-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Eucharist Vs John 6
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Carson quotes Kelley:
Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and the wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, "This is my body," Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wind 'in memory of his blood' (Against Marcion 3.19). . . His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ's body and blood, that is exactly what he meant. He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. (Against Marcion 4.40) He holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood means appropriating him by faith: 'He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.' Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation.
[ April 21, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]
From William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, page 119:
Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and the wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, "This is my body," Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wind 'in memory of his blood' (Against Marcion 3.19). . . His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ's body and blood, that is exactly what he meant. He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. (Against Marcion 4.40) He holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood means appropriating him by faith: 'He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.' Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation.
[ April 21, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-31.htm#P5230_1636728
Chapter XL.-How the Steps in the Passion of the Saviour Were Predetermined in Prophecy. The Passover. The Treachery of Judas. The Institution of the Lord's Supper. The Docetic Error of Marcion Confuted by the Body and the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
. . .When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"1600 that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.1601 An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body,1602 that bread should have been crucified!But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon,1603 which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that1604 they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,"1605 which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,1606 He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood,"1607 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, "Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress? "1608 The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch,1609 saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes"1610 -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
Chapter XL.-How the Steps in the Passion of the Saviour Were Predetermined in Prophecy. The Passover. The Treachery of Judas. The Institution of the Lord's Supper. The Docetic Error of Marcion Confuted by the Body and the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
. . .When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"1600 that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.1601 An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body,1602 that bread should have been crucified!But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon,1603 which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that1604 they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,"1605 which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,1606 He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood,"1607 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, "Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress? "1608 The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch,1609 saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes"1610 -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-41.htm#P10030_2786957
Chapter XXXVII.-Christ's Assertion About the Unprofitableness of the Flesh Explained Consistently with Our Doctrine.
He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing; "242 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; "and then added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life."243 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh,244 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread which cometh down from heaven,"245 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.246 Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit "profiteth," for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what "profits," and what "does not profit," He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the "profit." Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for "the hour," says He, "is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live."247 Now, what is "the dead" but the flesh? and what is "the voice of God" but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit,248 . . .
Chapter XXXVII.-Christ's Assertion About the Unprofitableness of the Flesh Explained Consistently with Our Doctrine.
He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing; "242 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; "and then added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life."243 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh,244 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread which cometh down from heaven,"245 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.246 Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit "profiteth," for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what "profits," and what "does not profit," He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the "profit." Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for "the hour," says He, "is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live."247 Now, what is "the dead" but the flesh? and what is "the voice of God" but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit,248 . . .
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-110.htm#TopOfPage
Sermon XCIII. [CXLIII. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, John xvi. 7, "I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away," etc.
4. Forasmuch then as we could in no way have had this blessedness by which we see not and yet believe, unless we received it of the Holy Ghost; it is with good reason said, "It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you."14 By His Divinity indeed He is with us always; but unless He had in Body gone away from us, we had always seen His Body after the flesh. and never believed after a spiritual sort; by the which belief justified and blessed we might attain15 with cleansed hearts to contemplate the Very Word, God with God, "by whom all things were made," and "who was made Flesh, that He might dwellamong us." And if not with the contact of the hand, but "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" with good reason is the world, which will not believe save what it sees, convinced of our righteousness. Now that we might have that righteousness of faith of which the unbelieving world should be convinced, therefore said the Lord, "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see Me no more." As if He had said, "This shall be your righteousness, that ye believe on Me, the Mediator, of whom ye shall be most fully assured that He is risen again and gone to the Father, though ye see Him not after the Flesh; that by Him reconciled, ye may be able to see God after the Spirit." Whence He saith to the woman who represents the Church, when she fell at His Feet after His Resurrection, "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to the Father."16 Which expression is understood mystically, thus. "Believe not in Me after a carnal manner by means of bodily contact; but thou shall believe after a spiritual manner; that is, with a spiritual faith shalt touch Me, when I shall have ascended to the Father." For, "blessed are they who do not see, and believe." And this is the righteousness of faith, of which the world, which hath it not, is convinced of us who are not without it; for "the just liveth by faith."17 Whether it be then that as rising again in Him, and in Him coming to the Father, we are invisibly and in justification perfected; or that as not seeing and yet believing we live by faith, for that "the just liveth by faith;" with these meanings said He, "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see Me no more."
