Why do Protestants reject the Real Presence?

[ibkc]

If the flesh is of no help then obviously the claim of the Eucharist containing actual flesh if false. But also notice the word believe which is used frequently throughout John 6. The question I would ask back is why did John not write an account of the last supper. He mentions they were having it but he never mentions Jesus speaking the words this is my body this is my blood. Not saying Jesus didn’t say that because it’s in the first 3 Gospels. But If John wanted us to relate John 6 to the last supper words of Jesus then surely he would have written details of it.

How much more detailed do you want?

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

 

[deacon_d]

How much more detailed do you want?

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

sighs…

One more time. Please keep reading:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

The flesh means nothing. What don’t you get about that??

 

[ibkc]

sighs…

One more time. Please keep reading:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

The flesh means nothing. What don’t you get about that??

I don’t get why you are relating these verses back to the earlier verses: in effect, claiming that Jesus contradicted himself immediately. Going by your interpretation, Jesus might just as well have said, “Does this offend you? Ha ha, I knew it would! I was just funnin’ you guys! That’s the way I roll, man!”

I also don’t get why you don’t understand that what he is saying here is that “the flesh” in your verses does not refer to His flesh, but to our earthly existence.

I think you need to read and understand with an open mind and heart, instead of clinging to man-made doctrines which make no sense when compared with Jesus’ actual words.

 

[SyCarl]

With respect to an actual transformation based on John 6 it is necessary to look at the preceeding verses as well.

The following verses would suggest an actual transformation.

John 6:
51. “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52. Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53. So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

What does Jesus say. In verses 51 and 54 Jesus is telling us that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. He puts no restrictions on these promises such as being a believer or being worthy. Taken literally if an athiest sneaks into a Catholic Mass and receives the Eucharist he would be saved. He would have met the requirements given by Jesus here of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Can this be true? I don’t think anyone would agree that this atheist would be saved. Other passages may speak about faith and being worthy but Jesus made no such restrictions in what He told these people to do.

In verse 53 He also says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we cannot have life. He makes partaking mandatory for salvation. Cannot it be true that unless you partake of what Catholics would regard as a validly consecrated Eucharist that we cannot be saved? This would be contrary to Catholic teaching which says if someone is validly baptised and doesn’t commit a mortal sin they are saved whether they receive the Eucharist or not. More importantly it contradicts what Jesus has said earlier in John 6.

John 6:
40. “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

1. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life

In these verses tells us, again without restriction, that anyone who believes will have eternal life. Yet if the verses about flesh and blood are translated literally, Jesus is contradicting Himself because He tells us that belief is not enough, but we must also eat His flesh and drink His blood.

As Jesus cannot be contradicting Himself, He cannot be speaking literally when He says to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Those who left did so because they took Him literally. If it was literal it would be contrary to the Law. But they were mistaken.

Jesus give an explanation.

John 6:
61. But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62. "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Jesus asks if they would still grumble if they saw Him ascend to Heaven. If He was in Heaven, they could not actually be eating His body. As such, the flesh profits nothing. The Apostles understand His meaning. When He asks if they will leave, they say:

John 6:
68. Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

The Apostles say nothing about eating His body. Instead they talk about His words and belief.

It appears clear that eating His flesh and drinking His blood are figures for believing, not actual eating and drinking.

 

[ibkc]

I am skeptical of your argument, for many reasons, but a large chunk of my skepticism is because Christians celebrated the Mass from the beginning, and the Eucharist was the central theme from the beginning. I fail to understand how someone could have the arrogance to come along 1500 - 2000 years later and claim that this was incorrect. I understand the problems in the church that led to the Reformation, but dropping belief in the centrality of the Eucharist, and belief in the Real Presence, seems a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[deacon_d]

I don’t get why you are relating these verses back to the earlier verses: in effect, claiming that Jesus contradicted himself immediately.

In the spirit of good teaching this needs to be 2 posts sorry

Because these verses relate to the earlier verses plain and simple. It’s not a separate conversation and Jesus is not contradicting HIMSELF. Jesus reaches the end of this teaching, knows the Jews are grumbling about it. Then candidly explains. He’s standing in front of the synagogue the entire time while teaching this. Why wouldn’t I relate it. The problem is you separate it which is not how you translate the Bible. That’s called proof texting.

Going by your interpretation, Jesus might just as well have said, “Does this offend you? Ha ha, I knew it would! I was just funnin’ you guys! That’s the way I roll, man!”

HE did know it offended them. That’s what you are missing. But the question is WHY??? Because they were interpreting it as cannibalism. But that’s not how Jesus meant it. Just because they weren’t getting it doesn’t mean Jesus is contradicting HIMSELF. It’s not Jesus fault they weren’t opening their hearts and minds to what he was saying. They were so focused on the literal interpretation, just as you are, that they lost sight of the message. Just like you are. Do you realize that yet??? That would be like you misunderstanding something I said. Then accusing me of contradicting myself of something I never said.

