What is your view on these verses?

[God_I_Love]

Also, how do you explain, GIL, that for hundreds of years Christians (Christians who knew the Scriptures, Christians in the early days who knew the apostles, for heaven’s sake!) never ‘understood’ John 6 to be speaking ‘figuratively’ about Christ’s Flesh and Blood being His Soul and Divinity?

Wouldn’t you expect to see clear apostolic teaching carried on in unbroken fashion of a ‘symbolic only’ Eucharist as Christian teaching?

Why is it that we only see the clear apostolic, unbroken teaching as that of a literal "Flesh and Blood’ Eucharist? Were early Christians STUPID? Did the Holy Spirit neglect Christians for 1500 years until a few became ‘smart’ enough to grasp the teaching?

And if the above were the case, then how come these people went on to reject other Christian teachings? If the only thing ‘wrong’ in the Catholic Church was this Eucharist idea, then how come Protestants (whether Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, non denom, and everything in between) can’t agree among themselves on Scripture? How come only the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches keep on holding to doctrine and state, “This is what God has taught”? How come so many Protestants come on saying, “God said >this< in Scripture, but it was years ago, and the people then weren’t so enlightened as they are, and it has become clear to our pastors, our scholars, and our lay people that God either only meant what Scripture says in the bad old days, or that He was misunderstood, so WE have decided that contrary to what Scripture says, TODAY God would WANT us to stop teaching >this< and to teach the opposite as true.”

It’s kind of hard to trust in a denomination which claims to love God, and to revere His word, but is constantly changing what it says His words are, or mean. . .especially when all the changes seem to be ‘reinforcing’ or ‘reinforced’ by secular people and groups. Aren’t we supposed, as human beings, to be conforming ourselves to God, and not ‘packaging’ Him to be more appealing to US?

So your telling me that because most people at that time, that were literate, understood something a certain way, that that is what it is? I’m saying, is my interpretation wrong? Because every argument against it is unsatisfactory when you look at other scriptures. It’s the concept of congruency. If it is wrong tell me why. Because you have not addressed my questions. They remain unanswered. Do you care about what has always been assumed about something, or rather whether something actually is that way? The only way I can describe this to you is that it is the continual perusal of truth. Which can NOT occur if, instead of discovering the origins behind a teaching, you accept it because it seems right, not ever finding out if it is actually so. A lot of men thinking something is right does not make it so. Hence why in logic the fallacy of ‘‘ad populum’’ exists.

Now in regards to your comments contrasting Catholic with Protestants I will say this. Firstly you are obscuring the pursuit of Truth and understanding with denominational label. Secondly, while I agree Protestants are extremely fractured structurally in organizational authority and governing (due to doctrinal differences), ‘‘Catholicism’’ that you purport to hold, is quite fractured and splintered. Almost as badly as Protestants. A few examples include sedevacantists, sede-plenists, trads, rad trads, Old Catholics, independents, etc. Many doctrinal differences have arisen because of the governing body imposing, upon pain of excommunication (as if THEY can usurp Christ cutting us from His Body), belief in an interpretation of Scripture. So taking the stance, as you have, of placing your label upon a pedestal from with which you can look down from and JUDGE something to be false is clearly an overreach of power that belongs soley to the Spirit of God. And prophecy btw is interpretation through Christ’s Spirit for the edification (meaning a changing of perspective) for the Church. 1 Cor 14:5

 

[guanophore]

This is a very interesting thread, and I have enjoyed reading the posts.

So your telling me that because most people at that time, that were literate, understood something a certain way, that that is what it is?

Actually the faith was not passed down by reading, but by practice/participation. By the time John 6 was written the disciples had already been partaking of the Real Presence for as much as 70 years.

Unlike Protestants, Catholics receive the faith from those to whom it was committed. We do not extract the faith from the pages of the Sacred Text. We see that the text reflects what the Church believes, but the faith was given to persons.

I’m saying, is my interpretation wrong? Because every argument against it is unsatisfactory when you look at other scriptures. It’s the concept of congruency. If it is wrong tell me why. Because you have not addressed my questions. They remain unanswered.

From reading the thread, I think your questions have been well answered. It has been made clear that the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery that cannot be grasped with the carnal mind (the flesh is of no avail).

Do you care about what has always been assumed about something, or rather whether something actually is that way?

This is a very good question.

Earlier in the thread you accused you opponents in this dialogue of argumentum ab auctoritate. You did this because they were appealing to what the Church has always believed and taught. This is not based on assumption, but history.

In fact, you are categorizing history as a fallacious example of an appeal to authority to dismiss evidence. On the contrary, it appears to be that you are the one who is dismissing the Church Fathers, and the Paradosis. What if what you have always “assumed” about the Eucharist 'actually is not that way?"

The only way I can describe this to you is that it is the continual perusal of truth. Which can NOT occur if, instead of discovering the origins behind a teaching, you accept it because it seems right, not ever finding out if it is actually so. A lot of men thinking something is right does not make it so. Hence why in logic the fallacy of ‘‘ad populum’’ exists.

I commend your diligence on this matter, and I trust that God will reveal the Truth to you, as He does to all who seek Him.

