John 6 (I need help for a reply)

[john6:63]

In the near future I will reconcile with the Catholic Church. I used to be a fundamental Baptist. I talked with my pastor about my conversion and he wanted me to email him what I was basing my conversion on. I emailed him my thoughts on John Chapter 6 and his response I pasted in its entirety below.

I am looking for some feedback from you guys and gals that I could add to my response. You guys may enjoy dissecting his response to John 6.

Thanks in advance,

God Bless


[quote]Dear Tommy:  Thanks for the e-mail, and I will try to be as complete as I can.  You bring up some very good questions, and I think the passage answers many of them. 

While it is true that Jesus and the inspired Bible penmen frequently identified parables, there are times when Jesus spoke enigmatically without comment from Himself or the Bible penmen.  There certainly are other sayings of Jesus that are “hard sayings.”  It might be better to use the term “symbol” and “symbolically” rather than “parable.”  Jesus did not always identify His use of symbolism by pointing it out.  In telling the Samaritan woman about the “living water,” Jesus did not point out the symbolism, although it was clearly intended as such.  (I don’t know any denomination that transubstantiates water!)  Jesus also said, “I am the door.”  Of course, he meant access to the Father—not that He was a literal wooden door.  I think there are similarities in John 6.  Such is especially obvious when one compares the tenor of the entire New Testament to the Bread of Life discourse of John 6.  For example, the book of Romans is—without question—the primary New Testament treatise on Justification—salvation, if you will.  There is not one reference to the Lord’s Table or the Mass as being connected with justification in the entire book of Romans.  In like manner, the Apostolic sermons in the book of Acts do not reference the Lord’s Table as a means of grace to salvation.  In Acts 16 Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”  If the saving gospel involves the Lord’s Table, Baptism, or other sacraments, then the Apostle Paul led the jailer astray and sold the Gospel short.  To isolate John 6 from the rest of the New Testament and to impose the Romanist Mass upon it does violence to the Scripture.  It is true that there are passages that are more difficult to interpret than others.  In such cases, one must always interpret the difficult passage in the light of the plain.  The Bible repeatedly affirms faith as the singular means of Grace.  Belief is exalted to the exclusion of every other possible “means.”  That being the case from the body of the New Testament, I must interpret the sayings of John 6 in that light. 

Remember that the Bread of Life discourse itself was given in answer to the Jews asking how they could “work the works of God” (28) and seeking for a sign that would enable their belief.  In answering the question, “How can we work the works of God?” Jesus stated, “This is the work of God, that ye believe…”  Therefore, the entire Bread of Life discourse must be taken within the context of the supreme necessity of BELIEF.  When they asked for a sign, they referenced the sign of the manna in the wilderness (31).  In essence, they were saying that God had given manna as a sign and Jesus should also give them a sign.  The Jews, not Jesus, brought up the bread motif.  Jesus then contrasts that bread with Himself.  Remember, the generation that first received the manna did not enter the promised land “because of their unbelief” (Heb. 3:19).  While they ate the bread, they were condemned for their unbelief.  Jesus then presented Himself as the Bread of Life, emphasizing the importance of belief for obtaining everlasting life.  Note verse 47:  “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”  It is immediately followed up with the statement, “I am the bread of life.”  How do we partake of the “bread of life?”  By believing on Jesus.  The Jews “did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead.”  The consumption of physical bread—even bread provided by God—did not sustain eternal life. 

Jesus explains His use of the term “bread” by stating that the “bread” is His flesh which He would give for the life of the world (51).  HE DID NOT STATE THAT BREAD WOULD BECOME HIS FLESH.  In using the picture of bread, Jesus explained that the bread of which He was speaking was His flesh.  God had given bread (manna), and the partakers ultimately died.  Now God was giving “living bread”—the sacrifice of Christ, and those who believe would live.

Continuing with the bread motif (brought up first by the Jews, not Jesus), Jesus emphasized the importance of consuming His flesh and His blood.  This statement, taken literally, was offensive and unbelievable (52, 60-61).  Jesus, however, continued to push the offensive statement by emphasizing that it was absolutely essential that one dwell in Christ and Christ dwell in him through the consumption of Jesus’ flesh and blood (56). These words, pressed by Christ, not only cost Him some of His followers (66), but seemed to endanger even the 12 core disciples (67).  Was Jesus pushing the literal consumption of His flesh and blood?  NO.  If one takes this literally, it would be essential that believers consume the real flesh and blood of Christ.  That is how the hearers took it—a literal cannibalism of Christ’s flesh and blood.  Note JESUS DID NOT PROMISE THAT HUMANLY PRODUCED BREAD WOULD BECOME HIS FLESH.  HE DID NOT STATE THAT HUMANLY PRODUCED WINE WOULD BECOME HIS BLOOD.  He, using the bread motif presented by the Jews, stated that He Himself is the bread that could bring everlasting life.  Jesus had to literally die—have His literal flesh torn and His literal blood shed.  And how does one “partake” of His flesh and blood?  NOT BY MAGICALLY TURNING HUMAN MADE BREAD INTO THE FLESH OF CHRIST!  Such a superstitious monstrosity is not even hinted at in John 6.  The key to partaking is BELIEF in the words of Jesus.  Note, the children of Israel died in the wilderness “because of their unbelief.”  It’s not that they failed to eat the bread.  They ate—and still died.  They failed to believe the promise and command of God to enter into the promised land.  The command to enter the promised land was offensive and unbelievable to them.  They would not act upon it because they did not BELIEVE.  Now connect that thought to what Jesus says beginning at verse 62.  Jesus said, in effect, “What if you saw Me ascend to heaven before your very eyes?  (“Would you believe then?”)  In verse 63 the Spirit “quickeneth” (gives life).  The flesh—tangible realities (such as physical bread, manna) profits nothing for eternal life.  Now, here it is…DON’T MISS THE SUMMATION OF THE PASSAGE:  The words that I speak unto you (What words?  The offensive, unbelievable words) they are spirit, and they are life (Not some human made bread, but the WORDS).  Then Jesus clarifies the whole thing: BUT THERE ARE SOME OF YOU THAT BELIEVE NOT (64).  Why did some disciples go away?  Because of a refusal to believe Jesus’ words even if they did not comprehend them—a refusal to believe Jesus’ words because they appeared “difficult.”  The command to enter the promised land appeared “difficult” too, and a generation failed to enter because of their unbelief.  Verse 64 also states that the disciples who went back were not true believers—“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not…”  Their entire problem was an unwillingness to believe Jesus’ words even if they did not understand them.  Jesus was demanding belief beyond their comprehension. 

