Eucharist Vs John 6

Yes it is. However RCs don't take Jesus any more literally than evangelicals if they want to see in John 6 the Eucharist. Or is the RC going to say that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is how the Jews who were listening to Jesus uinderstood things? Clarly there is an equivocation at work here.

First, it is not that uncommon a thing for Jesus to leave people in the dark. Many parables go unexplained. Second, it is not up to us to explain WHY he did so in any case. If this was a unique event in John 6 then it would be different. Third. John 6 is not a parable, so the parallel is not valid in any case.

It is up to the RC to tell us why we should ignore the explanation of Jesus words that Jesus himself provides in John 6. Eatig is a metaphpir for believing. Why ignore that?

 

Bob -
Actually there is a LOT more here than even you are bringing up, a study that goes back to the very beginning of the chapter. Sorry I have not addressed your concerns early on. Enda said she had problems with this belief. You started with questions that could take many threads to get into. I wanted to address her concerns if possible and just be honest. You stated out saying that John 6 is not the Eucharist. Then you went to Galatians, and immediately to defrocked priest logistics? Ok, I was exhausted before I could even reply!

Because they did not fully 'understand' Jesus' meaning at that time, whether literal or symbolic. Even the Gospels say that the Apostles at Jesus' crucifixion still did not understand what was going on regarding the ultimate plan of salvation. They did not even know for quite a while after Pentecost that the Gospel applied to non-Jews!?

He was alluding to the Jewish understanding of flesh ragarding the Law, as they were all under at that time. This is my personal observation. I am not an authority. By works, the flesh, they could obtain riteousness under the Law. This was getting ready to change. They also undestood manna as being from Heaven, not only spiritual in nature, but also physical for sustenance. A powerful reality that Jews fully understood. This is why they were angry that Jesus would say he was manna. Flesh without the spirit is dead.

And another strong point in my own mind, just to be honest is this. I have been on both sides, and I know this can be understood sybolically and literally. The symbolic interpretation was not taught by the leaders of the early Christian church, who learned not just from reading the letters that would become the Bible, but from the teachings of the Apostles. Not just in one place, but in all places that the Church went.

Whether you read it one way or the other, I just know what I have read in patristic texts of the early fathers, the ones that guarded and passed down the NT cannon of letters. After 300+ years, when bishops were gathered from every part of the known christian world, there should have been some that thought all this was just symbolic.

And in all honesty, you make very good points looking at this symbolically.

 

Bible belted said

Actually if we are honest, they do of course take John 6 literally. You know the RC church does not believe that a single person present that day understood the significance of the words spoken, literally or spiritually. The RC nor other scholars think that anybody there except Jesus, know what the Eucharist was, or thr Church, or salvation by faith, or grace. Protestant scholars also do not believe they understood. Do you think they understood the Gospel, and that they would be asking a resurected Jesus into thier lost souls after he was crucified? I mean seriously? Nobody there understood the real meaning yet. Many times this was the case.

Even in John 10, speaking of his being the shepard and Christians hearing his voice and following Him, people did not understand.

Even though Jesus said he would re-build the temple in three days, and had told the Apostles he would be back, and the he would be resurected after his death in Luke 24:26, they still did not understand:

So no, they did not understand John 6 material theologically at all. They did not even understand that which they had seen such as the feeding of the 5000. After they witnessed surely one of the very greatest of all miracles, they then followed after Jesus across the lake. Why??? Because they understood Jesus and that he could do miracles? No. In Jesus' own words:

 

Bob said -

Did they? If you closely examine the doctines you propose they understood here, I don' think you will think this. This is just a word game at this point.

Jesus' words did not save anybody. Do you agree? His substitutionary attonement by incarnation, death, and resurrection are what save us, with Grace, by faith. Jesus was yet to save mankind from sin at this time. How could his Apostles truly understand these things? They did not even understand that He must be resurrected from the dead, even after He told them this fact.

They had faith in what Jesus was saying and that he would save them ultimately by following Him. They did not understand how they were going to be saved by Jesus as the Bible shows us.

 

Bob said"

Let's not twist too far here. Jesus was warning about the teaching of the Pharasies and Saducies. This is what Jesus was talking about in his reference to bread.

in reference to this statement:

That is what Jesus said. His Apostles got it all contorted and are the ones who thought he meant bread.

