John Chapter 6

[William Putnam]

For all reading this thread:

This was an on-going discussion in private messages I was having with aLoneVoice concerning my analysis of the “Bread of Life†discourse in John, Chapter 6. We had gone through a few cycles, when I determined that this should be in the main forum for all to see and to comment on, as they see fit.

Anyway, for reference sakes, here is the link that we got to discussing:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/John%206.htm

Again, others are invited to participate, either to what I post or what aLoneVoice may post. Be advised, however, that I will abandon this thread if it ends-up going around and around in circles and becomes non-productive, as often happens.

So I begin by post the following……………………………………………………………………………..

[quote:93764]William Putnam last said: "OK, but you must realize that the Church (the only Church around for the first 1,000 years of church history) went without a New Testament for nearly 500 years after Pentecost! (The Old Testament is a given here, of course.) One church may have the gospel of Matthew, another of Mark - Still another, Luke and some of the epistles. In other words, it was not for several hundred years before there was one complete, canonized New Testament until and finally they were collected, defined and declared "canon" by three Church synods of Carthage, Hippo and others in the 4th century, all with Bishops and with the approval of the Bishop of Rome, the pope!

The local churches also circulated the written word, not to mention the oral tradition. It is argued from our current frame of reference that oral tradition was not realible. This is just not true. It is an arguement made from the bias of having the ability to have a written word. The oral tradition was highly accurate because it was the only method that they had.[/quote:93764]

Yes, the local churches did circulate these written documents, but never were any one local church with the complete set of writings that we now have as the New Testament. What do you mean by “realible� What did they have before ink and quill touched papyrus in the writing of any book that is now a part of the New Testament? Only what they knew by heart, infused in their hearts and minds, as given to them ORALLY, by Christ.

That “oral tradition†is what we call the Sacred Tradition of the Church. It did not go ‘poof’ and go away after the Bible was finally declared a closed canon by the…the…the…(gasp!)…the…CHRUCH!
But you do admit to something here. that the oral tradition was “highly accurate†in their day. Did it go away when the Bible was finally a closed canon?

[quote[]quote:93764][So I ask you, what did the Church go on in that period of time when it had no New Testament (the source of Christ's "Good News," the Gospel Message)?

Answer, the Sacred Tradition of the Church! What is that? It was what was originally infused into the hearts and minds by Christ when He walked with them, not one whit of a command to write anything down! Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit encouraged and inspired the apostles to indeed, write what was to become the New Testament. but in the meanwhile, what did the Church go on for doctrine and Faith? [/quote:93764]

I have no idea what you are referring to. The early believers had the Old Testament to reference, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention in Scripture to a "sacred tradition" or that the early church relied on "tradition".[/quote]

Ah, the Old Testament! Wonderful record of the now fulfilled and closed covenant, replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ! Within the OT, we will find a foreshadowing of the Messiah to come, and a hint of His gospel message to be, but the OT is not the gospel message! The New Testament is the written record of the gospel message, not the Old Testament!

[quote:93764]But saying that, you restrictd me to scripture only. OK, but I may want to quote the early church fathers a time or two, and while their writings are not scripture, what they had to say, existing close to the end of the apostolic erea, must be important to see where the Church was going in those very early times.

First, one should be able to rely on Scripture alone to prove doctrine.[/quote:93764]

Who told you this? Do you find anywhere n scripture is the sole source for faith and morals?

However, if you need to rely on the words of the early church fathers that is fine - provided that they are Scripturally sound and based.

And you would know the difference?

Are they not a witness of how the Church acted and taught, demonstrating exactly how the Church was in those very early times? I quote them as am embarrassment for my non-Catholic friends to demonstrate how remarkably faithful to the teaching doctrines of the Catholic Church today! That is what convinced me of the truth of the Catholic Church - the testimony of the early church fathers.

[quote:93764]When I say "Catholic Faith," I am implying the original Faith as was given by Christ to the apostles. Why can I say that? Because my Church is the only one who can trace her history back to Christ! Luther cannot do it, and neither can Menno Simons or any of the 16th century so called Reformers who bolted from thet Catholic Church. In other words, when you go back far enough in history, all denominations funnel back to an original Christian Faith. And since only the Catholic Church is found standing alone, from about A.D. 1000 to Pentecost, then the Catholic Faith IS the original Christian Faith as established by Christ. .

Is it possible that the church that existed from Pentecost to about AD 1000 - is just the Church and NOT the Roman Catholic denomination?[/quote:93764]

What other “denominations†can you find between Pentecost and A.D. 1000? I find only one Church, a Church with a record in writings, artifacts, architecture and other evidence that no other church can demonstrate. Can yours?

Now, there are what we call “Rites†within the Church. We have, of course, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite which you call “Roman Catholic,†but that is not the only Rite. We have the Eastern Rites, which use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chisostom (which is the same Rite used by the schismatic Orthodox Church that broke away about A.D. 1000) as well as other Rites. But they are not “denominations,†as is usually defined. You see, all of the Rites that are “in union with the Holy See†in Rome are a part of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church. That means the Eastern Rite (not the Orthodox but those “in union with Romeâ€Â) are all a part of this Church. In other words, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite is a subset of the whole Church. All of these Rites are in obedience to the Holy See and to the pope in Rome.

