John Chapter 6

[William Putnam]

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.

Please take your time in answering, as I know how it goes, especially at my age. And as you can see, I did not answer this until mid-day the next day.

[quote:31b95]
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.[/quote:31b95]
Of course I know what it means to ME. All I am trying to do is to get you to see the logic of why I believe what I believe in John 6.

[quote:31b95]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 would 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?[/quote:31b95]

YES, YES, YES! That s exactly what I mean! But what you don’t reaslize, it seems, is that we are not consuming his natural body and blood, which would certainly be revolting even to think about, let alone be in direct defiance of the laws of Leviticus, but rather it is His supernatural body and blood, yet still His REAL body and blood, but under the appearance(the “accidentsâ€Â) of what it was initially, bread and wine.

After it is consecrated at the altar during the Mass, what continues to look like bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but is His actual (but supernatural) body and blood. It continues to look, feel, taste and digest like bread and wine, but it is no longer bread and wine but His Body! And when the “accidents†of the Eucharist are consumed in the normal digestive actions in the stomach, it ceases to be the body and blood of Christ. He has visited us for a little while, both in body and in Spirit, when we receive Him at communion. And as I hope you can now see, this is a quite different from most of Protestantism believes, I know. And this is perhaps the concept is so foreign to you.

I will admit that it takes a great leap of faith to believe that the consecrated hosts in the tabernacle in my church is the real body and blood, even while it still looks, feels and tastes, etc. like bread. But that is exactly what Christ is talking about when He says that He is the “bread of life†and that this bread is his actual body and blood. The Jews thought of the idea as cannibalism, and some Protestants in these forums accuse us Catholics of such. And this would be true if it were Christ’s natural body and blood, which it is not, and as I have already explained.

In verse 52 - they are asking how can He give us His flesh 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.

Excuse me, my friend, but would you please see where Jesus is speaking of a apiritual bread? For your convenience, I will repeat what Jesus said:

“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

Please show me where He is talking about a “spiritual bread†if you can. He emphatically repeats over and over again, what we must do, that that is to eat his flesh and drink His blood!

One further point - Why would the Jews and now some of His own disciples leave him if they were to understand a metaphoric “spiritual bread†here? They understood Him literally, and He did not retract or modify His statement, as in “Oh, you misunderstood me, I meant a spiritual flesh and blood, not my actually body and blood.†No, He hammers it in big time! No compromise in His statement at all.

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.

All I can do here is repeat that the Jews said:

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

And Jesus does not correct them at all, but hammers it in, whereby the Jews go bye bye, taking along with them, some of His own disciples! If fact, I do not know of another occasion what some of His followers abandon him, save the events surrounding his trail before Herod and His crucifixion.

[quote:31b95]“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. [/quote:31b95]

Well, I can try, can’t I?

I never expected you to come over to my point of view, and in fact, in my 20+ years discussing this issue, I have not once had anyone admit to me that the believed my point of view on this subject. I suspect that there may have boon others convinced of it, but it was never admitted to me, never.
So, all I can do is explain it the best way I can and rely on the Holy Spirit to make the final push that you may believe. And I personally believe that the Holy Spirit will never reveal my success here, if they exist, out of preventing me the temptation of pride. I am only the best instrument for My Lord as I can possibly be, insufficient as I may be.

[quote:31b95]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. [/quote:31b95]

Of course I disagree entirely with your assessment here, noting that “remembrance†does not suggest that the Eucharist is symbolic in nature, but His actual body and blood, soul and divinity as I have already explained. And when I home in on the sequence of the Last Supper, I again notice that Christ said “This IS my body/blood†He never said “This REPREESENTS my body/blood†but that, by itself, strongly implies the literal sense of His words. The “Bread of Life†discourse in John 6 is the perfect context for what He does at the Last Supper.

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.

What is Paul taking about here? Is it not obvious that Paul is speaking about the taking and blessing the bread and wine in communion here that He tells us to do in remembrance of Him? So when I speak of “eating and drinking†he is speaking of a discernment of Christ’s body and blood. As for “self,†well, the â€Âself†here is the person who partakes of the Eucharist unworthily. What we eat and drin is His body and blood, and the “we†(“selfâ€Â) is the one who is in error or in sin if taken unworthily.

I am still scratching my head as to how one can be unworthy of taking a symbolic body and blood, when it remains as ordinary bread and wine.

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."

