Truly truly I say to you...

[Digitonomy]

In the interest of fairness, I looked up all of the times when the truly(or verily in KJV) is repeated. I did find one place where it must be read metaphorically:

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

 

[justasking4]

I think the one part of John 6 that shows the Eucharist more than any other is simply one line. “For My flesh is real food, and My Blood is real drink”

If Jesus were talking symbolically, wouldn’t this make Jesus a liar. And if Jesus were a liar, how could He be God?

There are a couple of problems i think that if we take this literally (if i understand you correctly).
1- The eating of blood was forbidden. Leviticus 3:17;17:10-14)
2- the Last Supper would not happen until much later.

I rather think that what He is doing here is speaking figuatively about having faith in Him. Throughout the gospel of John He is always making the connection with faith in Him and eternal life. Its not something that saves us has physical properties as He alludes to in v 58 where He says those that ate of the manna in the wilderness and died, but those who put their trust-faith in Him will have eternal life. We can see this in John 11:25-26 where He says—25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

No doubt this is one of the most challenging chapters in scripture to understand because so much is going on.

 

[Verita]

I don’t really understand why Protestants have such a problem with the Eucharist. When I was a protestant (non denominational) I never really gave it much thought. I believed it symbolically because that’s what I was taught and what my pastor preached once a month when we had communion.

However, when my Catholic husband and I began discussing our different faiths and he explained to me the literal Catholic interpretation of John 6, I had to admit that he had a point. Being a person who believed in Sola Scriptura, in a very non denominational way (meaning we really do get to interpret things ourselves, hopefully with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and that as long you have a belief that can be validly backed up with the Bible then you’re ok) I realized that his way of reading John 6 was just as valid as mine. The words were there, it was just a matter of what meaning you gave them, and in that regard there was nothing in the text against a literal interpretation. From the beginning I didn’t see how I could have
any problems with the Catholic belief, if I wanted to be honest with myself. (It infuriated my husband to no end because he’d had all of the arguments and proofs ready and then I didn’t disagree with him. )

 

[DesertBrother]

I rather think that what He is doing here is speaking figuatively about having faith in Him.

This is why the authority of the Church has always been necessary to determine what is Truth, rather than the individual. Had private interpretation of Scripture been acceptable from the beginning, it would have resulted in all sorts of unresolved conflicts over the reality of the Resurrection and of Christ’s Divinity. Without organization and authority, nothing gets done. It’s anarchy.

What would the United States be like, if the founding fathers just gave each man a copy of the Constitution and left it up to each man to be his own legislative, executive, and judicial authority?

Protestants trust their own authority to interpret, yet the basic established doctrines they hold dear, especially those of Christ being equal to God, and HIs literal Resurrection from the dead would have been lost if they hadn’t been firmly determined by Church authority.

It’s up to those who interpret Scripture under their own authority to prove themselves to the ancient Church. Not the other way around.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

“Protestants” believe no such thing. Allot of us belive they are sacraments and are channels of grace in some way. see Lutheranism, Anglicanism and the Church of Christ for Baptism who all believe baptism plays a role in salvation and Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Reformed who do not believe Eucharist is only symbolic. Your confusing Zwinglianism/Baptist with Protestantism. Which is ok, allot of Protestants also do this sometimes too, and think a “true Protestant” would never believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or that Baptism brings grace, but they would be wrong if they read a little Luther

But Luther simply offers another interpretation for Protestants. A Protestant is free to interpret based on how he or she feels the scripture should be read as long as it is the “Holy Spirit” doing the interpreting for them. Also, why do you put the term Protestant in quotes and then go on to talk about Luther in the same sentence? Luther was proud to call himself a Protestant – he knew he was protesting the one true Church of Christ. Go on and read some of Luther’s other writings which condemn Jews and tell people to rob them and burn their synagogues and drive them from Europe, and to sin as much as they can because God’s grace will cover them. Such a holy, holy man.

 

[AlegreFe]

In the interest of fairness, I looked up all of the times when the truly(or verily in KJV) is repeated. I did find one place where it must be read metaphorically:

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

There is nothing metaphoric about that verse. People just have to understand that they will get what they ask for if it is God’s Will to give or do for them. But it is not metaphoric. God does not lie.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1- The eating of blood was forbidden. Leviticus 3:17;17:10-14)

The eating of dead blood was forbidden, yes. This is because it was the life force of the animal. Jesus is our life force and is alive, true God and true Man in the flesh is alive in Heaven with a transfigured body. He told us to drink of His cup because He is GOD – and His LIVING blood gives life.

