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

[flyonthewall]

The context made since to me when I was outside the CC, as is the case for many who were once, outside the CC.

Flyonthewall, I know that I was not given the final authority, by God, to translate scripture, outside His church. I doubt that you believe that you were given the final authority to translate scripture either. Who does have the final authority to translate/interpret sacred scripture???

I am not the final authority of scriptural interpretation. At best I can apply them to my own personal life.
It has always been given to prophets of God to expound upon the scriptures. The Holy Ghost also is the revealer of truth.

 

[flyonthewall]

Of course.

Okay…

Agreed…Post Pentecost…
Great so far

Where is the evidence that the apostles believed that Jesus was speaking in parable or in metaphor? This simply states that Jesus has the words of eternal life.

Before He asked them if they too will go away, He gave them the key to understanding His words:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”. In other words, don’t be like those who asked about eating literal flesh, look beyond the mere words to the spiritual to understand.
His Apostles understood already that He had the words of eternal life.

 

[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.

Radical or Flyonthewall, can you respond to my previous comment? This is what I had posted and I guess you two may have missed it: 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?

 

[SnakeMauler]

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.

Jesus didn’t limit the people who the Gospel could be preached to. The only thing that limited the apostles was how far they could walk.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

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

Jon

I agree completely Jon!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Exactly Joe! Even though we may believe in the exact same thing, differing from mechanics and of course the whole valid priesthood from the Vatican side, there is always going to be a divide. I think Lutherans are more willing to say look, it’s the same thing except for mechanics, but with Rome it’s usually an all or nothing stance.

 

[joe370]

Hey Mike…

Exactly Joe! Even though we may believe in the exact same thing, differing from mechanics and of course the whole valid priesthood from the Vatican side, there is always going to be a divide. I think Lutherans are more willing to say look, it’s the same thing except for mechanics, but with Rome it’s usually an all or nothing stance.

Mike, you are okay with the proposed doctrine by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist?

 

[joe370]

Hey flyonthewall…

Before He asked them if they too will go away, He gave them the key to understanding His words:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”. In other words, don’t be like those who asked about eating literal flesh, look beyond the mere words to the spiritual to understand.
His Apostles understood already that He had the words of eternal life.

And Jesus’ words of eternal life are:

I am speaking in metaphor or symbolically…

I am speaking in parable as I did at other times…

I am speaking literally in a spiritual sense…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Mike…

Mike, you are okay with the proposed doctrine by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist?

Hi Joe,
Not speaking for Mike, but I’m not convinced that Luther would accept your portrayal of his belief, as from his time (true) Lutherans have stubbornly avoided the use of the metphysical terms you employ here. We reject consubstantiation, impanation, etc.
In fact, it is the metaphysical language of Transubstantiation that we object to, not the belief that the bread, after consecration, IS His body, etc. Luther, unlike Melanchthon, never rejected the practice of Eucharistic Adoration.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Exactly Joe! Even though we may believe in the exact same thing, differing from mechanics and of course the whole valid priesthood from the Vatican side, there is always going to be a divide. I think Lutherans are more willing to say look, it’s the same thing except for mechanics, but with Rome it’s usually an all or nothing stance.

That may not be entirely true, or at least is “developing”, Mike.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Jon

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hey Mike…

Mike, you are okay with the proposed doctrine by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist?

In my opinion it goes much deeper than just mere coexistence. And yes, I am quite fine with calling it a Sacramental Union. I feel that this is a mystery that cannot be explained. How it happens on a philosophical or atomic plane does not matter and is really immaterial to the transformation that takes place on the altar and that transformation that takes place in my receiving Jesus Christ.

However, I don’t agree with those that will state that it is consubstantiation, impanation, or just simple memorial.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

That may not be entirely true, or at least is “developing”, Mike.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

In the commissions opinion. I have a feeling Rome may take a harder line than the discussions that have occurred. I whole heartedly agree with what the commission has brought to the table, however Rome is a big bulwark that is hard to move even if the movement comes from inside.

 

[JonNC]

In my opinion it goes much deeper than just mere coexistence. And yes, I am quite fine with calling it a Sacramental Union. **I feel that this is a mystery that cannot be explained. **How it happens on a philosophical or atomic plane does not matter and is really immaterial to the transformation that takes place on the altar and that transformation that takes place in my receiving Jesus Christ.

However, I don’t agree with those that will state that it is consubstantiation, impanation, or just simple memorial.

Mike,
In fact, Christ chose NOT to explain it.
Very well said, Mike.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Hi Joe,

Not speaking for Mike, but I’m not convinced that Luther would accept your portrayal of his belief, as from his time (true) Lutherans have stubbornly avoided the use of the metphysical terms you employ here. We reject consubstantiation, impanation, etc.
In fact, it is the metaphysical language of Transubstantiation that we object to, not the belief that the bread, after consecration, IS His body, etc. Luther, unlike Melanchthon, never rejected the practice of Eucharistic Adoration.