If it were ordinary bread and wine, only symbolic of His body and blood, what distinguishes it from the ordinary food on the table? I can understand the idea of a profanity in even if bread and wine are only symbolic, but how much worse is this if it is His actual body and blood? The tone of Paul’s words indicates the latter, I my humble opinion, and is seen, even in a casual read of the Pauline quotes. But any Catholic would see it that way, I suppose.

1 Cor. 10:16-21 is saying that all who partake of the Lord's Supper are connected to the Church.

Oh indeed! Especially when it is His actual body and blood, soul and divinity that we consume at the ceremony!

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.

No, Paul separates the Eucharist in the warning against idolatry, starting with verse 14, from the “other food†which is “meat sacrificed to idols.†But I will agree with you that we “cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper [the Eucharist] and idolatry [in the consmption meat sacrificed to idols.]†And how much more important this becomes when the Lord’s Supper is a consumption of His actual body and blood, soul and divinity!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Veni Creator Spiritus

(Come, Holy Spirit…)

Gregorian chant - God's Music!

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/m ... reator.mp3

 

[cyberjosh]

Again, nice try but no cigar...

Well William, I can only point out to you the obvious metaphorical reference of Jesus saying the bread was his Body and the wine his blood. Jesus was speaking non-literaly, as he did many other times (such as "swallowing a camel") and he did not clarify because it was a proverb, a hyperbole, a figure of speech, a comparison - non-literal. He was not speaking about his physical flesh and blood in John 6.

~Josh

 

[William Putnam]

Well William, I can only point out to you the obvious metaphorical reference of Jesus saying the bread was his Body and the wine his blood. Jesus was speaking non-literaly, as he did many other times (such as "swallowing a camel") and he did not clarify because it was a proverb, a hyperbole, a figure of speech, a comparison - non-literal. He was not speaking about his physical flesh and blood in John 6.

~Josh

Is that it? Do you think this refutes what I said in my original link given in the initial post starting this thread?

I will let others judge that, as I think you know what I think of your statement here. Sorry...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood."
And Jesus replied, "What?"

 

[cyberjosh]

Is that it? Do you think this refutes what I said in my original link given in the initial post starting this thread?

I will let others judge that, as I think you know what I think of your statement here. Sorry...

All I can say is that your assessment of:

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!

is not necessarily correct.

Jesus did speak metaphorically in his teachings sometimes. That is a fact. If we can't agree on that simple detail then we cannot even progress to try to point out in which places he spoke metaphorically. And I gave you a perfect example of Jesus speaking metaphorically: "Swallowing a camel". And for clarification I didn't say Jesus never clarified his teachings, I said he almost never did. He did on occasion explain his parables, because they represented a truth outside of themselves. I quite simply believe that this is also the case with what Jesus said in John 6. . Simple as that. What is it we cannot agree on?

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

is not necessarily correct.

Jesus did speak metaphorically in his teachings sometimes. That is a fact. If we can't agree on that simple detail then we cannot even progress to try to point out in which places he spoke metaphorically. And I gave you a perfect example of Jesus speaking metaphorically: "Swallowing a camel".

Josh,

We KNOW Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically in John 6 because to metaphorically eat someone's flesh is to persecute them, as per the Old Testament.

Are you suggesting that Jesus said "Unless you persecute me, you shall not have eternal life?"

I think the fact that Jesus is speaking so literally is where the Jews are scandalized. No one left Jesus when he said "I am the gate" or "swallow a camel". But they did after John 6 - AND Satan first came to Judas! I think there is something more to this than just waving it off as another metaphor...

Regards

 

[William Putnam]

[quote:1cdb1]
Is that it? Do you think this refutes what I said in my original link given in the initial post starting this thread?

I will let others judge that, as I think you know what I think of your statement here. Sorry...

All I can say is that your assessment of:[/quote:1cdb1]

OK….????

[quote:1cdb1]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!

is not necessarily correct.[/quote:1cdb1]

Opinion noted…

Jesus did speak metaphorically in his teachings sometimes. That is a fact. If we can't agree on that simple detail then we cannot even progress to try to point out in which places he spoke metaphorically. And I gave you a perfect example of Jesus speaking metaphorically: "Swallowing a camel". And for clarification I didn't say Jesus never clarified his teachings, I said he almost never did. He did on occasion explain his parables, because they represented a truth outside of themselves. I quite simply believe that this is also the case with what Jesus said in John 6. . Simple as that. What is it we cannot agree on?

Me, myself and I have been known to speak metaphorically a time or two. I have also been knows to speak speak literally as well. So what?

If I can do it, why not Jesus?

What we seem to disagree on is your idea that if Jesus speaks metaphorically a time or two, that prohibits from Him to speak literal as well.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[Vic C.]