You really think Matt 16 is a debunking of John 6? It does not even follow the same literary content, but leaves out the entire discussion after crossing over the lake. I might be missing your point, but your references seem a little dis-ointed between John and Matt.

Ok. Now lets be fair here, I have attempted to address your points. And it has taken a 'lot'of time. I am not trying to be adversarial or dodge you here either, as you asked the questions of me first. If I respond in honestly, don't rail on me for trying. Agreed? And now ENDA is back asking quesitons, and I have to address her. You realize this all takes 'time' right? As I seem to be one of the only Catholics hanging around at this time, please be patient.

And in no way am I an expert at the RCC like other longer term Catholics here. I pretty much defend as an early church proponent more than anything. I believed everything I am saying here before I even considered being a Catholic Christian.

 

Charles,

You said:

Charles, you can not factually prove that those who came immediately after the Apostles understood these passages literally.

Did you read any of the quotes I posted from Augustine? There have always been people who understood John 6 to be symbolical.

No. I quite explicitly showed you how Jesus did clarify Himself in John 6:63. Some people just didn't get it. Those who walked away, walked away for more than one reason. It wasn't just because Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. They were already doubting His sanity before He even said that. Look:

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Those who understood His clarification understood because they were believers. Jesus did not always clarify Himself for those who didn't understand. Look back at John 3 where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus:
Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

It appears to Nicodemus that Jesus didn't clarify Himself here either. Because Jesus reiterated that "unless a man is born of water and spirit, he can not see the Kingdom of Heaven." But, you and I see that Jesus did clarify Himself somewhat in John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. But, we know Nicodemus still didn't get it because of verse 3:9, "Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can thee things be?" Nowhere does it show Jesus go any further into depth after that question.

But, why do I think that John 6 is symbolic? Well, in John 6 Jesus tells us to eat His flesh, His meat. He is the bread which came down from Heaven. But, look back to John 4:

Jhn 4:31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

Jhn 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Jhn 4:33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him [ought] to eat?

Jhn 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Right here Jesus tells us what His meat is--it's to do the will of the Father.

Then let's look at John 5:

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

See? Eatrink = Heareth:Believeth

Then John 6:35:

Jhn 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.

See? Cometh:Believeth = Eatrink

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Again? Seeth:Believeth = Eatrink

Jesus says again emphatically:

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

If He's "bread," and we are eathing His flesh are we eathing "bread" or "meat?"

Now, to John 6:54:

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Look at this verse and verse John 6:40. Do you not see the correlation? Now, we know Jesus is not contradicting Himself by saying you must come and believe to have eternal life, then turning around and saying you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. Which is it? It has to be both. Therefore, we must reconcile what He says in 6:40 and 6:54. He has to be speaking figuratively.

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus condone eating human flesh. However, Scripture does refer to Spiritual drink/nourishment. For instance:

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

He is our Spiritual nourishment. Jesus is constantly stressing the supremecy of Spiritual matters over Carnal matters.

Also, Scripture even refers to eating "words." See:

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

So, now go back to John 6:67 & 68:

Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Scripture even references words-God's words (maybe the Word) as Spiritual nourishment.

Again, John 6:63:

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

How can you miss the "figurative" nature of this chapter?

One more point, then I'll have to get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Look at this verse:

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

What is the meat that endureth to everlasting life? Back to verse:

Jhn 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Anyhow, that's enough for now, I will get to the rest tomorrow.

God Bless!

 

Well, on another discussion forum(not baptist board) I just responded to this subject last night. Out of laziness, I'll copy and paste my response to here...

It was said to me...

And I responded...

"D"

 

No, RCs do not take Jesus literally. Or do you hold that the Eucharist is cannabalism? You are still equivocating the word "literally".

This is where you equivocate. You use literally to mean "theologically literal". That is different from literal.

You need to own up to that basic inconsistnecy in your presentation Charles.

 

dear Lisa,

I'm back.

Re: 'development of doctrine'. BobRyan and I have already agreed that it would have been impossible for the same church to teach simultaneously that Christians eat Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and that Christians *don't* eat Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The same goes for non-schizophrenic people. It would be impossible for Augustine to affirm the Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist and then to deny Them.