If Jesus really meant to consume HIS flesh and blood, then HE would be teaching something that GOD HIMSELF forbids in the Bible. So why would HE do this. Short answer. HE WOULDN"T. By your interpretation we should be practicing cannibalism. I think GOD would have something to say about that and it wouldn’t be good.

I also don’t get why you don’t understand that what he is saying here is that “the flesh” in your verses does not refer to His flesh, but to our earthly existence.

That’s impossible Why? Because Jesus has been talking about HIS own flesh the entire time. He never mentions OUR flesh. Again it’s ONE conversation. John verses 52-59 are not separate conversations from John 6 verses 60 - 71. This all happens within the synogogue at Capernaum. Please re-read John chapter 6 from beginning to end. Then show me where Jesus breaks the conversation. There is a logical transition from verse 59 to verse 60.

Verse 59 - Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

Verse 60 - When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

What saying are they talking about??? That’s pretty obvious.

The saying from verses 51-58 and I quote:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

So again Jesus is talking about HIMSELF the entire time.

Now let’s pick up 60-65:

John 6: 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus clarifies right here HIS flesh means nothing. Why? Because he’s going to die. He’s going to sacrifice HIMSELF for us as the one time price for SIN. Many Jews didn’t understand this. No one understood this. Not even the Apostles. No one understood why HE had to die until after HE was resurrected. Hence it is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh means nothing.

Now look at the rest:

John 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

This is what made the disciples who stayed so special. They trusted Jesus implicitly and most importantly they BELIEVED. This was Jesus message the entire time. BELIEVE, BELIEVE, BELIEVE. Not eat me. Peter says it himself.

This really is not that difficult.

 

[deacon_d]

I think you need to read and understand with an open mind and heart, instead of clinging to man-made doctrines which make no sense when compared with Jesus’ actual words.

Brother please don’t give me a canned Roman Catholic response. This is not man-made doctrine. This is interpreting what Jesus is saying here. I grew up Roman Catholic and could never understand it until I realized what I was trying to understand wasn’t what Jesus was saying. The Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance of HIM. What he did. We observe it because HE asked us to and it serves as a reminder of the great sacrifice Jesus and GOD made for us. Not to comsume HIS flesh.

Let me ask you one thing. Have you chopped off your hands and gouged out your eyes yet? I’m sure they have committed sin. Jesus tells us it is better to do this and have just those body parts go to hell than the entire body. I’ll answer that for you. No you haven’t and neither have I. Why, because we both know Jesus is speaking figuratively. He’s driving home the point of HIS and GOD’s feelings toward sin. What if someone would have turned away from Jesus there saying this is a hard teaching. Then Jesus says wait I’m just speaking figuratively. Would you then say he’s contradicting HIMSELF again?? No. Don’t acuse Jesus of contradicting HIMSELF just because you or someone else doesn’t comprehend what he is saying.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

I am skeptical of your argument, for many reasons, but a large chunk of my skepticism is because Christians celebrated the Mass from the beginning, and the Eucharist was the central theme from the beginning. I fail to understand how someone could have the arrogance to come along 1500 - 2000 years later and claim that this was incorrect. I understand the problems in the church that led to the Reformation, but dropping belief in the centrality of the Eucharist, and belief in the Real Presence, seems a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If a large chunk of your skepticism is because of history, I would say be even more skeptical of that history. Actually it’s not true that the mass was celebrated in the beginning. That’s a completely false statement. You need to understand the role that Greek Philosophy played in this. If you study Greek philosophy then you will realize this is exactly how a Greek philosopher would interpret Jesus teaching during the last supper and John chapter 6. Augustine was majorly into Greek philosophy.

Also I would like to add that Ignatius, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, wrote that the eucharist gave you immortality. Assuring that anyone who ate the Eucharist would never die. Now who’s making a bad interpretation?? This is where the Bible becomes so important. If we rely solely on history we would never know if the teaching was misunderstood or got flat out corrupted. Let me ask you this. If transubstantiation was so widely practiced that early in our church history, then why wasn’t it declared doctrine until 1215AD??? The belief was not across the board. The other interesting point is we also find nothing of this teaching in the Didache which lays out the practices of early Christians in worship. No where does it state anything to do with Transubstantiation.

I don’t believe in dropping the centrality of the Eucharist. That’s our proclamation of our Faith. It’s how we outwardly state our belief with an action. In other words. It’s everything. The real presence isn’t though. That’s an add on. Might I suggest a spiritual presence?? That would make more sense.

PEACE

 

[ibkc]

Brother please don’t give me a canned Roman Catholic response.

I am a sister, not a brother. And if I am giving you canned Roman Catholic responses, you are giving me canned fundamentalist Protestant responses, so I guess we’re pretty equal at this point.