Josh,

We KNOW Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically in John 6 because to metaphorically eat someone's flesh is to persecute them, as per the Old Testament....

:-D I'm not sure if I would rest my defense on that statement. ... because to physically eat someone's flesh and drink their blood would be an abomination against God and HIS OT Laws for the Hebrews. Bill was much closer to being "kosher" when he suggested it would actually be His "spiritual" body and blood. With that said, I have serious issues with the whole transubstantiation idea, from a Biblical point of view.

Eucharist ... would you and Bill care to define Eucharist from both it's Greek and it's NT usage, along with, or compared to the way the RCC and other orthodox systems use the word? Thanks.

 

[William Putnam]

:-D I'm not sure if I would rest my defense on that statement. ... because to physically eat someone's flesh and drink their blood would be an abomination against God and HIS OT Laws for the Hebrews. Bill was much closer to being "kosher" when he suggested it would actually be His "spiritual" body and blood. With that said, I have serious issues with the whole transubstantiation idea, from a Biblical point of view.

Eucharist ... would you and Bill care to define Eucharist from both it's Greek and it's NT usage, along with, or compared to the way the RCC and other orthodox systems use the word? Thanks.

Just a quick correction, Vic, and no offense please..

I said that Eucharist is the actual body and blood supernaturally not His natural body and blood, which would indeed be revolting. The "accidents" of breade and wine remain, even while it it no longer bread and wine bugtHis real and true body and blood, soul and divinity.

A provound belief that is taken from the "bread of life discourse" in John 6, and as actually applied by Christ in His Last Supper narrative.

To say that it is "spiritually" His body and blood is to be less accurate in the doctrine.

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 -

 

[jgredline]

Just popped in to say that this has been a real nice ''read''...I have enjoyed it very much and Bill thanks for sharing this with us....I disagree with you, but for now I will leave my 2 cents out. It is nice simply just to read along....

 

[William Putnam]

Just popped in to say that this has been a real nice ''read''...I have enjoyed it very much and Bill thanks for sharing this with us....I disagree with you, but for now I will leave my 2 cents out. It is nice simply just to read along....

Why, thank you, sir!

I appreciate those kind words! :angel:

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 -

 

[Vic C.]

Just popped in to say that this has been a real nice ''read''...I have enjoyed it very much and Bill thanks for sharing this with us....I disagree with you, but for now I will leave my 2 cents out. It is nice simply just to read along....

I agree... this is the kind of discussion I enjoy reading.

Bill... I stand corrected for misquoting you. Now it's my turn. :-D I didn't say that it is "spiritually" His body; I suggested you may have meant, "it would actually be His "spiritual" body and blood".

i.e. - 1 Cor 10:3-4 , 1 Cor 15:44

That concept I may actually entertain. :angel: Maybe we're just mincing words; for what you call a supernatural body just may be this spirtual body the Scriptures mention. ;-)

 

[William Putnam]

I agree... this is the kind of discussion I enjoy reading.

Bill... I stand corrected for misquoting you. Now it's my turn. :-D I didn't say that it is "spiritually" His body; I suggested you may have meant, "it would actually be His "spiritual" body and blood".

i.e. - 1 Cor 10:3-4 , 1 Cor 15:44

That concept I may actually entertain. :angel: Maybe we're just mincing words; for what you call a supernatural body just may be this spirtual body the Scriptures mention. ;-)

Hummmm, like maybe that it takes the "Spirit" to understand the concept of a supernatural body and blood, perhaps. It's just that we do not use that terminology when trying to define a precise belief, where something "spiritual" may be taken as being metaphoric or figurative. It doesn't of course, but that is how it may be taken by some. 8-)

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.

 

[cyberjosh]

I think there is something more to this than just waving it off as another metaphor...

Well I didn't just simply wave off anything. I gave my rather theologically rich, personal interpretation of what Jesus said. And regardless of whether my interpretation is correct or not, the truth that can be extracted from that interpretation reflects actual truth: That the Spirit in us gives life and causes the Word to grow in us. I think my interpretation has as much merit as the next man, so why shoot it down so quickly?

And quite simply the Bible never teaches a doctrine of transsubstantiation. Nor purgatory or any such other such similar doctrines.

This is my stance and I am firm in it.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Guest]

I believe that we can all agree that much has been provided to 'chew' on (pun not intended, well, maybe a little :P ).

Before, our (especially William's and mine) posts become extremely long - I believe this would be a good time to take a pause, and to narrowly focus on some specifics and attempt to iron them out.

