Eucharist Vs John 6

[Carson Weber]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Thess said...

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.

Happy to have been of assistance.

Bob said
"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.

First of all that freudian slip was very insightful.

Secondly - I see you point - the text actually does say "And many left saying how can he expect us to bit him while other stayed beyond and began collecting knives and forks for the great feast at hand".

Thess said --
More likely from the emphatic way that he repeated himself 4 times in a literal manner, they all took him literally.

As I said - the bloody carnage that follows the departure of those that left out of rebellion against taking part in it - makes your point perfectly.

Thess ..
Had the ones who stormed off been wrong, he most certainly would have said "hang on a second guys, you misunderstood me.".

In fact He often did that whenever the Jews left him. Good point again. "He fellas!! Come back! I am sure that there is something you are not understanding correctly!! Lets talk about this some more!!"

That is why He said "To THEM I speak in parables but to YOU I speak PLAINLY".

Thess

"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.

No in fact they asked for extra large helpings and ate of him daily if not weekly - just like you do.

Err - ooops. No they did no such thing. (Obviously).

You have YET to address this point - though it is raised numerous times in this thread.

I would have thought that all your "digging" in response to the points raised - would lead you to address this oft repeated point - so blatant, so obvious by the SILENCE in the text regarding anyone left behind - biting Christ as Catholics "literally do" each week.

Bob Said --

"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"."

Thess --
With regard to hacking pieces off of him, as you have weakly tried to use as an arguement

I "meant to say " ... "Hacking off wafers of him that they then baked and handed out to their bretheren".

Please continue.

Thess --

, 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.

Yes He ALREADY came down - He was ALREADY the bread of heaven. But to LIVE IN THE FUTURE FOREVER is to say that you WILL LIVE forever pointing CONTINUING to live INTO the future.

Just stating the obvious here - but happy to do so.

What He did NOT say is "SOME DAY in the future some of you WILL EAT of my flesh". As much as you need that to be in the text.

Thess
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.

yes LIVING into the futre "WILL LIVE FOREVER" not "BITING INTO the future".

Peter expresses his trust in what has been said. Surely a symbolic view of John 6 would not be hard for Peter to beleive.

Very true. Instead of saying "YES Lord I was just about to get up and bite you because that kind of thing doesn't bother me at all" - Peter says "YES Lord you DO have the WORDS that GIVE LIFE" showing that he FULLY understodd the symbol.

Also, if Jesus flesh was worthless as you are contending

I actually was not intending to author John 6:61 "The Literal flesh is WORTHLESS".

Thess said --
that doesn't go too well with the idea that he gave it for the life of the world.

But it goes PERFECTLY with directing them AWAY from eating LITERAL FLESH as the source of LIFE that causes one to LIVE FOREVER and TOWARD the WORD as Spirit and LIFE -- as the SOURCE of life that when taken in (My WORD ABIDE IN YOU) springs into eternal life (John 4 a WELL of water of life - LIVING water).

Thess
All those lives that his flesh was ransomed for. I find it hard to believe that he was saying his own flesh was worthless.

Worthless as "LITERAL FOOD??" - sure you can see how that is not only BELIEVABLE it is OBVIOUS.

You simply have to "pretend" not to notice the obvious point.

But how do you suppose that pretending not to see that obvious point makes your case? Why not address it - instead of pretending that you don't see it - as If I would believe that??

Thess
Now Bob, was Jesus symbolically sacrificed also?

Nope. Neither did He say "When the Son of man is lifted up - take a bite out of Him".

He was literally sacrificed.

Thess -- Surely if the bread is not literal then he flesh wasn't literally given also.

The bread is literal bread.

His flesh is literal flesh EXCEPT when HE HIMSELF DIRECTS us AWAY from literal flesh as the SOURCE of life when EATEN and tells us that in that context - it is His literal WORD that brings life - NOT literal FLESH.


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).

Bob Said
"So when Peter is put to the test HE ALSO responds that the "WORDS of Christ are LIFE"."

