Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Melanie]

I dearly love the Mass.....so much so I go daily....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I too must have missed it.




To address the John 6 point above I think it will pay to do what we both know that such a Baptist would do - look at the details in John 6 , and when we do that - the ones I bring up about John 6 not being a communion service, a not even the faithful disciples are biting Christ - the ones that stay, the ones that accept the John 6:63 statement about literal flesh being worthless.

in Christ,

Bob

I guess you missed the post where I said even as a Baptist I tried not reading a pretext into a passage. The Fact is when reading the writings of the earliest Church members out side of the NT I found that their language wasn't at all Baptist. However, as not to lose the Baptist position what I did was applied my knowledge of ancient thinking and including Jewish thought. I did say I spent time with Messianic Jews and Learned about Judaism which opened up a lot of how to understand Jesus in his Jewish Context. Therefore Knowing the Philosophy of the age and reading Philo a Contemporary of that age Jesus lived in, It became clear to me that Jesus wasn't saying "because the flesh avails nothing I mean it only symbolically". That is a problem with a modern narrative.

We see this problem in your post which is incredibly insightful as to your position. I will show you what you said to explain what I mean.

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. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.
And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The bolded part shows that you are not trying to read this from a "non partisan" or an "objective" point of view but apply a pretext. Other words you are reading into the passage you theology as you mentioned on another post, which I will have to answer to when I get the time, you are providing eisegesis. The problem any one faces when reading this passage from a Baptist or Your view is quite obvious if you are being objective.

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. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Which you take to mean

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life

The question is this: Is he really saying that? Well from a logical stand point you immediately have this problem. If by meaning Flesh is no Avail but words are spirit and life to mean that flesh = actually doing something and my words which are spirit and life = symbolism. Then you would have to believe that the allegory isn't just an allegory but is real and provides life. Therefore it becomes immensely important to understand how they viewed what was meant by the Spirit. One of the lead Jewish philosophers of Jesus day was Philo who explained it this way when connecting Logos with the spirit.

Now, Bezabel is being interpreted as man's God in his shadow. But the shadow of God is his Logos, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. For as God is himself the model of that image which he [Moses] has now called a shadow, so also that image is the model of other things, as he showed when he commenced giving the law to the Israelites, and said, 'And God made man according to the image of God,' (Gen. 1:26) as the image was modeled according to God, and as man was modeled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model....For it is out of that essence that God created everything, without indeed touching it himself, for it was not lawful for the all-wise and all-blessed God to touch materials which were all misshapen and confused, but he created them by the agency of his incorporeal powers, of which the proper name is Ideas, which he so exerted that every genus received its proper form. - The works of Philo

Though admittedly Philo's love of Plato lead him to disdain matter but we can tell from his perspective that the word or Logos or the spirit provides the structure on which matter is based therefore being more real more pure. This was the common view of the people of that day so when Jesus is saying spirit he doesn't mean symbol or allegory but truth in fact. So Jesus isn't speaking "symbolically" in that he doesn't want in some way for you to eat him. Looking further at John 6 we see exactly what Jesus means.

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world - John 6:33

where he clearly connects "this bread" with "his crucified" body therefore if we take his words a symbolic then you must conclude that he symbolically and not really died on the cross. So either both are symbolic are both are real. Since I believe that Jesus actually physically died then I believe that he would provide a means in which to eat his body and drink his blood. Which is what he does almost exactly one year later.
As for your accusation

Almost the WHOLE of John 6 about the bread and life and eating flesh is a reference to Deut 8 in John 6 -not sure why you are jumping to Genesis 1.

You failed to understand what I was talking about. The discourse is "I am the bread of life" which Jesus uses Manna to explain his principle. That is correct. But that doesn't prohibit him from using other bible verses for supporting imagery. So when Jesus says

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.

Jews would understand that life is given by spirit as can be seen in Genesis 2.
So in short the spirit gives life and is the basis on which all things obtain their being from therefore not an analogy rather truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I dearly love the Mass.....so much so I go daily....

Indeed - but was that your thinking when as a Baptist you were first considering the idea of the Catholic Eucharist? If not - what Baptist document brought you to that point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I guess you missed the post where I said even as a Baptist I tried not reading a pretext into a passage.

Ah yes - exegesis in the classic idea of testing all doctrine and tradition "sola scriptura". A very solid Baptist principle.

And so I posted the Bible view of this from the Baptist POV to see just how all faith, doctrine, practice and tradition would be evaluated from a non-Catholic bias.

and it went this way
==================
Almost the WHOLE of John 6 about the bread and life and eating flesh is a reference to Deut 8 in John 6 -not sure why you are jumping to Genesis 1.

In Deut 8 - the lesson of manna - of bread the comes down out of heaven, the WORD of God - the key to LIFE.

3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (NASB)

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.(NKJV)


Now let's look at this same bread from heaven as "the WORD" that gives LIFE idea in the book of John.