Why Rome? Well, if Peter had gone and stayed in Antioch, there would be the Holy See today, not Rome! Likewise if he had gone to and stayed in Constantnople, or New York, Boston, London, you name the city and there would be the Holy See, and therefore the successor bishop there would be the pope! But since4 Peter went to and was martyred in Rome, there is the Holy See, as Peter was the first pope!

[quote:93764]Is that not Sola Scriptura, the idea that only the Scriptures is to be the sole source for doctrine and belief. The Bible and Holy Scriptures are one and the same thing, and your explanation makes no sense. Putting it another way, the Bible is the book that contains the Holy Scriptures! Does that make you feel better new?

William, I really do not know how better to explain this. I am speaking about the difference of exegisis and eisegesis. [/quote:93764]

…Which is totally non sequitur.

Exegesis is the precise and scholarly study an interpretation of scripture whereas eisegesis is a reference to a much lesser degree of a critical analysis of scripture, mostly colored by the bias of the interpreter. (There definitions are not precise and off the top of my head.) Neither of these two words have a thing to do with my statement above. But I do propose you make a long hard study of the Bible and demonstrate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura therein.

[quote:93764]Of course they are, and they were spread by word and mouth for approximately 30 years before ink touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament! In those days, writing was a very tedious business, and to have a bible so expanded as you seem to demand would be going a bit too far.

I am not demanding anything - rather what I am saying is that there ARE doctrinal issues that ARE repeated throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God. [/quote:93764]

Some are, such as the Last Supper sequence, and some are isolated, as we see in John 6. I note again that this chapter deals heavily on the astounding requirement that Christ makes to we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood†that we would be “raised-up on the last day.†My link, which I will repeat above to start off this thread, details how we Catholics come to this conclusion of what Christ was teaching here, and where we see the Jews leaving Him, taking with them some of his own disciples.

[quote:93764]Of course that is pure conjecture, one way or the other. As for the Scriptures being "inspired by the Holy Spirit," how do you really know that? Who told you? You realize that the Muslems also believe that the Q'ran is also divinely inspired. Does that make the Q.ran divinely inspired by it's own circular reasoning?

To say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit is not 'conjecture'. Either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it is nothing more than the latest Stephen King novel. [/quote:93764]

Did the Holy Spirit, as a dove, alight upon your shoulders and whisper this into your ear? “) I’m not trying to be funny, as that is a profound question I always give for those that simply “feel it in their bones†that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. And please don’t misunderstand me, as I certainly believe this as well, but not because of a personal feeling within me that this is true. Because I think it is true does not make it true, my friend.

And after you contemplate this for a while, I will give you an excellent paper, written by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, how we can determine the inspirational qualities of the Holy Scriptures.

[quote:93764]Oh, another thing. I really would like to discuss this in the forum, not by private mail. You see, I want the lurkers to read and determine for themselves who is right in this discussion. So I won't go too long in this discussion without a return to the forum.

I must again say that ultimately, if we go in circles, nothing is accomplished, and I will cease anyway when that happens. I wsish to have productive discussions that gets somewhere.

That is fine - if you would like to take it to the debate forum, be my quest. You may start the first post.[/quote:93764]

I will with this posting…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Guest]

William - while we can have the debate here - I thought we were going to have it in the debate forum to be a 'debate' between you and me.

If you would be willing to agree to this, perhaps we can have a moderator move this post to the debate forum.

 

[Guest]

Did the Holy Spirit, as a dove, alight upon your shoulders and whisper this into your ear? “) I’m not trying to be funny, as that is a profound question I always give for those that simply “feel it in their bones†that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. And please don’t misunderstand me, as I certainly believe this as well, but not because of a personal feeling within me that this is true. Because I think it is true does not make it true, my friend.

William - before we begin this discussion or debate - I would like to get one thing out of the way.

I realize that you say you are 'not trying to be funny' - however, I have seen you post this "question" before and I have found it to be condescending. I would not dimish the conviction of the Holyh Spirit to a "feeling in the bones".

 

[William Putnam]

William - while we can have the debate here - I thought we were going to have it in the debate forum to be a 'debate' between you and me.

If you would be willing to agree to this, perhaps we can have a moderator move this post to the debate forum.

No, I think it is fine just as it is, as I want others to participate as well. And besides, this is not a formal debate.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

[William Putnam]

William - before we begin this discussion or debate - I would like to get one thing out of the way.

I realize that you say you are 'not trying to be funny' - however, I have seen you post this "question" before and I have found it to be condescending. I would not dimish the conviction of the Holyh Spirit to a "feeling in the bones".

1. Sorry if it offended you, but it is an important point I am tring to make. A profound belief of the divine inspiration of Holy Writ does not make it so, my friend.