In fact Peter says "YOU have the WORDS that give LIFE" John 6:68 As you KNOW but are "pretending" not to read.

Thess
What were those WORDS Bob?

"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."

Showing that the SYMBOL was understood to reference TEACHING


"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"."

Thess
Well if it were still bread you would have a point.

Christ makes the point that HE is the bread that COMES DOWN from heaven and HE already made the point in Deut 8 that this symbols stands for "THE WORD OF GOD" (And of course John OPENS the book of John telling us about the WORD that CAME DOWN out of heaven).

But "again" you have to "pretend not to notice" so you can cling to "tratition". You seem to be happy to do that - but it does not make for a compelling argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

LisaMC, that was a good connection with Ezek 3 and Rev 10 showing God's WORD being EATEN just as Deut 8 points to the manna coming down out of heaven teaching "Man does not live by bread alone but by Every WORD that proceeds from the Mouth of God".

Nice going.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

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,

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."

and when they partook of Christ's glorified body under the species of bread, they did so without forks and knives.

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.

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

You said to Bob:

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?"

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.

The text is self-explanatory.

Yes--it is.

It shows exactly what Jesus was talking about:

Yes--it does.

his physical flesh being eaten by men.

'Fraid not.

After this response is given, Jesus moves into an even greater "literal" representation of what he said in order to evoke this particular response.

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.

"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."

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?

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.

Uh huh.

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.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

LisaMC
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."

Good point. And notice that the entire discussion centers around the NEED to find eternal life and the WAY to GET eternal life. EATING the Flesh and Drinking the blood are SET as the WAY symbolically.

Then Christ ADDs that LITERALLY eating Literal Flesh is WORTHLESS as the means for gaining Eternal life.

(A devastating point to our cannibalistic bretheren).

RATHER - Christ insists that the WORDS He speaks are "SPIRIT and are LIFE".

Peter shows he fully understands by affirming "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".

Obtaining that Eternal LIFE is the FOCUS of the entire chapter. HENCE NOT ONE disciple "takes a bite out of Christ".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
EATING the Flesh and Drinking the blood are SET as the WAY symbolically.

Then Christ ADDs that LITERALLY eating Literal Flesh is WORTHLESS as the means for gaining Eternal life.

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.

(A devastating point to our cannibalistic bretheren).

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

Obtaining that Eternal LIFE is the FOCUS of the entire chapter. HENCE NOT ONE disciple "takes a bite out of Christ".

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.

 

[Dualhunter]

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.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
...and as already pointed out 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.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by MikeS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
...and as already pointed out 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. </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?

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
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.

 

[Carson Weber]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Mike S,

After feigning the idea that I have missread some CLEAR statement in John 6 when I speak of LITERAL flesh and blood - you follow by failing to exegete the chapter --- at all.

I pointed out
#1. That NO disciple took Christ LITERALLY so that the LOYAL disciple took a LITERAL bite out of Christ.

#2. That Christ ended with HIS OWN SUMMARY that the LITERAL view of flesh in his teaching would "be WORTHLESS" as literally eating it would NOT lead to "Eternal Life" - that (Just as in Matt 16 and Deut 8) it stands for "TEACHING WORD".

And you pretend to believe that the disciples would reject that - would have taken him literally and would NOT think that "Christ had the WORDS of LIFE" as the solution for HOW TO GET ETERNAL LIFE (no matter what the text says).

So when confronted with the fact that NOTHING the loyal/faithful disciples did in John 6 INDICATES that they took Him literally after hearing his summary - NOR does Christ give a rebuke to them to indicate that the the Loyal disciples were "not getting it" ... you seek the defense

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,

Which means your "CASE" is made from the "unfaithful disciples ALONE".

So in fact - you argue AGAINST the LITERAL interpretation of John 6 "Flesh and blood" saying that "it was CONFUSING" to the LOYAL disciples even AFTER getting Christ's OWN summary and having Christ ASK them for a statemente of acceptance/faith/belief regarding HIS OWN claims in John 6 to which THEY RESPOND "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".