We are on track with the whole thing about people misunderstanding it as cannibalism. (And if you, as a former Catholic, believe the Catholic view to cannibalism, I suggest to you that you are mistaken.) We are on track with the Apostles staying because they BELIEVED (capital letters). What you are failing to do is to take into account both the translation and the cultural aspects of what Jesus did.

If a large chunk of your skepticism is because of history, I would say be even more skeptical of that history. Actually it’s not true that the mass was celebrated in the beginning. That’s a completely false statement.

So the following statement from Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

This is figurative, too? It isn’t an indication that the Mass was being celebrated in the very earliest days of Christianity? Because honestly, if the Eucharist was held to be only marginally important and symbolic and only done once a month with grape juice and crackers, he seems to use some mighty literal language in describing it, and he also holds it up as something extremely important.

Also I would like to add that Ignatius, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, wrote that the eucharist gave you immortality. Assuring that anyone who ate the Eucharist would never die. Now who’s making a bad interpretation??

I don’t understand you here. Are you saying Ignatius is making a bad interpretation?

This is where the Bible becomes so important. If we rely solely on history we would never know if the teaching was misunderstood or got flat out corrupted.

No one is saying to rely solely on history; I am certainly not. I am holding up history as an example to support what is in the Bible. You are rejecting history to support what you want to see in the Bible.

Let me ask you this. If transubstantiation was so widely practiced that early in our church history, then why wasn’t it declared doctrine until 1215AD??? The belief was not across the board.

Because it was taken for granted as true for so long before it was questioned enough to be made into dogma.

 

[deacon_d]

I am a sister, not a brother. And if I am giving you canned Roman Catholic responses, you are giving me canned fundamentalist Protestant responses, so I guess we’re pretty equal at this point.

2 posts again sorry

My bad. Pardon Sister. Actually I’m not giving a canned Protestant response. I’m giving a strict Biblical interpratation.

We are on track with the whole thing about people misunderstanding it as cannibalism. (And if you, as a former Catholic, believe the Catholic view to cannibalism, I suggest to you that you are mistaken.) We are on track with the Apostles staying because they BELIEVED (capital letters). What you are failing to do is to take into account both the translation and the cultural aspects of what Jesus did.

If you are suggesting to anyone that you are in fact consuming flesh and blood, then yes it is cannibalism. As far as taking into account what Jesus said and with regard to cultural aspects, I would suggest that it is you who are failing to do this. Let’s roll back time and think about what Jesus was saying to the Jews. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. That was cannibalism pure and simple. This is the problem we get into when interpreting John 6. We’re not remembering that these were Jews Jesus was talking to. This is how they would have understood it. But again this is not how Jesus meant it. He couldn’t have because it was against the law. So is this Jesus fault?? No. But the worst thing we can do is continue to misunderstand HIM today. Again I don’t know why you don’t see that. Jesus was telling us to BELIEVE pure and simple. It’s like you make a statement, I’m drowning myself in the Bible to get to know GOD. Does that mean that the Bible becomes water and you drown in it? No it’s figurative. Again did you chop off your hands and gouge out your eyes?? No because Jesus was being figurative.

So the following statement from Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
This is figurative, too? It isn’t an indication that the Mass was being celebrated in the very earliest days of Christianity?

Yes it is figurative and no it doesn’t imply mass. We’re not re-sacrificing Jesus which by definition is what mass means. The sacrifice is over. Jesus has risen. No need to re-sacrifice HIM again and again and again. You have to understand what Paul was facing with the Corinthians. These folks were really bad. They were getting drunk, practicing alot of sexual immorality and keeping the poor from worshipping with them. So Paul lays into them and is basically saying “Have some respect”. Imagine if someone was guzzling an entire gallon of wine in church today saying “the blood of Christ”. This is what was happening in Corinth. When Paul repeats Jesus command of do this in remembrance of ME, the original Greek word of remembrance is the same as memorial. It’s basically a memorial service each week to be very very simple. The other thing to remember is most Christians in the early early days right after Penetecost worshipped in their houses. There was no such thing as a mass. Again the practice of a mass fits right in with Greek philosophy which was very prominent in Rome. Also look at the Didache. It has no mass implication at all.

Because honestly, if the Eucharist was held to be only marginally important and symbolic and only done once a month with grape juice and crackers, he seems to use some mighty literal language in describing it, and he also holds it up as something extremely important.

I would agree. Who says I do it once a month. We do it every week at our service and I assure you it means everything to us. Personally I think we should do it everyday. But really there is no time frame given by Jesus. He just says as often as you drink from this cup. But to me it should then be quite quite often because this is our Savior we are proclaiming. With reference to grape juice I believe most churches do this because of alcoholism. And really the wafer Catholics use is nothing special. I say let’s use real unleavened bread, but most churches won’t because it’s too expensive. We tried at St. Matthews when I was growing up. It was outrageously expensive and we only did it like for 2 weeks. But how about this. Most Catholic churches don’t offer the wine to everyone. Only the Priest drinks it. The Pope made a declaration that the bread was sufficient for both elements. Did you know that? Talk about going against Jesus command of drinking from the cup.