2. I do not dismiss the influence of the Holy Spirit on anyone. But I have, in my lifetime, seen too many claims of such inflouence in contrast to the errors perpetuated by such claims. One can "think" they are so influenced by the Holy Spirit in, what shall I call it? Self dillusion or deception?

And while I believe that the Holy Spirit has influenced me in my lifetime and in my affairs, I cannot make a specific claim that I have been "moved by the Holy Spirit" to believe this or that in specific ways. I certainly do not believe that the Scriptures is divinely inspired by a personal revelation, such as with the Angel Gabriel who came to Mary and announced that she was to become the Mother of the Messiah.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Guest]

There is much in your opening post to discuss - and I would suggest that some of them warrant there own threads (from the Gospel message being found in the OT - I would reference Genesis 3:15 as the proto-evangelim; to the idea of closed conventant; to the difference between exegisis and eisegisis; and others)

However, what got the original discussion starting, and what I would like to focus on is your understanding of John chapter 6 which you use as your basis for the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstanation (sorry, if I mispell it - I do not do intentionally, rather that I cannot spell well )

With that said, let's begin our focus on John chapter 6 (John 6)

After a time of teaching (as recorded in John 5), Jesus crosses the sea of Galilee and a large crowd followed him there. This shows the drawing power of Christ - the authority that is inherint in His words and the miracles that Jesus performed in healing the sick (John 6:2).

Recognizing the physical need of the people (hunger), Jesus performs the miracle of "feeding of the 5000". Through the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus takes 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed 5000 men (not to mention all the women and children that were present as well).

With this miracle as the backdrop - Jesus uses the physical bread to teach about spiritual matters (John 6:26ff). It is important to point out here that Jesus is speaking to the disciples that followed Jesus (John 6:24)

Jesus teaches them that they should not be working for 'physical bread' but for the "food that endures to enteral life" (John 6:27) Wanting to "work the works of God" - the disciples asks Jesus what they need to do. Jesus answers them that the work they need to do is "Believe in Him whom He [God] has sent." To this the disciples ask for a sign, referencing the sign of manna that God provided Moses in the wilderness (John 6:30-31)

The teaching that Jesus provides, as recorded in John 6:33-40, is important to understanding that Jesus is the Son of God, coming from Heaven, - it speaks to his divine nature - which I might say is the major theme of the Gospel of John pointing to the Divine Nature of Jesus.

It is precisely this teaching that got the Jews grumbling because He has claimed to "come down from Heaven." They were merely looking at Jesus as a natural person born of flesh and blood - they did not recognize his Divine nature. Starting in John 6:44ff He teaches that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life. His teachings are dealing with spiritual matters. Using the feeding of the 5000 as the backdrop, as a tangable teaching tool - he refers to himself as the "bread of life" - contrasting with the 'manna in the dessert'. While the manna physically sustained them through the wilderness, Jesus will spiritually sustain us.

We are now getting to the crux of your arguement for Transubstanation: John 6 48-58.

Before we delve into this part of John 6 - let's pause and reflect on what has been written already.

 

[William Putnam]

There is much in your opening post to discuss - and I would suggest that some of them warrant there own threads (from the Gospel message being found in the OT - I would reference Genesis 3:15 as the proto-evangelim; to the idea of closed conventant; to the difference between exegisis and eisegisis; and others)

Yes, we did get off track a bit…

However, what got the original discussion starting, and what I would like to focus on is your understanding of John chapter 6 which you use as your basis for the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstanation (sorry, if I mispell it - I do not do intentionally, rather that I cannot spell well )

Don’t worry about your spelling! I will understand that unfamiliar big words fall hard as to how they are spelled.

With that said, let's begin our focus on John chapter 6 (John 6)

After a time of teaching (as recorded in John 5), Jesus crosses the sea of Galilee and a large crowd followed him there. This shows the drawing power of Christ - the authority that is inherint in His words and the miracles that Jesus performed in healing the sick (John 6:2).

Indeed, including the fact that he most recently did His miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. There is a foreshadowing of the Eucharist here, as we see in the “multiplication of the hosts†in the thousands of tabernacles in all the Catholic Churches through out the world, but I am getting ahead of myself here.

Recognizing the physical need of the people (hunger), Jesus performs the miracle of "feeding of the 5000". Through the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus takes 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed 5000 men (not to mention all the women and children that were present as well).

With this miracle as the backdrop - Jesus uses the physical bread to teach about spiritual matters (John 6:26ff). It is important to point out here that Jesus is speaking to the disciples that followed Jesus (John 6:24)

Don’t forget the reference of John 6:32 where Jesus also mentions the manna from heaven, a “bread†given to Moses and the Israelites in their desert wonderings, a bread that fed the tummy but not the soul, as well as the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, fed the tummy but not the soul. He has got something better!

Jesus teaches them that they should not be working for 'physical bread' but for the "food that endures to enteral life" (John 6:27) Wanting to "work the works of God" - the disciples asks Jesus what they need to do. Jesus answers them that the work they need to do is "Believe in Him whom He [God] has sent." To this the disciples ask for a sign, referencing the sign of manna that God provided Moses in the wilderness (John 6:30-31)

Ah, you do mention the manna! So far, nothing wrong with what you are saying here…

The teaching that Jesus provides, as recorded in John 6:33-40, is important to understanding that Jesus is the Son of God, coming from Heaven, - it speaks to his divine nature - which I might say is the major theme of the Gospel of John pointing to the Divine Nature of Jesus.