Sermon XCIII. [CXLIII. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, John xvi. 7, "I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away," etc.
4. Forasmuch then as we could in no way have had this blessedness by which we see not and yet believe, unless we received it of the Holy Ghost; it is with good reason said, "It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you."14 By His Divinity indeed He is with us always; but unless He had in Body gone away from us, we had always seen His Body after the flesh. and never believed after a spiritual sort; by the which belief justified and blessed we might attain15 with cleansed hearts to contemplate the Very Word, God with God, "by whom all things were made," and "who was made Flesh, that He might dwellamong us." And if not with the contact of the hand, but "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" with good reason is the world, which will not believe save what it sees, convinced of our righteousness. Now that we might have that righteousness of faith of which the unbelieving world should be convinced, therefore said the Lord, "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see Me no more." As if He had said, "This shall be your righteousness, that ye believe on Me, the Mediator, of whom ye shall be most fully assured that He is risen again and gone to the Father, though ye see Him not after the Flesh; that by Him reconciled, ye may be able to see God after the Spirit." Whence He saith to the woman who represents the Church, when she fell at His Feet after His Resurrection, "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to the Father."16 Which expression is understood mystically, thus. "Believe not in Me after a carnal manner by means of bodily contact; but thou shall believe after a spiritual manner; that is, with a spiritual faith shalt touch Me, when I shall have ascended to the Father." For, "blessed are they who do not see, and believe." And this is the righteousness of faith, of which the world, which hath it not, is convinced of us who are not without it; for "the just liveth by faith."17 Whether it be then that as rising again in Him, and in Him coming to the Father, we are invisibly and in justification perfected; or that as not seeing and yet believing we live by faith, for that "the just liveth by faith;" with these meanings said He, "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see Me no more."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-112.htm#TopOfPage
Sermon XCV. [CXLV. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, John xvi. 24, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name;" and on the words of Luke x. 17, "Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name."
2. What the Lord then may give to be ministered unto you, do ye with earnest attention, that is, with hunger, receive; and when I shall have spoken it, ye will doubtless with sound taste5 approve what is placed before you out of the Lord's store. The Lord Jesus knew whereby the soul of man, that is, the rational mind, made after the image of God, could be satisfied: only, that is, by Himself. . . .
Sermon XCV. [CXLV. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, John xvi. 24, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name;" and on the words of Luke x. 17, "Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name."
2. What the Lord then may give to be ministered unto you, do ye with earnest attention, that is, with hunger, receive; and when I shall have spoken it, ye will doubtless with sound taste5 approve what is placed before you out of the Lord's store. The Lord Jesus knew whereby the soul of man, that is, the rational mind, made after the image of God, could be satisfied: only, that is, by Himself. . . .
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Okay, what are the bread and wine symbols of?
Cf. CCC 1333-1336.
Cf. CCC 1333-1336.
thessalonian
New Member
[ April 23, 2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
thessalonian
New Member
Hi Bob,
I've enjoyed reading some of your posts while I was taking a break from posting. It was nice not to respond for a while. Interestingly enough my views have only been strengthened over the last couple of months. And your posts I must say have helped. I love how you challenge me to dig deeper. The nice thing is God always provides me with greater answers and understanding.
"It is certainly clear that those who took him literally in John 6 - stormed off in disgust."
Where does it say that all who took him literally stromed off and all who did not stayed. I simply don't see that in the text. More likely from the emphatic way that he repeated himself 4 times in a literal manner, they all took him literally. Had the ones who stormed off been wrong, he most certainly would have said "hang on a second guys, you misunderstood me.".
"Christ's illustration that the only way to get LIFE was to eat His flesh and drink His blood - offended those who took him literally."
Doesn't offend me. I don't see his apostles as being particularly offended either.
"But his faithful - believing followers stayed - and begin shredding his flesh. oops -- I mean they stayed and were there When Jesus stated that "flesh is WORTHLESS" and that the WORDS that He spoke were in fact "LIFE"."
With regard to hacking pieces off of him, as you have weakly tried to use as an arguement, I think v. 51. is key. It also refutes the way you are saying his flesh was worthless.