But Christ did not say "SOME DAY in the future I WILL BECOME food" - rather He stated that HE WAS ALREADY the BREAD of LIFE that came down out of heaven. The APPLICATION was immediate and available. And the text SHOWS that the affirmation of faith expressed by the disciples is in complete harmony with Christs OWN SUMMARY.

So it is ONLY the UNFAITHFUL disciples that are making the case for the RC POV in John 6.

This is the devastating point that has been brought up repeatedly - and that our Catholic bretheren have to repeatedly "pretend" not to get EVEN when their own responses SHOW that they do get it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Carson
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.

The problem is that ONLY the UNBELIEVERS are MAKING THE RC CASE in John 6.

Those who BELIEVE and DO NOT DRAW BACK are NOT taking the RC pathk NOR does Christ object to what the FAITHFUL are doing AS IF they did not get the point. HIS OWN SUMMARY is in COMPLETE harmony with the affirmation of the FAITHFUL and is in line with HIW OWN Matt 16 view of "BREAD" as well as His own reference to the Deut 8 teaching on "BREAD from HEAVEN".

Surely relying solely on the doctrine of the UNFAITHFUL - is "a problem".

ooops (pretend not to notice that).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mike S,

After feigning the idea that I have missread some CLEAR statement in John 6 when I speak of LITERAL flesh and blood - you follow by failing to exegete the chapter --- at all.

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 pointed out
#1. That NO disciple took Christ LITERALLY so that the LOYAL disciple took a LITERAL bite out of Christ.

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?

#2. That Christ ended with HIS OWN SUMMARY that the LITERAL view of flesh in his teaching would "be WORTHLESS" as literally eating it would NOT lead to "Eternal Life" - that (Just as in Matt 16 and Deut 8) it stands for "TEACHING WORD".

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.

And you pretend to believe

There you go again, uncharity after uncharity. Why?

that the disciples would reject that - would have taken him literally and would NOT think that "Christ had the WORDS of LIFE" as the solution for HOW TO GET ETERNAL LIFE (no matter what the text says).

So when confronted with the fact that NOTHING the loyal/faithful disciples did in John 6 INDICATES that they took Him literally after hearing his summary - NOR does Christ give a rebuke to them to indicate that the the Loyal disciples were "not getting it" ... you seek the defense

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,

Which means your "CASE" is made from the "unfaithful disciples ALONE".

So in fact - you argue AGAINST the LITERAL interpretation of John 6 "Flesh and blood" saying that "it was CONFUSING" to the LOYAL disciples even AFTER getting Christ's OWN summary and having Christ ASK them for a statemente of acceptance/faith/belief regarding HIS OWN claims in John 6 to which THEY RESPOND "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".

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.

But Christ did not say "SOME DAY in the future I WILL BECOME food" - rather He stated that HE WAS ALREADY the BREAD of LIFE that came down out of heaven. The APPLICATION was immediate and available. And the text SHOWS that the affirmation of faith expressed by the disciples is in complete harmony with Christs OWN SUMMARY.

So it is ONLY the UNFAITHFUL disciples that are making the case for the RC POV in John 6.

This is the devastating point that has been brought up repeatedly - and that our Catholic bretheren have to repeatedly "pretend" not to get EVEN when their own responses SHOW that they do get 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.

 

[thessalonian]

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.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

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.

How so?

Yet since he is not Catholic even though he is not whatever you are either, you must stand by your man.

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.

If all you guys have is silly arguements about knives and forks I guess you will grasp at anything.

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.

At the last supper it became abundantly clear what Jesus had been talking about almost exactly one year earlier.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 . . . .

 

[LisaMC]

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:

This argument is just bizarre.

Why bizarre?

The diciples no doubt were left confused and wondering every bit as much as those who walked away,

At first they were.

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. . .

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

and hence passed down these 2000 years.

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!!

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

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

Huh? Imitate Jesus?

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.

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?

2. Wait for the response

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

But, they didn't leave yet.

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

I think we shouldn't.

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.

 

[Carson Weber]

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!