I don’t understand you here. Are you saying Ignatius is making a bad interpretation?

Yes. He actually thought that the bread would keep you from dying. That it contained the secret to immortality. That’s not what it is at all and you know that as well as I do. We do it because we BELIEVE. There’s that word again Not because it’s going to keep us from dying. This is why I’m always skeptical when someone says “well the early church fathers said this and that and did this and that”. What if they were wacko. This is why I always refer to 2 Timothy 3.:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Contd below…

 

[deacon_d]

No one is saying to rely solely on history; I am certainly not. I am holding up history as an example to support what is in the Bible. You are rejecting history to support what you want to see in the Bible.

No but history and tradition get thrown out alot by Catholics. And history and tradition doesn’t mean they made the right interpretation. Someone could have changed it very easily. Do you ever consider that?? With respect to rejecting history to only see what I want to see in the Bible. Isn’t that a little presumptuous of you?? I have no problem with history. But in this case I think some of the early church Father’s got this wrong. Not the Apostles but some of those following. I think they misunderstood just like you are today. See how easy it is. Sometimes we give so much credit to these guys that we don’t realize many of them were very uneducated. Others like Augustine were very much into Greek Philosphy. It was very popular in Rome at the time of the early church. Many practices of Greek Philosophy were maried into the early church just like some pagan practices. I don’t remember Jesus saying, apply Greek Philosophy to my teachings so you can see what I mean.

Sometimes you have to step outside the Catholic church to realize some of these things. I don’t say abandon it by any means. But be careful not to just let everything be spoon fed to you and except it. This is how satan will easily lead us away. Not accusing the Roman Catholic church of being satan by the way Just making a point to be a little more open minded sometimes. It’s not a Protestant vs Catholic thing here. I hate that.

Because it was taken for granted as true for so long before it was questioned enough to be made into dogma.

Then why was it ever questioned?? This is the problem. The early church was not unanimous. I can’t stress this enough. That’s why it took so long. Even when it was voted on the vote was not unanimous. The church will say it was but there are writings that say no. Who really knows? That’s why I made it a priority to study the Bible and get to know Jesus.

Peace.

 

[savedsinner]

sighs…

One more time. Please keep reading:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

The flesh means nothing. What don’t you get about that??

Your interpretation of this passage is what I don’t get.

When Jesus said ‘the “flesh” is no help at all’, he is referring to natural human reasoning. His words are heavenly, divine, from God. It takes a supernatural faith to accept his words, you can’t accept it with your own natural reasoning.

 

[ibkc]

(re: St. Ignatius)
Yes. He actually thought that the bread would keep you from dying. That it contained the secret to immortality. That’s not what it is at all and you know that as well as I do. We do it because we BELIEVE. There’s that word again Not because it’s going to keep us from dying.

See, the thing is, thinking that it contains the secret to immortality (in the Christian sense, of course) is, at least to me, perfectly in line with what Jesus says in John 6:
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ "
Also, his statement about the Eucharist has nothing to do with whether or not the Eucharist is also a demonstration of belief. Clearly it is. That’s something even the two of us can agree with, and hopefully we can agree that St. Ignatius would agree as well.

I do have to wonder why you and others are so willing to discount the words of this man, who learned the faith from someone who learned directly from one of the Twelve Apostles.

This is why I’m always skeptical when someone says “well the early church fathers said this and that and did this and that”. What if they were wacko.

What if, indeed. If the early church fathers were wacko, then that calls into question the whole of Christianity. Hey, the Jewish leadership and the Romans certainly thought the early Christians were wacko. You’ve got that in common with them - but not with me!

This is why I always refer to 2 Timothy 3.:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

But Scripture was written by the early Church fathers - those very people who you claim might be ‘wacko.’ Paul was a church father. Timothy was a church father. Every person who put quill to parchment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was a Church father. What if they were wacko?

Sometimes you have to step outside the Catholic church to realize some of these things. I don’t say abandon it by any means. But be careful not to just let everything be spoon fed to you and except it. This is how satan will easily lead us away. Not accusing the Roman Catholic church of being satan by the way Just making a point to be a little more open minded sometimes. It’s not a Protestant vs Catholic thing here. I hate that.

It is rather amusing though. I am a new convert to Catholicism. My life until the past few years has been so open-minded that you’d probably be scandalized to hear the details. So I will spare you those, but I will tell you I come to Catholicism via a “free-thinking” childhood, standard Episcopalian teen years, hedonistic and godless (bordering on atheism) college years, Buddhism in my late 20’s and neo-paganism throughout most of my 30’s. Throughout all I have pursued comparative religion regularly, mostly focusing on Protestant Christianity vs. eastern and ancient European pre-Christian beliefs, because growing up and living in the Bible Belt, Protestantism was pretty much all I knew. At some point I began looking at Catholicism, not with any intention of converting, but simply because I was curious. Imagine my amazement when I realized that everything I thought I knew about Christianity was wrong, and that all the difficulty I’d had throughout my life with Christianity was actually difficulties with the various claims of Protestantism.