But at this point in the gospel, the “Bread of Life†discourse in John 6, He is zeroing on something very specific.

It is precisely this teaching that got the Jews grumbling because He has claimed to "come down from Heaven." They were merely looking at Jesus as a natural person born of flesh and blood - they did not recognize his Divine nature. Starting in John 6:44ff He teaches that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life. His teachings are dealing with spiritual matters. Using the feeding of the 5000 as the backdrop, as a tangable teaching tool - he refers to himself as the "bread of life" - contrasting with the 'manna in the dessert'. While the manna physically sustained them through the wilderness, Jesus will spiritually sustain us.

Oh wait a minute now. At first, not so much a “grumbling†(which really comes later) but a sarcastic questioning (a “murmuring†in my Bible in John 6:41) concerning His statement…

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.†(John 6:40, from my Catholic New Ameerican Bible [NAB].)

The Jews essentially exclaimed, “Hey, we know his mother and father. We know his whole family so where does he get off saying this?†(Pardon my paraphrasing here, but we see what they actually said in the Bible, John 6:42.) In other words, they protested His making Himself GOD!

We are now getting to the crux of your arguement for Transubstanation: John 6 48-58.

Before we delve into this part of John 6 - let's pause and reflect on what has been written already.

Reflecting and contemplating…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[Guest]

It would appear that up to this point, we are in agreement. If I am correct in understanding your position - the crux of your arguement lies in John 6:48ff?

If I am correct in my understanding - I would offer you the space to make your arguement and then I will respond with my understanding of those verses.

Because of Him,
scott

 

[cyberjosh]

Some are, such as the Last Supper sequence, and some are isolated, as we see in John 6. I note again that this chapter deals heavily on the astounding requirement that Christ makes to we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood†that we would be “raised-up on the last day.†My link, which I will repeat above to start off this thread, details how we Catholics come to this conclusion of what Christ was teaching here, and where we see the Jews leaving Him, taking with them some of his own disciples.

I do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation". The blood and body of Christ represent the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (come in flesh) respectively. Blood is the source of life physically, and the Spirit is the source of eternal life Spiritually (as Jesus told the Samaritan woman - also telling her to "drink"). The flesh of Jesus is a manifestation of his true nature: the "Word" of God, who was God, and was with God in the beginning. So Jesus was speaking typically & symbolically of Spiritual life and sustanance by the Word as the Holy Spirit works in you to produce fruit by the word.

 

[William Putnam]

It would appear that up to this point, we are in agreement. If I am correct in understanding your position - the crux of your arguement lies in John 6:48ff?

That’s close but let’s take a look at what I said in my link:

In verse 35 of John chapter 6, we read:

...whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

Now, what do we see starting with verse 41

The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."

...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42) In John 6:48 I am that bread of life. Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine" in other places of scripture. These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here? We read in verses 49 through 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Oops, something quite disturbing here! He speaks of "eating" what is identified as His own "flesh"!

And now we come down to an interesting question: Why did the Jews desert Him here, as well as some of His own disciples? Verse 52:

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

From my web site:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/John%206.htm

If I may hark back to the theme of my paper, in the link above, we notice that Jesus starts out with the bread given to them in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, then references the manna in the desert whereby the Jews are fed body the manna from heaven, all food for the stomach, more so then for the soul.

From there, He “eases in†the idea that He is that “bread of life†whereby they will live forever, that what He brings as “bread†is far better then the multiplied fishes and loaves and the manna from heaven. And as I have explained in the link, Jesus is a bit ambiguous here, on purpose, so that what He ultimately get’s at is shocking indeed!

Suddenly, in verse 51, Jesus relates this “bread†they are to eat as His own body and blood! The big retort comes in verse 52…

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?â€Â

Now, for your study and reflection, note how Jesus answers them from verses 53 to verse 58. It is here that the “rubber meets the road.â€Â

If I am correct in my understanding - I would offer you the space to make your arguement and then I will respond with my understanding of those verses.

Because of Him,
scott

Well, I don’t want to make this a formal debate, as I prefer an open discussion style, which is more of a discussion then a debate. But I think what I have said here is a little piece of where I am going, as you can see in the link I provided.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire of being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of being rebuked,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being suspected,
Deliver me, Jesus.
That others may be loved more than I,
That others may be esteemed more than I,
That in the opinion of the world, others may
increase, and I may decrease.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
That others may be praised and I unnoticed,
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
That others become holier than I , provided that
I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.'

Cardinal Merry del Val

 

[William Putnam]

I do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation". The blood and body of Christ represent the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (come in flesh) respectively. Blood is the source of life physically, and the Spirit is the source of eternal life Spiritually (as Jesus told the Samaritan woman - also telling her to "drink"). The flesh of Jesus is a manifestation of his true nature: the "Word" of God, who was God, and was with God in the beginning. So Jesus was speaking typically & symbolically of Spiritual life and sustanance by the Word as the Holy Spirit works in you to produce fruit by the word.