Now, as to the difficulty of Jesus’ statement about consuming His flesh and blood.  It is, indeed, a “difficult” statement.  However, I am called upon to believe it!  As it turns out, my partaking of Jesus flesh and blood comes by belief.  Those who turned away because of the difficult words REFUSED TO BELIEVE.  Nowhere does it state that anyone refused to eat human produced bread and therefore is condemned.  In fact, if Jesus’ reference were to the Lord’s Table or the Mass, it would NOT have been offensive.  Consumption of bread and wine is not a difficult matter.  Consumption of human flesh—now that’s another story!  Jesus purposely chose to use words that would “offend,” revealing the hearts of unbelief.  His 12 disciples (actually 11 when one excludes Judas) believed in spite of their limited understanding, and Jesus commends their belief.    What is the essence of their belief?  Look at verse 69. 

The trouble the Catholics and Lutherans have with this passage is that they MUST state (to suite their respective theologies) that human produced bread magically becomes Christ (Catholics) or that humanly produced bread possesses the dynamic presence of Christ (whatever that means.)  John 6 nowhere states any such thing.  Jesus’ flesh and blood are meat and drink indeed, NOT HUMANLY PRODUCED BREAD AND GRAPE JUICE.  Catholics, honest about this problem, came up with transubstantiation, whereby humanly produced bread becomes Jesus.  However, such a concept is NOT a part of John 6. 

Now, here’s another question.  Let’s say the Catholics are right.  Let’s say that the Lord’s Table is that which is referenced in John 6.  Well then, I guess I’m safe since I partake of the Lord’s Table once a month.  Right?...WRONG, says the Catholic Church.  Not only must you eat bread and drink wine, but you must eat our Catholic bread and drink our Catholic wine.  Only our priests can turn it into the real thing!  Apart from our system, you’re doomed!  Now let me ask, where is that in the Bible?  Of course, it’s not.  The New Testament knows of no priesthood endowed with magical powers to turn bread into Jesus.  John 6 does not even hint at such an event. 

In summary, Jesus is the Bread of Life.  His literal flesh and blood was provided by God (similar to wilderness manna).  One must eat and drink this provision by faith (47).  If one does not BELIEVE  the words of Christ, he is condemned for his unbelief. 

I hope this helps with the John 6 passage.  I Corinthians 11 is no trouble is one does not force John 6 upon its interpretation.  Remember, Jesus was using a motif suggested by the Jews—the sign of Manna.  He was NOT teaching concerning the New Testament church ordinance of the Lord’s table. 

I would like to talk more about the Corinthians passage.  But first, what to you think of this?[/quote]

[Brother Adam]

Wow. This email is so riddled with problems and contradictions it is really hard to know where to begin! And what is it with Protestant ministers INSISTING ON USING ALL CAPS. I BET IT IS BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT TO STAND ON SO THEY HAVE TO SCREAM IT!

I would give a good response but I know Eremite or Cam or Todd or someone will be able to give a line by line response and I have a 10 page paper to write and 2 three day conferences to attend.

I do however, strongly suggest you buy the book "Not by Bread Alone" by Robert Sungesis. It gives both the historical and biblical notion of the Real Presence and does an excellent job looking at John 6 and Corinthians in response to Protestant claims.

[Guest Eremite]

First, let me say welcome to the Church. I can't imagine how hard it must be as a convert from Protestantism, so I commend your faith and courage.

[quote]If one takes this literally, it would be essential that believers consume the real flesh and blood of Christ.  That is how the hearers took it—a literal cannibalism of Christ’s flesh and blood. [/quote]

St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians offers an interesting reflection on the Holy Eucharist:

[quote]Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?[/quote]

This is an interesting passage because St. Paul links the Table and the Cup of the Lord with the sacrifices of pagans. He notes that their sacrifices are offered to demons. Christians cannot partake of them, for that reason. Christians partake of the Holy Eucharist, which he says a little later in Chapter 11, "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes". The treatment of the Holy Eucharist in the context of pagan sacrifices is unique, because the Apostolic faith upholds the sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist. This sacrifice was spoken of long before in the book of Malachi. In upbraiding Israel, and taking no pleasure in their sacrifices, the Lord prophesied of a new sacrifice to come, which would be offered by the Gentiles:

[quote]For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.[/quote]

The Apostolic faith in the sacrificial nature of the Mass can be borne out by the testimony of the early Church Fathers, which I would encourage you to cite in your response.

Now, moving on to the nature of the Holy Eucharist itself.

[quote]Was Jesus pushing the literal consumption of His flesh and blood?  NO.  If one takes this literally, it would be essential that believers consume the real flesh and blood of Christ. [/quote]

The institution of the Holy Eucharist came in the context of a Passover meal, which is also very significant. Passover was a sacrifice of an unspotted lamb, which was not only sacrificed, but was consumed.

At the Last Supper, however, the Lord did something new. He offered bread and wine, reminiscent of Melchizidek, who offered those same sacrifices. Jesus, however, said, recalling his discourse in John 6, "This is my body", "This is my blood". Not only that, but he told the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me". The word for "remembrance" which he used denoted not just an intellectual recollection, but an actual performance of his actions, just as the Jews performed the sacrifice of Passover every year.

So we see that there is no doubt that the Lord established a perpetual re-presentation of what he did, and that this was understood as the fulfillment of the sacrifice of Passover. No longer was a lamb consumed, but the true lamb, the Lamb of God himself, who in a great mystery of faith, gave us himself under the appearance of bread and wine.

Going back to 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul says:

[quote]whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgement upon himself[/quote]

Those are strong words for something which the Pastor would have us believe is nothing more than a symbol. Those who do not "discern the Body" in the species and the cup are guilty not of profaning a symbol, but of profaning the Body and Blood of Christ itself, and thereby incurs the judgement of God.

The comparison of the discourse in John 6 with "I am the door" is ludicrous. Christ called himself a door once. He devoted an entire discourse to the necessity of consuming his flesh and blood. He then repeated this at the Last Supper, telling the Apostles to carry out his actions. And, if it wasn't evident enough, St. Paul provided his own discourse on the Holy Eucharist in his epistle to the Corinthians, speaking of it, as Christ had, in shockingly literal terms. His words can hardly be reduced to a figure of speech.