Please do not assume that all Catholics just accept this teaching because this is what we were “told” to believe. There are many of us who have had to do the same thing that you are doing, to :discover the origins behind a teaching". I think you will find that, the more you delve into the history of your faith, the more Catholic it will seem.

You will also find that those who did not believe in the Real Presence were always considered by the Church as heretics.

Secondly, while I agree Protestants are extremely fractured structurally in organizational authority and governing (due to doctrinal differences), ‘‘Catholicism’’ that you purport to hold, is quite fractured and splintered. Almost as badly as Protestants. A few examples include sedevacantists, sede-plenists, trads, rad trads, Old Catholics, independents, etc.

I can understand why it might seem that way, but unity is not defined by those who depart from it. The Catholic Church has One Faith, and it is identified by the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, in unity with one another around the successor of Peter. You will find this One Faith explained in the sure norm known as the Catechism (teaching) of the Church.

Many doctrinal differences have arisen because of the governing body imposing, upon pain of excommunication (as if THEY can usurp Christ cutting us from His Body), belief in an interpretation of Scripture.

The governing body was given this authority by Christ, it is not a usurpation, but a gift. But it is not about “belief in an interpretation of Scripture” as much as it is clinging to the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

So taking the stance, as you have, of placing your label upon a pedestal from with which you can look down from and JUDGE something to be false is clearly an overreach of power that belongs soley to the Spirit of God.

The Spirit of God works in and through the Church to keep us from falling into error by embracing falsehoods. We are obligated to judge what is true and what is false in the light of what God has revealed to us.

And prophecy btw is interpretation through Christ’s Spirit for the edification (meaning a changing of perspective) for the Church. 1 Cor 14:5

Yes, but since you have rejected the Apostolic definition of “Church”, how can you implement such a gift?

 

[God_I_Love]

This is a very interesting thread, and I have enjoyed reading the posts.

Actually the faith was not passed down by reading, but by practice/participation. By the time John 6 was written the disciples had already been partaking of the Real Presence for as much as 70 years.

Unlike Protestants, Catholics receive the faith from those to whom it was committed. We do not extract the faith from the pages of the Sacred Text. We see that the text reflects what the Church believes, but the faith was given to persons.

From reading the thread, I think your questions have been well answered. It has been made clear that the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery that cannot be grasped with the carnal mind (the flesh is of no avail).

This is a very good question.

Earlier in the thread you accused you opponents in this dialogue of argumentum ab auctoritate. You did this because they were appealing to what the Church has always believed and taught. This is not based on assumption, but history.

In fact, you are categorizing history as a fallacious example of an appeal to authority to dismiss evidence. On the contrary, it appears to be that you are the one who is dismissing the Church Fathers, and the Paradosis. What if what you have always “assumed” about the Eucharist 'actually is not that way?"

I commend your diligence on this matter, and I trust that God will reveal the Truth to you, as He does to all who seek Him.

Please do not assume that all Catholics just accept this teaching because this is what we were “told” to believe. There are many of us who have had to do the same thing that you are doing, to :discover the origins behind a teaching". I think you will find that, the more you delve into the history of your faith, the more Catholic it will seem.

You will also find that those who did not believe in the Real Presence were always considered by the Church as heretics.

I can understand why it might seem that way, but unity is not defined by those who depart from it. The Catholic Church has One Faith, and it is identified by the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, in unity with one another around the successor of Peter. You will find this One Faith explained in the sure norm known as the Catechism (teaching) of the Church.

The governing body was given this authority by Christ, it is not a usurpation, but a gift. But it is not about “belief in an interpretation of Scripture” as much as it is clinging to the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

The Spirit of God works in and through the Church to keep us from falling into error by embracing falsehoods. We are obligated to judge what is true and what is false in the light of what God has revealed to us.

Yes, but since you have rejected the Apostolic definition of “Church”, how can you implement such a gift?

Thank you for a thorough response I will not be able to fully respond at this moment as I’m quite busy today, but essentially my questions regarding Rom 8:9-10 have not been answered as far as I can tell. And My main issue is that I don’t see how Christ would have equivocated in the verses being discussed with the term flesh. I sorta see most teaching on this using a semantic shift. I have an issue with that. Anyways excellent point above^ and I will try and give as thorough of a response when I can. Thanks and God bless

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for a thorough response I will not be able to fully respond at this moment as I’m quite busy today, but essentially my questions regarding Rom 8:9-10 have not been answered as far as I can tell. And My main issue is that I don’t see how Christ would have equivocated in the verses being discussed with the term flesh. I sorta see most teaching on this using a semantic shift. I have an issue with that. Anyways excellent point above^ and I will try and give as thorough of a response when I can. Thanks and God bless

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:9-10

I guess I can see why another poster noted that you seem to be separating the Spirit and the Body.

Do we agree that to be “in the flesh” means that one is living according to the carnal nature?

Do we agree that one who his “in Christ” lives by the Spirit, and not following the desires of the flesh?

In John 6 Jesus is not saying His flesh is of no value - if that were the case, His sacrifice on the cross as the spotless lamb would have no value. He gave His Body to carry our sins to the cross.

The Body He gives us in Eucharist is his resurrected body, which is supernatural, and can only be apprehended mystically in the Spirit - not by our puny and limited natural minds (flesh).

