Why didn't Jesus do the same thing in John 6...

[Mikeoffaith]

I think you could have been on to something if in fact Jesus was speaking in parable in John 6, but one would have to wonder why Jesus’ fledgling church, right off the bat, believed what the EOC and the CCC teach and believe today? No one believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically, regarding the Eucharist, for the first one thousand years of Christianity. That’s whole lot of people on the wrong path. Even the disciples of the apostles and their successors, etc. etc…believed what the CC believes today, regarding the Eucharist.

I don’t think that the fledgling church believed what the RC teaches today in the sense that I don’t believe the early church was concerned about the mechanics and having conversations about substance v. accidents. However, I don’t think there would be a disagreement between the church then and the church now about the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Did the holy spirit fail to guide Jesus’ church into all truth right from the word go???

Absolutely not! However, I’m certain when you guys came up with transubstantiation the Holy Spirit let out a big, “Oy Vey”.

 

[joe370]

Brian, let’s compare what Clement had to say with those men that came before him.

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) - said:

Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.

Clement, saying that the flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him, does not deny what Ignatius is clearly saying. If the bread is a symbol then there can be no alter and no sacrifice - right?

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) - said:

I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love.

Clement says to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality, which agrees with his predecessor, who says, I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and agrees with Clement by saying, for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love. If Clements use of the word figurative or symbolic means what non-Catholics think it means, then how can drinking mere wine (drink the blood of Jesus) - allow us to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality? Why does he refer to the Eucharist as renowned and glorious grace and then say, they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul, if it’s just mere bread and wine?

Clement, Letter to the Corinthians:

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release.”

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) - said:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

We can say that prior to this letter it was already the understanding of the early Church that to deny the Real Presence was a heresy, so why would Clement deny it? If Clement believed that the bread and wine were merely symbols, (in the protestant sense) - then why would he call them a sacrifice? Ignatius admonishes those who do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, so again, why would Clement not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ? If he is, as you believe (by using words like symbol and figurative) - then he must have been guilty of heresy, but he was not.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Justin the Martyr (100 -165 AD) - He was crystal clear in expounding what the early Church taught concerning the Eucharist:

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

Irenaeus noted,

“For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity” (Against Heresies, 180 AD).

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. “Eat my Flesh,” He says, “and drink my Blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

If the Eucharist were only a symbol Clement would not have deemed it an “incredible mystery.” Justin’s words need no further explanation. Irenaeus goes on to say that upon receiving the invocation of God, the bread is no longer common bread but the Eucharist.

Irenaeus of Lyons 2nd Century - 202 A.D. - said:

“For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity” (Against Heresies, 180 AD).

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

No symbolism in the words of Irenaeus. Here, we see Clement contradicting himself as well as his predecessors, if in fact you are right. Perhaps his use of symbol is different than the protestant use of symbol, otherwise he is teaching something contradictory to what his predecessors taught.

Irenaeus of Lyons 2nd Century - 202 A.D. - said:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30).

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

Irenaeus says that they receive the body and blood of Christ and that we are nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body. Clement goes on to say: is not Jesus’ blood figuratively represented as wine? Is he contradicting the others and himself by teaching that the bread and wine are mere symbols and not a genuine sacrifice which he teaches in other places?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Irenaeus of Lyons 2nd Century - 202 A.D. - said:

No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.”

Clement does not seem to be talking about the Eucharist. Irenaeus clearly says, the cup is Jesus’ blood and the bread is Jesus’ body.

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) - said:

“…offering of gifts.” He says, “Our sin will not be light if we expel those who worthily and blamelessly have offered the gifts of the episcopacy.”

Clement (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) - said:

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body.
Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .

This is clearly liturgical language spoken by Ignatius in light of Mt 5:23 and Lv.1: 2 and Lv 7:38, referring in this instance to the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by priests in the Mass and is consistent with all of his other quotes regarding the Eucharist.

Clement says, it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord, and then says, these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. I’m starting to wonder if his interpretation of symbolic body is the same as the protestant interpretation? Why are the words which are said over the bread, so important, for not eating the bread in an unworthy manner,** if the bread is nothing more than mere bread? **

Your thoughts Brian…

 

[joe370]

Hey Mike…

Mikeoffaith;7145987]I don’t think that the fledgling church believed what the RC teaches today in the sense that I don’t believe the early church was concerned about the mechanics and having conversations about substance v. accidents. However, I don’t think there would be a disagreement between the church then and the church now about the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I agree with you.

Absolutely not! However, I’m certain when you guys came up with transubstantiation the Holy Spirit let out a big, “Oy Vey”.