Quote:
Because it was taken for granted as true for so long before it was questioned enough to be made into dogma.
Then why was it ever questioned?? This is the problem. The early church was not unanimous. I can’t stress this enough.

Well, there were people who preached unorthodox interpretations all along. These people were called ‘heretics’ and we have them to thank for moving the Church to tighten up its dogmas and to define Christianity more precisely. Other than that, we have little to thank them for, IMO.

 

[deacon_d]

Your interpretation of this passage is what I don’t get.

When Jesus said ‘the “flesh” is no help at all’, he is referring to natural human reasoning. His words are heavenly, divine, from God. It takes a supernatural faith to accept his words, you can’t accept it with your own natural reasoning.

You almost have it. But let’s try it again a little more bluntly. Jesus just got finished telling a bunch of Jews that they needed to eat HIS flesh and drink HIS blood. To which they basically have a heart attack because they think he’s implying cannabalism. Now we know that this is impossible because GOD expressly forbids this in the Bible. With me so far??

Jesus is trying to get them to connect eating HIS flesh and drinking HIS blood with believing in HIM. Again, believe, believe believe. Jesus isn’t just saying believe but essentially live your life for me. Let me dominate your life. Let me into your heart. In other words drown yourself with me. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. Be totally consumed with me. However else you want to say it. But the Jews can’t get over this cannabalism thing. Why?? Because they’re not looking past the figurative language Jesus is using. Similar to what you are doing. They are taking HIM so literal that they think he is crazy to ask this of them. Still with me??

Now, Jesus hearing them grumble about this teaching basically says, does this offend you? Of course he knows it does because they are being too shallow and are not seeing HIS message for what it really is. They are so stuck on this flesh eating thing they can’t get by it. So Jesus says, suppose you saw me ascend to where I came from?? In other words, suppose you saw me ascend into Heaven. Or how about if you saw me return to GOD. Would this basically convince you to BELIEVE in me??? So in a sense HE’s saying, what is it going to take to realize that if you believe in me you WILL have eternal life. Knowing that the Jews are still stuck on the flesh eating and blood drinking thing, Jesus finally clears it up and says:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

So Jesus is basically saying, it’s not eating my physical flesh and drinking my physical blood that gives you eternal life. It is the Spirit. DING DING DING. The flesh means nothing, why?? Jesus is going to die plain and simple. We have the priviledge of knowing the outcome because we have scripture that tells us the story. The Jews have no idea that their Messiah has to die to open their new Kingdom. They still think the restored Kingdom is going to be established here on earth and Jesus is teaching that eating HIS flesh will make them live forever within that Kingdom. Almost like the tree of life. But the new Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom.

So given this it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would tell us to eat bread that becomes HIS flesh. Why? Again because the flesh is nothing. What’s so amazing to me is that just as this was a hard teaching for the Jews, it seems to be harder for the Roman Catholics. The difference is the Roman Catholics actually think they are eating a piece of Jesus flesh. That’s why it gets stored in the tabernacle. The belief is that Jesus is physically in there. This has such a stain of Greek Philosophy it’s actually amazing.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

See, the thing is, thinking that it contains the secret to immortality (in the Christian sense, of course) is, at least to me, perfectly in line with what Jesus says in John 6:
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ "
Also, his statement about the Eucharist has nothing to do with whether or not the Eucharist is also a demonstration of belief. Clearly it is. That’s something even the two of us can agree with, and hopefully we can agree that St. Ignatius would agree as well.

Right but remember Jesus says that even the Jews ate the manna and died. So he’s contrasting that with eating him **(believing) **and having eternal life. So the talk can’t be about anything of physical substance here that gives eternal life. We don’t eat the Eucharist to get eternal life. We eat it to demonstrate we believe and as a remembrance of what Jesus did for us. We may be saying the same thing

I do have to wonder why you and others are so willing to discount the words of this man, who learned the faith from someone who learned directly from one of the Twelve Apostles.

Ignatius did not learn directly from an Apostle. It was originally thought he may have succeeded Peter in Antioch but the 2 churches in Antioch comfirmed it was Evodius. Also remember that several of Ignatius’ letters have been confirmed as forgeries. So really we don’t know what he actually wrote. What he wrote about the Eucharist you must admit is quite controversial. To imply immortality by eating the Eucharist. Actually the only writings we have from any disciple that was trained by an Apostle was Polycarp who was trained by John. It is believed he is the only possible direct apostolic successor considered by any church to have written any document that we still possess to this day. So this is why when we say church Fathers I get a little guarded. The only real reliable writings we have from church Fathers are within the Bible.

What if, indeed. If the early church fathers were wacko, then that calls into question the whole of Christianity. Hey, the Jewish leadership and the Romans certainly thought the early Christians were wacko. You’ve got that in common with them - but not with me!