 

[Duane1966]

This quote Is from porthos11 on an earlier thread:
she says*phago and trogo were at one time literal words for eat, but trogo had largely lost its literal meaning in common usage by the time of the gospels, which apparently can be seen in secular writings at the time.Another point of hers is thattrogo is not used at the last supper or in I Cor 11.

this is not true. trogo and phago had distinct meanings in Koine Greek, and became synonyms only later (as they are in modern Greek). But any good Protestant lexicon (see BAGD) will distinctly indicate “gnaw” for trogo.It doesn’t matter if trogo doesn’t appear in the Last Supper accounts what matters is that it was used in John 6.Now Jesus clearly says, “eat [phago] my flesh” and “drink my blood”. Context refers to the language of literal eating and literal drinking (not consummation or destruction as in James 5:3). Therefore, that parallel is eliminated. That leaves us with: what does it mean?At first it “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” can, at a stretch, mean “believe in me”, as Protestants would have. But there are problems here. Given the language of eating Jesus used, there is only one cultural metaphor than can be drawn short of the literal meaning: to “eat [a man’s] flesh and to drink [his] blood” is also a Semitic expression for causing grave bodily harm (cf. Micah 3:3). If the Jews heard this, then the only alternate explanation would be that “Unless you beat me bloody senseless, you have no life in you”, rendering his words nonsense. The “assault” metaphor, by the way, more closely parallels James 5:3’s context than John 6.Eat flesh=believe me didn’t click with Semitic ears, hence, you would see the Jews grumbling (every detail matters in John 6). Why grumble if they knew that Jesus was talking metaphorically? The answer is that they grumbled because they took his words literally.So did Jesus correct them? In many other cases, Jesus did correct misunderstandings: the leaven of the Sadducees and Herod; “Our friend Lazarus is sleeping” etc. But he did no such thing in this case, and only made it worse: by switching from phago to trogo.And when the Jews left him, he did not call them back or clarify his position.A careful reading of John 6 will tell us that Jesus meant his words literally. What it doesn’t say is how he would make this possible. That would come later.__________________

 

[guanophore]

Duane1966;12501180:

At first it “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” can, at a stretch, mean “believe in me”, as Protestants would have.

This is understandable if one focuses on one portion of the text to the exclusion of others.

“Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. … And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day”” (John 6:34-36, 40)

But there are problems here. Given the language of eating Jesus used, there is only one cultural metaphor than can be drawn short of the literal meaning: to “eat [a man’s] flesh and to drink [his] blood” is also a Semitic expression for causing grave bodily harm (cf. Micah 3:3). If the Jews heard this, then the only alternate explanation would be that “Unless you beat me bloody senseless, you have no life in you”, rendering his words nonsense. The “assault” metaphor, by the way, more closely parallels James 5:3’s context than John 6.

Thanks for this.

 

[Darryl_B]

…

My friend, it is you who has failed to answer, not just me, but everyone on this post. Your question was not about the Holy Spirit, it was about John 6, and a fairly significant portion of John 6, though you have insisted on focusing on one later verse separated from the source. You have used Greek lexicons with obviously no knowledge of Greek. You have used the term “illogical” in an incorrect manner, where you should have used the word “inconceivable”. You have not considered the Church Fathers, and you have not even correctly understood Martin Luther.

What am I to make of all this?

 

[God_I_Love]

This is a very interesting thread, and I have enjoyed reading the posts.

Actually the faith was not passed down by reading, but by practice/participation. By the time John 6 was written the disciples had already been partaking of the Real Presence for as much as 70 years.

Unlike Protestants, Catholics receive the faith from those to whom it was committed. We do not extract the faith from the pages of the Sacred Text. We see that the text reflects what the Church believes, but the faith was given to persons.

Alright since I have a little more time to thoroughly respond I will try and give as best a response I can. Now faith must come from a source, and that source is the word of Christ. ‘‘Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.’’ Rom 10:17 So once again we are back to this idea of faith deriving itself from the doctrine of Christ. Now you may claim that everything a certain authority teaches is true and correct, but that does not mean that they have a full understanding of the Truth. That can only be obtained by the Spirit of God. Now notice how I am not saying the Church is wrong in it’s teaching on the Eucharist, but what I am asking is: If I have Christ’s Spirit in me, Do I have all of Christ in me, or only part? Because How can Paul be saying He has the same Spirit in Christ and not have All of Christ? You claim that I am seperating Christ Spirit from His flesh and blood. Ok, so where is the Flesh and Blood of Christ in Paul when He has Christ’s Spirit in Him? I am NOT separating the Christ. The Spirit and His Flesh and Blood are indissoluble. Unless you refute that. Now I do not deny the Real Presence. Where did I assert that? I am asking about necessity, not the meta-physics behind Transubstantiation.

From reading the thread, I think your questions have been well answered. It has been made clear that the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery that cannot be grasped with the carnal mind (the flesh is of no avail).

Perhaps by your standpoint, though I disagree. For example the highlighted question is just another key issue at hand.
How is it a mystery? Christ is there. Flesh Blood Spirit and divinity. With faith it is not a mystery. With carnal (fleshly minded thinking) thoughts it is impossible, but through living by the Spirit the manifold wisdom of God is given to you, if you ask. ‘‘5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.’’ Jam 1:5

This is a very good question.