Well, thank you for your opinion and statement of what you believe on this subjectd. Of course I do not agree with you, so I suggest you review the link I provided in this thread and attempt to refute it if you can.

This is precisely why I wanted this subject to be discussed so that others may participate and you just did!

So thank you for that! :angel:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Guest]

...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42) In John 6:48 I am that bread of life. Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine" in other places of scripture. These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here?

If we way - let's take some time to focus on what you say here. Rightfully so you recongize that Jesus refers to himself with various metaphors - "door", "vine" - in other places He is refered to as the "Rose of Sharon", and a whole host of other methaphors.

But you curiously say that "the bread meaphor just may not be. Could 'bread' be something just a bit more literal here?"

Why this leap? Why jump from obvious methaphors of vine, door, etc - to take just this ONE to be literal?

On a side note, I find your response to cybershark a tad unsettling when you state:

Of course I do not agree with you, so I suggest you review the link I provided in this thread and attempt to refute it if you can.

I find it unsettling because it makes it sound like your mind is made up, and noone will be able to 'refute' it.

 

[William Putnam]

[quote:ec7eb]William Putnam wrote:
...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42) In John 6:48 I am that bread of life. Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine" in other places of scripture. These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here?

If we way - let's take some time to focus on what you say here. Rightfully so you recongize that Jesus refers to himself with various metaphors - "door", "vine" - in other places He is refered to as the "Rose of Sharon", and a whole host of other methaphors. [/quote:ec7eb]

Yes, and most of these meteaphors are obvious by inspection. It is obvious that Jesus is not a “door†or a “vine†or a “Rose of Sharon.â€Â

But you curiously say that "the bread meaphor just may not be. Could 'bread' be something just a bit more literal here?"

First of all, I must correct what I said, I intended to say “Could bread be just a bit more then figurative here?â€Â

Why this leap? Why jump from obvious methaphors of vine, door, etc - to take just this ONE to be literal?

Taking the argument from the Last Supper discourses found in the gospels, Jesus did not say, “I am the bread,†but rather, “THIS IS MY BODY! See the difference?

Now, I realize that this alone is not the strongest of arguments for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so that is why the discourse we find John 6 so important. Please also see what Paul said in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-29. And when you read these, please consider how it could be that one is “guilty of the body†if the Eucharist is only symbolic of Christ’s flesh and blood.

On a side note, I find your response to cybershark a tad unsettling when you state:

[quote:ec7eb]Of course I do not agree with you, so I suggest you review the link I provided in this thread and attempt to refute it if you can.

I find it unsettling because it makes it sound like your mind is made up, and noone will be able to 'refute' it.[/quote:ec7eb]

Well, my mind IS made up! But I do expose myself to being convinced otherwise! Also please note that I came to this conclusion as a Protestant, and it was the primary belief I accepted that sparked me to become a Catholic in 1953.

I bet that was before you time, right?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[cyberjosh]

This from the Link provided:

Get it yet? They questioned, "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (The whole body of His disciples were still "intact" up to this point.) Now, are you ready for this, sir? What was the thing that Christ said after the above "quarreling among themselves"? Do you not agree that the Jews took Christ literally in that they were to "eat" His body? Now, if they were mistaken, and if Jesus really meant to use the term "his body" in a metaphor or figurative sense, could He not then correct them? Could He not simply say, "No, no, I mean that figuratively, not my actual body!"

No offense, but you've got to be kidding. Jesus almost never clarified his teachings, parables, or proverbs for people, and the Bible explicitly said that he did it for a purpose: to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, "That hearing they may not hear (understand)". And Later on in John during his Olivet discourse as he walks toward the Garden of Gethsemane he explains his teachings clearly to his disciples and they say "Finally, you speak plainly to us" (to paraphrase). No, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not teaching cannabalism or transubstantiation.

 

[Guest]

William - in John 6 we have Jesus saying that He is the bread of life. And your arguement is that this is to be taken literal - unlike other references when Jesus says He is a "door" or a "vine".

What is it in John 6 that leads you to the conclusion that Jesus is not talking in metaphors?

It would seem that if what you are describing is true, and I realize that you you believe it to be true, it would be a pretty signficant doctrinal issue - so much so that one would except it to be repeated or atleast referenced in other places in the Bible. Or I would think there would be more of a reference or a "dawning to the disciples" of this teaching when our Lord institutes the Church Ordianance of the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room.

For example, in John 2:19-22 we read how Jesus was speaking figuratively about the Temple being destroyed and in three days it will be raised up." Jesus was not speaking literaly of the physical temple standing in front of them, but rather the "temple of His body" (John 2:21). Then when Jesus was resurrected in three days, the disciples remembered His teaching and they "believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken (John 2:23).

Yet we do not see that realization with the disciples at the Lord's Supper.