John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The exact SAME theme of the WORD that becomes flesh - that comes down out of heaven - that gives LIFE - is expanded in John 6 with BOTH the Jews and Christ referencing back to the lesson of MANNA in the O.T. Impossible to miss.


John 6

31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’”
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.


41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51I 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,

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.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe
===================

Notice the details above - no communion service in John 6.

No reference to either faithless - or faithful disciples biting Christ.

A direct transition in vs 62 - 63 between the faithless disciples leaving and Christ stating the resolution to the problem "It is my WORD that is Spirit and that give LIFE".

No reference to "Some day in the future I WILL be the bread of heaven, some day in the future you must eat that bread but not now"

The Fact is when reading the writings of the earliest Church members out side of the NT I found that their language wasn't at all Baptist.

So then you tested their traditions against the actual Bible as noted above - what did you find?

However, as not to lose the Baptist position what I did was applied my knowledge of ancient thinking and including Jewish thought. I did say I spent time with Messianic Jews and Learned about Judaism which opened up a lot of how to understand Jesus in his Jewish Context.

Which brings up the point that Messianic Jews also do not look at John 6 in the "confect the body and soul of Christ" idea of the Eucharist.

Therefore Knowing the Philosophy of the age and reading Philo a Contemporary of that age Jesus lived in, It became clear to me that Jesus wasn't saying "because the flesh avails nothing I mean it only symbolically".

Really? Did you study the Philosophy of John 6:63? What was it from Philo's POV and do Baptists start off with the assumption that Philo is infallible? Where the contemporaries of Jesus celebrating the communion service as the post-cross Disciples were doing?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ah yes - exegesis in the classic idea of testing all doctrine and tradition "sola scriptura". A very solid Baptist principle.

And so I posted the Bible view of this from the Baptist POV to see just how all faith, doctrine, practice and tradition would be evaluated from a non-Catholic bias.

and it went this way
==================
Almost the WHOLE of John 6 about the bread and life and eating flesh is a reference to Deut 8 in John 6 -not sure why you are jumping to Genesis 1.

In Deut 8 - the lesson of manna - of bread the comes down out of heaven, the WORD of God - the key to LIFE.

3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (NASB)

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.(NKJV)


Now let's look at this same bread from heaven as "the WORD" that gives LIFE idea in the book of John.




John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The exact SAME theme of the WORD that becomes flesh - that comes down out of heaven - that gives LIFE - is expanded in John 6 with BOTH the Jews and Christ referencing back to the lesson of MANNA in the O.T. Impossible to miss.


John 6

31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’”
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.


41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51I 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,

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.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe
===================

Notice the details above - no communion service in John 6.

No reference to either faithless - or faithful disciples biting Christ.

A direct transition in vs 62 - 63 between the faithless disciples leaving and Christ stating the resolution to the problem "It is my WORD that is Spirit and that give LIFE".

No reference to "Some day in the future I WILL be the bread of heaven, some day in the future you must eat that bread but not now"



So then you tested their traditions against the actual Bible as noted above - what did you find?

Which brings up the point that Messianic Jews also do not look at John 6 in the "confect the body and soul of Christ" idea of the Eucharist.

Really? Did you study the Philosophy of John 6:63? What was it from Philo's POV and do Baptists start off with the assumption that Philo is infallible? Where the contemporaries of Jesus celebrating the communion service as the post-cross Disciples were doing?

in Christ,

Bob

No, Messianic Jews are Evangelical that is correct. But that doesn't mean I didn't learn Jewish principles from them which is my point. That we applied Jewish principles differently to John 6 is no indicator of inapplicability of it from another perspective say Catholic. Because as you know there are many Jewish Converts to Catholicism who applied it differently than the Messianic Jews. However, even among that crowd there are differences just like in every denomination.

As far a philosophy of the time of which Philo gives us some incite especially among diaspora Jews. The reason I read him and others even Talmud accounts from Jesus Contemporary Rabbi's is to get an idea how people were thinking at that time how they viewed certain principles. Because one of the principles of Exegesis is to " Determine the Author's Intended Meaning - Historical Context, and Literary Context"

No reference to either faithless - or faithful disciples biting Christ.

Interesting you missed where it says

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.

where trogo is used which means to chew. in verse 53 and aren't able to make the connection between that verse and verse 64 where Jesus said

But there are some of you who do not believe

He did need to phrase it your way. He made it clear his way.

I notice you still didn't get my answer to your manna statement. You just simply repeated yourself thereby stopped discussing. Why is that?

 

[BobRyan]

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. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

Just as in John 3 - "except a man be born again" it taken by Nicodemus to be "impossible" when taken literally - so again "eat the flesh" is taken to be absurd by the departing disciples when taken literally.

The bolded part shows that you are not trying to read this from a "non partisan" or an "objective" point of view but apply a pretext. Other words you are reading into the passage you theology as you mentioned on another post, which I will have to answer to when I get the time, you are providing eisegesis.

Whether or not it is eisegesis will have to be proven -- it cannot simply be assumed.