Earlier in the thread you accused you opponents in this dialogue of argumentum ab auctoritate. You did this because they were appealing to what the Church has always believed and taught. This is not based on assumption, but history.

In fact, you are categorizing history as a fallacious example of an appeal to authority to dismiss evidence. On the contrary, it appears to be that you are the one who is dismissing the Church Fathers, and the Paradosis. What if what you have always “assumed” about the Eucharist 'actually is not that way?"

Now I did not say History in and of itself was fallacious. However historical teaching on doctrine comes from an authority, and I do not know, without testing, that that authority has impeccability in it’s teaching capacity. Now by such a thought one become excommunicated, according to the church’s definition of anathema, and that in and of itself should show the flaw. Fear should not be a part of this. If you must use fear to instill teaching the authority has weak grounds to justify it. As for what I have always assumed about the Eucharist was that it was the flesh and blood of Jesus. Now upon examining the doctrine that it is based upon I see another interpretation in meaning behind this sermon. And upon looking at certain ideas espoused by the Apostles in their epistles I find a slight expression of this by the Spirit of God. Now is the Eucharist helpful for those that are carnal minded? Yea. Most children whom can not grasp certain abstract concepts are like this. So it is good and is instituted by God. But for those that are in the Spirit, and have the ‘‘same Spirit that was in Christ’’ in them, is reception of the Eucharist at that point necessary? Because if the Spirit and Flesh are indissoluble, could Christ not permanently dwell within the temple of our body in His entirety (this includes flesh and blood) by the Holy Spirit? If He can’t why?

I commend your diligence on this matter, and I trust that God will reveal the Truth to you, as He does to all who seek Him.

Please do not assume that all Catholics just accept this teaching because this is what we were “told” to believe. There are many of us who have had to do the same thing that you are doing, to :discover the origins behind a teaching". I think you will find that, the more you delve into the history of your faith, the more Catholic it will seem.

You will also find that those who did not believe in the Real Presence were always considered by the Church as heretics.

Well I trust that Truth can be found through God’s help. With that I agree. And I do not assume that you have not done your due diligence in the matter of your beliefs. I know you have. Yet sometimes in the pursuit of Truth one must accept when a previously held position may be in error. It is at that point that I think discussion is helpful. And I do believe in the Real Presence.

 

[God_I_Love]

I can understand why it might seem that way, but unity is not defined by those who depart from it. The Catholic Church has One Faith, and it is identified by the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, in unity with one another around the successor of Peter. You will find this One Faith explained in the sure norm known as the Catechism (teaching) of the Church.

So your definition of the Church is limited. The scriptural definition of the Church is all whom are in Christ’s Body. This is all whom believe in Christ Jesus.

The governing body was given this authority by Christ, it is not a usurpation, but a gift. But it is not about “belief in an interpretation of Scripture” as much as it is clinging to the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

This very faith you speak of has changed over the years. In many ways going against previous teaching. Compare Paul VI ordination right to Pius XII’s. The one prior was promulgated with Apostolic Authority, and should have needed no Change. Yet the teaching authority within the Church changed itself only a few years later, despite Apostolic blessing on the first rite. And faith is from the word of Christ, which is found in his doctrine. Not just something someone told me; something that Christ tells me through another’s mouth.

The Spirit of God works in and through the Church to keep us from falling into error by embracing falsehoods. We are obligated to judge what is true and what is false in the light of what God has revealed to us.

I agree. But that does not mean we can not come to a better understanding of doctrine, which is all I am trying to do.

Yes, but since you have rejected the Apostolic definition of “Church”, how can you implement such a gift?

Defined above. See definition

 

[pablope]

So y

Now in regards to your comments contrasting Catholic with Protestants I will say this. Firstly you are obscuring the pursuit of Truth and understanding with denominational label. Secondly, while I agree Protestants are extremely fractured structurally in organizational authority and governing (due to doctrinal differences), ‘‘Catholicism’’ that you purport to hold, is quite fractured and splintered. Almost as badly as Protestants. A few examples include sedevacantists, sede-plenists, trads, rad trads, Old Catholics, independents, etc. Many doctrinal differences have arisen because of the governing body imposing, upon pain of excommunication (as if THEY can usurp Christ cutting us from His Body), belief in an interpretation of Scripture. So taking the stance, as you have, of placing your label upon a pedestal from with which you can look down from and JUDGE something to be false is clearly an overreach of power that belongs soley to the Spirit of God. And prophecy btw is interpretation through Christ’s Spirit for the edification (meaning a changing of perspective) for the Church. 1 Cor 14:5

From…calledtocommunion.com/2014/11/please-stop-reinventing-the-wheel-an-invitation-to-peter-leithart/

I sympathize with Dr. Leithart’s lament that were he to become Catholic he would no longer be able to share a Eucharistic table with his brothers in Protestant communities. But in this implicit leveling out of doctrinal and ecclesial distinctions he advocated, does he not show a certain disrespect, even if unintended, toward those very communities and to the distinctions which prompted their formation? Agreement was not what occasioned the formation of the distinct communities. In fact, disagreements are and have been the occasion for the forming of distinct communities. A Reformed view of the Eucharist is not a Catholic view, for example.