Not to mention that ALL of the other Gospel's record the event of the "feeding" - yet only John records this teaching of Christ. Now that is not to say that it should be descredited on that basis alone, but rather it raises the question WHY does John include it.

I would contend that it fits the overall theme of John of the Divinity of Jesus - that Jesus is the "bread sent from Heaven" - that when we believe in Jesus Christ that we are spiritually satsified, hungry no more (John 6:35).

 

[William Putnam]

This from the Link provided:

Get it yet? They questioned, "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (The whole body of His disciples were still "intact" up to this point.) Now, are you ready for this, sir? What was the thing that Christ said after the above "quarreling among themselves"? Do you not agree that the Jews took Christ literally in that they were to "eat" His body? Now, if they were mistaken, and if Jesus really meant to use the term "his body" in a metaphor or figurative sense, could He not then correct them? Could He not simply say, "No, no, I mean that figuratively, not my actual body!"

No offense, but you've got to be kidding. Jesus almost never clarified his teachings, parables, or proverbs for people, and the Bible explicitly said that he did it for a purpose: to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, "That hearing they may not hear (understand)". And Later on in John during his Olivet discourse as he walks toward the Garden of Gethsemane he explains his teachings clearly to his disciples and they say "Finally, you speak plainly to us" (to paraphrase). No, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not teaching cannabalism or transubstantiation.

First of all, you are absolutely right that Jesus "never clarified his teachings," and there is a reason for this, He meant exactly what He said!
L
But nice try at attempting a context that does not work. Let us look a lettle closer at what is said. In John 16:27-28...

"For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have come to believe that I came from God. I come frm the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father"

To which His disciples daid...

"Now you are talking plainly , and not in any figure of speech" (verse 29)

But please go on with...

"Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God." (John 16:30)

So using context properly, we find nothing here about what Jesus said back in chapter 6, but rather about who He is and where He came from. Of course, this is not complete within them, as their faith will be severely tried when his is tried berfore Herod and Pilate and then crucified, to be strengthened further with His resurrection and final commisioning before His ascension, and then confirmed in their faith at Pentecost.

Again, nice try but no cigar... :-D

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

[William Putnam]

William - in John 6 we have Jesus saying that He is the bread of life. And your arguement is that this is to be taken literal - unlike other references when Jesus says He is a "door" or a "vine".

You are not reading me very careful, my friend. In those early verses, from about verse 41 to verse 50, Jesus is speaking in terms that can be taken either literally or figuratively. He is being a bit ambigious here, on purpose, I think, so that He can "ease in" what He will hit them with later in the discourse. For Him to say "I am the bread of life" per se is not exactly a literal statement, and in fact, is most likely to have been taken figurateively, as we do not hear the Jews protesting on this point. So far, they only "muttered to themselves" in His claim to have came down from heaven - that He was, in fact, God.

It is only in latter part of verse 51 where He makes the connection between Him being the "bread of life" and His "flesh for the life of the world." Verse 52 shows how the Jews reacted.

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Is that not a a sign that the Jews took Him literally? And then we ponder what Jesus said to them in reply, from verses 53 to 58.

Please sit down and carefully read those verses and see where I am going here.

What is it in John 6 that leads you to the conclusion that Jesus is not talking in metaphors?

Easy. The reply Jesus makes to the Jews in verses 53 through 58 in response to their question in verse 52 which I will repeat...

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

It would seem that if what you are describing is true, and I realize that you you believe it to be true, it would be a pretty signficant doctrinal issue - so much so that one would except it to be repeated or atleast referenced in other places in the Bible. Or I would think there would be more of a reference or a "dawning to the disciples" of this teaching when our Lord institutes the Church Ordianance of the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room.

Again, how oftern would you wnat it repeated in scripture to make it sink in? Is not the testiaony of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-24 sufficient for you? If the Eucharist is only figurative, how in the world could you partake of it "unworthily" and be "guilty of His body and blood"?

For example, in John 2:19-22 we read how Jesus was speaking figuratively about the Temple being destroyed and in three days it will be raised up." Jesus was not speaking literaly of the physical temple standing in front of them, but rather the "temple of His body" (John 2:21).

Of course, the apostles did not realize this until after His resurrection! Just because Jesus can use a euphamisn of the "Temple" (which the Jews thought He was refering to the temple in Jerusalem) that is later seen to be a reference to His own human body. But using a similar argument, I could also declare that the words Christ used in the Last Supper sequence also explain further, what Jesus was getting at in John 6, including the literal sense of His words.

Because Jesus speaks figuratively or in Euphamistic language in one place in scripture does not preclude his speaking literallly elsewhere.

Then when Jesus was resurrected in three days, the disciples remembered His teaching and they "believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken (John 2:23).

Exactly! And likewise at the Last Supper when Jesus says "This IS my body/blood" that they now understand what He said in John 6, including the literal sense.

Yet we do not see that realization with the disciples at the Lord's Supper.

Actdually, scripture does not say one way or the orher, but we, in hindsight and today, see it plainly. At least I do! ;)

Not to mention that ALL of the other Gospel's record the event of the "feeding" - yet only John records this teaching of Christ. Now that is not to say that it should be descredited on that basis alone, but rather it raises the question WHY does John include it.