It should also be noted that the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is not "physical", but Sacramental. Meaning that he is there in his entire essence, not corporeally as he was on earth. Part of the host is not a leg, part an arm, etc. Every single last part is the entire essence of the Lord, and so the charge of cannibalism does not hold water.

Beyond this, I would strongly encourage you to stress the absolute Eucharistic faith of the early Church. There are abundant sources online to find what the Fathers had to say on the matter, and I'm sure others will point them out.

Here is one resource:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp[/url]

A tangential question to ask the Pastor is why you should trust his judgement over a 2,000 year old Church? Where did he get his authority to decide what the Lord does and does not mean in Scripture?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Before I reconciled (and received similar questions from Protestant friends).. I really had to examine John 6. The difference, for me, that really stuck out was John 6:66. When Christ called Himself a door, a vine, a branch, etc. none of His disciples LEFT (and "no longer walked with Him"). Even in Gospel parables when the disciples didn't understand and Christ didn't explain.. no one left. No one rejected His teaching... and that's what's going on in John 6. Some of Jesus' FOLLOWERS... LEAVE! They reject everything that they had just embraced (another kick in the head for OSAS, huh?)... the man they had just believed to be Christ... the Annointed.. the Messiah... they left.

I know my "..."s can't express my true frustration and explaination of this point on the disciples leaving... but these weren't just people listening to His preaching... Scripture tells us that those that left were some of His followers...

That had to have hurt. I don't think I could believe that Christ would let a believer walk away (and REJECT Him) over a misunderstanding... that just doesn't jive with the rest of Scripture.

EDITED to add:
[quote]The trouble the Catholics and Lutherans have with this passage is that they MUST state (to suite their respective theologies) that human produced bread magically becomes Christ (Catholics) or that humanly produced bread possesses the dynamic presence of Christ (whatever that means.)  John 6 nowhere states any such thing.  Jesus’ flesh and blood are meat and drink indeed, NOT HUMANLY PRODUCED BREAD AND GRAPE JUICE. [/quote]
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic concept of transubstantiation... the ordinary bread and wine is not "magically" consecrated through the powers of the priest... but by the grace of God, acting through the priest. Nor is it "magically" consecrated at all. God doesn't need magic... He is the Creator of nature, it's not hard for Him to alter it according to His purpose and plan. It's not magical, it's miraculous (i.e., through the grace of God). Sometimes I think heated/inflammatory words get used and get in the way of true dialogue.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='john6:63' date='Jul 26 2005, 08:57 PM']In the near future I will reconcile with the Catholic Church. I used to be a fundamental Baptist. I talked with my pastor about my conversion and he wanted me to email him what I was basing my conversion on. I emailed him my thoughts on John Chapter 6 and his response I pasted in its entirety below.

I am looking for some feedback from you guys and gals that I could add to my response. You guys may enjoy dissecting his response to John 6.

Thanks in advance,

God Bless
[right][snapback]660275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


God Bless.

Here are a couple of links that you might like...
NT & OT about the Eucharist:
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html[/url]
First Christians on the Real Presence:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp[/url]
Article:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
[i]St. Ignatius of Antioch[/i] - a friend of St. Polycarp, student of St. John the Apostle (who of course wrote the passage in question...) and ordained a Bishop by St. Peter the Apostle.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

Ok, sorry if I'm to the point with my replies to him, but this guy does not know Scripture... Please feel free to email him my replies and my email address iron_monk@hotmail.com... I would love to dialog with him.


[QUOTE]Dear Tommy: Thanks for the e-mail, and I will try to be as complete as I can. You bring up some very good questions, and I think the passage answers many of them.

While it is true that Jesus and the inspired Bible penmen frequently identified parables, there are times when Jesus spoke enigmatically without comment from Himself or the Bible penmen. There certainly are other sayings of Jesus that are “hard sayings.” It might be better to use the term “symbol” and “symbolically” rather than “parable.” Jesus did not always identify His use of symbolism by pointing it out. In telling the Samaritan woman about the “living water,” Jesus did not point out the symbolism, although it was clearly intended as such. (I don’t know any denomination that transubstantiates water!) Jesus also said, “I am the door.” Of course, he meant access to the Father—not that He was a literal wooden door. I think there are similarities in John 6[/QUOTE]

Key here: He wrote "I think"... I would ask him if he is infallible, his obvious answer will be no. How does he know he's right? Jesus did explain his parables when people started to leave, except for John 6. "True food" and "True drink" is symbolic?!


[QUOTE]Such is especially obvious when one compares the tenor of the entire New Testament to the Bread of Life discourse of John 6. For example, the book of Romans is—without question—the primary New Testament treatise on Justification—salvation, if you will. There is not one reference to the Lord’s Table or the Mass as being connected with justification in the entire book of Romans.[/QUOTE]

That is not true about the book of Romans. What about James 2:20 (Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?) Who is he to say what book in the bible has greater value than the other? Does truth contradict truth? If Romans is "without question" the primary NT treatise on justification, and salvation then there is no God because it would be a contradiction. We know there is a God, so that must mean his private intrepretation is obviously "without question" wrong.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

more...http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com

[QUOTE]In like manner, the Apostolic sermons in the book of Acts do not reference the Lord’s Table as a means of grace to salvation. In Acts 16 Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” If the saving gospel involves the Lord’s Table, Baptism, or other sacraments, then the Apostle Paul led the jailer astray and sold the Gospel short. To isolate John 6 from the rest of the New Testament and to impose the Romanist Mass upon it does violence to the Scripture. It is true that there are passages that are more difficult to interpret than others. In such cases, one must always interpret the difficult passage in the light of the plain. The Bible repeatedly affirms faith as the singular means of Grace. Belief is exalted to the exclusion of every other possible “means.” That being the case from the body of the New Testament, I must interpret the sayings of John 6 in that light. [/QUOTE]

Note he says "I must interpret". He also does not know the bible very well. He states... "Must always interpret the difficult passage in the light of the plain"... Where is how we must read the bible, in the bible?! Why not look to see what the first Christians said about it?! Maybe because they were Catholic?!
Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).



[b]Justin Martyr[/b]
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).



[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



[b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).



[b]Tertullian[/b]
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).



[b]Hippolytus[/b]
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).



[b]Origen[/b]
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).



[b]Cyprian of Carthage[/b]
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).



[b]Council of Nicaea I[/b]
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).