Secondly, while I agree Protestants are extremely fractured structurally in organizational authority and governing (due to doctrinal differences), ‘‘Catholicism’’ that you purport to hold, is quite fractured and splintered. Almost as badly as Protestants.

calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/does-the-center-hold-the-story-of-fr-albert-scharbachs-journey-from-westminster-theological-seminary-to-catholic-priest/

Where the center holds

The more I understood Catholic doctrine, the more I could appreciate the need for the Church and the magisterium. Clarity of theology and ecclesiology go hand-in-hand. This was first true for the Early Church. Back to that moment when the papacy made sense in the Westminster library. One interesting observation I found was that a greater understanding of the significance of the papacy developed alongside the development of Christology. As we study Early Church history, we find that writings in the first two centuries paled in clarity when compared with Scripture. But doctrinal clarity in the writings of the Early Church Fathers dramatically increased as questions of Christology were resolved in the fifth century. This happens to be at the same time that ecclesiology became more defined through the strengthening of the papacy. The broad parallels suggest that this is no mere coincidence. In order to define the faith in the early Church, the center had to hold. That was found through the papacy in the Catholic Church. The need today is no different–both for the broader Church and in our individual lives.

 

[God_I_Love]

This quote Is from porthos11 on an earlier thread:
she says*phago and trogo were at one time literal words for eat, but trogo had largely lost its literal meaning in common usage by the time of the gospels, which apparently can be seen in secular writings at the time.Another point of hers is thattrogo is not used at the last supper or in I Cor 11.

this is not true. trogo and phago had distinct meanings in Koine Greek, and became synonyms only later (as they are in modern Greek). But any good Protestant lexicon (see BAGD) will distinctly indicate “gnaw” for trogo.It doesn’t matter if trogo doesn’t appear in the Last Supper accounts what matters is that it was used in John 6.Now Jesus clearly says, “eat [phago] my flesh” and “drink my blood”. Context refers to the language of literal eating and literal drinking (not consummation or destruction as in James 5:3). Therefore, that parallel is eliminated. That leaves us with: what does it mean?At first it “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” can, at a stretch, mean “believe in me”, as Protestants would have. But there are problems here. Given the language of eating Jesus used, there is only one cultural metaphor than can be drawn short of the literal meaning: to “eat [a man’s] flesh and to drink [his] blood” is also a Semitic expression for causing grave bodily harm (cf. Micah 3:3). If the Jews heard this, then the only alternate explanation would be that “Unless you beat me bloody senseless, you have no life in you”, rendering his words nonsense. The “assault” metaphor, by the way, more closely parallels James 5:3’s context than John 6.Eat flesh=believe me didn’t click with Semitic ears, hence, you would see the Jews grumbling (every detail matters in John 6). Why grumble if they knew that Jesus was talking metaphorically? The answer is that they grumbled because they took his words literally.So did Jesus correct them? In many other cases, Jesus did correct misunderstandings: the leaven of the Sadducees and Herod; “Our friend Lazarus is sleeping” etc. But he did no such thing in this case, and only made it worse: by switching from phago to trogo.And when the Jews left him, he did not call them back or clarify his position.A careful reading of John 6 will tell us that Jesus meant his words literally. What it doesn’t say is how he would make this possible. That would come later.__________________

This is an excellent post. Your thought here

Unless you beat me bloody senseless, you have no life in you

is exactly how I viewed the Jews perception on this teaching. When they murmur a second time about eating his Flesh this is clearly the thought going through the heads of the confused. So when Jesus addresses both the problems the Jews had in His discussion with the disciples he explains how: Through His Spirit, for His Spirit is inseparable from His Flesh and Blood. That is my conclusion. Not that this is some metaphor but that the Jews did not understand what was the source of life. But just so we are on the same page, Do you believe that Christ’s Spirit is separate from His Flesh and Blood?

 

[God_I_Love]

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:9-10

I guess I can see why another poster noted that you seem to be separating the Spirit and the Body.

Is the Spirit and the Body separate? Because I’m inferring from your words that you believe them to be inseparable. If that is true then perhaps we can be on the same page because I do believe Christ’s Spirit is inseparable from His Flesh and Blood. The implication of this, is that IF Christ’s Spirit is in me then so is His Flesh and Blood as they are inseparable.

Do we agree that to be “in the flesh” means that one is living according to the carnal nature?

I would not agree as it’s missing other important aspects. When someone says ‘‘Christ is come in the flesh’’ (2 John 1:7) what does that mean? That Christ has come living according to carnal desires? clearly not the case. So context is important when dealing with a word that has multiple meanings, as with the word flesh. One must be extremely careful not to blur two different concepts and equivocate and alter meaning.

Do we agree that one who his “in Christ” lives by the Spirit, and not following the desires of the flesh?

Agreed. Though understanding that the desires of the flesh are those that would turn us away from God. When we do not listen to the promptings of Christ’s Spirit within us .

In John 6 Jesus is not saying His flesh is of no value - if that were the case, His sacrifice on the cross as the spotless lamb would have no value. He gave His Body to carry our sins to the cross.