And the idea that the Baptist context for John 6 is most likely that Jesus
1. Already came down out of heaven.
2. Was already the bread that came down out of heaven (a clear symbol)
3. That those in John 6 - already must eat that bread if they want life.
4. That Jesus was not saying "some day in the future I will become bread and come down out of heaven".

However I am not Baptist - so I could be mistaken about the Baptist context for this.

The problem any one faces when reading this passage from a Baptist or Your view is quite obvious if you are being objective. Which you take to mean The question is this: Is he really saying that? Well from a logical stand point you immediately have this problem. If by meaning Flesh is no Avail but words are spirit and life to mean that flesh = actually doing something and my words which are spirit and life = symbolism. Then you would have to believe that the allegory isn't just an allegory but is real and provides life.

I would have to believe that it is being used in the same way as the context for it - in John 3 - 3 chapter before "Except a man is born again he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" - to which Nicodemus gives the overly-literal interpretation.

It is the same as we found in Matt 16 with the issue of "bread" where they finally figure out that the overly-literal interpretation does not work - and that it is a symbol for "the teaching" of the Pharisees.

But in John 6 Jesus says it is "My Word that give Life" and in the text the subject of manna, bread that comes down out of heaven, and "gives life" is the entire discussion.

How was a Baptist supposed to miss this?

Therefore it becomes immensely important to understand how they viewed what was meant by the Spirit. One of the lead Jewish philosophers of Jesus day was Philo who explained it this way when connecting Logos with the spirit. Though admittedly Philo's love of Plato lead him to disdain matter

This is not exegesis. Philo cannot represent all Christian Jews any more than Nicodemus' over-literal reaction forces us to only take his view of John 3.

So Jesus isn't speaking "symbolically" in that he doesn't want in some way for you to eat him.

Here again it is not helping you to insist that the disciples who accept Jesus should have been biting him. Notice that when Jesus puts the question to Peter - the faithFUL response is "You have the WORDS of LIFE" in vs 68 -- it is the same vs 63 point of Christ that it is the WORD that gives the eternal life being promised in the discussion - not biting flesh.

Thus none of the faithful disciples are biting him in John 6 - even by Philo and Catholic standards.

Looking further at John 6 we see exactly what Jesus means. where he clearly connects "this bread" with "his crucified" body therefore if we take his words a symbolic then you must conclude that he symbolically and not really died on the cross. So either both are symbolic are both are real.

That is not how symbolism works in the Bible.

A symbol stands for something real.

And Jesus does not say "I have been crucified so you must eat my flesh". But HE does say "I AM the bread of heaven" and "I HAVE come down out of heaven" and "you must EAT that bread".

A present reality - that only works with the vs 63 "WORD" that gives life as Peter himself appears to get in vs 68.

Since I believe that Jesus actually physically died then I believe that he would provide a means in which to eat his body and drink his blood.

So then you insert into the text (which would be eisegesis) "some day in the future you must eat my flesh, but please do not do it now for it is not true that now you must eat that bread to have eternal life. But after I die well then you must eat that bread"?

Even if you added that insert you would still have the problem that Jesus has not been crucified in John 6 AND has not been crucified in Luke 22 at the account of the last supper. In both cases - no one bites Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Walter]

Here is my two cents in regards to the what I was taught as a Baptist that refuted Catholic thinking. 'The flesh is of no avail'. My Baptist pastor said: Jesus here lets us know he was speaking symbolically or “spiritually”. But, Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a huge difference between the two. I doubt anyone would have believed He meant My flesh avails nothing because didn't He just spend a great portion of this same teaching telling us that His flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51, cf. 50-58). Nor did the disciples come running back after He made this declaration. So to what was he referring? The flesh is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just as in John 3 - "except a man be born again" it taken by Nicodemus to be "impossible" when taken literally - so again "eat the flesh" is taken to be absurd by the departing disciples when taken literally.

When I think about it I have to laugh a little bit. Because you are using one to argue against the other. When they both support each other. The fact is both cases Jesus is talking about a substantive reality. Or the reality behind the thing. Which I have been explaining all along. Jesus said you must be born of water (Baptistm) and the Spirit (the essense of Life that comes from God. The fact that the water is part of this substantive transformation is important. In fact when one is born again though his body doesn't change. Yet Jesus says the effect is that one is born again. Or a whole new creature. Baptist don't have this problem of understanding substantive change because its based on the reality of the spirit which is no insubstantial but real. So in fact one is born again just not the way it is understood by physics alone. Thus when Jesus says you must be eating me and says the flesh is to no avail doesn't mean symbolically just as he wasn't meaning symbolically one was born again. One is a new creature just not in a way that is understood by Nicodemus mind. So one must eat Jesus just not in a way that is understood in the mind as it is the Spirit which makes it real. As you know the Early Christian belief was that the Substances change but the chemical arrangement does not. Which is why Justin Martyr says just like we are transformed (he uses transmutation) when we are born again so is the bread and the wine. Because he makes that connection. But just because Jesus said it is of the spirit do Baptist believe that he wasn't talking about being born as a new creature? Not at all they believe it. But they don't want to believe it in John 6. He is the bread of life just like the manna which came down from the spirit he comes down and gives himself (his body on the Cross) and he equates his body to that which must be eaten. Therefore its the same body. But he's not asking us to cut flesh of his flank rather by the Holy Spirit he will provide the reality of eating his body without cutting of his flanks. One year latter he shows how he does it. By substantively transforming the bread and wine into his body and blood. Therefore I find it funny that you believe in a actual spiritual rebirth a fundamental change or a substantive change in a human being who is born again but not so with the Eucharist. They are the same argument. Jesus wasn't' speaking symbolically about being born again. He was being literal and it was based on the Spirit. So it is with the Eucharist. Again it is abundantly clear you don't understand how the ancients viewed the spirit as realities true essence. You are stuck in the modern paradigm that matter provides "true essence" thus to you something is either real (that can be known by the five sense) or its symbolic( thus making the spirit no more than and idea). Which is what you are trying to get Jesus to mean. Which is why I used the common Idea of spirit and reality from ancient thinking.

