Eat His Flesh, Drink His Blood. Have Life Within You!

[thessalonian]

I asked the question on a board last week, what are the requirements for salvation. Part of the discussion I provided regarded John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood” you shall not have life within you. Now normally they will respond, well that’s a metaphore for the Word of God and of course they see WOG as equal to scripture. Hmmmmmmm. Well we respond, ah, but the Greek indicates gnaw or chew. This is certainly about the Eucharist! It is about partaking in the holy elements of the Lord’s Supper. True enough, but have we let them off the hook in responding in this manner. Not to mention been involved in a bit of a theological error?

The Mass is composed of the Liturgy of the Word and The Liturgy of the Eucharist. John 6 literally (though somewhat figuratively, for we are not taking a bite out of Christ’s arm as some accuse, the nature of the elements is sacramental, not physical) means the Lord’s Supper. But it is also a proper metaphore to call the Word of God, bread and it is not an improper metaphore to see this understanding of John 6. Correct me if I am wrong. We can see scripture in multiple ways.

Now comes my point in apologetics. In going the usual route, using John 6 as a proof text for Transubstantiation, I think we have left them off the hook on this one. You see, if we acknowledge their metaphore they have a more significant problem. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood or we do not have life within us! That flesh and blood by their view (not completely inerrant but incomplete) is scripture. From our point of view the Word of God is oral tradition and scripture seen through the eyes of the Church. Now with regard to the question, “what is necessary for salvation?”, how do they get around, by their interpretation of what eating his flesh and drinking his blood means, how do they get around Bible reading being unnecessary for salvation? I am about to pick a fight on this matter on another board so I wanted to run it by my friends here at phatmass and get some possible responses and thoughts concerning the matter before I engage our Protestant brothers and sisters. It should be interesting. Does my question make sense?

Blessings

[-I---Love]

Im not grasping the last paragraph, but maybe it's just me...however maybe you could word it differently?

[thessalonian]

A bit more of the nature of my question. If to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood means to receive the word of God (and I think that is not an improper metaphore, one that in an ecumenical dialogue we should not be afraid to acknowledge) then what does it mean that if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, i.e. read or hear scripture then why isn’t scripture reading or attendance at Church a requirement for salvation on most lists of the main things and the plain things as Hank Hanagrpah calls them. The things that they would go to the mat for. Further if faith alone is what saves how do they tie this eating of the flesh and blood in to faith alone. How much scripture would one have to eat and drink before he would have faith alone that would save him? Why does one not have to continue eathing his flesh and drinking his blood, i.e. continuing to read scripture or listen to readings of it to continue having life within you? Am I making sense here? I see a conundrum of sorts. What am I missing?

Maybe this will help you IL. I typed it up before I read your post.

[-I---Love]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1174104' date='Jan 23 2007, 04:57 PM']
A bit more of the nature of my question. If to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood means to receive the word of God (and I think that is not an improper metaphore, one that in an ecumenical dialogue we should not be afraid to acknowledge)

[color="#000099"][color="#000099"] Well, first of course Protestants, etc. could disagree w/ this interpretation by saying something else (I dunno what). But, providing that they agree w/ this foundation it seems alright at first glance...I would have to read more about this...but it does seem correct as Jesus Body that we receive is His Body, Blood, Soul, and DIVINTY. I would include the Word of God as part of His Divinity. So yes, we have to receive his Divinity (as one part in our view) to be saved. [color="#000099"][/color]

[color="#000000"]then what does it mean that if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, i.e. read or hear scripture[/color]

[color="#000099"][/color] it means that one is not Christian if one does not read or hear the Word of God that exists beyond the limits of time. [/color][/color]

[color="#000000"]then why isn’t scripture reading or attendance at Church a requirement for salvation on most lists of the main things and the plain things as Hank Hanagrpah calls them. The things that they would go to the mat for. [/color]

[color="#000099"][color="#000099"] if you are asking why reading SS or attending Church services is not a requirement for denominations, I would first say that this is difficult to debate because each denomination or individual pastor at a congregation may claim something different. Doesn't every mainstream Christian church encourage reading SS and attending service? If so I'm not familiar w/ how such churches go about writing down "their own catechisms." I would imagine that having faith in Jesus Christ is automatically and intrinsically bound w/ reading SS and Church attendance. If it is not seen as inseparable, then you seem to be correct in challenging how they are getting around John 6:53. [color="#000099"][/color]

[color="#000000"]Further if faith alone is what saves how do they tie this eating of the flesh and blood in to faith alone.[/color]

[/color] I would say that reading SS and attending Church would then have to be considered part of faith - this obviously isn't so for some denominations as attendance would be considered "works" so that is faulty. [/color]

How much scripture would one have to eat and drink before he would have faith alone that would save him?