[QUOTE]Remember that the Bread of Life discourse itself was given in answer to the Jews asking how they could “work the works of God” (28) and seeking for a sign that would enable their belief. In answering the question, “How can we work the works of God?” Jesus stated, “This is the work of God, that ye believe…” Therefore, the entire Bread of Life discourse must be taken within the context of the supreme necessity of BELIEF. [/QUOTE]

That belief is the belief in the Real Pressence of Christ. Who is this guy to say what the bible means from his own personal interpretation?



[QUOTE]When they asked for a sign, they referenced the sign of the manna in the wilderness (31). In essence, they were saying that God had given manna as a sign and Jesus should also give them a sign. The Jews, not Jesus, brought up the bread motif. Jesus then contrasts that bread with Himself. Remember, the generation that first received the manna did not enter the promised land “because of their unbelief” (Heb. 3:19). While they ate the bread, they were condemned for their unbelief. Jesus then presented Himself as the Bread of Life, emphasizing the importance of belief for obtaining everlasting life. Note verse 47: “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” It is immediately followed up with the statement, “I am the bread of life.” How do we partake of the “bread of life?” By believing on Jesus. The Jews “did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead.” The consumption of physical bread—even bread provided by God—did not sustain eternal life. [/QUOTE]

That is not what Jesus said. Jesus told us how to partake of the bread of life...

The pastor denys that Christ can give us His Flesh to eat. Christ is clear on how to partake in the bread of life, we must eat His flesh.

[b]John 6:52 [/b]
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
[b]53 [/b]Jesus said to them, "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.
[b]54 [/b]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
[b]55 [/b]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
[b]56 [/b]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
[b]57 [/b]Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.


[QUOTE]Jesus explains His use of the term “bread” by stating that the “bread” is His flesh which He would give for the life of the world (51). HE DID NOT STATE THAT BREAD WOULD BECOME HIS FLESH. In using the picture of bread, Jesus explained that the bread of which He was speaking was His flesh. God had given bread (manna), and the partakers ultimately died. Now God was giving “living bread”—the sacrifice of Christ, and those who believe would live.[/QUOTE]

Again, we see that the pastor is wrong.....


[b]John 6:52 [/b]
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
[b]53 [/b]Jesus said to them, "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.
[b]54 [/b]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
[b]55 [/b]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
[b]56 [/b]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
[b]57 [/b]Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.



[QUOTE]Continuing with the bread motif (brought up first by the Jews, not Jesus), Jesus emphasized the importance of consuming His flesh and His blood. This statement, taken literally, was offensive and unbelievable (52, 60-61). Jesus, however, continued to push the offensive statement by emphasizing that it was absolutely essential that one dwell in Christ and Christ dwell in him through the consumption of Jesus’ flesh and blood (56). These words, pressed by Christ, not only cost Him some of His followers (66), but seemed to endanger even the 12 core disciples (67).
Was Jesus pushing the literal consumption of His flesh and blood? NO. [/QUOTE]

Yes He was, as taught by the first Christians and the disciples that they made. The word "true" and "real" show us the meaning. If it was a symbol, Christ would have explained when people walked away.

[QUOTE]If one takes this literally, it would be essential that believers consume the real flesh and blood of Christ. That is how the hearers took it—a literal cannibalism of Christ’s flesh and blood. [/QUOTE]

[b]John 6:63 [/b]It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[b]64 [/b]But there are some of you who do not believe."

Christ clearly goes on to tell us that it is the spirit that gives life. Christ's Spirit gives life to the bread and makes it Christ's Flesh.


[QUOTE]Note JESUS DID NOT PROMISE THAT HUMANLY PRODUCED BREAD WOULD BECOME HIS FLESH. HE DID NOT STATE THAT HUMANLY PRODUCED WINE WOULD BECOME HIS BLOOD. [/QUOTE]

Yes He did.
[b]1 Corin 11:27[/b] Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
[b]28 [/b]A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
[b]29 [/b]For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If it was just bread, then we wouldn't have to answer for the body and blood.

[QUOTE]He, using the bread motif presented by the Jews, stated that He Himself is the bread that could bring everlasting life. Jesus had to literally die—have His literal flesh torn and His literal blood shed. And how does one “partake” of His flesh and blood? NOT BY MAGICALLY TURNING HUMAN MADE BREAD INTO THE FLESH OF CHRIST! [/QUOTE]

It's not by magic, it's by the Power of God. Why does this "pastor" think God can't make bread into His Flesh?

[QUOTE]Such a superstitious monstrosity is not even hinted at in John 6. [/QUOTE]

I have to ask... did he even read John 6?! "My flesh is true food" - I guess the pastor is right, because that is not a hint but a point blank statement.

[QUOTE]The key to partaking is BELIEF in the words of Jesus. [/QUOTE]

To believe that the Flesh is True Food, that the Blood is True Drink.

[QUOTE]Note, the children of Israel died in the wilderness “because of their unbelief.” It’s not that they failed to eat the bread. They ate—and still died. They failed to believe the promise and command of God to enter into the promised land. The command to enter the promised land was offensive and unbelievable to them. They would not act upon it because they did not BELIEVE. Now connect that thought to what Jesus says beginning at verse 62. Jesus said, in effect, “What if you saw Me ascend to heaven before your very eyes? (“Would you believe then?”) In verse 63 the Spirit “quickeneth” (gives life). The flesh—tangible realities (such as physical bread, manna) profits nothing for eternal life. Now, here it is…DON’T MISS THE SUMMATION OF THE PASSAGE: The words that I speak unto you (What words? The offensive, unbelievable words) they are spirit, and they are life (Not some human made bread, but the WORDS). Then Jesus clarifies the whole thing: BUT THERE ARE SOME OF YOU THAT BELIEVE NOT (64). Why did some disciples go away? Because of a refusal to believe Jesus’ words even if they did not comprehend them—a refusal to believe Jesus’ words because they appeared “difficult.” The command to enter the promised land appeared “difficult” too, and a generation failed to enter because of their unbelief. Verse 64 also states that the disciples who went back were not true believers—“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not…” Their entire problem was an unwillingness to believe Jesus’ words even if they did not understand them. Jesus was demanding belief beyond their comprehension. [/QUOTE]


When people didn't understand them, Christ explained them. It is obvious that this pastor does not believe Christ's words. Therefore he must not be a true believer because this pastor is counted with those of John 6:66.