Hey hey now Let me clarify. I said some of them could have been not all. But remember alot of writings we have are forgeries. We see this with the writings we have from about 150AD when all the sudden Gospels with names like Peter and Phillip started to appear. I think this is a testament to the care that was put into the books and letters that were considered as true Canon. Suppose writings we have from early church fathers are forgeries and we’re following some bad teachings. The thing to remember is that church and state were combined under Constantine. So Greek Philosophy, Political influence and Pagan practices got married into Christianity. I’m very guarded about this. So when someone says “well tradition”. I say “well tradition can be tainted”.

But Scripture was written by the early Church fathers - those very people who you claim might be ‘wacko.’ Paul was a church father. Timothy was a church father. Every person who put quill to parchment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was a Church father. What if they were wacko?

Yes and they are my heroes. Which is why the Bible is it for me. I believe GOD preserved the Bible through the ages so you and I would have it today. 2 Timothy 3 again.

I had to cut out your middle text here to keep the post to one page I read it though. Very colorful

Tell me something about Christianity you thought was right but turned out to be wrong. I’m very curious. Also remember this. GOD knows where you will grow. Read Paul’s letter to the Corinthians about divisions in the church. He comments how He planted, Appollos watered but GOD will ultimately make you grow. Paul tells us it’s not important who plants and waters. It’s GOD in the end who makes you grow. I believe if you were struggling with your faith at all then GOD prompted you to look and placed you where you;d grow. I was the opposite. I spent 35 years in the Roman Catholic church. Fell away because I wasn’t getting it. I prayed to GOD for a long time for help. Now I attend non-denom services and my spirit has exploded. I believe he led me there.

Well, there were people who preached unorthodox interpretations all along. These people were called ‘heretics’ and we have them to thank for moving the Church to tighten up its dogmas and to define Christianity more precisely. Other than that, we have little to thank them for, IMO.

Keep this in mind. The gnostics were declared heretics. The gnostics claimed that the Holy Spirit only spoke to them and they were privy to information no one else was. They denied the real presence in the Eucharist. But now the Roman Catholic church would have you believe that the Holy Spirit only speaks to the Pope and teaching Magisterium on matters of Faith and interpretations of the Bible. Hence the whole infallibility thing. Now who’s calling the kettle black? I can remember when we were not allowed to read the Bible in the Roman Catholic church. We were told we were unqualified to interpret it.

PEACE

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

And Christ promised that even the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. In other words no amount of false teachings would be allowed to be taught within His Church. Hence any false ideas that tried to interject itself into the Church was thrown out by those Bishops entrusted to teach the faith.

Two, I invite you deacon to read what I posted before:

Your interpretation does not follow with the reaction of not only the Jews but also many of Jesus’ disciples after He had said what He said.
John 6
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60]Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66]After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

This is by no means a figure of speech. And Jesus meant exactly what He said. He wanted to provoke controversy. Those who believed that He was the Messiah believed only because they had seen the signs He had performed, anyone who had seen what they saw would come to that logical conclusion. Jesus wanted to test their true belief so He revealed something of the age to come, the age of the Church and the Kingdom, and because of this truth their faith was shaken and they quit following Him. All except the apostles. Whose words echo in every Catholic Church throughout the ages, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”(John 6:69)

The actual Greek speaks in terms much more raw than the English. The literal translation instead of simply “to eat” actually means “to gnaw”.

The words of the institution that Christ uses at the Last Supper are no less raw. Nowhere in the narrative does Christ say that “this is the “symbol” of my body…this is the “symbol” of my blood.” He states matter of factly about the bread “This IS MY Body…” and about the wine, “This IS the cup of MY Blood.” He is after all The Lamb of God. What did one who was a good Jew do to renew his covenant with God?

He ate the Passover Lamb. Christ is the definitive Passover Lamb "who takes away the sin of the world. So to be a good Christian under the New Covenant one must also eat the Lamb.

What Christ did with the bread and the wine at the Last Supper the Apostles were already too keenly aware of. Jesus was offering a Todah sacrifice to the Father within the context of the Passover meal. Todah translates into Greek as “Eucharist” which in English means “thank offering” or “thanksgiving”.

In this act He fulfilled what the Jews had taught for centuries about the Messiah. That in the coming Messianic age, all sacrifices would cease except the Todah sacrifice.

If you want background on the Todah look at Genesis and the offering of Melchizedek who was a prefigurement of Christ. The Psalms are filled with Todah prayers like Psalm 22 which begins with a lament but ends with thanksgiving for deliverance from one’s enemies. This very prayer Jesus utters on the cross right before He releases His spirit.

That is why you must also look at the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:
[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Paul is saying that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily that you are guilty of blasphemy! That is a pretty strong conviction coming from something that you consider to be just a “symbol”. And hardly something to be considered as of no avail.

