Eucharist Vs John 6

So, then, by this logic we should have expected them to break out the knives and forks at the Last Supper?

No, because the Seder/Haggadah meal was eaten by hand, and when they partook of Christ's glorified body under the species of bread, they did so without forks and knives.

 

Carson,

No, duh. I was responding to Thess's reference to "knives and forks." He stated that the reason the disciples weren't prepared to literally feast on Jesus in John 6 was because He (Jesus) was referring to a future event--the Last Supper. So, according to that logic, the disciples should have been prepared to feed on Him at the Last Supper whether it be with hands or "knives and forks."

Hmm? When did bread become a "species?" For those who don't already know, Christ's glorified body is in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God.

 

Carson,

You said to Bob:

First, I have to ask, how is that response curious? I think it's quite adequate considering the situation.

Second, as I've already pointed out, there is much more to the Bread of Life discourse than the subject of eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood. The disciples were already confounded by His claim that He came down from Heaven. And even though they marveled that "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was a hard saying, they still did not walk away until Jesus referred to God as His Father. You can not state with any surity that it was the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" statement that ultimately resulted in them walking away.

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?

Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Then they leave:

Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

He knew that those who left were not believers. He knew that they had not been sent to Him by His Father, just as He knew that those who stayed did believe and correctly understand Him.

Yes--it is.

Yes--it does.

'Fraid not.

No, He reaffirms His meaning just as He did in John 3 to Nicodemus on being born again:

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.

So, we have Jesus saying "eat my flesh and drink my blood" and you will have eternal life, "you will abide in me and I will abide in you," and if one doesn't eat His flesh and drink His blood one has "no life in you."

So, He's being literal when He says "eat flesh/drink blood." Then, when He says one "have no life in you" does that mean you are physically dead? Or Spiritually dead? Do we abide in Him physically or Spiritually? Does He abide in us physically or spiritually? If we live forever and ever, eternally are we immortal, or must we first die physically? How do you determine that He is being physically literal when He says "eat flesh/drink blood," when everything about this passage has spiritual meaning?

Uh huh.

Who's mixing metaphors? What about that passage dictates that any part of it must be literal. Unless, you're Catholic, what part of that discourse is literal at all? Like I've asked before, if you insist that Jesus is being literal in saying eat flesh/drink blood, then why don't you insist that He's being literal when He says He is bread? He emphatically states He's bread more times than He says eat flesh/drink blood.

 

I'm tempted to go through the entire Catholic interpretation again, but it wouldn't change any minds. All I can say is from a Catholic standpoint you're going out of your way to misread the Scripture.

What a rude comment. I guess you thought you were being funny.

This argument is just bizarre. The diciples no doubt were left confused and wondering every bit as much as those who walked away, and their confusion was only cleared up at the Last Supper, Crucifixion and Resurrection, as the full understanding of Christ as the spotless Lamb slain and eaten by the will of God was given to them, and hence passed down these 2000 years.

Mock and crack wise if you must, but as a Catholic I can tell you that the truth that we are fed not just by His Word, but are also fed literally and spiritually by the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, is the most humbling, joyous and beautiful ongoing gift of God's poured-out love imaginable to me in this life.

 

...and as already pointed out you will tell us the "truth" that everybody who does not go to mass is physically dead.

 

I don't even begin know what this means. Obviously you are not physically dead, and presumably you don't go to Mass. So, no, I will not tell you whatever it is that you said above.

 

I don't even begin know what this means. Obviously you are not physically dead, and presumably you don't go to Mass. So, no, I will not tell you whatever it is that you said above. </font>[/QUOTE]From LisaMC's post:

So, He's being literal when He says "eat flesh/drink blood." Then, when He says one "have no life in you" does that mean you are physically dead? Or Spiritually dead? Do we abide in Him physically or Spiritually? Does He abide in us physically or spiritually? If we live forever and ever, eternally are we immortal, or must we first die physically? How do you determine that He is being physically literal when He says "eat flesh/drink blood," when everything about this passage has spiritual meaning?

 

As I said, I'm not going to try and recapitulate 2000 years of Catholic theology in a way that will somehow cause you to slap your forehead and shout "Yes, of course, they're right after all!" I will mention that the Real Presence was the near-universal understanding for 1500 years. Here's a thought experiment for you: find a non-Christian with no knowledge of the bible, and let that person read John 6, and the accounts of the Last Supper, and the prefiguring account of the Passover, and ask them whether or not Christ was speaking literally as well as figuratively. IMO it is your recent tradition of men that blinds you to the full meaning of these scriptures. Of course, you will argue the opposite, so we're back at square one again. I don't think we can move off of square one through simple argument or logic; it becomes a matter of grace.

 

Following the divine pedagogy, I've come to imitate Jesus on this issue:

1. Present the clear, unadulterated teaching of Jesus and its Biblical theology.

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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

2. Wait for the response

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

3. Remind your audience that the mystery of faith presented is just that: a mystery that can only be accepted in faith by grace.

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?... This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

4. Allow those who do not believe to not believe by their own free choice.

After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

5. And praise Jesus, acknowledging that even though we cannot comprehend this unfathomable mystery of faith, we shall trust him, because he has the words of eternal life.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life

Many of Jesus' disciples couldn't accept this mystery of faith in his own day - those who witnessed his many signs - so why should we expect anything different in our own time?

I think we shouldn't.

 

First of all, I reject your assertion that I have feigned anything as an unnecessary smear. As I said, I don't believe I could write anything that would suddenly make you change your mind. I doubt that the words exist that would suddenly make you change your mind.

I'm astonished that you think this is a convincing argument! Haven't you ever been presented with a truth or insight that you believed but that was so deep that you did not immediately know how to act upon it, you did not understand immediately all the implications of it?

