockrates apply your mind!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

Glad you are interested in St. Augustine - you know… he was quite devoted to the Real Presence. In fact all of the Early Church Fathers that came before Augustine were quite devoted to the Eurcharist. Actually - here is a link that on many of the more well know Catholics who wrote about their devotion to the Eucharist. And, no, it was not a mere symbol in the mind of these truly great Friends of God.

Here is a link you may enjoy: childrenofhope.org/childrenadore/quotes.htm

Give it a read and let me know what you think.

God bless

So are you saying Augustine would have you and I believe only what we don’t understand and not believe what we do understand? Or do you think the wise saint would have us believe both what we don’t understand and what we do understand?