[color="#000099"] I wouldn't bother asking about quantity, which demonstrates the strangeness of this interpretation to begin w/, but instead easily presume that one has to eat and drink SS as a regular part of daily Christian life. [color="#000099"]

[color="#000000"]Why does one not have to continue eathing his flesh and drinking his blood, i.e. continuing to read scripture or listen to readings of it to continue having life within you? [/color]

[color="#000099"][/color] One has to. I can imagine arguments posed against you here but it doesn't seem they will work. [/color][/color]

[color="#000000"]Am I making sense here? I see a conundrum of sorts. What am I missing?[/color]

[color="#000099"][color="#000099"] This is somewhat confusing, because you are temporarily putting aside our normal argument about John 6 to attempt to play on their field w/ the same foundational agreement. It could work or maybe not...[color="#000099"][/color]

[color="#000000"]Maybe this will help you IL. I typed it up before I read your post.
[/quote][/color]

[/color] I dunno how well I responded to what you were thinking?

Im interested to see how this argument w/ go w/ the other ppl you mentioned...keep us posted. [/color]

[scardella]

I actually got into a discussion w/ a Protestant friend of mine the other day about this. I read John 6 about 3-4 times afterward (one of those, I read from John 1:1-John 6)... Here's the fruit of my reading and thinking and praying:

Start w/ John 1. "In the beginning was the Word..." It's an explicit reference back to Genesis 1. We can note that God's Word in Genesis 1 is the creative act; ie things exist because God's Word calls it into existence. (ie in creation of elephants, rather than "elephant" coming out of God's Word, God's Word is elephant-ness itself, not some analog... I'm not quite sure how to really express it without sounding absurd.)

Anyway, I have to run, I've got more thoughts on the issue, but that is the first part of my thought.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1174082' date='Jan 23 2007, 04:18 PM']
I asked the question on a board last week, what are the requirements for salvation. Part of the discussion I provided regarded John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood” you shall not have life within you. Now normally they will respond, well that’s a metaphore for the Word of God and of course they see WOG as equal to scripture. Hmmmmmmm. Well we respond, ah, but the Greek indicates gnaw or chew. This is certainly about the Eucharist! It is about partaking in the holy elements of the Lord’s Supper. True enough, but have we let them off the hook in responding in this manner. Not to mention been involved in a bit of a theological error?

...

That flesh and blood by their view (not completely inerrant but incomplete) is scripture. From our point of view the Word of God is oral tradition and scripture seen through the eyes of the Church. Now with regard to the question, “what is necessary for salvation?”, how do they get around, by their interpretation of what eating his flesh and drinking his blood means, how do they get around Bible reading being unnecessary for salvation? I am about to pick a fight on this matter on another board so I wanted to run it by my friends here at phatmass and get some possible responses and thoughts concerning the matter before I engage our Protestant brothers and sisters. It should be interesting. Does my question make sense?

Blessings
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by "letting them off the hook." We can't tell them, "No, you're not allowed to interpret Scripture that way" because they aren't Catholic. We can only show them why the Church interprets it the way she does and how that gives us hope and shows the love of God.

Secondly, it's important to note that Jesus mentioned a lot of different things being necessary to gain eternal life, yet none of them is absolutely necessary. The act of Baptism isn't even necessary because there is also Baptism of Blood and Baptism by Desire.

As our Catechism says, the basis for all salvation is faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior. Without this foundation, Scripture and sacraments are worthless to us.

[scardella]

In John 6 proper, I think the most telling statement is 6:55-56:
[quote]
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. - NIV

For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.- NKJV

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. - NAB

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. - Douay-Rheims[/quote]

Edited January 24, 2007 by scardella

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1174816' date='Jan 24 2007, 01:15 PM']
I'm not sure what you mean by "letting them off the hook." We can't tell them, "No, you're not allowed to interpret Scripture that way" because they aren't Catholic. We can only show them why the Church interprets it the way she does and how that gives us hope and shows the love of God.