You ignore the switch from "my flesh" to "the flesh." Different things entirely, as has been pointed out. His flesh and blood was not worthless on the cross, nor in the Eucharist.

There you go again, uncharity after uncharity. Why?

That's my interpretation, that they knew Jesus was speaking in some literal way but they did not understand fully, until after He showed them, at the Last Supper, how He would give them His flesh and blood in an unbloody manner in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. In John 6 They stayed with Him because of their faith and trust in him. I could be wrong in my interpretation, for I am not the Church and I do not speak for it, but that's how I see it.

I don't see anything devastating here, but rather perhaps an example of the often-commented tendency of non-Catholics to see theological truth as EITHER/OR as opposed to the Catholic BOTH/AND, layered, intertwined, "black and white vs. Technicolor," as I have also heard it put.

 

Hi All,

"No, duh. I was responding to Thess's reference to "knives and forks." He stated that the reason the disciples weren't prepared to literally feast on Jesus in John 6 was because He (Jesus) was referring to a future event--the Last Supper. So, according to that logic, the disciples should have been prepared to feed on Him at the Last Supper whether it be with hands or "knives and forks.""

You make way to much of my point. That is not the reason they did not but it shows the futility of Bob's logic. Yet since he is not Catholic even though he is not whatever you are either, you must stand by your man. If all you guys have is silly arguements about knives and forks I guess you will grasp at anything. At the last supper it became abundantly clear what Jesus had been talking about almost exactly one year earlier.

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


Especially when he said "THIS IS MY BODY... THIS IS MY BLOOD..." when one year earlier he said "MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD... MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK".


Sound familiar? It is quite clear that John 6 is intimately related to Matt 26 no matter how big a crowbar people want to use to separate them. And v. 51 puts the nail in the coffin of that link. For it says that Jesus is going to give us his flesh, i.e. be sacrificed. Perhaps however this not to those who wish to remain in ignorance and darkness.

Blessings.

 

Thess,

How so?

I'm not standing by any man. I'm sitting at a computer. What I do stand by are my convictions and beliefs. If it appears that Bob and I agree on certain things, then it's because we hold the same beliefs and convictions on some issues--not because he and I are not Catholic.

Well, if you ever truly read my posts and my arugments, then you know that my issues are not with flatware. I'm not grasping. I make some very undeniable and logical points and arguments, and instead of addressing them, or attempting to explain why you disagree, you address petty non-significant issues.

How do you know that they had a better grasp on His meaning at the Last Supper than they did in John 6?

I never said there was no connection. However, there's nothing about Matthew 26 which rules out Jesus speaking figuratively or using metaphors. It's just as Spiritual in meaning as John 6.

What is Jesus flesh? Bread. He also says His flesh is "meat indeed." So, what is this meat He will give?

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.

He is not speaking of eating in a literal sense in John 4, John 6, Ezekiel 3, Jeremiah 15, or Rev 10. Numerous times Jesus uses the verbs "eating and drinking" in a metaphorical sense. Never is eating flesh and blood encouraged, approved, allowed, condoned, commanded, etc . . . .

 

MikeS,

Hello!! I don't think you and I have conversed before. I'm Lisa. Some Catholics and I on this MB get along rather well, some (T2U, thess, sometimes raymond) find me antagonizing or disappointing sometimes, Bro Ed finds me amusing, and Carson (I believe) often finds me to be insignificant (I think it's because I'm a female ) Time will tell how you and I get on, I hope we do okay, though.

Anyhow, you said to Bob:

Why bizarre?

At first they were.

As I asked Thess, upon what do you base this assertion?

Yes, the Real Presence was believed in, taught by and promoted by many throughout the history of Christianity. However, there were also many who made it abundantly clear that Jesus was being figurative when He spoke of eating/drinking His flesh/blood.

God Bless!!

 

Carson,

Huh? Imitate Jesus?

O-kay, so will you live eternally without ever dying physically? If I do not partake of the Real Presence am I, this instant, dead physically?

Now, just as straitforward as the passage you quoted:

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

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.

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Why are these verses any less literal than those you quote?

But, they didn't leave yet.

So, who says that John 6 is referring to a mystery?

Then they left. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, they finally had enough.

Believe what? What Jesus said, or what you assert?

After Jesus topped the cake by claiming to be the Son of God.

What unfathomable mystery? It only remains unfathomable if a person gives any credence to the Real Presence. That's basically a slight case of spiritual blackmail of those who are unsure, yet devout. You dismiss their uncertainty by saying, "If you truly have faith, you will just accept this teaching and not question how it is so." So, they swallow it, not realizing that it is this Catholic teaching that is unfathomable, not the directive issued in scripture from Christ.

Yes, Carson, they stayed to hear the Gospel, to consume Christ's teachings, they stayed to take in His words--not to eat His flesh.

When someone show us the bread and wine turning into flesh and blood, then we'll rethink our beliefs. Every other miracle Jesus performed had a verifiable, visible result, a physical transformation. Not so with the so-called Real Presence.

You shouldn't expect anybody who possesses true spiritual discernment to swallow the doctrine of the Real Presence. It is not supported by or contained in Scripture.

 

Lisa, do you really think that I am convinced I can argue a non-believer regarding the Eucharist into believer? If you do, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Faith is a gift, a grace; it isn't a creation that I can make and give to you. It's God's work - something that only the recipient can respond to in his/her own free will.

No amount of reiterating the clear teaching of Scripture and the 2,000 year sacramental life of the Church in the context of the Liturgy will efficaciously cause you to accept the grace that accompanies the revelation presented in Scripture.

That's your choice, and I'll happily leave it up to you. That's the beauty of our free will. That means that I'm okay with your position, as Jesus was with his "many disciples". Have it your way.. Really!