I could not find that denial in any of your quote. I am sorry to pur more onto your plate but here are some cited quotes which in my opinion place Augustine forever outside the protestant camp..........

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)>>>>>>

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NNE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
<<<<<<<<<

you might be able to put a protestant spin on all the above quotes, but I cannot. I have never heard any protestant speak in such terms.
have you?

your brother, raymond

 

raymond,

Glad you're back. I will address each of your quotes from Augustine. However, I'm curious as to how you would place a "Catholic" spin on the below quotes by Augustine?

Augustine: He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.

A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice . . . for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the tru sacrifice.

In fine, He Himself, when He says, "he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us.

But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eatheth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth . . . Just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eathing drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him, that is, by receiving Him as the eternal life, which we did not have from ourselves.

We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our Ransom, His blood. For he spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink . . . When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you;" . . . His disciples were offended . . . What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you? . . . Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . . That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life."

Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He ho saith, "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?" Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.

This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

AND . . .

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man;" says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; IT IS THEREFORE A FIGURE, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

raymond,

My faith is not reliant on the unanymous consent of the fathers. My faith is not dependent upon unquestionable proof that the earliest fathers believed as the Catholic Church now believes. I don't care how many quotes you can produce by Augustine, you can not discount the quotes above. You must find a way to reconcile the above citations with your claims that Augustine believed in the Real Presence. The quotes you have given, can be symbolically or figuratively understood just as the Words were as they came from Jesus mouth. Anyhow, I will be referencing the quotes you have given in proper context, then I will get back with you. However, if your quotes are honestly representing what you claim Augustine believed and my quotes are honestly representing what I understand him to have believed, Augustine was one confused fella'.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond>>>>>>

Do SDA's pretty much write off the 'Early Fathers' as apostates? <<<<<

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BobRyan>>>>>
#1. WE regard the Apostles as the premere "Early Fathers" in terms of NT church doctrine.

#2. We consider that those that followed - were sometimes influence by the traditions of man - that so easily influenced the members of the One True Church started by God at Sinai according to Christ in Mark 7:5-11. So although we mark them as saints - Christians, followers of Christ - we do not consider them to be infallible in doctrine.

#3. We agree with the statements of Paul in Acts 20 that "From among your OWN selves" the wolves would arise seeking draw disciples after themselves.

#4. We consider that "exegesis" starts with the text itself. In this case John 6 itself. It does not jump out of scripture and rush headlong into a quote 100 years distant from the writing of John to "get context". Exegesis starts with the author and the event being described. In this case the Words of Christ to the Jews long BEFORE the Lords Supper was celebrated. <<<<<<<<<

Dear BobRyan,

I apologize for picking a quote from Ignatius of Antioch which was not quite germane....I thought I had copied a different one into the buffer. Oh well, if you are not too tired of reading quotes, please check out this quote from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans:

Ignatius:>>>>>

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their own disputes. "
<<<<<<

I know your denomination is one of the few to try present a coherent version of the Church's history thru the ages, at least with regards to Ellen White's theories about the Waldensians. This is the reason why I asked you if Ignatius and Justin were 'ok' in your book. I take it they were not 'ok' according to SDA history.

My problem with seeing them as 'wolves' in the 1st and 2nd Cty Church is that you then have no 'sheep', and certainly no reliable, identifiable human teacher for God's Church during an era so early that there still would have been people alive with personal contact with the Apostles.

This idea threatens my belief in a Sovereign God. How could He become incarnate and establish a human teaching Organization, the Church, and then allow it to extinguish His message within decades of His Ascension? You can call me pollyannic, but I don't think God is that weak and-or indifferent.

Can you explain how this could happen in light of God's love and sovereignty? You could make your faith much more understandable to me.

your brother

 

"Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with
the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you."

"Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the
deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has
appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ
Jesus."

"The Lord also says to the priests, “He that
heareth you, heareth Me; and he that heareth Me, heareth the Father that
sent Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me,
despiseth Him that sent Me.”

"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we
would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord"

The above quotes are from Ignatius to the Ephesians. He is one of the wolves in sheep clothing seeking followers unto himself in the establishment of the authority of the bishop. This establishment eventually lead to the church of Rome and the establishment of the Pope, who is verily the man of sin spoken of by the Apostle Paul.