I didn’t come up with it. LOL… and like you said, the early church would not have had a problem with a word that basically says that the bread changes substance upon the words of consecration, for that is what they taught.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Let’s stop with all this interpretation nonesense and look at pure reason… are none Catholics basically insinuating that Christians all throughout history were completely wrong in believing in the real presence up until like a few hundred years ago when someone broke off the Church and “got it right”, even though Christians were doing it before the first books of the New Testament were written?

 

[joe370]

Let’s stop with all this interpretation nonesense and look at pure reason… are none Catholics basically insinuating that Christians all throughout history were completely wrong in believing in the real presence up until like a few hundred years ago when someone broke off the Church and “got it right”, even though Christians were doing it before the first books of the New Testament were written?

As a former non-Catholic that was the question, once answered honestly, that drew me to the CC.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey flyonthewall…
They don’t appear to be acting intentionally obtuse. They were avid followers up to that point, but become horribly troubled when hearing what Jesus had to say in John 6.

It’s your contention that, even though Jesus was speaking in metaphor he chose to intentionally deprive them of this metaphorical truth??? Jesus gave them the metaphorical truth - see verses 41 & 42. Instead of hearing the truth, they were too busy trying to figure out how He came down from heaven when they knew who His parents were.
He then gave them more metaphorical truths - see verses 48 - 52. He even tied in manna to help explain the symbolism, but instead of hearing the message, they only heard the words, and wondered how He could give His flesh to eat.

So, you believe that Jesus was speaking in parable in John 6 like He was in Matthew 13??? Your answer would certainly seem like a reasonable one if in fact Jesus was employing a parable, for the simple fact that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, as was the case in Matthew 13, were not given to them:

Well, I don’t know that the Apostles understood it that way. Certainly they did not teach it in the scriptures. I believe this concept was an later understanding that was projected backwards, so no, I don’t believe the Holy spirit failed to guide, but men failed to follow, or interjected their own beliefs and theories.
Remember, I do not hold the same beliefs about the Catholic church that you do.

 

[JonNC]

=Mikeoffaith;7145987]I don’t think that the fledgling church believed what the RC teaches today in the sense that I don’t believe the early church was concerned about the mechanics and having conversations about substance v. accidents. However, I don’t think there would be a disagreement between the church then and the church now about the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I think you are exactly right here, Mike. And its not that Transubstantiation is necessarily wrong, only that it is a human expression (even a reasonable one) of the RP, in a similar way that sacramental union is.
What we agree on is that there is a change, that upon consecration and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are the real and substantial body and blood of Christ, as His own words tell us. For me, the sad fact of our human expressions is they act to divide us on something we agree on. For me, this is a distinction without a difference.

Absolutely not! However, I’m certain when you guys came up with transubstantiation the Holy Spirit let out a big, “Oy Vey”.

For me, the “Oy Vey” has more to do with the unnecessary division our human expressions have caused.

Jon

 

[SnakeMauler]

Jesus gave them the metaphorical truth - see verses 41 & 42. Instead of hearing the truth, they were too busy trying to figure out how He came down from heaven when they knew who His parents were.
He then gave them more metaphorical truths - see verses 48 - 52. He even tied in manna to help explain the symbolism, but instead of hearing the message, they only heard the words, and wondered how He could give His flesh to eat.

No, He wasn’t speaking in parable as in Matthew 13, but in metaphor. Parables are metaphorical in nature, but in the context of a story. In John 6, He was directly tying the metaphor to Himself.

I don’t beleive He had to explain it. I believe they took it on faith. They did not always understand the things Jesus said, when He said them, but came to an understanding later.

Well, I don’t know that the Apostles understood it that way. Certainly they did not teach it in the scriptures. I believe this concept was an later understanding that was projected backwards, so no, I don’t believe the Holy spirit failed to guide, but men failed to follow, or interjected their own beliefs and theories.
Remember, I do not hold the same beliefs about the Catholic church that you do.

Last time I checked, the Bible was “Corrupted” for you Mormons, except when it talks about the “stick of judah” and “stick of joseph” and jesus talks about his “other sheep”

 

[flyonthewall]

Last time I checked, the Bible was “Corrupted” for you Mormons, except when it talks about the “stick of judah” and “stick of joseph” and jesus talks about his “other sheep”

I am sorry for your misunderstanding. If you really want to know what we believe about the Bible, then visit an LDS site. If you do not, then you will continually hold misunderstandings.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I am sorry for your misunderstanding. If you really want to know what we believe about the Bible, then visit an LDS site. If you do not, then you will continually hold misunderstandings.