The Body He gives us in Eucharist is his resurrected body, which is supernatural, and can only be apprehended mystically in the Spirit - not by our puny and limited natural minds (flesh).

While I already addressed this, it is Christ’s Spirit that is delivering up His flesh. While they are one and inseparable, it is the Spirit that gives His flesh value.

 

[God_I_Love]

My friend, it is you who has failed to answer, not just me, but everyone on this post. Your question was not about the Holy Spirit, it was about John 6, and a fairly significant portion of John 6, though you have insisted on focusing on one later verse separated from the source. You have used Greek lexicons with obviously no knowledge of Greek. You have used the term “illogical” in an incorrect manner, where you should have used the word “inconceivable”. You have not considered the Church Fathers, and you have not even correctly understood Martin Luther.

What am I to make of all this?

My question regarding the Holy Spirit is extremely relevant to the matter at hand. For that is what Quickeneth. And His words are Spirit and life. This is just me quoting the original verses.This is a debate on Jesus’s explanation to His disciples regarding the complaints by the Jews. And I focus on the entirety. Just because my view is different than yours does not mean that I am not understanding the Chapter. Did you not read previous posts where I quoted the portions relating to this quote? If you would like a full on break down of six then I can write that for you but It would be quite lengthy and would distract from the issue at hand. As for the Greek aspect I do believe the DRA translation is quite good. So I do not need an extensive knowledge of Greek in order to trust it. The only thing I discovered was that the word ‘‘the’’ can also be translated as ‘‘this’’. If that is false please correct it. As for my use of the word illogical it was quite correct in it’s usage. Something can not be true and untrue at the same time. So when Jesus says. This is This and this. I believe this is this and this. But you tried saying Jesus meant: this is not this and this but explains this and this. Let’s take an equation. a+b=c. Jesus says C(my words) =(are) A(Spirit) and (in addition or +) B (Life). So when I see your statement that is clearly false based purely on logic, I used the term ‘‘illogical’’. I haven’t read many Church Fathers (besides Augustine and Thomas) and the only thing I’ve heard Luther wrote is ‘‘Sin and sin bodly’’ and I disagree with that. I do think he helped expand critical thought however in regards to Church practice simply by providing an alternate view on scripture. It is a check of power from the looks of it. The Church Father’s I’m focused on are those that wrote scripture as this is the source of Christ’s doctrine and those whom lived shortly thereafter. Also I do believe patience is in order when it comes to replies. As much as I enjoy these threads I do have other engagements at times and can’t put the time in to respond properly and thoroughly so I ask patience on your part. Anyways hopefully you can see the importance of the discussion regarding the Spirit and how it is integral to understanding the verse.

 

[Duane1966]

This is an excellent post. Your thought here

is exactly how I viewed the Jews perception on this teaching. When they murmur a second time about eating his Flesh this is clearly the thought going through the heads of the confused. So when Jesus addresses both the problems the Jews had in His discussion with the disciples he explains how: Through His Spirit, for His Spirit is inseparable from His Flesh and Blood. That is my conclusion. Not that this is some metaphor but that the Jews did not understand what was the source of life. But just so we are on the same page, Do you believe that Christ’s Spirit is separate from His Flesh and Blood?

You still have not addressed the fact that the word trogo is never used metaphorically, nor that other times when He was misunderstood He took the time to clarify His words. Here He lets them walk away. Why? Something else that makes no sense, why even use the terminology of “eat My flesh”, if what He really means is listen to My words and take them to heart?

 

[guanophore]

Alright since I have a little more time to thoroughly respond I will try and give as best a response I can. Now faith must come from a source, and that source is the word of Christ.

Not entirely. Faith is a faculty that is built into our human nature. Men can choose to place their faith anywhere - riches, power, material possessions, armies, etc…

‘‘Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.’’ Rom 10:17 So once again we are back to this idea of faith deriving itself from the doctrine of Christ.

I do agree that faith in Christ originates in the Divine, but not “doctrine”. It is the Person of Christ in which we place our faith. We receive the doctrine from Him because of who He is.

Now you may claim that everything a certain authority teaches is true and correct, but that does not mean that they have a full understanding of the Truth.

Everything that Jesus teaches is true and correct, because He is the Truth.

That can only be obtained by the Spirit of God. Now notice how I am not saying the Church is wrong in it’s teaching on the Eucharist, but what I am asking is: If I have Christ’s Spirit in me, Do I have all of Christ in me, or only part?

We all are limited…we see through a glass darkly. This is why we need the Church, because as individuals we are limited, and the Church comprises the fullness of His revelation to man.

Because How can Paul be saying He has the same Spirit in Christ and not have All of Christ? You claim that I am seperating Christ Spirit from His flesh and blood. Ok, so where is the Flesh and Blood of Christ in Paul when He has Christ’s Spirit in Him? I am NOT separating the Christ. The Spirit and His Flesh and Blood are indissoluble. Unless you refute that. Now I do not deny the Real Presence. Where did I assert that? I am asking about necessity, not the meta-physics behind Transubstantiation.

Paul believed in the Real Presence, and received Christ in the Eucharist.

I will have to defer to Thomas Aquinas on the meta-physics.