John 6:51
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I WILL give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Note WILL is future tense. So they wouldn't have come at him with knives and forks as you say because it was apparent that he was speaking of a future event. Peter expresses his trust in what has been said. Surely a symbolic view of John 6 would not be hard for Peter to beleive. Also, if Jesus flesh was worthless as you are contending that doesn't go too well with the idea that he gave it for the life of the world. All those lives that his flesh was ransomed for. I find it hard to believe that he was saying his own flesh was worthless. Now Bob, was Jesus symbolically sacrificed also? Surely if the bread is not literal then he flesh wasn't literally given also. After all, according to you it is worthless flesh so it must not have been a true sacrifice (don't laugh some heretics have used this arguement in the past. It is the next step in Bob's theology).
"So when Peter is put to the test HE ALSO responds that the "WORDS of Christ are LIFE"."
What were those WORDS Bob? MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.".
"And in Matt 16 we see the lesson repeated - the symbol is bread and the LITERALISTS are getting it wrong - so Christ repremands them until they "get" that by bread He means the "TEACHING" of the Pharisees."
Mt. 16 isn't about the Eucharist. Sorry.
"Interesting that in John 6 Christ speaks of the manna that came down out of heaven - and "the lesson of manna" according to Deut 8 is "Man does NOT live by bread alone but by the WORD that comes from God"."
Well if it were still bread you would have a point. But it is no longer bread but him who died for us. As Paul says in Galatians. "it is not I, yet Christ lives in me". The Eucharist is Christ entering in to our hearts and minds. It is not food for our physical flesh which is what v. 63 "the flesh (our flesh, not Jesus's flesh) profiteth nothing" is trying to get accross. Our souls profit much however for it is food for the soul.
In Christ,
[ April 23, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
I've enjoyed reading some of your posts while I was taking a break from posting. It was nice not to respond for a while. Interestingly enough my views have only been strengthened over the last couple of months. And your posts I must say have helped. I love how you challenge me to dig deeper. The nice thing is God always provides me with greater answers and understanding.
"It is certainly clear that those who took him literally in John 6 - stormed off in disgust."
Where does it say that all who took him literally stromed off and all who did not stayed. I simply don't see that in the text. More likely from the emphatic way that he repeated himself 4 times in a literal manner, they all took him literally. Had the ones who stormed off been wrong, he most certainly would have said "hang on a second guys, you misunderstood me.".
"Christ's illustration that the only way to get LIFE was to eat His flesh and drink His blood - offended those who took him literally."
Doesn't offend me. I don't see his apostles as being particularly offended either.
"But his faithful - believing followers stayed - and begin shredding his flesh. oops -- I mean they stayed and were there When Jesus stated that "flesh is WORTHLESS" and that the WORDS that He spoke were in fact "LIFE"."
With regard to hacking pieces off of him, as you have weakly tried to use as an arguement, I think v. 51. is key. It also refutes the way you are saying his flesh was worthless.
John 6:51
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I WILL give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Note WILL is future tense. So they wouldn't have come at him with knives and forks as you say because it was apparent that he was speaking of a future event. Peter expresses his trust in what has been said. Surely a symbolic view of John 6 would not be hard for Peter to beleive. Also, if Jesus flesh was worthless as you are contending that doesn't go too well with the idea that he gave it for the life of the world. All those lives that his flesh was ransomed for. I find it hard to believe that he was saying his own flesh was worthless. Now Bob, was Jesus symbolically sacrificed also? Surely if the bread is not literal then he flesh wasn't literally given also. After all, according to you it is worthless flesh so it must not have been a true sacrifice (don't laugh some heretics have used this arguement in the past. It is the next step in Bob's theology).
"So when Peter is put to the test HE ALSO responds that the "WORDS of Christ are LIFE"."
What were those WORDS Bob? MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.".
"And in Matt 16 we see the lesson repeated - the symbol is bread and the LITERALISTS are getting it wrong - so Christ repremands them until they "get" that by bread He means the "TEACHING" of the Pharisees."
Mt. 16 isn't about the Eucharist. Sorry.
"Interesting that in John 6 Christ speaks of the manna that came down out of heaven - and "the lesson of manna" according to Deut 8 is "Man does NOT live by bread alone but by the WORD that comes from God"."