I could be wrong on this one, and I hope that I am, for then I could tell my niece and her husband that ML believed that the bread, upon the words of concentration, made a complete spiritual transformation into the body of Jesus, although veiled by the bread itself. That is quit a mystery. I would appreciate some help regarding this subject. Something that I could take to them and prove to them that Martin Luther did not believe that Jesus’ words, “this is my body” were merely symbolic. I wish I could show them that ML believed that the bread and wine really and truly became Jesus’ flesh and blood, upon the words of consecration, but there senses and logic won’t allow them to embrace the notion unless of course they come to realize that ML embraced said notion. Ironically they want nothing to do with the ECF’s but have no problem putting all of their trust in ML.

Sending them quotes of ML like this one, does not seem to matter. They think that I am making it up, I guess:

*“If five years ago D. Carlstadt, or anybody else, had been able to persuade me that there is nothing but bread and wine in the Sacrament, he would, I confess, have rendered me a great service. I have undergone severe struggles, and have twisted and turned to get over it (belief in the Real Presence), because I was fully aware that it would have been the most sever blow which I could have dealt against Popery …. But I am in prison. I cannot escape, the text (“This is my body”) is too powerful, and no words can make it mean anything else.” *

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

I could be wrong on this one, and I hope that I am, for then I could tell my niece and her husband that ML believed that the bread, upon the words of concentration, made a complete spiritual transformation into the body of Jesus, although veiled by the bread itself. That is quit a mystery. I would appreciate some help regarding this subject. Something that I could take to them and prove to them that Martin Luther did not believe that Jesus’ words, "this is my body"

 

[joe370]

Hey Mike…

In my opinion it goes much deeper than just mere coexistence. And yes, I am quite fine with calling it a Sacramental Union. I feel that this is a mystery that cannot be explained. How it happens on a philosophical or atomic plane does not matter and is really immaterial to the transformation that takes place on the altar and that transformation that takes place in my receiving Jesus Christ.

However, I don’t agree with those that will state that it is consubstantiation, impanation, or just simple memorial.

I agree. So you do believe that a complete transformation takes place upon the words of consecration? In other words, sacramentally, mystically and spiritually speaking, what is being offered up is 100% flesh and blood of Jesus Christ??? Even saying it now is still hard to believe/imagine, but I do.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

You say they are Lutheran???

Yes, they belong to a local Lutheran church:

holycrosslutheran.com/#/holy-cross/what-we-believe

That’s pretty good, there.

Try this:
“Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss I shall drink blood with the pope”

or, if they don’t like Luther, try Melachthon - from the Lutheran Confessions:

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

Thanks Jon. Those were pretty compelling…

]

 

[flyonthewall]

Radical or Flyonthewall, can you respond to my previous comment? This is what I had posted and I guess you two may have missed it: 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?

If you notice in that chapter, not everyone that was there, was there for things spiritual as is noted in verse 26

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

They were there for the food. So no, not all that were there were called by the Father.

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?

Because of what the bread and wine represent.
This type of symbolism is used throughout the scriptures.
How could one be healed by looking upon a serpent on a pole - because of what it represented. The serpent represented Christ, and if one looked to Christ, they would live.
The serpent wasn’t literally Christ, and nothing is mentioned about the substance of Christ being present in the serpent, but all one had to do is symbolically look to Christ, and they would live.

 

[flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles. Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and Tertullian would be second generation Fathers. Origen and Cyprian would be third generation Fathers. These are among the earliest witnesses we have to the faith as it was handed down from the Apostles. Therefore, in areas where they all have a general agreement their witness is significant, along with the others that came after them - correct?

If they believed what the present day CC believes regarding the Eucharist, then shouldn’t we believe?

The disagreement exists with the meaning of the words of Christ, why would it be any different with those that quote the words of Christ?
I read them and see symbolism. You read them and see literalism.
Keep in mind we have a basic disagreement about the validity of things once the Apostles died.

 

[joe370]

The disagreement exists with the meaning of the words of Christ, why would it be any different with those that quote the words of Christ?
I read them and see symbolism. You read them and see literalism.
Keep in mind we have a basic disagreement about the validity of things once the Apostles died.

You don’t believe that men like Ignatius and Polycarp (leaders that were taught directly by the apostles) - can be trusted when it comes to the truth regarding the Eucharist? Where is the symbolism in the following and what’s the point of the alter if the bread is nothing more than mere bread?

circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3

    I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life**. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ,** who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible. 

Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4

    Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God:** for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood;** one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. 

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7

    From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because **they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.