 

[savedsinner]

response about St. Ignatius:
“Yes. He actually thought that the bread would keep you from dying. That it contained the secret to immortality. That’s not what it is at all and you know that as well as I do”

You are taking what St. Ignatius wrote out of context.
He did not believe that the Eucharist could make your physically immortal. He was saying that it will cause our spiritual being able to live forever with Christ in Heaven.

If you interpretation is correct, that he thought that he would live forever because of the Eucharist, then please explain his epistle to the Romans to me.

He doesn’t sound like he expects to live forever in that letter.
In fact all of his letters were written on his way to martyrdom.

 

[Deacon110]

And Christ promised that even the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. In other words no amount of false teachings would be allowed to be taught within His Church. Hence any false ideas that tried to interject itself into the Church was thrown out by those Bishops entrusted to teach the faith.

Two, I invite you deacon to read what I posted before:

Your interpretation makes no sense plain and simple.

Your interpretation does not follow with the reaction of not only the Jews but also many of Jesus’ disciples after He had said what He said.

Yes it does. The difference is that the disciples knew Jesus spoke the truth. That’s why Peter plainly stated they weren’t going to leave. They believed in Jesus.

John 6
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60]Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Gee why did they say that?? Because he was inferring cannabalism.

[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Yeah Jesus knew exactly what he was saying they just weren’t getting it. So he says how about if you see me ascend to Heaven. Will you believe then?

[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

BINGO. Wake up people. I’m not telling you to take a bite out of my arm.

[64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

These were the same people who yelled crucify HIM later on.

[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66]After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Notice even after Jesus clarified his teaching they still left. WHY. Because they didn’t believe. that’s why GOD didn’t send them to Jesus.

This is by no means a figure of speech. And Jesus meant exactly what He said. He wanted to provoke controversy.

Provoke controversy for what?? By giving them a teaching they couldn’t possibly live up to. Remember these were law abiding Jews. He was telling them something that was forbidden by law. But they weren’t looking beyond it to the real meaning. We have the benefit of knowing the outcome. They didn’t.

Those who believed that He was the Messiah believed only because they had seen the signs He had performed, anyone who had seen what they saw would come to that logical conclusion. Jesus wanted to test their true belief so He revealed something of the age to come, the age of the Church and the Kingdom, and because of this truth their faith was shaken and they quit following Him. All except the apostles. Whose words echo in every Catholic Church throughout the ages, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”(John 6:69)

Pay attention to what is being said. They say we have believed. The Jews didn’t believe so they couldn’t understand Jesus teaching. Why would Jesus try to drive them away purposely? You make no sense whatsover.

The actual Greek speaks in terms much more raw than the English. The literal translation instead of simply “to eat” actually means “to gnaw”.

Oh cut it with the original greek. Tell me this Brother. Have you chopped off your hands and gouged out your eyes yet?? I know they have sinned. Matter of fact. Go back and look at the greek on that one. The words literally mean to chop off and gouge respectively. Just as graphic as the gnawing. So have you?? I would say no. Why haven’t you. Jesus says chop your hand off and gouge your eyes out if they cause you to sin. It’s better for one body part to go to hell than the whole body. Talk about graphic. So I’ll ask again Have you done it yet? NO WHY. Because we both know he was speaking figuratively. Driving home the point of how HE feels about sin. No different here. All figurative language.

The words of the institution that Christ uses at the Last Supper are no less raw. Nowhere in the narrative does Christ say that “this is the “symbol” of my body…this is the “symbol” of my blood.”

Such an old argument. Jesus says he IS the door as well. He doesn’t have to say symbol. If the flesh is of no value then why would Jesus want us to eat a piece of HIS flesh. Answer. He doesn’t. He knows the Apostles already understand that so he doesn’t need to clarify. But obviously for you HE does.

contd…

 

[Deacon110]

contd…

He states matter of factly about the bread “This IS MY Body…” and about the wine, “This IS the cup of MY Blood.” He is after all The Lamb of God. What did one who was a good Jew do to renew his covenant with God?

He ate the Passover Lamb. Christ is the definitive Passover Lamb "who takes away the sin of the world. So to be a good Christian under the New Covenant one must also eat the Lamb.

OK so go get a Lamb and eat it. The Apostles didn’t eat Jesus after he was sacrificed. They buried HIM. This again makes no sense and is a useless argument. Why didn’t Jesus clarify this for us and say from now on I am the lamb you are eating?

What Christ did with the bread and the wine at the Last Supper the Apostles were already too keenly aware of. Jesus was offering a Todah sacrifice to the Father within the context of the Passover meal. Todah translates into Greek as “Eucharist” which in English means “thank offering” or “thanksgiving”.

SO. We offer thanksgiving everytime before we eat. Again a useless argument.

In this act He fulfilled what the Jews had taught for centuries about the Messiah. That in the coming Messianic age, all sacrifices would cease except the Todah sacrifice.