Having studied the scriptures for many years before reading the writings from the supposed church Fathers, I was very unimpressed by the same. The writings of Ignatius strike me as the writings of an Apostle Paul wannabe. Reading the scriptures brings about conviction in my heart, I cannot say the same for the writings of the supposed church Fathers.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Kamaroso:>>>>
The above quotes are from Ignatius to the Ephesians. He is one of the wolves in sheep clothing seeking followers unto himself in the establishment of the authority of the bishop. This establishment eventually lead to the church of Rome and the establishment of the Pope, who is verily the man of sin spoken of by the Apostle Paul.

Having studied the scriptures for many years before reading the writings from the supposed church Fathers, I was very unimpressed by the same<<<<<<

Dear Kamaroso,

Thanks for the straight answer. You, and the SDA denomination, believe that God lost control of the organized Church only decades after His Ascension, and with the Apostle John only freshly buried.

Here's my problem with that: Jesus Christ established an identifiable, organized Church. That was His plan. To say the plan got hi-jacked and to believe that, I would then have to think that God is either incapable of delivering on His original plan of having His Church teach all nations, or unwilling to make good on His promise. It seems to me that we would now be on plan 'b' or 'c' now.

help me out here. you are going to have a hard time converting me if I have to start believing that God is weak or uncaring.

your brother

 

Sorry folks, I have not had a lot of time to respond to all this, and it is pretty massive. Just making contact and saying, I have not run off...

Real quick - Bible Belted said:

You dazzle me. I am not giving you a presentation. You seem angry that I have somehow read some contrived version of how to read this pasage. I'll tell you this in all honestly, which may change soon. I have never read a Catholic commentary on this passage. I have read a lot of 1-2 century patristic texts about the subject. Enough of that.

Lets just say your right and Catholics do not believe John 6 literally. Fine. When Jesus says the bread that comes down from heaven is my flesh, Catholics believe that the bread which comes down out of heaven is Jesus' real actual flesh. Maybe that is not literal? But it is different than Protestants. You know, you are playing word games here, not representing what people actually believe.

LisaMC - You said I could not prove the early fathers believed these things. Ok. Maybe not to your satisfaction, whatever that might entail. Ignatius who sat at the feet of the Apostle John, and Justin Martyr, who was just as early, both give explanations of what Chritians believed regarding the Eucharist. Any scholar will admit based on the early patristic writings which are massive in nature, show the church teaching the real presence. You can dispute this if you wish, but I have a concience and in no way can agree with you that the early Christian people and leaders did not believe this. Too much evidence. As a Baptist, I said they had to be apostate. The words are there for all to see.

Saying a chicken is actually a duck is not acceptable. Saying the chicken was not supposed to be there because the eggs got switched is acceptable as an argument.

 

ENDA said -

Great point. First of all, I have never been refused the cup, but I understand that in times past this has been the case.

My thoughts are this. If Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, really there, then you are taking Him in fully with either element. So if Jesus' words are true, I believe all those in past times have fully recieved the incarnate Son.

Along those same lines, have all those millions of Christians before the Reformation all gone to hell and not recieved God's grace because they did not walk the isle and get 'saved'? That they did not think of Jesus a certain way, or understand modern theology, or even ancient theology? That they were tricked out of heaven by conspiritors under God's watchful loving eyes, yet He could not do anything about this? Some may also believe this.

ENDA, for serious real, do you get a hard time in Ireland now, being a Protestant? I would imagine the implications there are far heavier than say, in America when you 'cross over'.

 

LisaMC said

I don't buy that John 6:63 is the answer to verse 52, where the question about literal flesh was asked. Jesus' response, direct response to the direct question was in verse 53. I do however, understand what you are saying in verse 63. I do not believe this is a refutation of the entire past disscusion about his body being bread in reality, but rather a spirtual truth, that although the flesh(mans) under the Jewish Law may provide righteousness and life, there is a time coming when the bread (Jesus' flesh) with the Spirit will provide life. And when they eat the bread that Jesus will give them in the future (nobody knew there would be a Eucharist, not even the 12), they will be eating his flesh. Not only this, but this is in fact what the first Christians understood from the teachings of the Apostles. This is a powerful truth that is hard to hear.