Perhaps by your standpoint, though I disagree. For example the highlighted question is just another key issue at hand.
How is it a mystery? Christ is there. Flesh Blood Spirit and divinity. With faith it is not a mystery. With carnal (fleshly minded thinking) thoughts it is impossible, but through living by the Spirit the manifold wisdom of God is given to you, if you ask. ‘‘5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.’’ Jam 1:5

So you believe your puny human mind is able to grasp this divine mystery? Perhaps you will then write your own book on the meta-physics? Meanwhile, I will stay with the teaching of Christ that the flesh is of no avail in grasping this divine mystery.

It is an error to think that having faith in something means it is no longer a mystery. On the contrary, we need MORE faith in those things that are mysteries, because our limited logic fails us.

I certainly encourage all of us to seek God’s wisdom in exploring the mysteries.

 

[guanophore]

Now I did not say History in and of itself was fallacious. However historical teaching on doctrine comes from an authority, and I do not know, without testing, that that authority has impeccability in it’s teaching capacity.

It appears that you have set yourself to the task, and I commend you in it. Studying the history of the Church is what brought me to the faith of the Apostles - not only in this, but in all else.

Now by such a thought one become excommunicated, according to the church's definition of anathema, and that in and of itself should show the flaw.

I think you lost me here. The Church encourages us to study our faith.

We are not excommunicated over random thoughts.

Fear should not be a part of this. If you must use fear to instill teaching the authority has weak grounds to justify it.

I am not sure where you have derived this premise, ,but it is false. There are things of which we should be afraid.

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt 10:28

It is the duty of the Church to warn the faithful when they are headed over a cliff. Those who have no fear of making a shipwreck of their faith will usually end up on the rocks.

That being said, I agree that authority should not be based in fear, and God’s authority is based in love.

Now is the Eucharist helpful for those that are carnal minded? Yea. Most children whom can not grasp certain abstract concepts are like this.

It would be a mistake to assume that children are necessary “carnal minded”. If this were the case, Jesus would not encourage us to become like them in order to receive the faith.
Children often find it much easier to accept abstract concepts that make adults choke.

So it is good and is instituted by God. But for those that are in the Spirit, and have the ‘‘same Spirit that was in Christ’’ in them, is reception of the Eucharist at that point necessary? Because if the Spirit and Flesh are indissoluble, could Christ not permanently dwell within the temple of our body in His entirety (this includes flesh and blood) by the Holy Spirit? If He can’t why?

For us it is enough that Jesus said it is necessary. Those of us that are fortunate to have access to daily communion find that we can sometimes not even go 24 hours without stepping outside of His grace in many ways large and small.

When we step outside of his grace, we stifle the Spirit within us, and can even separate ourselves from the Vine who gives us life.

Yet sometimes in the pursuit of Truth one must accept when a previously held position may be in error. It is at that point that I think discussion is helpful. And I do believe in the Real Presence.

Yes, I was very steeped in the heresies of the Reformation, having spent years among non-Catholic communities, and 3 years in a Protestant Seminary. I can certainly vouch that one must thoroughly examine ones positions in the pursuit of Truth.

 

[God_I_Love]

You still have not addressed the fact that the word trogo is never used metaphorically, nor that other times when He was misunderstood He took the time to clarify His words. Here He lets them walk away. Why? Something else that makes no sense, why even use the terminology of “eat My flesh”, if what He really means is listen to My words and take them to heart?

Well I am not sure of the English pronunciation of the Greek words, I do see trogo (not phago though please correct me) being used. Here are the Greek words used in reference to eat and perhaps you can explain the difference between them all as I am not as familiar with Greek. So in John 6:49, Jesus uses ‘‘εφαγον’’ when referencing the physical eating of mana in the desert. Next he says in 6:50, referencing eating Himself, He uses ‘‘φαγη’’. Same in 6:51. The Jews however, instead of using ‘‘φαγη’’ in verse 6:52, use ‘‘φαγειν’’. Indicating that they associated the eating Christ had been talking about with the physical consumption of Mana. Then in 6:53, Jesus uses another word when talking about eating His flesh, ‘‘φαγητε’’. in John 6:54 we then see ‘‘trogo’’ appear for the first time ‘‘τρωγων’’. Which I do see has indications for gnaw. Now again it appears in 6:56 (trogo). Now in 6:58 we see the fist distinction within the same sentence ‘‘εφαγον’’ (not as the fathers ate and died) vs ‘‘τρωγων’’ (He who eats of this bread). So as far as I can tell within this context ‘‘εφαγον’’ is past tense for eating vs ‘‘τρωγων’’ is present tense. It’s differentiating between ate vs actively eating. Is Trogo a more active tense verb in the Greek? I’m asking because I do not know; yet here it does seem to be used to differentiate time. So Jesus is NOT soley using trogo, he also uses ‘‘φαγη’’ and ‘‘φαγητε’’. If you would please highlight the various indications for eat used here. (Also in referencing the ‘‘just eaten’’, eaten in John 6:13 is ‘‘βεβρωκοσιν’’ so yet another word regarding eat being used by John)

Now I eagerly await a slight lesson to help me understand the Greek in regards to the verb eat, I will say that eating of words is very biblical. It is used in Jeremiah 15:16. Revalation 10:9. So to say that there is no way this could have been what Christ meant, to me, seems unsound. Especially in light of John 6:63.