Well if it were still bread you would have a point. But it is no longer bread but him who died for us. As Paul says in Galatians. "it is not I, yet Christ lives in me". The Eucharist is Christ entering in to our hearts and minds. It is not food for our physical flesh which is what v. 63 "the flesh (our flesh, not Jesus's flesh) profiteth nothing" is trying to get accross. Our souls profit much however for it is food for the soul.
In Christ,
[ April 23, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
John 6:63 "literal Flesh is worthless MY WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE".
John 6:68 "YOU have the WORDS of LIFE"..
So you know what that means? Nobody was taking a bite out of Christ's arm that day!!
Matt 16:11 "How is it you did NOT understand I was not speaking to you about LITERAL bread...but about the TEACHING of the Pharisees"??
John 6:51 "I AM the LIVING BREAD"
John 1:1 "IN the beging was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God".
John 6:50 "THIS IS THE BREAD that comes down out of HEAVEN"
Deut 8:3 "HE fed you with BREAD from HEAVEN... so that you might understand that man does not LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God"
In Christ,
Bob
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Nobody was taking a bite out of Christ's arm that day!
You can string however many disparate verses together as you please, but there's still the internal coherence of the Bread of Life Discourse that remains. This narrative, in its conclusion, contains a curious response from Jesus' audience:
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
The text is self-explanatory. It shows exactly what Jesus was talking about: his physical flesh being eaten by men. After this response is given, Jesus moves into an even greater "literal" representation of what he said in order to evoke this particular response.
"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. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Exegesis involves "drawing out" of the text its meaning, finding in the text the internal coherence, of which the best interpretation has the greatest explanatory power. We must read the narrative as it stands in its final form within its immediate, proximate, and remote contexts - without superimposing our own prejudice upon the text, without mixing metaphors, and without confusing separate narratives or discourses with distinct purposes and contexts.
[ April 25, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You can string however many disparate verses together as you please, but there's still the internal coherence of the Bread of Life Discourse that remains. This narrative, in its conclusion, contains a curious response from Jesus' audience:
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
The text is self-explanatory. It shows exactly what Jesus was talking about: his physical flesh being eaten by men. After this response is given, Jesus moves into an even greater "literal" representation of what he said in order to evoke this particular response.
"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. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Exegesis involves "drawing out" of the text its meaning, finding in the text the internal coherence, of which the best interpretation has the greatest explanatory power. We must read the narrative as it stands in its final form within its immediate, proximate, and remote contexts - without superimposing our own prejudice upon the text, without mixing metaphors, and without confusing separate narratives or discourses with distinct purposes and contexts.
[ April 25, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
There is no dispute with your point that those who left in rebellion were those who took Him literally.
Obviously they would rather literally LEAVE than literally BITE him.
But those who stayed (as indicated by the texts above) SHOW that instead of rejecting HIS OWN SUMMARY (that it is "HIS WORD" that solves the problem and "LITERAL FLESH IS WORTHLESS" )- they SHOWED that they "got the point" adding "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".
But you consider these "summary statements by Christ Himself and even Pope Peter" to be only so many "disparate texts" (as well as all the others listed that SHOW the symbol of bread to CONSISTENTLY stand for teaching.)
Fascinating.
In Christ,
Bob
Obviously they would rather literally LEAVE than literally BITE him.
But those who stayed (as indicated by the texts above) SHOW that instead of rejecting HIS OWN SUMMARY (that it is "HIS WORD" that solves the problem and "LITERAL FLESH IS WORTHLESS" )- they SHOWED that they "got the point" adding "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".
But you consider these "summary statements by Christ Himself and even Pope Peter" to be only so many "disparate texts" (as well as all the others listed that SHOW the symbol of bread to CONSISTENTLY stand for teaching.)
Fascinating.
In Christ,
Bob
6. (47-59) The true bread from heaven
a. The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus' day;
it points to a taking within one's innermost being
i. Some have taken these words more literally, and applied
them to communion - hence, the Eastern Orthodox custom
of infant communion
b. Faith is not compared with tasting or admiring, but with eating
(Singer)
So....Faith is the goal and not actual partaking of bread and wine.
a. The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus' day;
it points to a taking within one's innermost being
i. Some have taken these words more literally, and applied
them to communion - hence, the Eastern Orthodox custom
of infant communion
b. Faith is not compared with tasting or admiring, but with eating
(Singer)
So....Faith is the goal and not actual partaking of bread and wine.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Bob, did you just say that Christ's flesh is worthless?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I wish I could say that I authored scripture - but it is not true in this case.