[QUOTE]Now, as to the difficulty of Jesus’ statement about consuming His flesh and blood. It is, indeed, a “difficult” statement. However, I am called upon to believe it! As it turns out, my partaking of Jesus flesh and blood comes by belief. Those who turned away because of the difficult words REFUSED TO BELIEVE. Nowhere does it state that anyone refused to eat human produced bread and therefore is condemned. [/QUOTE]

This is more proof that he does not know the bible very well.

[b]1 Corin. 11:23 [/b]
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
[b]24 [/b]and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[b]25 [/b]In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[b]26 [/b]For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
[b]27 [/b]Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
[b]28 [/b]A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
[b]29 [/b]For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.



[QUOTE]In fact, if Jesus’ reference were to the Lord’s Table or the Mass, it would NOT have been offensive. Consumption of bread and wine is not a difficult matter. Consumption of human flesh—now that’s another story! Jesus purposely chose to use words that would “offend,” revealing the hearts of unbelief. His 12 disciples (actually 11 when one excludes Judas) believed in spite of their limited understanding, and Jesus commends their belief. What is the essence of their belief? Look at verse 69. [/QUOTE]

This pastor's personal interpretation is a serious stretch. If he was correct, then he could produce writings from before 400 AD to back up his story.


[QUOTE]The trouble the Catholics and Lutherans have with this passage is that they MUST state (to suite their respective theologies) that human produced bread magically becomes Christ (Catholics) or that humanly produced bread possesses the dynamic presence of Christ (whatever that means.) John 6 nowhere states any such thing. Jesus’ flesh and blood are meat and drink indeed, NOT HUMANLY PRODUCED BREAD AND GRAPE JUICE. Catholics, honest about this problem, came up with transubstantiation, whereby humanly produced bread becomes Jesus. However, such a concept is NOT a part of John 6. [/QUOTE]


Again, a blatant display of ignorance. Transubstantiation was a name given to something when the Holy Spirit enters the bread to turn it into the Flesh of Christ. If the Holy Spirit can guide people in reading the Bible - a book written by humans - then why can't the Holy Spirit enter the bread? The bible says otherwise. In John 14 the bible states that the Church would be guided in all truth, and that the Church would be taught by the Holy Spirit... The bible says the Church would never be overcome... therefore we must start reading what the Christians wrote after 33 AD and before 1000 AD to know which Church is true and is the one faith established by Christ.

[QUOTE]Now, here’s another question. Let’s say the Catholics are right. Let’s say that the Lord’s Table is that which is referenced in John 6. Well then, I guess I’m safe since I partake of the Lord’s Table once a month. Right?...WRONG, says the Catholic Church. Not only must you eat bread and drink wine, but you must eat our Catholic bread and drink our Catholic wine. Only our priests can turn it into the real thing! Apart from our system, you’re doomed! Now let me ask, where is that in the Bible? Of course, it’s not. The New Testament knows of no priesthood endowed with magical powers to turn bread into Jesus. John 6 does not even hint at such an event. [/QUOTE]

Again, the guy does not know the bible very well....

[b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
[b]19 [/b]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

[b]John 1:42 [/b]
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

Kephas is Rock in Aramaic... the language spoken by the Apostles.


[b]St. Matt 28:18 [/b]
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[b]19 [/b]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
[b]20 [/b]teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
[b]
Luke 10:16[/b] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"



[QUOTE]In summary, Jesus is the Bread of Life. His literal flesh and blood was provided by God (similar to wilderness manna). One must eat and drink this provision by faith (47). If one does not BELIEVE the words of Christ, he is condemned for his unbelief. [/QUOTE]

But this guy does not believe the words of Christ and is counted with John 6:66


[QUOTE]I hope this helps with the John 6 passage. I Corinthians 11 is no trouble is one does not force John 6 upon its interpretation. Remember, Jesus was using a motif suggested by the Jews—the sign of Manna. He was NOT teaching concerning the New Testament church ordinance of the Lord’s table.

I would like to talk more about the Corinthians passage. But first, what to you think of this?[/QUOTE]

This guy needs to spend more time studying the Scriptures and Christian History, starting in 33 AD and stop telling others what to think. He first needs to learn it before he can teach it. If this guy was right, where is this teaching in the first Christian writings?! All the Early Church Fathers were Catholic. All the Churches mentioned in the New Testament where Catholic. Some are still around, some have been destroyed. Study their history... Such as Ephesus... Corinth... Antioch.... etc....


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 27, 2005 by ironmonk

[MilesChristi]

[quote]There certainly are other sayings of Jesus that are “hard sayings.” [/quote]

As Fides pointed out, there was no other time when a teaching of Jesus caused many of His followers to leave him. The Bread of Life discourse stands apart from any other "hard saying" in that respect.

[quote]In telling the Samaritan woman about the “living water,” Jesus did not point out the symbolism, although it was clearly intended as such. (I don’t know any denomination that transubstantiates water!) [/quote]

The two situations are not analogous. Jesus said, "I [b]am[/b] the Bread of Life." He did not say that He [b]is[/b] the living water. Rather, He said that He would give the "living water."

10: Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11: The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12: Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13: Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (Jn. 4:10-14) KJV

[quote]I think there are similarities in John 6. Such is especially obvious when one compares the tenor of the entire New Testament to the Bread of Life discourse of John 6. For example, the book of Romans is—without question—the primary New Testament treatise on Justification—salvation, if you will. There is not one reference to the Lord’s Table or the Mass as being connected with justification in the entire book of Romans. In like manner, the Apostolic sermons in the book of Acts do not reference the Lord’s Table as a means of grace to salvation. In Acts 16 Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” If the saving gospel involves the Lord’s Table, Baptism, or other sacraments, then the Apostle Paul led the jailer astray and sold the Gospel short. To isolate John 6 from the rest of the New Testament and to impose the Romanist Mass upon it does violence to the Scripture. [/quote]

Ironmonk gives you extensive verses throughout the New and Old Testaments in support of the Holy Eucharist. Our "Romanist Mass" is not based solely on John 6. There is myriad evidence throughout the whole of Sacred Scripture.

[quote]Jesus then presented Himself as the Bread of Life, emphasizing the importance of belief for obtaining everlasting life. Note verse 47: “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” It is immediately followed up with the statement, “I am the bread of life.” How do we partake of the “bread of life?” By believing on Jesus. [/quote]

Indeed, belief is necessary. Jesus says that His flesh is true food, and His blood is true drink. As His followers, we believe what He tells us about Himself, miraculous and mysterious as it may be. Fundamentalists claim to take the Bible literally, but they certainly try their best to not take Jesus literally throughout John 6.