The first area I would like to focus on is: Does John 6 pertain to the Lord's Supper or for the Roman Catholics: the Eucharist?

While Jesus is clearly teaching on the 'bread from heaven' - does this necessarily mean that He is teaching about the Lord's Supper?

It is helpful to put this passage of Scripture in the context of when it happened in the life of Jesus, and in context of the other Gospels. Each Gospel was written at a specific time, for a specific audience, and each had a specific theme/thesis to teach. Not only is important to understand those 'specifics' - but also to see how the Gospels intertwine with each other to help with clarification.

Each Gospel contains the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and some teaching that happened afterward - however, the passage we are looking is only found in the Gospel of John.

So, again I ask - in this passage is Jesus teaching about the Lord's Supper? This event would have occured sometime during the 2nd year of Christ's ministry. Up to this point and not until the Upper Room does Jesus teach on the "Lord's Supper". And all of the references on the Lord's Supper from Paul's writings reference back to the events in the Upper Room - not John 6.

It has been suggested by William, that Jesus is foreshadowing the Lord's Supper. That is a possibility, but I would suggest that it is not a strong possiblity. As I have mentioned before, and will repeat here, Jesus has in fact foreshadowed. In John 2, we read the account of Jesus in the temple - that during the time of Passover, Jesus cleanses the temple (John 2:13-22)

During the cleansing the Jews asked Jesus: "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus replied by saying "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:18-19)

The Jews not understanding Jesus's teaching (which is common throughout the Scripture that they did not understand his teachings), said "It took 46 years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" (John 2:20) - However, Jesus was not referring to the literal, earthy temple - but rather the "temple of His body". And here is the key verse in John 2:22

So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and thw word which Jesus had spoken.

Pay attention here please, because I believe this is crucial to the understanding. Jesus foreshadows is death and resurrection by telling them: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days" - While the Jews thought Jesus meant the literal physcial building, Jesus was referring to the resurrection of His body. When that event ACTUALLY happened, the Scripture testifies that the disciples REMEMBERED His teaching. This is also not the only place that this happenes - cf with John 12:16; Luke 24:8.

Why is this important? Because IF Jesus was using "foreshadowing" in John 6 to teach about the Lord's Supper - one would except that when we read about the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room that the disciples would have remembered the teaching from John 6. However, this is NOT the case.

Therefore, I would submit that John 6 is NOT a reference to the Lord's Supper at all.

Rather, I would submit that in John 6 Jesus is teaching our need to 'eat of the Spiritual bread from Heaven' that is found in Jesus Christ in comparrison to the loaves and fish that feed the thousands, and the manna from heaven that feed and sustained the Hebrews in the wilderness.

In other words - the literal, physical manna was to sustain the Hebrews while they were in the dessert (of which even they began to grumble about and grumbled against God who out of his mercy, provided food to sustain them) - and of this bread they ate, but eventually died. Then as a backdrop we have the feeding of the 5,000 whereby Jesus provided for their physical hunger, multipling 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed them all. Then Jesus turns and takes this time to teach them, that if they believe in Jesus Christ - the "bread from heaven" that they will hunger no more, they will thrist no more. Clearly, they would still have phsyical hunger, and physical thrist - but they would no longer be spiritually hungery or thirsty.

Just as we rely on chicken, beef, (or in my case tofu and the plant kingdom) to stasify our physical hunger - when we partake of Jesus Christ - He COMPLETELY statisfies our Spiritual Hunger - not needing ANY OTHER idol, religion, etc.

Jesus completely statisfies! Praise God that He nurishes us, and sustains us!

I humbly submit, that this is the true meaning of John 6!

 

[William Putnam]

aLoneVoice said: I believe that we can all agree that much has been provided to 'chew' on (pun not intended, well, maybe a little ).

Before, our (especially William's and mine) posts become extremely long - I believe this would be a good time to take a pause, and to narrowly focus on some specifics and attempt to iron them out.

The first area I would like to focus on is: Does John 6 pertain to the Lord's Supper or for the Roman Catholics: the Eucharist?

Why not both?

While Jesus is clearly teaching on the 'bread from heaven' - does this necessarily mean that He is teaching about the Lord's Supper?

Since indeed, our posts a grown rather large, I will only answer this part of your post to make a most salient point…

In John 6, Jesus speaks of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood.â€Â
In the Lord’s Last Supper sequence, we see Jesus speaking, “Take, eat for this is my body†and “drink, this is my blood†(padaphrased) which is certainly a most positive harking back to John 6! “This is my body,†which He has already told then to “eat†dovetails nicely with “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…†of John 6:54, among a few in that chapter.