 

[VociMike]

There are a couple of problems i think that if we take this literally (if i understand you correctly).
1- The eating of blood was forbidden. Leviticus 3:17;17:10-14)

The eating of blood of creatures is forbidden, because the life is in the blood. Nothing is said about the blood of God. In fact, since Christ came specifically to give us His life, the prohibition on the blood of creatures is exactly a prefigurement of the requirement to drink Christ’s blood.

Further, as another poster has pointed out, the ban is specifically on the eating of blood, while Christ tells us to drink His blood. Since the author of Scripture is God, this difference cannot simple be a mistake or oversight.

2- the Last Supper would not happen until much later.

Why is this a problem? He told them what they must do, and later He told them how to do it. You could just as well dismiss everything Christ said before His Passion and Death since nobody could be saved before then.

I rather think that what He is doing here is speaking figuatively about having faith in Him. Throughout the gospel of John He is always making the connection with faith in Him and eternal life. Its not something that saves us has physical properties as He alludes to in v 58 where He says those that ate of the manna in the wilderness and died, but those who put their trust-faith in Him will have eternal life. We can see this in John 11:25-26 where He says—25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Who is more likely to have understood the idioms of that time and place? Those who lived then and there, or people 2000 years later? They disputed among themselves and then they walked away! Nobody walks away because of an idiom. They disputed and walked away because they believed He was actually telling them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. They knew their own idioms a thousand times better than we know them, and they did not recognize His words as being idiomatic.

 

[AlegreFe]

There are a couple of problems i think that if we take this literally (if i understand you correctly).
1- The eating of blood was forbidden. Leviticus 3:17;17:10-14)

Jesus fulfills this (as he says in Mt 5:17) because HE is the New Lamb of God and He is Alive not dead as those animals are in the OT. It was forbidden to eat or partake in the blood of dead animals that were given up as sacrifice for worship. We now have a new Sacrifice in Jesus Christ and in His Body and Blood. Jesus is Risen and He is very much alive and I partake of Him every Sunday and sometimes on weekdays too!

Jesus Himself said to drink His Blood. Why don’t you obey?

justasking4:

I rather think that what He is doing here is speaking figuatively about having faith in Him.

Faith in the fact that He is our Bread to Eat every day.

justasking4:

Throughout the gospel of John He is always making the connection with faith in Him and eternal life.

No, not ALWAYS. Re-read ALL of John 6. Why do some protestants want to skip over verses 53 to 57 and then again skip over verses 61 to 66?

justasking4:

Its not something that saves us has physical properties as He alludes to in v 58 where He says those that ate of the manna in the wilderness and died, but those who put their trust-faith in Him will have eternal life.

We are not partaking of the manna. We are partaking of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that whoever eats His flesh will have eternal life. How much clearer can He get?

And what you’re talking about is how their ancestors died because that bread was not the real deal as Jesus is the real deal because He is the Bread for us to Eat that came down from Heaven. God gives Jesus Life and so Jesus gives us Life if we Eat His Flesh.

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. John 6:49-50

justasking4:

We can see this in John 11:25-26 where He says—25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

This is one of several verses that say something to this effect that if we believe we will live. But that does NOT negate John 6 as many Protestants want to negate the literalness of this chapter in Saint John’s Gospel.

Going back to John 11, since Martha’s brother died, Jesus had to reassure her that if she believed then her brother will rise again. Since they are believers it would seem pretty obvious that they were baptized. Baptism was understood as it is today also, that we are baptized into His death as well as His resurrection so if we believe we will be raised with Him. But I also have to partake of His flesh as He commanded us to do otherwise we have no life in us.

53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink
his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise him
up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats me will
live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from
heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died;
he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

justasking4:

No doubt this is one of the most challenging chapters in scripture to understand because so much is going on.

What? Challenging to YOU maybe but not to well learned practicing Catholics. This one is the easiest to understand for us. Jesus is very clear here. I don’t understand how it is so “challenging” for you.

 

[ncgolf]

I rather think that what He is doing here is speaking figuatively about having faith in Him. Throughout the gospel of John He is always making the connection with faith in Him and eternal life. Its not something that saves us has physical properties as He alludes to in v 58 where He says those that ate of the manna in the wilderness and died, but those who put their trust-faith in Him will have eternal life.

What do you mean faith in him? Faith in him is too broad … too general. The faith you describe cannot be based on what he says only what you want him to say. If you have faith/trust in Jesus then you must have faith/trust in what he says. The words spoken in John are direct quotes and if you look closely at John 6 it is almost all direct quotes. John does not offer a whole lot of commentary. John must have felt the words spoke for themselves. The difficulty in the faith part is not faith in Jesus … we all believe He is the Christ but trust in his words, even though we do not fullly understand. That is hard part in faith in Jesus.

Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation can be eerily similar to many people’s response to Jesus’s words. Her words were “How can this be”. The response of those present with Jesus in John 6 were “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Both question how can something seemingly beyond how nature normally works happen. Mary’s response was to submit (“Let it be done to me according to your will”), even though not fully understanding, to those present with Jesus in John 6 … they left.

I can never quite understand the reluctance to see Christ’s words as nothing less than what he meant. He repeated himself 3 times that this is what you must do.

John never tries to explain what Christ meant by his words … he lets them be read and lets the reader make the decision. That is why the words of Verse 66 are so powerful … “Do you want to go away as well.” They are not spoken to the twelve but meaning the you is actually pointing to you (the reader). It is a relevant question 2000 years later.

 

[Knight4God]

But Luther simply offers another interpretation for Protestants. A Protestant is free to interpret based on how he or she feels the scripture should be read as long as it is the “Holy Spirit” doing the interpreting for them. Also, why do you put the term Protestant in quotes and then go on to talk about Luther in the same sentence? Luther was proud to call himself a Protestant – he knew he was protesting the one true Church of Christ. Go on and read some of Luther’s other writings which condemn Jews and tell people to rob them and burn their synagogues and drive them from Europe, and to sin as much as they can because God’s grace will cover them. Such a holy, holy man.

I probably should have put Protestants in italics, the quotes was for emphasis on the original question which was:

“But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.”

“But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.”

Which I was pointing out that Protestants do NOT hold to these two ideas. A subsection of Protestantism does however. Luther was being used as a good example of a Protestant who would say “Baptism regenerates/saves” and “we really receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist”

Whither we are free to interpret however we want is beside my point, which was simply that “Protestants” as an overarching category do not disagree with those statements. It is only certain protestant traditions that do.

 

[AlegreFe]

I can never quite understand the reluctance to see Christ’s words as nothing less than what he meant. He repeated himself 3 times that this is what you must do.

Jesus actually mentions that we are to EAT His flesh 7 times.

• 1. This is the bread which comes down from heaven,
  ----that a man may eat of it and not die.
• 2. if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever

By now the Jews are already questioning this.
52 The Jews then disputed among
themselves, saying, “How can this
man give us his flesh to eat?”

Then Jesus confirms and reassures by saying;

• 3. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the
  ----flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
  ----have no life in you
• 4. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
  ----eternal life
• 5. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides
  ----in me, and I in him
• 6. so he who eats me will live because of me
• 7. he who eats this bread will live for ever

John never tries to explain what Christ meant by his words … he lets them be read and lets the reader make the decision.

Ooh be careful here. From what Protestants believe or should I say “not believe” we are NOT to decide for ourselves. The verses in Acts 8:30-31 still apply to us for these verses and we can’t forget 2Thes 2:15. I know what you are saying though. :yup: Jesus’ words speak for themselves as far as we Catholics could see. But apparantly not for some Protestants.

That is why the words of Verse 66 are so powerful … “Do you want to go away as well.”

The verse you have there is actually verse 67.
Verse 66 is the clincher where they actually walk away and it’s no coincidence that it is John 6:66.

They are not spoken to the twelve but meaning the you is actually pointing to you (the reader). It is a relevant question 2000 years later.

:yup:

 

[rbarcia]

You do this most of the time… you put up verses but then you don’t put them all up. I suggested to read all of John 6. But now I say at least read from verse 35 to 71.

You do the same, when trying to show a point.

Let me put up some of those verses for you… you know, the ones that you seemed to have forgotten to post (accidentally on purpose?).

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves,
saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to
eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats me will
live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from
heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he
who eats this bread will live for ever." Jn 6:52-58

But you know, I can put up all the verses in the world and you still refuse to see. So I’ll stop here as you seem to just ignore the verses that I put up for you to read.

Thanks for the verses I forgot , but I thought you were posting all the way to verse 71?

don’t forget verse 63:

**

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

By the way, who told you all this stuff about what that “bread” really is in your eyes? And are you sure that those who told you were actually sent by God to do so? Can you actually trace your pastors and/or ministers back to Peter and the Apostles as they taught because God sent them?

The Holy Spirit did. That is why it is essential to check all teachings that come from men against scripture as the Beareans did:

**

Acts 17:11

11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

**

And how do you trace who you learned this from? Obviously the trace records themselves are documents given to you by men of today, and you accept them by faith. You even use the Bible to try to justify authority. But church = all members, not the magesterium.