Why does John include it? Because Jesus said it! :-D

I would contend that it fits the overall theme of John of the Divinity of Jesus - that Jesus is the "bread sent from Heaven" - that when we believe in Jesus Christ that we are spiritually satsified, hungry no more (John 6:35).

And it becomes startling so when I receive, both in soul and in body, when I receive Him in the Eucharist daily at Mass at my church!

It is wonderful to believe in Christ that we thus "feed on Him." It is more wonderful still when we receive Him in actual body and blood!

The Holy Eucharist is the most beautiful of all the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church which I wish I could share with all of you! And as a Protestantant, when I first realized the profundity of His words in John 6 and elsewhere, I was a goner! I had to do what it took to be eligable to receive Him that way, and so I became a practicing Catholic.

That was in 1953 and I have never turned back...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[Guest]

William - there is nothing to suggest that what Jesus teaches in John 6:53-58 means that we need it to mean.

Yes, the Jews took him literaly. Isn't that what you are suggesting we are all supposed to do? Yet, Jesus doesn't say to them: "Hey you got it right, you understand, good job!".

Is not the testiaony of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-24 sufficient for you? If the Eucharist is only figurative, how in the world could you partake of it "unworthily" and be "guilty of His body and blood"?

I Cor. 10:16 taken in the context on chapter 10 is not addressing the Lord's Supper - but rather a recognizition of the 'commune' that is the Body of Christ; the Church. Basically it is saying that we are ALL one and that we are to flee from idolatry and idols.

1 Cor. 11:23-24 does address the Lord's Supper and answers your question of taking it in an unworthy manner in the verses that follow (1 Cor. 11:28ff)

That we are to examine ourselves and our relationship with God. The Lord's Supper is not figurative - but rather a rememberance of what Christ did for us - that He sacrificed His body and was crucified for OUR sins. There is nothing figurative in that.

However, nothing in those verses alludes to a literal transformation of the bread and the wine, not to mention that only a priest can offer the Lord's Supper!

 

[William Putnam]

William - there is nothing to suggest that what Jesus teaches in John 6:53-58 means that we need it to mean.

Really? Then how can you account when you agree with me below that the Jews took Him literally, that is, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?â€Â

=Yes, the Jews took him literaly. Isn't that what you are suggesting we are all supposed to do? Yet, Jesus doesn't say to them: "Hey you got it right, you understand, good job!".

Why wou;d He say that when, being God, He know exactly how they would answer. In fact, He also knows that they will abandon Him, along with some of His own disciples!

What he does is hammer it in…

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.â€Â

He speaks “in their face†so to speak, which is obviously a confirmation that HE MEANT IT LITERALLY!

It is that simple!

Well, at least for me, taking it for granted, I suppose that you good people should see it as I do as well. That is presumptuous of me, of course, so the best I can do is “hammer it in†as well and maybe, just maybe,
Come, Holy Spirit, that you will eventually get it as well.

[quote:4cd5a]Is not the testiaony of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-24 sufficient for you? If the Eucharist is only figurative, how in the world could you partake of it "unworthily" and be "guilty of His body and blood"?

I Cor. 10:16 taken in the context on chapter 10 is not addressing the Lord's Supper - but rather a recognizition of the 'commune' that is the Body of Christ; the Church. Basically it is saying that we are ALL one and that we are to flee from idolatry and idols.[/quote:4cd5a]

Huh? What is the “cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?†if not a most direct reference to the events that took place at the Last Supper? You then all but admit that it is indeed, a reflection back to the Last supper events when you recognize it as a “commune,†when we see in the last Supper sequence, “Do this in remembrance of me.â€Â

1 Cor. 11:23-24 does address the Lord's Supper and answers your question of taking it in an unworthy manner in the verses that follow (1 Cor. 11:28ff)

That we are to examine ourselves and our relationship with God. The Lord's Supper is not figurative - but rather a rememberance of what Christ did for us - that He sacrificed His body and was crucified for OUR sins. There is nothing figurative in that.

You are right! It is NOT figurative! (I think you meant to say otherwise…)

Consider how it is that if “…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eat and drinks judgment to himself†(verse 29) if the bread and wine are only symbolic and not literally, His body and blood?

However, nothing in those verses alludes to a literal transformation of the bread and the wine, not to mention that only a priest can offer the Lord's Supper!

If I have a picture of you and smash it, do I do you any bodily hard, compared to if I were to smash you in person? The picture only represents who you are and is not actually you, is it?

It is the same idea. If you take the Eucharist “unworthily†(verse 22) surely points to the literal, as you would be doing so directly to Jesus!

And this points to why we Catholics have a “closed communion.†Only practicing Catholics can partake of it, so long as they are in a “state of grace3†which harks to another subject we may discuss sometimes…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Guest]

First - let me say that this will probably be the last post for the night - there is a ton of stuff around the house that needs to get done, plus I start the morning pretty early tomorrow for work - at it is clear from looking over my past post that I am getting tired and not proofing my posts good enough.