in Christ,
Ralph

 

[WestminsterMan]

I dearly love the Mass.....so much so I go daily....

You are truely blessed. I wish I could go daily...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Not the way you and probably most would define it. I would say my views come closest to the Anabaptists and........ (shhhhh,don't tell anyone).... Calvin.

I'm not very familiar with them. Would you clarify?

WM

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I'm not very familiar with them. Would you clarify?

WM

Then Anabaptists were quite varied; some believed that the bread and wine were only symbols. Others believed that plus something more, a spiritual presence.

Calvin's views were more elaborate. I'll quote from a book on Reformed theology that I have: "Calvin interprets the 'Real Presence' as a spiritual union between the believing communicant and the ascended Christ..." "By His immediate working, the Holy Spirit becomes the link between Christ and the believer, and He unites them so intimately that we become bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. This intimate union occurs not only during the celebration of the sacrament but is a process constantly going on. Calvin's definition of the 'Real Presence' is entirely spiritual..." "Calvin's views are probably expressed most fully and adequately in the Scotch Confession of Faith (1560), Art. XXI..." I won't quote the article here, but part of it is rewording what I quoted above.

 

[BobRyan]

He is the bread of life just like the manna which came down from the spirit he comes down and gives himself (his body on the Cross) and he equates his body to that which must be eaten. Therefore its the same body. But he's not asking us to cut flesh of his flank rather by the Holy Spirit he will provide the reality of eating his body without cutting of his flanks. One year latter he shows how he does it. By substantively transforming the bread and wine.
in Christ,
Ralph

You realize of course that that line of reasoning is more than a little convoluted and inserts a great deal into what the text does not actually mention at all.

I am not arguing that on a Catholic discussion board - cradle catholics would not embrace a sort of meandering line of thought as long as it ends up at the Catholic Eucharist.

But it is a stretch to suppose that when a Baptist is confronted by the more direct route in John 6 - where it is admitted that this is not a John 6 communion service, and it is admitted that nobody is biting Christ, and it is admitted that Christ Himself does not argue that "some day in the future I WILL be the bread and I will come down out of heaven as the break of life" -- but rather "I already HAVE come down out of heaven as the bread of life" and "you already must eat of that bread to have eternal life" - that Baptists will walk away from all of that direct evidence in the text and instead will insert something about "came down via the Holy Spirit in which also the bread is transofrmed into literal flesh at some future date to John 6" as the meaning.

Rather the more immediate and apparent meaning is that just as Jesus is not a loaf of bread floating down from heaven in John 6 - so also no one is suppose to bit him in John 6 and this is pure symbolism. And it is yet another example of a John 3 and Matt 16 event where some Jews who are unbelieving to an extent take Christ too literally. I dare say that quite a few Baptists on this board at this very moment probably go for these more direct points raised in the chapter.

Nor does Christ set them down in John 6 and say - now here to bite my flesh - chew into this (and then give them something while he cries out in agony being sacrificed right then and there).

All the direct literal avenues are dead.

Which is why it is no surprise that as soon as we read about the faithless disciples taking the issue too literally and wlaking off - in vs 62 - we then read that the real meaning to the lesson of bread coming down out of heaven in John 6 - is the SAME as the lesson of Manna in Deut 8 - an emphasis on relying on the WORD for LIFE.

In John 3 - Nicodemus takes the symbol of "born again" too literally in his unbelieving state.

In Matt 16 the disciples take the symbol of bread too literally in what Christ calls their "slow to believe" state.

In John 6 the faithLess disciples that leave are said to leave in "unbelief" and to take the lesson once again "too literally" according to Christ in vs 63. And Peter affirms the symbolic meaning right after this in vs 68.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Melanie]

Indeed - but was that your thinking when as a Baptist you were first considering the idea of the Catholic Eucharist? If not - what Baptist document brought you to that point?

in Christ,

Bob

Not really, Bob....as I was baptised in the Catholic church and went to Catholic schools. The whole mystery of the Euchatrist is exactly that....a mystery and that of faith.