[quote]Jesus explains His use of the term “bread” by stating that the “bread” is His flesh which He would give for the life of the world (51). HE DID NOT STATE THAT BREAD WOULD BECOME HIS FLESH. [/quote]

He didn't state that bread would become His flesh in this [i]particular[/i] passage; however, if you look to the Last Supper discourses, He does. Taking bread, He gives it to His disciples and says, "Take, eat: this is My body" (Mt. 26:26, Mk. 14:22, Lk.22:19). Since Jesus says that what He holds in His hands is His Body, albeit under the appearance of bread, I believe Him.

[quote]Continuing with the bread motif (brought up first by the Jews, not Jesus), Jesus emphasized the importance of consuming His flesh and His blood. This statement, taken literally, was offensive and unbelievable (52, 60-61). Jesus, however, continued to push the offensive statement by emphasizing that it was absolutely essential that one dwell in Christ and Christ dwell in him through the consumption of Jesus’ flesh and blood (56).[/quote]

There is no question that Jesus was speaking literally. If we have recourse to the original Greek, we see that the verb Jesus uses first for "eating" implies physical chewing. When Jesus commands the crowd a second time (Jn. 6:53-56), He uses an even stronger verb for eating to drive home the reality of what He was saying. This verb means to literally gnaw, tear, and munch on His flesh.

[quote]These words, pressed by Christ, not only cost Him some of His followers (66), but seemed to endanger even the 12 core disciples (67). [/quote]

Again, as Fides said, would Jesus let all these followers leave Him over a misunderstanding? Would He lose so many over a mere matter of symbolism? This doesn't make sense, especially in light of what He said just earlier in the passage:

38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39: And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn. 6:38-40) KJV

No, the crowds understood His meaning. They simply refused to believe it.

[quote]Then Jesus clarifies the whole thing: BUT THERE ARE SOME OF YOU THAT BELIEVE NOT (64). Why did some disciples go away? Because of a refusal to believe Jesus’ words even if they did not comprehend them—a refusal to believe Jesus’ words because they appeared “difficult.”[/quote]

[quote] Now, as to the difficulty of Jesus’ statement about consuming His flesh and blood. It is, indeed, a “difficult” statement. However, I am called upon to believe it![/quote]

LOL!! Your pastor is right - he is called to believe Jesus' statement. Unfortunately, it appears he does not.

[quote]In fact, if Jesus’ reference were to the Lord’s Table or the Mass, it would NOT have been offensive. Consumption of bread and wine is not a difficult matter. Consumption of human flesh—now that’s another story![/quote]

[quote]Well then, I guess I’m safe since I partake of the Lord’s Table once a month. Right?...WRONG, says the Catholic Church. Not only must you eat bread and drink wine, but you must eat our Catholic bread and drink our Catholic wine. [/quote]

He misunderstands our "Romanist Mass." We do not consume bread and wine. We consume the real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, in accordance with His command at the Last Supper to offer this memorial sacrifice of the New Covenant in His Blood. People through history have considered the Holy Mass offensive. Catholics, especially the early Church prior to the emperor Constantine, were repeated accused of cannibalism and were persecuted.

All Christians around the world believed in the Real Presence for roughly 1500 years after Christ's Ascension. The Catholic Church, which Christ founded, continues to believe this.

I'll keep you in my prayers, friend. May God be with you in your journey...

[HomeTeamFamily]

here is an amateurs stab at making some sense of that

the whole paragraph that starts with "continuing with the bread motif" he states [quote]Was Jesus pushing the literal consumption of His flesh and blood?  NO.  If one takes this literally, it would be essential that believers consume the real flesh and blood of Christ.  That is how the hearers took it—a literal cannibalism of Christ’s flesh and blood.[/quote]

the first thing that i noticed about this is that he completely contradicts what he said a couple paragraphs before about reading the new testament as a whole and not isolating certain parts of it. this statement, in light of the whole new testament, last supper passages in particular, makes perfect sense because Jesus says that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, thus negating any cannibalistic ideas

[phatcatholic]

this should probably be in the apo board

[Fides_et_Ratio]

phat, I agree, this should probably be in apologetics... can't you move it there?

Anyway, I'm up early with a sore throat and not enough reading light, so I wanted to respond a bit more to the e-mail. Though, while I like e-mail (a lot!) and all, it doesn't usually seem to be the best form of dialogue... I e-mailed back and forth with one of my friend's youth pastor for a while before I reconciled and there were 2 things I noticed... the first, was that while he was a really nice guy in person.. he seemed to lose a lot of his kindness in e-mails, especially when we disagreed. the second, was that it was a lot easier for him to ignore my major points and pick on the weaker aspects of my argument. It was a useful endeavor in the beginning, but we never reached an end... he just stopped replying to my e-mails (even when I e-mailed to ask if he got my last response) and blew off my friend when she asked about it... thus, it's also a lot easier to back out of the conversation.

overall, I have to say that the biggest difference comes in interpretation of Scripture. It's really at the heart of every disagreement. The question I think a person really has to answer is: how do I interpret Scripture? For me, I don't think I could dare to say that my scholarship is above that of the early Christians... and I don't think that even if I dismissed the authority of the Magisterium that I could ignore the interpretations and practices of the early Christians. After all, they were closer to those who knew and walked with Christ... many of them were witness to the practices of the Church in its beginning... I also find it VERY helpful to look at a verse/word in its original language. sometimes english translations leave a lot to be desired--especially grammatically (ex. John 6:50 "This is the bread..." the word "this" is actually like a pronoun, in this verse Christ is pointing at Himself... His body and declaring "THIS is the bread"... so now the Gospels record the Eucharist both ways... in the Last Supper accounts Christ holds bread and says "THIS is my body", and in John's Gospel, during the Bread of Life discourse Jesus points to His body and says, "THIS is the bread")

[quote]For example, the book of Romans is—without question—the primary New Testament treatise on Justification—salvation, if you will.  There is not one reference to the Lord’s Table or the Mass as being connected with justification in the entire book of Romans.[/quote]
Here he is doing what he claimed you were doing to John 6... isolating it from the rest of Scripture. Scripture forms a unified whole. The Bible is one because God, its author, is one. Are we to read Romans apart from the Gospels, or Paul's other letters? No... to do so would be a grave injustice to the Scriptures. Paul was writing to the Romans, writing what the church in Rome was most in need of spiritually. Imagine how long the Bible would be if in every book, EVERYTHING had to be expounded upon so that nothing would be left out... then we'd only need one book in the New Testament.. because everything would be identical in content.