Christ said "The Literal Flesh is Worthless - Profits NOTHING - HAS no VALUE" John 6:63.
I am pretty sure that was not me standing there at that John 6 gathering saying that.
Did it look that way to you??
In Christ,
Bob
Christ said "The Literal Flesh is Worthless - Profits NOTHING - HAS no VALUE" John 6:63.
I am pretty sure that was not me standing there at that John 6 gathering saying that.
Did it look that way to you??
In Christ,
Bob
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Christ said "The Literal Flesh is Worthless - Profits NOTHING - HAS no VALUE" John 6:63.
Bob, why are you altering the content of Scripture? Isn't that a little dangerous when Scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the Christian faith?
Jesus did not say that literal flesh is worthless. He said, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63).
St. Paul explains what the flesh is in 1 Cor 2:14 - 3,1, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
Our Lord in John 6:63 tells us that we must receive his words on the spiritual level above that of human and worldly reasoning. In order to accept and believe the reality of the Holy Eucharist, we must place ourselves above the confines of our flesh and into the supernatural realm of spiritual discernment. The same is true when we realize the witness of the entire celestial court, the existence of our guardian angel, or the reality of the Holy Spirit in our life.
If Christ is saying that his literal flesh availeth nothing and is worthless, then he is directly contradicting himself, for he just said "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Jesus' flesh is exactly what availeth much; it's worthwhile; it's so valuable that its sacrifice is what gains salvation for the whole world.
Your explanation necessarily entails internal contradictions within Jesus' discourse. My explanation does not. When committing ourselves to exegesis, we should embrace the explanation that has greater explanatory power and is without internal contradictions and hoop jumping.
Bob, why are you altering the content of Scripture? Isn't that a little dangerous when Scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the Christian faith?
Jesus did not say that literal flesh is worthless. He said, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63).
St. Paul explains what the flesh is in 1 Cor 2:14 - 3,1, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
Our Lord in John 6:63 tells us that we must receive his words on the spiritual level above that of human and worldly reasoning. In order to accept and believe the reality of the Holy Eucharist, we must place ourselves above the confines of our flesh and into the supernatural realm of spiritual discernment. The same is true when we realize the witness of the entire celestial court, the existence of our guardian angel, or the reality of the Holy Spirit in our life.
If Christ is saying that his literal flesh availeth nothing and is worthless, then he is directly contradicting himself, for he just said "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Jesus' flesh is exactly what availeth much; it's worthwhile; it's so valuable that its sacrifice is what gains salvation for the whole world.
Your explanation necessarily entails internal contradictions within Jesus' discourse. My explanation does not. When committing ourselves to exegesis, we should embrace the explanation that has greater explanatory power and is without internal contradictions and hoop jumping.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Jesus uses the term flesh repeatedly in John 6 - in the same context. He summarized HIS OWN meaning at the end of the discussion. This does not fit your "preference". So instead of exegeting the text - you eisegete the term flesh that He presents in HIS SUMMARY of HIS OWN teaching in John 6 - and seek to make it apply in another context - in a context that Paul uses to the church in Corinth about the sinful nature. AS IF Christ was saying in John 6 "you must eat my sinful nature".
Notice how you blatantly switch the context AWAY from the John 6 context AS IF "sinful nature" was the meaning of "FLESH" used by Christ in John 6.
In Christ,
Bob
Notice how you blatantly switch the context AWAY from the John 6 context AS IF "sinful nature" was the meaning of "FLESH" used by Christ in John 6.
Your practice of eisegetical rendering to protect your tradition could not be more blatant in this instance. Surely that is embarrassing.
In Christ,
Bob
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Bob, are we having the same conversation? Are you listening to the words I'm typing? This is a necessary prerequisite for mutual understanding.
AS IF Christ was saying in John 6 "you must eat my sinful nature".
I am not interpreting "flesh" as one's sinful nature.
I quoted Paul, who wrote, "But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
To be "of the flesh" is an idiom for lacking spiritual discernment.