 

[guanophore]

Is the Spirit and the Body separate? Because I’m inferring from your words that you believe them to be inseparable. If that is true then perhaps we can be on the same page because I do believe Christ’s Spirit is inseparable from His Flesh and Blood. The implication of this, is that IF Christ’s Spirit is in me then so is His Flesh and Blood as they are inseparable.

Clearly separation is possible, as when we die, our bodies remain here on earth when our Spirit is released to the afterlife. Once they are reunited, as in the Resurrection of the body, this separation will no longer exist.

Jesus taught that we were to eat His Body and drink His Blood in order to achieve this one flesh union with Him. I think you will find that the only time the Body and Blood are equated to his Real Presence (physically) is sacramentally in the Eucharist.

How is it that He is present to us especially in this way as in no other way? I do not know why He chose this mystery in which to be physically present with us, but He did.

I would not agree as it’s missing other important aspects. When someone says ‘‘Christ is come in the flesh’’ (2 John 1:7) what does that mean? That Christ has come living according to carnal desires? clearly not the case. So context is important when dealing with a word that has multiple meanings, as with the word flesh. One must be extremely careful not to blur two different concepts and equivocate and alter meaning.

Yes, I agree, which is why we reject the interpretation that all flesh is of no avail in Jn. 6. Clearly He is not referring to His Own Flesh, which was given in expiation of our sins.

Rather, He is saying that the carnal/fleshly/limited human logic cannot grasp the mystery of the Eucharist.

Agreed. Though understanding that the desires of the flesh are those that would turn us away from God. When we do not listen to the promptings of Christ’s Spirit within us .

Yes. There is nothing wrong with basic human instincts - the problem comes when they are not subject to Christ.

While I already addressed this, it is Christ’s Spirit that is delivering up His flesh. While they are one and inseparable, it is the Spirit that gives His flesh value.

I don’t think I would argue this. God created human flesh, and called it “good”. Then He came in the flesh, and took that flesh with Him into heaven, so that means there is nothing unclean in human flesh, of itself.

Let's take an equation. a+b=c. Jesus says C(my words) =(are) A(Spirit) and (in addition or +) B (Life).

This does not exclude the fact that eating His Body and drinking His blood does not also “give life”, for he says both things.

I haven’t read many Church Fathers (besides Augustine and Thomas)

You are in for a good time!

The Church Father's I'm focused on are those that wrote scripture as this is the source of Christ's doctrine and those whom lived shortly thereafter.

The ante-Nicean fathers give us a glimpse into the mind of the Church after the NT was written.

 

[God_I_Love]

Not entirely. Faith is a faculty that is built into our human nature. Men can choose to place their faith anywhere - riches, power, material possessions, armies, etc…

While I understand where your coming from that is not Faith. Those are things which are tangible that they seek and desire and can hold in their hand. So very little faith is required for perusal of the aforementioned. Hence why we must go back to scripture to define it for us.

I do agree that faith in Christ originates in the Divine, but not “doctrine”. It is the Person of Christ in which we place our faith. We receive the doctrine from Him because of who He is.

Is His doctrine his words? And are His words Spirit and life? Because faith comes by the word of Christ, through hearing his doctrine (unless we hear something other than Christ’s words whereby we receive faith and the Spirit).

Everything that Jesus teaches is true and correct, because He is the Truth.

We are in total agreement here

We all are limited…we see through a glass darkly. This is why we need the Church, because as individuals we are limited, and the Church comprises the fullness of His revelation to man.

Still fails to answer the question I highlighted in red.

Paul believed in the Real Presence, and received Christ in the Eucharist.

I will have to defer to Thomas Aquinas on the meta-physics.

I agree.

So you believe your puny human mind is able to grasp this divine mystery? Perhaps you will then write your own book on the meta-physics? Meanwhile, I will stay with the teaching of Christ that the flesh is of no avail in grasping this divine mystery.

It is an error to think that having faith in something means it is no longer a mystery. On the contrary, we need MORE faith in those things that are mysteries, because our limited logic fails us.

I certainly encourage all of us to seek God’s wisdom in exploring the mysteries.

You misunderstand. It is through faith that the mystery becomes clear. If I believe for example that God is everywhere and then begin to see in my life physical manifestations of that belief (belief coming first mind you) it only confirms my belief and brings me a brighter understanding of it. Same with the teaching of Christ. If Christ’s Spirit dwells in you, can that same Spirit not bring to mind the very things upon which Christ was basing His understanding of his doctrine? Or do you think Christ did not have a reason behind the words he spoke? an understanding of Spiritually minded things that we CAN NOT have unless His Spirit dwell within us? Try and explain a black hole to someone that lives in the middle of some Amazonian jungle. You can’t; but that doesn’t mean you don’t understand it yourself. Same with spiritually minded matters. It is only because of Christ being fully man and fully divine that He was able to communicate that which should have been impossible. And that is why Christ is ‘‘the firstborn of all Creation’’ because by Him we (new creations in Christ) are reborn and we become joint heirs with Christ as sons of God.

 

[God_I_Love]

Guanophore, I appreciate the time you are putting into your replies. I will respond to your others later today sometime.