I fell away from my Church and went to other churches and indeed to other faiths.....but returning to the RCC was like a homecoming of the prodigal son (daughter in my case).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You realize of course that that line of reasoning is more than a little convoluted and inserts a great deal into what the text does not actually mention at all.

It's not really convoluted. Just as Nicodemus got it wrong in John 3, so did the disciples that left Jesus get it wrong. In both cases Jesus meant what he said. Here it is in logical summary. Ie the answer to your initial accusation. 1) One must be born again by the Spirit). 2) One must eat his flesh ( by the Spirit). 3) The Spirit cannot equal symbolism because then one is only symbolically born again but not in fact a new creature. Therefore in both cases we aren't talking about symbolism. Therefore as I said it becomes incredibly important by what Jesus meant when he said "spirit" and in Jewish thought as well as Greek philosophy the spirit is the reality behind all that exist therefore Jesus is who is a contemporary of his day speaking to men in their context who would have understood this concept.

I am not arguing that on a Catholic discussion board - cradle catholics would not embrace a sort of meandering line of thought as long as it ends up at the Catholic Eucharist.

And here you go again forcing me to look at a passage in pretext. As a Baptist John 6 wasn't clear. I remember asking my pastor how this passage was to be understood. We got into the whole discussion about belief but he agreed the language was too in in favor of promoting in some way eating Jesus flesh. So in the end do you know what he told me? "I don't know." And what bothered me about that answer is that depending on what you believe that is a key point in the Christian faith. The witness of the early church suggested that it didn't agree with the Baptist language. And a basic Baptist principle is that the scriptures could be interpreted by all in a simple reading of it with out assistance. Though this is belied by Acts 8:26-40. Then I'm finding out that this isn't the case. Then my paradigm might just be wrong. See when you look at things objectively you don't stubbornly hold on to your paradigm if the evidence is against it. So it is clear you keep wanting to hold on to your preconceived view. Rather than be truly objective. As for it is a stretch to believe a Baptist would come to the Catholic view by study of scripture and history I can only say look at the Baptist who became Catholic on this board alone and ask them. There is a Baptist Preacher in Kentucky several years ago that made national headline news by becoming Catholic and eventually a priest. There is author David Curry who was a strict fundamentalist who's parents where university teachers at Moody Bible Institute (also for a while) Missionaries who came to be Catholic just by study. Its not that much of a stretch. I think you are so caught up that you are right (which is ok in itself) that you cannot conceive that you may be wrong (which means in reality you aren't objective and cannot be objective. I suggest you study these things for yourself. My father and I were arguing once and he said to me when I explained what I believed to be the symbolism of communion and that the primitive church must believe as I did. When he said. "but that's not what they thought!" So I studied it and for all my father's faults found he was right about that.

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore its the same body. But he's not asking us to cut flesh of his flank rather by the Holy Spirit he will provide the reality of eating his body without cutting of his flanks. One year latter he shows how he does it. By substantively transforming the bread and wine.
in Christ,
Ralph

You realize of course that that line of reasoning is more than a little convoluted and inserts a great deal into what the text does not actually mention at all.

I am not arguing that on a Catholic discussion board - cradle catholics would not embrace a sort of meandering line of thought as long as it ends up at the Catholic Eucharist.

But it is a stretch to suppose that when a Baptist is confronted by the more direct route in John 6 - where it is admitted that
1. this is not a John 6 communion service
2. it is admitted that nobody is biting Christ
3. it is admitted that Christ Himself does not argue that "some day in the future I WILL be the bread and I will come down out of heaven as the break of life"
4. but rather "I already HAVE come down out of heaven as the bread of life" and "you already must eat of that bread to have eternal life"
5. And all agree that not even the faithFUL disciples of John 6 - are that day "biting Christ".


- that Baptists will walk away from all of that direct evidence in the text and instead will insert something about "came down via the Holy Spirit in which also the bread is transformed into literal flesh at some future date to John 6" as the meaning.

Rather the more immediate and apparent meaning

It's not really convoluted.

Certainly it would be well accepted on a Catholic board and among cradle catholics. I am not disputing that. It is just that I think the Baptist here have already mentioned a certain preference for those details found in the text itself as I pointed out above.

Just as Nicodemus got it wrong in John 3, so did the disciples that left

Agreed. Nicodumus took the symbol of re-birth too literally in John 3

And then John shows us that some fo the disciples of Jesus do the same thing in John 6 with the "eat the flesh" regarding "bread of heaven" - for Christ was not predicting that some day in the future he would be the "bread that came down from heaven" but that he already WAS the "Word that became flesh".

In both cases Jesus meant what he said.

But as in the born again case - it is only the spiritual and symbolic sense and has nothing at all to do with physical birth of a human. Nicodemus was guilty of taking the statement too literally because he was in a state of unbelief.