We all agree here. That they were believers that stayed with Him. His clarification or summary was broader in nature in context of the entire disucssion I belive. I also go with the testimony and teachings of those that believed and followed, in union with the rest of the church worldwide, not new interpretations of said passages. And this symbolic rendering is a newer understanding. Is it right? If it is it is. The testimony of the first Christians show what they understood in this matter. It shocks me that they could have mis-understood the biggest part of thier woriship in so many places so fast and in such union. And unlike today's Evangelical services (which I am not debunking here, just comparing for historical reasons), the early Christians has the Eucharist as the focus of their corporate woriship every time they gathered. If I am going to go with a newer sybolic rendering, I have to buy into the charge that all the churches fell away, even when seperated in communications for long periods, with no great debates over these matters, , which are of the core of Christian faith and salvation at stake.

Actually, I looked at all of your exegesis, not just the quote above of your summation. So I will comment.

If I 'believe' in Him, then I will 'come' to Him, and will recieve the bread of life. What is this bread that He will give us? Jesus said over and over that He was the Bread of Life in this passage. He clarifies what this bread is in verse 51. "...and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Ok in your exegesis, from John 6 and 4 and 5...I see the way you are looking at this. It is stripped of the physical realities also that accompany the spiritual. Nothing wrong really except that I think the Bible and the Church combine both elements. Same thing with faith and works. I think Jesus gives us himself really and physcially. The difference is the spiritual reality that makes Jesus, well, Jesus, not some man. The spirit gives life. Yes it absolutlely does. Did Jesus physically die for us or only in spirit? Both.

When Jesus says, 'the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life.' Is he refering to Himself as when he said the bread which he will give is His Flesh? This is in the same passage. So to summarize the passage in verse 63, did Jesus say in essence that the 'bread'(which is his flesh)profits nothing? But that 'only' the spirit gives life?

I take it that you understand that Jesus' actual physical sacrafice on the cross, is what He means as his flesh. Do I understand you on that part? He will give his flesh (die for us), it will be bread (spirtual reality of his precense) brought about by eating(hearing:coming:seeing) and drinking (beleiveing).

So is Jesus in verse 63, talking about His flesh, that he has told us is this same bread He will give us? Or is He talking about our flesh, which under the Law produced righteousness? But now Jesus' bread Himself, His flesh, with the spirit, will give us life. Just as the water(physical) and the spirit, give us life.

Yes and coupled with the spiritual is this same truth...

Both physical and spiritual. The text supoprts this understanding as does the tradition of teaching following this text in history.

 

Lisa MC -

Hey this just kind of popped into my head. You see John 6 as in no way the Eucharist or Lord's Supper right? I mean, the feeding of the 5K, with the breaking of the bread, his Apostles receiving from him, and them distrubuting to the people, followed by a discussion of feeding to come that Christ would give, flesh and blood. Then at the final supper, Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood...

Here is my point. You seem to see in John 6, some Evangelical rendering of how to get saved. Namely, believe and receive Jesus only, no Lord's Supper or Eucharist reference at all. Is this correct? Really my thought is that you cannot of neccesity beleive that this has any reference or allusion to the Lord's Supper at all, not even symbolically based on your exegetical explanation of this passage.

You can certainly see this figuratively, but you cannot equate it with any Eucharistic activities to come later as I see it.

 

Bob Ryan said:

You used the bread in Matt 16 to answer the discussion in John 6.
In Matthew, the discussion is about the teachings of the Saduces and Pharises right? Jesus equates their teachings as the 'leaven' not the bread. What does leaven do to bread? It puffs if up, and gives it structure. It is not bread in and of itself. It is that which affects the bread. So according to the text in this passage in Matt. 16, it is the leavening that is equated to teaching, not to bread.

When you leaven bread, you add yeast or soda to the dough, so that when the yeast begins feeding on the sugar in the bread, it gives off gasses which cause air bubbles to form, making the bread rise.

Quit putting spin on the words of the Bible. My NASB, NIV, nor KJV say 'Literal flesh is WORTHLESS'. That is you screaming your idealogy.

I'll ask you, why did Jesus say the bread he would give to us was his flesh? What did He mean by this statement? And was this literal or figurative? Is Jesus refering to His own flesh in verse 63?