Now maybe you can post another original response with a correct understanding of what I wrote (and also perhaps lacking emotionally charged language; e.g., blatant, embarrassing). It's possible for me to engage in a rational, clear-headed dialogue lacking emotative connotations. Would you like to avoid these as well?
AS IF Christ was saying in John 6 "you must eat my sinful nature".
I am not interpreting "flesh" as one's sinful nature.
I quoted Paul, who wrote, "But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
To be "of the flesh" is an idiom for lacking spiritual discernment.
Now maybe you can post another original response with a correct understanding of what I wrote (and also perhaps lacking emotionally charged language; e.g., blatant, embarrassing). It's possible for me to engage in a rational, clear-headed dialogue lacking emotative connotations. Would you like to avoid these as well?
Thess,
You replied to Bob:
They didn't stay to eat Jesus' flesh, they stayed to hear His words and be spiritually nourished.
You:
Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
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.
Eze 2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.
Eze 2:7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they [are] most rebellious.
Eze 2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
Eze 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein;
Eze 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.
Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
Eze 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
Eze 3:5 For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel;
Eze 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.
Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go [and] take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
So, were people really eating words, books, rolls, scrolls?
What about Luke 4:4, It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
What about these verses:
Luke 4:14, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
So, is there some water we are suppose to be drinking? What water are we suppose to be drinking?
John 7:37, ". . . If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." 38, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water."
Are those verses literal?
You replied to Bob:
Actually nobody walked away until John 6:66 after Jesus said:
They were already doubting His sincerity (or sanity) in John 6:41:
There's absolutely no way to know that they walked away because they misunderstood, 6:51-58 only. It was all of His teachings given in the Synagogue in Capernaum that day.
They didn't stay to eat Jesus' flesh, they stayed to hear His words and be spiritually nourished.
You:
That's because, as evidenced in Peter's response to Jesus in John 6:68, they knew that Jesus didn't mean they were to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Jesus is the One who says, " . . . flesh profits nothing." Since the only flesh being discussed in this passage is Jesus' flesh, we can safely assume that Jesus says the "flesh profits nothing." Because He's not talking about carnal sustenance or nourishment, but spiritual. Did Jesus flesh profit nothing? In what sense? In that He came to us in human form, to take on our weaknesses, to suffer, die for us on the cross, and be resurrected? Of course His flesh profited everything in this sense, but not as literal food or sustenance.
So, then, by this logic we should have expected them to break out the knives and forks at the Last Supper?
And that's why Peter did believe and stay.
He didn't give it to feed the world--carnally. Which is exactly what is done if one believes in the "Real Presence." He gave it to save the world, to redeem us. He shed His blood on the Cross. That was His mission. Do you believe that the shedding of His blood upon the Cross was insufficient for our redemption?
Only in the sense that literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood would do nothing to redeem us or bring Salvation. You are questioning the very words of Christ.
Yes, and people watched Him be crucified. People witnessed Him in His resurrected body--with their eyes. AND people witnessed Him ascend to Heaven. He didn't say, "I now ascend." and not IN FACT, ascend. He rose right in front of their eyes. Whereas, when He says the bread and wine are His flesh and blood, they do not turn into "flesh and blood." Same with every other miracle that Jesus performed.
FIRST, Jesus said, "I am the Bread of life." THEN, He said, " . . . and the bread also which I WILL give for the life of the world is My flesh." So, logic dictates, that IF we are to insist on literalness in this passage, IF Jesus is bread, then His flesh is BREAD--not meat.
Only in the sense that it would not bring redemption or salvation by literally eating His flesh and blood. You are twisting words waaaaayy out of whack!
Real food and drink in what sense? Maybe you have some thoughts on these verses:
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.
Eze 2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.
Eze 2:7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they [are] most rebellious.
Eze 2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
Eze 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein;
Eze 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.
Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
Eze 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
Eze 3:5 For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel;
Eze 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.
Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go [and] take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
So, were people really eating words, books, rolls, scrolls?
What about Luke 4:4, It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
What about these verses:
Luke 4:14, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
So, is there some water we are suppose to be drinking? What water are we suppose to be drinking?
John 7:37, ". . . If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." 38, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water."
Are those verses literal?