What greater proof do you need?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood."
And Jesus replied, "What?"

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice said: I believe that we can all agree that much has been provided to 'chew' on (pun not intended, well, maybe a little ).

Before, our (especially William's and mine) posts become extremely long - I believe this would be a good time to take a pause, and to narrowly focus on some specifics and attempt to iron them out.

The first area I would like to focus on is: Does John 6 pertain to the Lord's Supper or for the Roman Catholics: the Eucharist?

Why not both?

I was merely pointing out that you refer to it as the Eucharist, and I refer to it as the Lord's Supper.

Since indeed, our posts a grown rather large, I will only answer this part of your post to make a most salient point…

In John 6, Jesus speaks of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood.â€Â
In the Lord’s Last Supper sequence, we see Jesus speaking, “Take, eat for this is my body†and “drink, this is my blood†(padaphrased) which is certainly a most positive harking back to John 6! “This is my body,†which He has already told then to “eat†dovetails nicely with “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…†of John 6:54, among a few in that chapter.

What greater proof do you need?

Saying it "harkens back" doesn't make it so. I have pointed out William, that other times when there is a 'harkening back' the Scripture is clear to point it out, I have already provided the references, so I will not re-post them.

But that does not happen here. You are attempting to make a connection that the Bible does not make. If what you say is true, then any reference to 'bread' or 'wine' or 'eating' could be a reference to the Lord's Supper. For example, at the wedding feast - when Jesus turns the water to wine - is that in reference to the Lord's Supper as well?

William, I realize that you believe John 6 connects to the Lord's Supper - however, you have not provided a quality exigesis of the passage to prove that connection. I realize that it is a connection that you "need" to make, because without that connection the idea of transubstantion falls flat.

 

[Vic C.]

... The first area I would like to focus on is: Does John 6 pertain to the Lord's Supper or for the Roman Catholics: the Eucharist? ...

Heh, heh... I'm still waiting for that definition of Eucharist. 8-)

Eucharist ... would you and Bill care to define Eucharist from both it's Greek and it's NT usage, along with, or compared to the way the RCC and other orthodox systems use the word? Thanks.

8-)

 

[jgredline]

William, I realize that you believe John 6 connects to the Lord's Supper - however, you have not provided a quality exigesis of the passage to prove that connection. I realize that it is a connection that you "need" to make, because without that connection the idea of transubstantion falls flat.

:smt023

 

[William Putnam]

Saying it "harkens back" doesn't make it so. I have pointed out William, that other times when there is a 'harkening back' the Scripture is clear to point it out, I have already provided the references, so I will not re-post them.

If I cannot convince you so far, then I will let others who are much older then I am, in fact most of them were bishops that lived adjacient to the apostolic era:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

And finally:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_ ... harist.asp

I can do no more. I have given it my best shot, and now I quote authority much greater then me. If you do not grasp it or dissagree with it, that is your choice.

So I will leave it here and let you all threash it out the best way you can, including any other Catholics who may contribute. I will look in on it to see if any further comments are warranted but I will mostly lurk now.

It's been fun... :angel:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



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

 

[stranger]

William Putnam wrote:

Hummmm, like maybe that it takes the "Spirit" to understand the concept of a supernatural body and blood, perhaps. It's just that we do not use that terminology when trying to define a precise belief, where something "spiritual" may be taken as being metaphoric or figurative. It doesn't of course, but that is how it may be taken by some. 8-)

Hi William (re Vic's post),

The metaphor the 'body' of Christ when applied to the church is just that. This is not so say that it has no deeper meaning nor spiritual significance. At the last supper, a disciple could have pointed to the 'body' of Jesus and said 'this is His body'. The first is a metaphor for the Church, the second is a literal pointing to the body of Christ in my example. More difficult is the identification of the 'bread and wine' as the body of Christ in lieu of His impending absence as flesh and blood amongst the then assembled disciples.

The affirmation of the ceremony is in the interpretation of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. ie the bread and the wine. The shift of the focus upon 'this' is my body in a post resurrection world is a 'weighting' (or emphasis) of scripture that needs to be accomplished in the Spirit in which it was intended. Now I am not able to say that this has been preserved equally amongst the churches. But as a general rule - doctrine established upon the incidence of one word leads to more difficulties than would an often recurring term.

The concept of a supernatural body - the Church is the body of Christ can be said of the church when they are assembled for reasons other than communion.