Secondly, it's important to note that Jesus mentioned a lot of different things being necessary to gain eternal life, yet none of them is absolutely necessary. The act of Baptism isn't even necessary because there is also Baptism of Blood and Baptism by Desire. [/quote]

Quite apparently you don't understand. I agree with their interpretation on one level and so I don't want to discourage them from believing that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is not urelated to believing or consuming the Word of God, which includes the scriptures.

[quote]As our Catechism says, the basis for all salvation is faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior. Without this foundation, Scripture and sacraments are worthless to us.
[/quote]

Where have I disagreed with that.

[scardella]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1174104' date='Jan 23 2007, 03:57 PM']
asked the question on a board last week, what are the requirements for salvation. Part of the discussion I provided regarded John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood” you shall not have life within you. Now normally they will respond, well that’s a metaphore for the Word of God and of course they see WOG as equal to scripture.[/quote]

Well, I'm confounded, because they say it's a metaphor, but with each time Jesus says it, it's more explicity to chew/eat, etc. It doesn't make sense within the context, period. Furthermore, if Jesus is the Word, and we are to believe in Him, then we're gonna believe what he says, and what does he say? Eat my flesh and drink my blood. Over and over. Why did the disciples leave? Because he was a kook, crazy for wanting them to eat him! He didn't back off when they "misunderstood" him, etc.

[quote]Hmmmmmmm. Well we respond, ah, but the Greek indicates gnaw or chew. This is certainly about the Eucharist! It is about partaking in the holy elements of the Lord’s Supper. True enough, but have we let them off the hook in responding in this manner. Not to mention been involved in a bit of a theological error?[/quote]

BTW, the beginning of John 6 says it's during Passover...

[quote]Now comes my point in apologetics. In going the usual route, using John 6 as a proof text for Transubstantiation, I think we have left them off the hook on this one. You see, if we acknowledge their metaphore they have a more significant problem. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood or we do not have life within us! That flesh and blood by their view (not completely inerrant but incomplete) is scripture. From our point of view the Word of God is oral tradition and scripture seen through the eyes of the Church. Now with regard to the question, “what is necessary for salvation?”, how do they get around, by their interpretation of what eating his flesh and drinking his blood means, how do they get around Bible reading being unnecessary for salvation? I am about to pick a fight on this matter on another board so I wanted to run it by my friends here at phatmass and get some possible responses and thoughts concerning the matter before I engage our Protestant brothers and sisters. It should be interesting. Does my question make sense?
[/quote]

I'm not sure I get this question...

BTW, I'm probably not the best in terms of apologetics...

[thessalonian]

Scardella,

I agree with all that you say and am definitely not denying the literal meaning of John 6 in the slightest. In Catholic exegesis, if you read the Catechism, the literal meaning comes first and foremost. But there can be a spiritual meaning as well to each passage as well as moral and prophetic meaning. An appropriate metaphore in Catholicism for scripture is bread. There is even a Catholic meditation out called "my daily bread". I do think this metaphore is not inconsistent with Catholic thought and have heard the metaphore of scriptures as bread and consuming them before. My point in all of this is that it seems like they have a contradiction in their requirements for salvation. They preach a bit to someone, get them to repent and declare them saved for evermore. But it seems that the scriptures and reading them or at least hearing them is a part of salvation if we hold their feet to the fire "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man (scripture) and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you.". Once again I am not saying don't go with the other angle. I am just saying I wanna try take this from a different direction once and see where it goes.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1174935' date='Jan 24 2007, 04:18 PM']
Quite apparently you don't understand. I agree with their interpretation on one level and so I don't want to discourage them from believing that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is not urelated to believing or consuming the Word of God, which includes the scriptures. [/quote]

Neither do I, but what exactly are you going to say to convince a Protestant of our interpretation? There's only so much we can do.

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1174935' date='Jan 24 2007, 04:18 PM']
Where have I disagreed with that.
[/quote]

It sounded to me like you were starting to imply that anybody who doesn't receive the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be saved because of what Jesus teaches in John 6, so I was just checkin'.