[quote]In like manner, the Apostolic sermons in the book of Acts do not reference the Lord’s Table as a means of grace to salvation.  In Acts 16 Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”  If the saving gospel involves the Lord’s Table, Baptism, or other sacraments, then the Apostle Paul led the jailer astray and sold the Gospel short. [/quote]
I disagree.. did he overlook Acts 16:33? It was only 2 verses away from Paul's statement he quoted.... the jailer was BAPTIZED by Paul. He's not being fair or honest in discussion if he's misleading you in what Scripture says (by omitting what lies only a few verses away). Futhermore, Acts 16:32 "[Paul and Silas] spoke the Word of the Lord to [the jailer]"--what is to speak the "Word of the Lord" if not pass on the teachings of Christ? Can we claim that Paul didn't teach the jailer about the Sacraments? I don't think we can.. especially since in the very next verse Paul baptizes the jailer (and "all his" family).

[quote]The consumption of physical bread—even bread provided by God—did not sustain eternal life.  [/quote]
Again, this is a gross misunderstanding of the Eucharist. We do not consume bread and wine when we partake of Holy Communion... we consume the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of our Lord, Jesus Christ... perhaps the second greatest mystery of our faith: that Christ would humble Himself to take the form of ordinary bread and wine that we might be in communion with Him in order to have eternal life.
John 6:54 "Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

[quote]Continuing with the bread motif (brought up first by the Jews, not Jesus), [u]Jesus emphasized the importance of consuming His flesh and His blood[/u].  This statement, taken literally, was offensive and unbelievable (52, 60-61).  [u]Jesus, however, continued to push the offensive statement [/u]by emphasizing that it was absolutely essential that one dwell in Christ and Christ dwell in him through the consumption of Jesus’ flesh and blood (56). [u]These words, pressed by Christ[/u], not only cost Him some of His followers (66), but seemed to endanger even the 12 core disciples (67).[/quote]
Random question: why would Jesus emphasize and push a statement that wasn't true? Are we then left with Christ lying, or Christ purposely pushing away disciples? This string of sentences greatly confuses me... I would use much of the same wording to demonstrate Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[quote]Let’s say the Catholics are right.  Let’s say that the Lord’s Table is that which is referenced in John 6.  Well then, I guess I’m safe since I partake of the Lord’s Table once a month.  Right?...WRONG, says the Catholic Church.  Not only must you eat bread and drink wine, but you must eat our Catholic bread and drink our Catholic wine.  Only our priests can turn it into the real thing!  Apart from our system, you’re doomed!  Now let me ask, where is that in the Bible? [/quote]
... There is only one Church, not many. The bread and wine (/sacrifices) offered by pagans is not, nor could it ever possibly be, efficacious. Why? Because pagans are not the Body of Christ. It gets sticky here, because Catholics believe Protestants to be a part of the Body of Christ.. but it differs essentially because [i]Protestantism has no priesthood [/i]but that of the common priesthood (of all believers). In the Old Testament, Israel was called to be a "kingdom of priests, a holy nation"--alikened to a "common priesthood", but there were also those who were [i]set apart from the common priesthood to offer sacrifice [/i](Aaron, the Levites...) this is the role of the ordained ('presbyters') priests in the Catholic Church--to offer sacrifice-- but not just any sacrifice-- they offer THE Sacrifice of Christ crucified through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit and not of any human power. Apart from grace... apart from Christ, apostolic succession, consecration, and the entire priesthood is worthless and ineffective. It all depends upon Christ because He is its Source and Strength.

An excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI’s [u]Called to Communion[/u]:

[i]"This 'nothing' that the disciples share with Jesus expresses at once the power and the impotence of the apostolic office. On their own, by the force of their own understanding, knowledge and will, they cannot do anything they are meant to do as apostles. How could they possibly say 'I forgive you your sins'? How could they conceivably say 'this is my body' or impose their hands and pronounce the words 'receive the Holy Spirit'? Nothing that makes up the activity of the apostles is the product of their own capabilities. But it is precisely in having 'nothing' to call their own that their communion with Jesus consists, since Jesus is also entirely from the Father, has being only through him and in him and would not exist at all if he were not a continual coming forth from and self-return to the Father. Having 'nothing' of their own draws the apostles into communion of mission with Christ. This service, in which we are made the entire property of another, this giving of what does not come from us, is called sacrament in the language of the Church.

This is precisely what we mean when we call the ordination of priests a sacrament: ordination is not about the development of one’s own powers and gifts. It is not the appointment of a man as a functionary because he is especially good at it, or because it suits him, or simply because it strikes him as a good way to earn his bread; it is not a question of a job in which someone secures his own livelihood by his own abilities, perhaps in order to rise later to something better.

Sacrament means: I give what I myself cannot give; I do something that is not my work; I am on a mission and have become the bearer of that which another has committed to my charge. Consequently, it is also impossible for anyone to declare himself a priest or for a community to make someone a priest by its own fiat. One can receive what is God’s only from the sacrament, by entering into the mission that makes me the messenger and instrument of another. Of course, this very self-expropriation for the other, this leave-taking from oneself, this self-dispossession and selflessness that are essential to the priestly ministry can lead to authentic human maturity and fulfillment. For in this movement away from self we are conformed to the mystery of the Trinity; hence, the imago Dei is consummated, and the fundamental pattern according to which we were created in brought to new life. Because we have been created in the image of the Trinity, the deepest truth about each man is that only he who loses himself can find himself.”[/i]



Lastly, in regards to the overtone of "belief".. that still holds VERY true for Catholics. One must BELIEVE (through grace) that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We see through eyes of faith (/grace).

(sorry this was sooo long... I hope God saves your poor eyesight!)

[thessalonian]

I think this passage is key.

[quote]In Acts 16 Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”  If the saving gospel involves the Lord’s Table, Baptism, or other sacraments, then the Apostle Paul led the jailer astray and sold the Gospel short.  To isolate John 6 from the rest of the New Testament and to impose the Romanist Mass upon it does violence to the Scripture[/quote]

He takes protestant theology and forces it upon Catholc theology. Superimposing a Once Saved Always Saved doctrine on the Catholic theology of the sacraments. This is of course quite silly. He also does not deal with what to "believe" means. Believe is handwaving for him. Are we to just believe in a name or do we have to believe in what Christ taught. Is it a "Jesus saved me already" or Jesus has saved me, is saving me, and will save me? He makes it a one time act and therefore the sacraments make not sense to him. This I think needs to be somewhat of the root of your discussion. He will never grasp the sacraments until he gets rid of OSAS.