So it Matt 16 "Jesus meant what he said" and the "break" is stated to mean the "Teaching of the Pharisees" - where once again the disciples take him too literally as Jesus stated that they were "slow to believe".

Here it is in logical summary. Ie the answer to your initial accusation. 1) One must be born again by the Spirit). 2) One must eat his flesh ( by the Spirit).

In /John 6:63 what IS "Spirit" and "Life" ? -- Jesus said "My Word is Spirit".

Thus even in your own solution - it brings us back to the 6:63 fact that "Literal flesh is worthless" and "my Word is Spirit and is life".

And it is only in that spiritual sense that the idea of eating the bread of heaven - the bread that came down from heaven is correctly applied - according to Christ.

As we see it in Deut 8 the lesson that God teaches with the manna - the bread that came down from heaven is "man shall not live by eating bread alone -but by every WORD that comes from the Mouth of God" and of course in John 1 that them is picked up "the WORD became flesh".

Jesus is who is a contemporary of his day speaking to men in their context who would have understood this concept.

And as we see in John those unbelieving Jews were taking him "too literally" and in Matt 16 again even his own disciples take his symbol of bread "too literally".

As a Baptist John 6 wasn't clear. I remember asking my pastor how this passage was to be understood.

And yet there are clear facts in John 6 that all Baptists would be able to see clearly - as well as Catholics. Which are "again".

1. this is not a John 6 communion service
2. it is admitted that nobody is biting Christ
3. it is admitted that Christ Himself does not argue that "some day in the future I WILL be the bread and I will come down out of heaven as the break of life"
4. but rather "I already HAVE come down out of heaven as the bread of life" and "you already must eat of that bread to have eternal life"
5. And all agree that not even the faithFUL disciples of John 6 - are that day "biting Christ".
6. This is very similar to the Matt 16 case of disciples taking the symbol of bread too literally - when the symbol is stated in the text itself as a symbol for teaching.
7. John 3 leading into John 6 presents a context, a lead-in example of taking Christ's meaning on "Birth" too literally by one not inclined to fully believe.
8. Everyone agrees that if all loyal disciples in John 6 had walked up to Christ and started chewing his flesh - no Cross, no Gethsemane, no last supper could have happened.
9. there is a progression from Deut 8, John 1, John 6 and Matt 16 all showing the idea of bread as a symbol for teaching and most specifically the Word coming down out of heaven as that which gives Life - where the physical bread importance is diminished and the Word, Teaching symbolism is highlighted.
10. The "trend" of taking Christ's words too literally is seen in John 3, Matt 16 and also in the trial of Christ where his statement about "tearing down the temple" is taken too literally again by the unbelieving.
11. Jesus makes the same Deut 8, Matt 16 application of "The Word" in John 6:63 as soon as the 6:62 event of unbelieving disciples leaving - occurs.
12. Peter affirms the 6:62 point of Christ - in 6:68 that it is the "WORD" that has life.


My guess is that this list of agreed upon points - agreed by all - is not a list you and your pastor were discussing at the time.

We got into the whole discussion about belief but he agreed the language was too in in favor of promoting in some way eating Jesus flesh. So in the end do you know what he told me? "I don't know." And what bothered me about that answer is that depending on what you believe that is a key point in the Christian faith.

This point I fully agree with - the fact that without looking at the facts that are beyond dispute first - and then moving from there to the less known, people are left with the symbol ringing in their ears and taken too literally.

The witness of the early church suggested that it didn't agree with the Baptist language. And a basic Baptist principle is that the scriptures could be interpreted by all in a simple reading of it with out assistance.

As we see in Act 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO". This was the act of non-Christians applying that stellar principle to the Apostle Paul himself!

Though this is belied by Acts 8:26-40. Then I'm finding out that this isn't the case. Then my paradigm might just be wrong.

Indeed - at that point you switch from the Baptist sola-scriptura model to the sola-tradition model and begin looking for extra-biblical sources - and combine that with the "assumption" that the texts in the NT about error rising during the first century - must mean that the 2nd century leadership is free of all doctrinal error.

A difficult leap for a Baptist.

. As for it is a stretch to believe a Baptist would come to the Catholic view by study of scripture and history I can only say look at the Baptist who became Catholic on this board alone and ask them.

1. That is the purpose of this thread.

2. I think you are pointing out just where you dropped the Baptist POV - and it appears it begins with a skim of John 6 that ignores the list I provided above - where both Baptists and Catholics would agree to most of that list.

I think it is helpful for the Catholics here that left the Baptist church - and for Baptists here - to see that very point of turning - to accept the fact that simply name-calling would never solve the problem and to look at the list of details - as Baptists that even Catholics would agree with in John 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And as we see in John those unbelieving Jews were taking him "too literally" and in Matt 16 again even his own disciples take his symbol of bread "too literally".