15 And how can people preach unless
they are sent? As it is written, “How
beautiful are the feet of those who bring
(the) good news!” Rom 10:15

================================

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah
the prophet and said, “Do you understand
what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone
instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in
and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31

Jesus did not leave us empty handed or orphans. He left His Church here to instruct us. The Holy Catholic Church is the Guardian of the Truth!

So you are not part of the church, when you say he left ‘us’ the church?

No Jesus left us (us being the church, the collective body of believers) His Holy Spirit.

**

John 14:16

16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

John 14:26

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

**

 

[santaro75]

Why hasn’t anyone brought up luke24:30?

 

[Melchior]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

Which Protestants? I certainly take these passages literally. That is the point of the “Truly truly”.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“In spirit” The Protestant catch phrase for meaning “symbolic”. Never mind, I don’t think there one single other scriptural reference where “In spirit” means symbolic–see Romans 8 regarding the distiction of seeing “carnally” and “in spirit”.

Also never mind the ONLY allegorical/metaphoric/non-literal meaning of “eat my flesh and drink my blood” in Aramaic means “do violence to me, especially by slander or calumny”.
So Jesus would mean by that standard (if he was speaking non-literaly) is “if you want eternal life then you’ve got to viciously lie about me”

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Which Protestants? I certainly take these passages literally. That is the point of the “Truly truly”.

AMEN!!! That was my point, but more protestants then not will deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and say that Baptism is just a symbol…

 

[VociMike]

don’t forget verse 63:

**

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

Is it your position that the flesh of Christ profitted nothing? If this is not your position, then why do you attempt to use this to disprove the Real Presence of Christ’s flesh (and blood) in the Eucharist?

The Holy Spirit did. That is why it is essential to check all teachings that come from men against scripture as the Beareans did:

**

Acts 17:11

11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

**

Funny thing about the Bereans. Even though they heard the Apostles themselves, and searched the Scriptures, some of them still came to the wrong conclusion and rejected the true gospel. So the example of the Bereans is simply proof that sola Scriptura doesn’t work. It didn’t even work when the Apostles themselves preached to the Bereans.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

In the interest of fairness, I looked up all of the times when the truly(or verily in KJV) is repeated. I did find one place where it must be read metaphorically:

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

There is nothing metaphoric about that verse. People just have to understand that they will get what they ask for if it is God’s Will to give or do for them. But it is not metaphoric.

Metaphoric was probably the wrong word, but it is clearly not meant to be taken literally, which is the claim made in the OP - that we should accept the literal meaning of Jesus’ words whenever he says “Truly, truly,” rather than try to explain away its plain meaning.

AlegreFe:

God does not lie.

I don’t think anyone was arguing that he does. However, Jesus is lying in John 16:23 if we take that verse literally. There are many things the Father will refuse us, even if we ask for them in Jesus’ name. This is for the best.

 

[justasking4]

This is why the authority of the Church has always been necessary to determine what is Truth, rather than the individual.

Truth is never determined by authority but by the facts. If you don’t have the facts to back up a claim, you really can’t say you have the truth.

Had private interpretation of Scripture been acceptable from the beginning, it would have resulted in all sorts of unresolved conflicts over the reality of the Resurrection and of Christ’s Divinity. Without organization and authority, nothing gets done. It’s anarchy.

Are you aware that many of these issues were debated and came from people’ “private interpretations”? Even today in the catholic church there are stlll many issues that have not be resolved.

Do you believe your church can ever be wrong?

What would the United States be like, if the founding fathers just gave each man a copy of the Constitution and left it up to each man to be his own legislative, executive, and judicial authority?

Protestants trust their own authority to interpret, yet the basic established doctrines they hold dear, especially those of Christ being equal to God, and HIs literal Resurrection from the dead would have been lost if they hadn’t been firmly determined by Church authority.

These basic doctrines are not true because the catholic church says so, but because the facts of scripture support the claim that they are true.

It’s up to those who interpret Scripture under their own authority to prove themselves to the ancient Church. Not the other way around.

Not so. As Christians we are to examine everything carefully. We are warned in scripture about false teachers within and outside the church. It will not do just to accept what any church claims to be true unless it has the facts to back up the claim.

Are you aware that the catholic church has never interpreted every verse of the scripture infallibly? Since this is the case, you as a catholic must also interpret the scriptures without knowing with certainty what a particular verse means and must rely in part on your own private interpretations.