Blessings

[Jake Huether]

Wow. Already so many great responses.

Well... Welcome to this Phorum and welcome also to the Catholic Church!

I may be repeating a lot of what's been said, but I suppose it won't hurt.

I've been discussing this same topic with a few people on another board.

Here's what I have written:


John 6

[quote]61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." [/quote]


The words Jesus speaks here refer not to His own flesh, but to ours. The deciples can't get their minds off food for the body.

In the previous chapter of John, Jesus feeds the multitude. They then follow him so that they have easy access to food. Jesus is saying that His REAL food, His Body and Blood, won't feed them physically. His Body and Blood give us Spiritual Life. He's trying to snap them out of it and get their minds off their bellies! Stop thinking of food that feeds your physical hunger, he's telling them. Think of the food that is required to feed you spiritually!

Jesus just finishes saying,


[quote]55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.[/quote]


He's not turning around and now saying it isn't. His Flesh is real food and His Blood is real drink. But it won't provide us physical nourishment. It is to provide us food for our spirit!

Transubstantiation is when the substance of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. So that while the bread and wine retain their accidents (the physical characteristics that we sense - color, taste, texture, etc.), the substance of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

It's like this: From the very begining God called grass, grass. And He gave it a color, taste, texture, so that we might know it is what it is. But these accidents don't make the substance of grass, grass. It is God's calling it into existence that makes it what it is.

Take for example the wine at the wedding of Canna. Jesus changes the water into wine. What happens? There is water. Jesus makes it wine. He changes it substancially as well as physically. Now, Jesus might have just changed the accidents so that to the bridegroom and the guests it appeared to be wine, while remaining water in substance. But we know that it is wine, because Jesus said it is.

If Jesus told us that the water was wine, but when the guests tasted it it still tasted like dirty water, would you believe it was water simply because the guests tasted water? Or would you believe Christ because He said it was wine?


Now, one needs to understand the substance of God and the reality of Jesus before they can grasp the idea of Transubstantiation.

I see you use the example of Jesus saying that He is the door, or He is the vine. But it is different from Him saying that the bread is His Body.

Do you see the difference?

There is a difference in saying I am the vine, and the vine is me. If Jesus says that this vine is Me, and He is pointing to a specific vine, or saying that all vines are Him, He changes the substance of vine into Himself. We must believe then that when we see the accidents of what used to be "vine", we are really looking at Jesus, who is God.

However Jesus says I am THE vine - doesn't name a specific vine or vines in general. We know by the fact that He uses "the", that it is a metephor - not to mention common sense. Nevertheless if He does use "a" or "that" or "all vines"... Jesus then changes HIS substance into that of a vine. But if God becomes "vine" then the substance of God deosn't exist and the world closes and we all cease to exist. God cannot, by His nature, change His substance into that of something else.

Now God can hypostatically unite to substance, like the Son of God becoming man. So that in the Person of Christ Jesus there is human substance permanantly and unseparably united to Divine Substance. But when God became man in the Person of Jesus, He didn't stop being God.

I suppose if Jesus said, "Vines are Me", then we'd have to assume then that Jesus has also taken on a third Nature, that of vine. And that God has now hypostatically united to plant nature. But this doesn't make sense.

See the difference?

Jesus says "This is My Body... This is My Blood". So that the substance of the bread and wine change to His substance. It has nothing to do with Jesus becoming something other than God/Man. So that Jesus doesn't say, I am "this" bread. Jesus says "I am the bread of Life" in John 6, and the Apostles and deciples couldn't understand because He told them they would have to eat Him. Jesus is THE bread of Life. There is no other bread of Life. Therefor, Jesus doesn't become bread. Because bread isn't THE bread of Life. Jesus is. They also were thinking, "how could He become bread". But in this line Jesus is making himself a metaphor to the mana for Israel. This metaphor is later modified for the reality that would happen when Jesus says, "for My flesh is REAL food...". In retrospect, after reading the Gospel, we understand how Jesus will be providing His Flesh as food. It wasn't He who would become bread, but the bread would become Him. Later it becomes clear, when He changes bread into Himself. He never declares Hiself a piece of bread, therefore chaning His own substance, or adding to His Person the substance of bread. He changes the substance of bread into His own substance.

If Jesus had declared Himself bread, then when we ate His Body and drank His Blood we'd really only be eating and drinking bread and wine - because He would have changed His substance into bread and wine.

On the contrary when we eat what appears to be bread and wine, we are really eating the Body and Blood of Jesus.

[john6:63]

A big Bravo Zulu to all that has or will respond. You've all been a great help!

Phatcatholic: if you'd like to move this thread to a more appropriate folder, be my guest. I may have other responses to post as time goes on.

God bless,

[ofpheritup]

WELCOME TO THE CHURCH

Okay big subject...tiny mind. MINE.

I get a lot of this in Georgia. My answer is Jesus said I AM the bread of life. His Father also said...I AM. Why question the reasons He said what He said take it on faith. Ooh neat concept...faith.

I don't get the arguement. JESUS SAID, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood. How can that possibly be open to interpretation?

To me this is arrogance. It is as if Jesus was confused when he said it and needs us to explain what he really meant. OH COME ON GIVE ME A BREAK. I love this, the creature telling the Creator, what the truth is.


verse 66-67 "After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve , "Will you also go away?"


I am looking at two things. The first is the word MANY, to my mind many means alot. So alot of people walked away. Nowhere in Scripture does it show Jesus running after them saying, "Wait guys I can explain. Hang on fellas I was kidding. Can't ya'll take a joke? Let's talk about it."
Jesus didn't run after them. He said what he said that was it.

The other one is his response to the apostles. I think his attitude was asking are you going too? Not I'm juming thru hoops, I'm open to explaining. I just want to know if you're hanging around. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. He wasn't asking permission to say what he said.

The situation was YOU IS OR YOU AIN'T . They either accepted what was said or not.

In my Bible I have a picture of a Monstrance and underneath I have written TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE.


Faith either is or it isn't. I am not going to ask God to explain Himself to me. Dumb is one thing stupid is something else. Anyway that's my take on it.

Hello I just had a thought. buy a book on Eucharistic Miracles and give it to him. I think there is one out there called "Eucharistic Miracles" catchy title huh?

Edited July 28, 2005 by ofpheritup