X-Catholics and John 6

Hopefully it is not to late to add my observations to this discussion.

I grew up in an IFB environment and we observed communion once a month on a Sunday evening. Communion was presented as symbolic of Christ sacrifice by using grape juice and crushed up crackers. Anyone who had made a public profession of faith and had been baptized were able to partake in communion.

However, if we visited another Baptist church we could not partake in their communion service, which didn't make sense to me.

I had always wondered why Jesus didn't say this is a symbol of my body which is given for you. He said, "This is my body which is given for you." Also, if he was using only a parable or an analogy why didn't he clear up the misunderstanding. In John 6:61 "Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmered at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?" Throughout the gospels Jesus would clear up the misunderstanding that his disciples had, yet he did not clear this one up. Therefore, he meant it as literal.

I had always heard our youth pastor use the expression, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." However, this expression was never used in conjunction with the Lord's Supper.

How can anyone eat and drink damnation unto themself if it is only symbolic?

 

Because by paticipating in a memorial that is supposed to be for believers only, an unbeliever is testifying to his own lost state by that participation! He is "playing church," a hypocrite.

 

We were told that it wasn't permitted because this Baptist Church might hold a different doctorinal view on women wearing pants, idea of seperation, or what not.

Yes they did, read the early Church Fathers. It was by the power of God.

 

BobRyan-

I wish to respectfully correct you on a point you made. You said that it is not Jesus' flesh that saves but His WORD! when referring to John 6:63. First of all Jesus was NOT referring to His Flesh in this verse but OURS. Second, it is the SPIRIT not WORD as you interject that He refers to in this same verse.

Second, AFTER many of Jesus' disciples (including Judas) and many Jews fell away after Jesus had proclaimed that that His Flesh is food and His Blood true drink, WHEN THEY EXPRESSED THEIR REPULSION AND DISMAY,.......WHAT did He say next?

"Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" - John 6:61-62

Let's not leave all the Scripture out where it's convenient. - Respectfully, Meercat

 

John 6:53 -

"Then Jesus said to them, "The truth is this, unless you literally eat the flesh of the Son of man, and literally drink His blood, you possess no devotion to God."

This is a simple "dumbed-down" rewording of the original text according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

I can do the entire chapter if you would like.

 

But it is deeper than that. A believer would be eat or drink damnation unto their soul if they eat or drink unworthily. Meaning partaking while they were in a state of unrepented sin.

 

Actually, I looked into Gen 6 very thoroughly and have found that every reference to flesh in this chapter is speaking of man's and animal's mortal flesh. Never does it refer to "His flesh". It speaks of only God and humans, never the embodyment of Jesus. So it seems the context to be carried over is "our flesh" as God never makes reference to God's flesh.

On the contrary, Jesus makes reference to His own flesh by putting "my" in front of it. When He says "the flesh profits nothing" he again is using the Genesis 6 context of man's flesh. Remember that Jesus' flesh was divinely different than a mere mortal's as is observed when He appears to the disciples after His resurrection.

Once again, the "dumbed-down" version of John 6:55 says this:

(Jesus talking) "My body is food in reality. My literal blood is 'to be'(third person singular) a drink in reality."

And continued in verse 56:

"The man who consumes my literal flesh and drinks my literal blood is in communion(one with) with Me, and I in communion with him."

Which only makes sense, both logically and scientifically. If you eat something it is in you. It becomes a part of you. The "Word of God" can be in you, and a part of you, but in a metaphorical sense since you can't eat words and teachings. If Jesus meant metaphorical words He wouldn't have used literal context in reference to Himself. Luke 24:39 contains the same word for flesh as does the above John verses and it is very commonly understood to mean tissue and muscle.

In John 6:27 Jesus says to not strive for the food that perishes, but the food(literal) that is forever, then makes reference to the Last Supper by saying, "Which the Son of man shall give unto you." Notice He didn't say God would give them His Word, He said that He, Jesus Himself, would give them eternal food. He can't be referring to His Words as he said 'shall give', meaning they don't yet have it. So, in actuality, Jesus DID say, "You will eat my flesh and drink my blood, beginning in the near future."

But let's go to verse 32 for a second.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."

Let's focus on the last part 'but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.'

The word for "bread" means literal food. Now comes the evidence of Chrsit's real presence in the Eucharist in the word "true".

According to Strong's, the original word for 'true' is "alethinos".

The definition is:

1) that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine

a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended

b) it contrasts realities with their semblances

c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain

2) true, veracious, sincere

Now, the Protestant communion is symbolic. This is in direct opposition to 'opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended'. It seems that if Christ meant only symbolism in "do this in remembrance of Me" he would not have used a word that denies simulation only. In this light, "do this is remembrance of Me" takes on the meaning of "continue to literally eat my literal flesh and blood so you do not forget My sacrifice and that it, also, was very real." Which is what Catholics do.

Saying this is a two-folded success in destruction. You are limiting God's power in that you claim that all of Jesus had to be contained in His skin. We all know this to not be true as Jesus is part of God, and God is very spiritual and intangible also. The disciples could very well have taken part in the flesh of Christ without biting Him on the leg or something. This continues over into the present day Eucharist as Jesus in not present in the flesh.

Also, we do not need the faithful disciples to bite Him on the arm to make our doctrine correct as we do not bite Him on the arm now, but are still practicing that which the very disciples did themselves.

Please refer to what I said about verse 27.

By the way, it doesn't any make sense that people would leave Jesus over Him saying that He wanted them to remember Him always. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense for people to leave His following over their narrow-minded misunderstanding of an "impossible cannabalistic act". It would take heaps more faith to trust that Jesus wanted them to partake of His literal flesh, not a memorial, as a divine commandment.