The Bible is a good book as “far as it is translated properly”.

What, you mean the bible is only good if it is consistent with joeseph smith’s lost parts of the bible that were written in “reformed egyptian” which are in no way consistent with existing ancient manuscripts?

Seriously dude. I’m black and my grandfather was a mormon and he wasn’t allowed to be a priest so he left the Mormonism because it was bigoted and racist.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;7146818]I think you are exactly right here, Mike. And its not that Transubstantiation is necessarily wrong, only that it is a human expression (even a reasonable one) of the RP, in a similar way that sacramental union is.
What we agree on is that there is a change, that upon consecration and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are the real and substantial body and blood of Christ, as His own words tell us. For me, the sad fact of our human expressions is they act to divide us on something we agree on. For me, this is a distinction without a difference.

And I really don’t understand why the word sacrament or transubstantiation (human expressions) - is the cause of division. I mean, if the bread and wine really and completely, (sacramentally and spiritually speaking) - transform, completely, into Jesus’ flesh and blood under the veil of bread, as believed by everyone until the reformation, then what’s the problem? If the bread and wine continues to be mere bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, then what is being offered up to the Father is mere, useless bread and wine along with Jesus’ flesh and blood which was shed on Calvary. I don’t get that.

 

[flyonthewall]

The Bible is a good book as “far as it is translated properly”.

What, you mean the bible is only good if it is consistent with joeseph smith’s lost parts of the bible that were written in “reformed egyptian” which are in no way consistent with existing ancient manuscripts?

Seriously dude. I’m black and my grandfather was a mormon and he wasn’t allowed to be a priest so he left the Mormonism because it was bigoted and racist.

Translated correctly means the correct meaning is understood. This is true with any faith. There are lots of different meanings pulled from the bible that conflict, that isn’t really an LDS thing.

As far as being racist and bigoted, well, I suppose that could be your take on it, but no more racist and bigoted than Jehovah directs.
Remember it was Jehovah/Jesus that limited the availability of the priesthood before, and in fact limited who the gospel could be preached to…until the proper time came and it was changed.

 

[joe370]

Hey flyonthewall…

I said:

However, Jesus is clearly not employing the aid of parables in John 6. In the end the apostles did not walk away; they believed that the words just spoken in John 6 were the words of eternal life even though Jesus did not tell them that His words were symbolic. Why not at least tell the apostles, when they were all alone, that He was speaking figuratively or using parables and then explain the parable as He did in Matthew 13???

You said:

I don’t beleive He had to explain it. I believe they took it on faith.

Based on what???

 

[guanophore]

What about Clement of Alexandria? He taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the bread of life discourse. Are you familiar with this?

Clement was Catholic, and therefore, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. This does not negate any and all of the metaphorical meanings layered within Jesus’ teaching.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

And I really don’t understand why the word sacrament or transubstantiation (human expressions) - is the cause of division. I mean, if the bread and wine really and completely, (sacramentally and spiritually speaking) - transform, completely, into Jesus’ flesh and blood under the veil of bread, as believed by everyone until the reformation, then what’s the problem? If the bread and wine continues to be mere bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, then what is being offered up to the Father is mere, useless bread and wine along with Jesus’ flesh and blood which was shed on Calvary. I don’t get that.

I agree with you, Joe. But there’s lots of Catholics and Lutherans that don’t. They see Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union as being completely divergent ideas.

Jon

 

[rainman10]

The repeated asking of this question in these forums has moved past ridiculous. Do this for me Joe370:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

Without doing that, you are merely sitting on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones…oblivious to the shattering glass behind you.

To answer your question…(yet again) I would say that it is b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

The bible states that those who left were disciples, correct? Well, aren’t disciples followers of Christ? And if they are followers of Christ, then hadn’t they been called by the Father? Or am I missing something here?

Also, why would Paul state in 1Cor 11:27 " Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (KJV) How does one unworthily eat and drink a metaphor or symbol?

 

[rainman10]

I agree with you, Joe. But there’s lots of Catholics and Lutherans that don’t. They see Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union as being completely divergent ideas.

Jon

This is true, Jon. But as far as the Catholics are concerned, are they really Catholics, since they are not in agreement with the Church? There are many “cafeteria Catholics”, but are they truly Catholic?

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey flyonthewall…

I said:

You said:

Based on what???

Their faith was based on Christ. Jesus had already told them to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. They had faith that He would make it known to them, or that they would understand in time.
Verse 63, Jesus explains that understanding His words come through the spirit as His words are spirit(ual) not physical.
There is evidence that they already understood in verses 68 & 69