No. As I said it isn't because Jesus wasn't taken "too literally". If Jesus discussion with Nicodemus was just symbolism. Then when one is born again you must accept that one isn't regenerate. Jesus is being literal with being born again. Ie you are a new creature. As Paul says

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 2 Cor 5:17

Where Nicodemus gets it wrong is not in the reality of being born again but by the mode. So it is with Jesus discussion in John 6. Jesus really wants you to eat him. However, the mode is by spirit which is reality itself. Clear as day. Lets look at each point.

And yet there are clear facts in John 6 that all Baptists would be able to see clearly - as well as Catholics. Which are "again".

lets take a look at this without pretext which is what you keep trying to do. You provide the pretext of the passage thus you are providing eisegesis. But an honest person doesn't do that knowingly as you suggest. Remember The Baptist contention that early Christians did not believe this is already in doubt by the writings of the earliest Christians outside the NT. So an approach to the passage must be reconsidered objectively. Which you refuse to do.

1. this is not a John 6 communion service

Interestingly enough lets really look at the passage. It certainly isn't the institution of the Lords meal as Luke as in Luke 22. But it certainly is in context of 1) a meal which is 2) in community and 3) during Passover. All elements of communion. How does the whole discourse begin?

Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. John 6:4

BTW for the "Kingdom debate "at hand" means right now not in some far distant future, but I side track myself. What was Passover meal but the meal which fore shadows Jesus own communion meal. Which foreshadows Christ but not only having him sacrificed for us so that condemnation passes over us but as the Lamb of the OT is eaten so is the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. You can't miss the connection. Even Baptist stuck in eisigesis have to admit that!

Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” - John 6:5

One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, 9 “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” - John 6:8-9

And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. - John 6:12-13

Now as we discuss this I would like to point out one thing. The Gospel of John isn't written with as much regard to Chronological events as to make theological statements. So I find it interesting to note that in John 2 Jesus performs the miracles showing that he can change one thing into another at the wedding feast of Cana. Just after this miracle John the gospel writer points out Jesus teaching about being born again which is a human being changed from one thing into another. So in John 6 we have the feeding of the 5 thousand which show Jesus multiplies the food sufficient for all then we have the "bread of life" discourse in conjunction with Passover. And finally the actual beginning of the discourse in which we see a meal discussed.

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves - John 6:25-26

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; - John 6:35

To miss the connection to 1) Passover and 2) to a new communion meal is outrageous! So no we can't agree the discussion has nothing to do with the communion meal.

2. it is admitted that nobody is biting Christ

Here again. You ignore the very words of Jesus.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(φάγω, phago) ?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat (φάγω,phago) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds (τρώγω,trōgō) 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.

It cannot be admitted because of the language Jesus uses here. Be begins using the same general term for eating as the questioning Jesus the word phago which means " to eat (consume) a thing" And then takes it further and for emphasis repeats what he said but with a significant word trōgō which means "to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)" Obviously some biting going on. So that cannot be agreed to either just by language of the text.

3. it is admitted that Christ Himself does not argue that "some day in the future I WILL be the bread and I will come down out of heaven as the break of life"

This isn't a valid point because he talking in context of the covenant meal which is at the time of Passover.

4. but rather "I already HAVE come down out of heaven as the bread of life" and "you already must eat of that bread to have eternal life"

Yes and note he says he has already given his life for the world but hasn't been crucified yet another problem for your line of thinking. To connect it with the point above. Jesus came down to sacrifice himself and give of himself to be eaten like the Passover lamb.

5. And all agree that not even the faithFUL disciples of John 6 - are that day "biting Christ".

Now we see all of them very confused and troubled but Peter speaking for all 12 of the disciples said in a sense " no matter we know you are speaking the truth which is life."

6. This is very similar to the Matt 16 case of disciples taking the symbol of bread too literally - when the symbol is stated in the text itself as a symbol for teaching.

The two are in no way similar. You made an invalid connection. Ie there is no connection other than the fact the word bread was used but it isn't even in the same context. Don't treat scriptures like a smorgishboard. In Matthew 16 the disciples thought Jesus was comparing them to the Pharisees because they forgot to bring bread. Not even remotely close. Jesus explained to them what he meant clearly because Matthew 16 then says

12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

therefore you made an invalid connection there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Continued....

7. John 3 leading into John 6 presents a context, a lead-in example of taking Christ's meaning on "Birth" too literally by one not inclined to fully believe.

not at all. Unless you want me to believe that you believe that a person born again is no different before he was born again. Do you?

8. Everyone agrees that if all loyal disciples in John 6 had walked up to Christ and started chewing his flesh - no Cross, no Gethsemane, no last supper could have happened

Now you are being factious. The mode is different because it is by the spirit which I have explained is not the same as mere Symbolism. The Passover lamb must first be sacrificed before it is eaten even as Jesus must be crucified before he gives of himself to us in communion. You are making a lot of extravagant assumptions.

9. there is a progression from Deut 8, John 1, John 6 and Matt 16 all showing the idea of bread as a symbol for teaching and most specifically the Word coming down out of heaven as that which gives Life - where the physical bread importance is diminished and the Word, Teaching symbolism is highlighted.