William - there is nothing to suggest that what Jesus teaches in John 6:53-58 means that we need it to mean.


Really? Then how can you account when you agree with me below that the Jews took Him literally, that is, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?â€Â

OKay, first typo - I meant so say "there is nothing to suggest that what Jesus teaches in John 6:53-58 means what YOU need it to mean.

Yes, the Jews took him literaly. Isn't that what you are suggesting we are all supposed to do? Yet, Jesus doesn't say to them: "Hey you got it right, you understand, good job!".


Why wou;d He say that when, being God, He know exactly how they would answer. In fact, He also knows that they will abandon Him, along with some of His own disciples!

William - are you not suggesting that the teaching here from Christ is that Christ is saying that we must literaly eat of Christ's flesh and drink of His blood? That during the Lord's Supper the waffer and wine LITERALLY become His flesh and His blood?

In verse 52 - they are asking how can He give us His fleah to eat? In other words they are take Christ literally that they need to eat his Flesh. Rather than say they are correct (Which would be in line with your position), Jesus does not "hammer it in" but rather continues his teaching in regards to the SPIRITUAL BREAD, not literal bread like the manna in the wilderness.

What Jesus is claiming here in these verses is that HE comes from Heaven. But unlike the bread from heaven that feed the Hebrews in the wildreness - which only sustained them physically - Jesus will sustains us spiritually. He is using common items, bread and wine, with the backdrop of the miracle of feeding the five thousand to teach a profound spiritual truth. In other words, he is using methaphor.

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.â€Â

He speaks “in their face†so to speak, which is obviously a confirmation that HE MEANT IT LITERALLY!

It is that simple!

Well, at least for me, taking it for granted, I suppose that you good people should see it as I do as well. That is presumptuous of me, of course, so the best I can do is “hammer it in†as well and maybe, just maybe,
Come, Holy Spirit, that you will eventually get it as well.

I am sorry William, you are not making your case that Jesus is saying that we literally need to eat of his flesh and of his blood. What you are saying is nothing less than caniballism. Which is exactly what the Jews were grumbling about - thinking that they needed to literally eat flesh! Jesus does not reassure them that they are correct, but rather teaches them that he is not speaking about literal bread/flesh.

Is not the testiaony of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-24 sufficient for you? If the Eucharist is only figurative, how in the world could you partake of it "unworthily" and be "guilty of His body and blood"?


I Cor. 10:16 taken in the context on chapter 10 is not addressing the Lord's Supper - but rather a recognizition of the 'commune' that is the Body of Christ; the Church. Basically it is saying that we are ALL one and that we are to flee from idolatry and idols.


Huh? What is the “cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?†if not a most direct reference to the events that took place at the Last Supper? You then all but admit that it is indeed, a reflection back to the Last supper events when you recognize it as a “commune,†when we see in the last Supper sequence, “Do this in remembrance of me.â€Â

1 Cor. 11:23-24 does address the Lord's Supper and answers your question of taking it in an unworthy manner in the verses that follow (1 Cor. 11:28ff)

That we are to examine ourselves and our relationship with God. The Lord's Supper is not figurative - but rather a rememberance of what Christ did for us - that He sacrificed His body and was crucified for OUR sins. There is nothing figurative in that.


You are right! It is NOT figurative! (I think you meant to say otherwise…)

Consider how it is that if “…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eat and drinks judgment to himself†(verse 29) if the bread and wine are only symbolic and not literally, His body and blood?

Here is where my second typo or atleast misunderstanding comes in.

I believe that the Lord's Supper is to be a rememberance of what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. It is an act of rememberance. However, I would not call an act of rememberance as being 'figurative'. I would say that the act is composed of figuratives symbols in that the bread is figuratively the body of Christ and that the cup/wine is figuratively the blood of Christ. In other words the bread represents the Body of Christ and the cup/wine represents the Blood of Christ. We are to remember that His body was brusied for an trangressions and that His blood was spilt as an atontement for our sins.

1 Cor 11:29 states: "For he who east and drinks, eats and drinks judgement to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." You are taking "the body" to mean Christ body. I would suggest that Paul is meaning the self, because if we continue it says (picking up in verse 30: For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged."

The key here is in verse 31: "But if we judged ourselves rightly..."(emphasis added). In other words, Paul is saying in verse 29 that if we have not judged our own body rightly, we will eat and drink judgement unto ourselves.

Also, what is important here to understand is the issues going on at the church in Corinith which is mentioned in verse 34. People were abusing the Lord's Supper and using it as a meal - not as the rememberance it was meant to be. 1 Cor 11:34 "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgement."

1 Cor. 10:16-21 is saying that all who partake of the Lord's Supper are connected to the Church. The greater context of the verses (Chapter 10) is referring to idolatry. In other words, one cannot partake of the Lord's Supper and idolatry. We are not to provoke the Lord to jealously by partaking of that which belongs to the Church and to the 'table of the demons". These verse are not speaking to the bread and wine becoming actuall pieces of flesh and blood.