If you want background on the Todah look at Genesis and the offering of Melchizedek who was a prefigurement of Christ. The Psalms are filled with Todah prayers like Psalm 22 which begins with a lament but ends with thanksgiving for deliverance from one’s enemies. This very prayer Jesus utters on the cross right before He releases His spirit.

We’re not Jewish. Why would we be given a Jewish custom?

That is why you must also look at the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:
[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Go check the Greek word for remembrance. You’ll see that the corresponding word means memorial. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial for Jesus. When we eat the bread and drink the wine we are to rememeber HIM. Not continually sacrifice HIM. The sacrifice is over.

[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Paul is saying that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily that you are guilty of blasphemy!

That’s not what he is saying. The Corinthians were getting drunk. They used the Lord’s supper as an excuse to consume large quantities of wine. This is the unworthy manner. They were also keeping out the poor people from worshipping with them and participating in the Lord’s Supper. This is what Paul is referring to. They got sick because GOD punished them and rightfully so.

That is a pretty strong conviction coming from something that you consider to be just a “symbol”. And hardly something to be considered as of no avail.

Just a symbol?? Hardly JUST a symbol. It only represents the sacrifice our great Savior made for us.

PEACE

 

[savedsinner]

You almost have it. But let’s try it again a little more bluntly. Jesus just got finished telling a bunch of Jews that they needed to eat HIS flesh and drink HIS blood. To which they basically have a heart attack because they think he’s implying cannabalism. Now we know that this is impossible because GOD expressly forbids this in the Bible. With me so far??

Jesus is trying to get them to connect eating HIS flesh and drinking HIS blood with believing in HIM. Again, believe, believe believe. Jesus isn’t just saying believe but essentially live your life for me. Let me dominate your life. Let me into your heart. In other words drown yourself with me. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. Be totally consumed with me. However else you want to say it. But the Jews can’t get over this cannabalism thing. Why?? Because they’re not looking past the figurative language Jesus is using. Similar to what you are doing. They are taking HIM so literal that they think he is crazy to ask this of them. Still with me??

Now, Jesus hearing them grumble about this teaching basically says, does this offend you? Of course he knows it does because they are being too shallow and are not seeing HIS message for what it really is. They are so stuck on this flesh eating thing they can’t get by it. So Jesus says, suppose you saw me ascend to where I came from?? In other words, suppose you saw me ascend into Heaven. Or how about if you saw me return to GOD. Would this basically convince you to BELIEVE in me??? So in a sense HE’s saying, what is it going to take to realize that if you believe in me you WILL have eternal life. Knowing that the Jews are still stuck on the flesh eating and blood drinking thing, Jesus finally clears it up and says:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

So Jesus is basically saying, it’s not eating my physical flesh and drinking my physical blood that gives you eternal life. It is the Spirit. DING DING DING. The flesh means nothing, why?? Jesus is going to die plain and simple. We have the priviledge of knowing the outcome because we have scripture that tells us the story. The Jews have no idea that their Messiah has to die to open their new Kingdom. They still think the restored Kingdom is going to be established here on earth and Jesus is teaching that eating HIS flesh will make them live forever within that Kingdom. Almost like the tree of life. But the new Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom.

So given this it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would tell us to eat bread that becomes HIS flesh. Why? Again because the flesh is nothing. What’s so amazing to me is that just as this was a hard teaching for the Jews, it seems to be harder for the Roman Catholics. The difference is the Roman Catholics actually think they are eating a piece of Jesus flesh. That’s why it gets stored in the tabernacle. The belief is that Jesus is physically in there. This has such a stain of Greek Philosophy it’s actually amazing.

PEACE

Well, I tried, it seems like you just don’t get it.
It seems you put an effort forth, but you seem to miss the mark here.
I’ll pray for you, that your eyes will be opened up to the fullness of the truth.
You are correct in that Jesus is talking about belief in the first part of the bread of life discourse, but then he goes on to His real presense in the Eucharist in the 2nd part.
(each part begins with the statement - " I am the bread of life")

Answer me this.

The manna in the desert foreshadowed the Eucharist.
The manna was real.
You say the Eucharist is only a symbol.
Why would the type be greater than the anti-type it is pointing to?
(Remember that the ‘antitype’ of the New Testament is vastly superior to its ‘type’ in the Old Testament.)

And also remember these few tidbits from the Gosple of John.

The bread of life discourse takes place near the Passover, a year or two before the last supper, so it has the Passover sacrifice as one of its themes. John doesn’t write about the last supper, because he is giving the theological meaning to his words at the last supper.

When Jesus is on the Cross, and his side is lanced with the spear, blood and water flow from his side.
The church has always taken that to be pointing to the Eucharist and Baptism flowing out of the Church Jesus established.

And the two major sacraments Jesus talks about in his Gospel are Baptism in John chapter 3 where he tells us we are born again in baptism, and then he talks about the Eucharist in John chapter 6

I am sorry that all this has been hidden from your eyes, but it is obvious to me and it was obvious to the church from the very beginning.