As I remember Deut 8 "bread" isn't a teaching tool but a fact. And despite it having the property of curbing our hunger for a time it really doesn't give us life that we can only get in God.

that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word[a] that comes from the mouth of the Lord

John 1 cannot be a progression because it doesn't even mention bread.Unless, you want to do a study on the word "word" which is logos in Greek and it doesn't even have the exact same connotation as the Hebrew which didn't use the word "word" but מוֹצָא mowtsa' which means to proceed forth or out of. The term word is implied. So it cant really be a progression.

10. The "trend" of taking Christ's words too literally is seen in John 3, Matt 16 and also in the trial of Christ where his statement about "tearing down the temple" is taken too literally again by the unbelieving

Again it wasn't about "taking him too literally" as much as understanding mode. Unless as I've said you want to suggest a born again person isn't changed in essence.

11. Jesus makes the same Deut 8, Matt 16 application of "The Word" in John 6:63 as soon as the 6:62 event of unbelieving disciples leaving - occurs.
12. Peter affirms the 6:62 point of Christ - in 6:68 that it is the "WORD" that has life.

As I've shown you they are not compatible as the OT doesn't use word in that passage. ANd it certainly isn't related to Logos.

My guess is that this list of agreed upon points - agreed by all - is not a list you and your pastor were discussing at the time

So this assumption is plain wrong by plain reading of the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is hard to believe that there is still argument over John 6. It is so clear and so simple! Jesus is decribing what it is to believe in him for eternal life. He uses a simple analogy of how our bodies partake bread ("eat") and water ("drink") to quench our hunger and thirst and sustain physical life. Likewise, partaking of Christ by faith not only satisfies all our spiritual needs but obtains eternal life.

There is not even a remote hint in this text concerning the Lord's Supper much less the silly Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is hard to believe that there is still argument over John 6. It is so clear and so simple! Jesus is decribing what it is to believe in him for eternal life. He uses a simple analogy of how our bodies partake bread ("eat") and water ("drink") to quench our hunger and thirst and sustain physical life. Likewise, partaking of Christ by faith not only satisfies all our spiritual needs but obtains eternal life.

There is not even a remote hint in this text concerning the Lord's Supper much less the silly Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Welcome Back Biblicist! I hope the family is doing well. I figured Christians haven't stopped arguing about this since the Reformation, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see it stopped being argued here on Baptist Board. Yes it is simple. You must believe that that Jesus is the bread of life which comes down from heaven that you must divest yourself of eating it.

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 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.”

Clearly "eats of this bread" = "and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh" or crucified body. Clearly you must believe this. And Judas did not believe it.

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.) ...“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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Welcome Back Biblicist! I hope the family is doing well. I figured Christians haven't stopped arguing about this since the Reformation, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see it stopped being argued here on Baptist Board. Yes it is simple. You must believe that that Jesus is the bread of life which comes down from heaven that you must divest yourself of eating it. Clearly "eats of this bread" = "and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh" or crucified body. Clearly you must believe this. And Judas did not believe it.

Thanks for the "welcome"! The family is well.

However, your interpretation of John 6 is simply wrong! You are jerking a few verses out of the greater context and interpreting them in contradiction to the greater context of the chapter.

You are making the words of Christ MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the audiance as the Lord's Supper had not even been instituted, the cross had not yet occurred. He is speaking of something they could obtain right then at the point of speaking.

Eating physical substance to sustain physical life is simply an analogy. Your intepretation rejects the analogy and maintains necessity of eating physical substance for eternal life. His body and blood is physical substance just as the doctrine of transubstantiation demands. He is not basing his message on FUTURE tense verbs but PRESENT TENSE verbs.

Jesus is taking the physical analogy to teach a spiritual truth about the nature of receiving eternal life through faith rather than the nature of the Lord's Supper which had not even been instituted. No one could possibly literally eat Christ's body or drink his blood at this point - no one! If this was the way to obtain eternal life at this point then none of his audiance could possibly have obtained it and Jesus is simply misleading his audiance. He is talking about something his actual audiance at that actual time could do, not somthing they could not do. Yet Catholicism makes his message to them about eternal life meaniningless, empty and useless AT THE POINT of speaking.

Furthermore, he makes the point of his analogy obvious twice previous to the disputed passage and then it is repeated again after this passage in the words of Peter:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not[/B].

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

The analogy is simple and clear. A person partakes of Christ by faith as a person partakes of food by eating and drinking. Literal eating and drinking physical food is necessar for physical life, just as spiritually eating and drinking of Christ by faith is necessary for spiritual life. However, Rome rejects the obvious analogy and demands the physical is the essential for the spiritual thus making his message MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the actual audiance hearing him as NONE could obtain eternal life by such a message at such a time to such an audiance.

However, as understood by Peter, eternal life by faith in Him had already been obtained, and thus could be obtained AT THE POINT IN TIME of this message.

Your doctrine makes the message an exercise of futility as far as the actual audiance obtaining eternal life right then and there!