[N/A Gone]

The key to a genuine experience with God lies in the sequence of statements in this verse. It is vested in the person of Christ, who descended from heaven to provide for humans what their nature requires. To eat of this bread means to appropriate Christ as one's life. It is a figure of speech for believing, for no one will eat what he or she cannot trust as edible. Eating a meal implies that it is wholesome, nourishing, and real. This verse also introduces the concept of Jesus' vicarious death, the sacrifice of his body for the sins of the world.

Thats the response I would have given you, as an evangelical.

Apologetics just get people mad and rarely actualyl changes someone unless they are uneducated. The educated protestant can dance and will dance, but it wont led to anything.

In my experience most trained protestants understand the word to be logos, Christ. Not the bible. Please quit assuming that

st. Augustine said "Man is bound by the sacraments; God is not"

[scardella]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1175112' date='Jan 24 2007, 06:50 PM']
I agree with all that you say and am definitely not denying the literal meaning of John 6 in the slightest. In Catholic exegesis, if you read the Catechism, the literal meaning comes first and foremost. But there can be a spiritual meaning as well to each passage as well as moral and prophetic meaning. An appropriate metaphore in Catholicism for scripture is bread. There is even a Catholic meditation out called "my daily bread". I do think this metaphore is not inconsistent with Catholic thought and have heard the metaphore of scriptures as bread and consuming them before.[/quote]

I'm well aware that Scripture can have multiple layers of true interpretation I think the duality of the interpretation is quite nicely covered in the Mass. I think what I was trying to get at is that it seems like it takes a mental block not to understand that Jesus primarily means his actual body and blood, given an honest reading.

[quote]My point in all of this is that it seems like they have a contradiction in their requirements for salvation. They preach a bit to someone, get them to repent and declare them saved for evermore. But it seems that the scriptures and reading them or at least hearing them is a part of salvation if we hold their feet to the fire "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man (scripture) and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you.". Once again I am not saying don't go with the other angle. I am just saying I wanna try take this from a different direction once and see where it goes.
[/quote]

Offhandedly, lots of stuff show that OSAS is non-Biblical. I mean, declaring someone as saved is judging someone's heart too, is it not? Anyway, the problem with that is that Jesus specifically directed it at himself. He kept saying believe in me, not as much believe in my words. The only real support is towards the end (v. 63) where it says "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." That's what my Protestant friend apparently hinged his argument on.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1175430' date='Jan 25 2007, 12:01 AM']
Apologetics just get people mad and rarely actualyl changes someone unless they are uneducated. The educated protestant can dance and will dance, but it wont led to anything.[/quote]

I agree that it's difficult to change minds through apologetics alone, but share our Catholic faith at least breaks down the misunderstandings on both sides so that, if nothing else, if a Protestant isn't drawn into the fullness of Catholicism, they at least disagree with the real Catholicism and not the rumors that are made up from ignorance.

To me, the real point of apologetics is to manifest God's love. The straight facts are good, but they're boring; but digging underneath the do's and don't's will lead us to experience redemption, reconciliation, and healing... and that's the exciting stuff!

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1175430' date='Jan 25 2007, 12:01 AM']In my experience most trained protestants understand the word to be logos, Christ.
[/quote]

Anybody who's read John 1 should know that

[quote name='scardella' post='1175474' date='Jan 25 2007, 12:34 AM']
The only real support is towards the end (v. 63) where it says "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." That's what my Protestant friend apparently hinged his argument on.
[/quote]

That's the same verse I've heard many times used as the proof-text for the symbolic understand of Communion. But isn't Jesus is saying that his words are spirit and life, not the way his words should be understood? If the flesh is of no avail, what good is the Incarnation?

[thessalonian]

[quote]Neither do I, but what exactly are you going to say to convince a Protestant of our interpretation? There's only so much we can do. [/quote]

Do you have a purpose here. This is a board about discussing apologetics. I am looking for input to a question I have about protestant thought. The Holy Spirit will decide if we have done enough and I hardly think with all the denominations out there and the people who come to our Holy Mother Church that he has said, stop trying to convince them. When he does I'll let you know. You seem rather indifferrentist in the whole protestant/catholic discussion. You might want to read Dominus Iesus.

Rev,

I am aware of the broadbrushing manner in which I speak and that you have to deal with non-catholics one on one.