Featured Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

I dearly love the Mass.....so much so I go daily....

 

I guess you missed the post where I said even as a Baptist I tried not reading a pretext into a passage. The Fact is when reading the writings of the earliest Church members out side of the NT I found that their language wasn't at all Baptist. However, as not to lose the Baptist position what I did was applied my knowledge of ancient thinking and including Jewish thought. I did say I spent time with Messianic Jews and Learned about Judaism which opened up a lot of how to understand Jesus in his Jewish Context. Therefore Knowing the Philosophy of the age and reading Philo a Contemporary of that age Jesus lived in, It became clear to me that Jesus wasn't saying "because the flesh avails nothing I mean it only symbolically". That is a problem with a modern narrative.

We see this problem in your post which is incredibly insightful as to your position. I will show you what you said to explain what I mean.

The bolded part shows that you are not trying to read this from a "non partisan" or an "objective" point of view but apply a pretext. Other words you are reading into the passage you theology as you mentioned on another post, which I will have to answer to when I get the time, you are providing eisegesis. The problem any one faces when reading this passage from a Baptist or Your view is quite obvious if you are being objective.

Which you take to mean

The question is this: Is he really saying that? Well from a logical stand point you immediately have this problem. If by meaning Flesh is no Avail but words are spirit and life to mean that flesh = actually doing something and my words which are spirit and life = symbolism. Then you would have to believe that the allegory isn't just an allegory but is real and provides life. Therefore it becomes immensely important to understand how they viewed what was meant by the Spirit. One of the lead Jewish philosophers of Jesus day was Philo who explained it this way when connecting Logos with the spirit.

Though admittedly Philo's love of Plato lead him to disdain matter but we can tell from his perspective that the word or Logos or the spirit provides the structure on which matter is based therefore being more real more pure. This was the common view of the people of that day so when Jesus is saying spirit he doesn't mean symbol or allegory but truth in fact. So Jesus isn't speaking "symbolically" in that he doesn't want in some way for you to eat him. Looking further at John 6 we see exactly what Jesus means.

where he clearly connects "this bread" with "his crucified" body therefore if we take his words a symbolic then you must conclude that he symbolically and not really died on the cross. So either both are symbolic are both are real. Since I believe that Jesus actually physically died then I believe that he would provide a means in which to eat his body and drink his blood. Which is what he does almost exactly one year later.
As for your accusation

You failed to understand what I was talking about. The discourse is "I am the bread of life" which Jesus uses Manna to explain his principle. That is correct. But that doesn't prohibit him from using other bible verses for supporting imagery. So when Jesus says

Jews would understand that life is given by spirit as can be seen in Genesis 2.
So in short the spirit gives life and is the basis on which all things obtain their being from therefore not an analogy rather truth.

 

No, Messianic Jews are Evangelical that is correct. But that doesn't mean I didn't learn Jewish principles from them which is my point. That we applied Jewish principles differently to John 6 is no indicator of inapplicability of it from another perspective say Catholic. Because as you know there are many Jewish Converts to Catholicism who applied it differently than the Messianic Jews. However, even among that crowd there are differences just like in every denomination.

As far a philosophy of the time of which Philo gives us some incite especially among diaspora Jews. The reason I read him and others even Talmud accounts from Jesus Contemporary Rabbi's is to get an idea how people were thinking at that time how they viewed certain principles. Because one of the principles of Exegesis is to " Determine the Author's Intended Meaning - Historical Context, and Literary Context"

Interesting you missed where it says

where trogo is used which means to chew. in verse 53 and aren't able to make the connection between that verse and verse 64 where Jesus said

He did need to phrase it your way. He made it clear his way.

I notice you still didn't get my answer to your manna statement. You just simply repeated yourself thereby stopped discussing. Why is that?

 

Here is my two cents in regards to the what I was taught as a Baptist that refuted Catholic thinking. 'The flesh is of no avail'. My Baptist pastor said: Jesus here lets us know he was speaking symbolically or “spiritually”. But, Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a huge difference between the two. I doubt anyone would have believed He meant My flesh avails nothing because didn't He just spend a great portion of this same teaching telling us that His flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51, cf. 50-58). Nor did the disciples come running back after He made this declaration. So to what was he referring? The flesh is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace.

 

When I think about it I have to laugh a little bit. Because you are using one to argue against the other. When they both support each other. The fact is both cases Jesus is talking about a substantive reality. Or the reality behind the thing. Which I have been explaining all along. Jesus said you must be born of water (Baptistm) and the Spirit (the essense of Life that comes from God. The fact that the water is part of this substantive transformation is important. In fact when one is born again though his body doesn't change. Yet Jesus says the effect is that one is born again. Or a whole new creature. Baptist don't have this problem of understanding substantive change because its based on the reality of the spirit which is no insubstantial but real. So in fact one is born again just not the way it is understood by physics alone. Thus when Jesus says you must be eating me and says the flesh is to no avail doesn't mean symbolically just as he wasn't meaning symbolically one was born again. One is a new creature just not in a way that is understood by Nicodemus mind. So one must eat Jesus just not in a way that is understood in the mind as it is the Spirit which makes it real. As you know the Early Christian belief was that the Substances change but the chemical arrangement does not. Which is why Justin Martyr says just like we are transformed (he uses transmutation) when we are born again so is the bread and the wine. Because he makes that connection. But just because Jesus said it is of the spirit do Baptist believe that he wasn't talking about being born as a new creature? Not at all they believe it. But they don't want to believe it in John 6. He is the bread of life just like the manna which came down from the spirit he comes down and gives himself (his body on the Cross) and he equates his body to that which must be eaten. Therefore its the same body. But he's not asking us to cut flesh of his flank rather by the Holy Spirit he will provide the reality of eating his body without cutting of his flanks. One year latter he shows how he does it. By substantively transforming the bread and wine into his body and blood. Therefore I find it funny that you believe in a actual spiritual rebirth a fundamental change or a substantive change in a human being who is born again but not so with the Eucharist. They are the same argument. Jesus wasn't' speaking symbolically about being born again. He was being literal and it was based on the Spirit. So it is with the Eucharist. Again it is abundantly clear you don't understand how the ancients viewed the spirit as realities true essence. You are stuck in the modern paradigm that matter provides "true essence" thus to you something is either real (that can be known by the five sense) or its symbolic( thus making the spirit no more than and idea). Which is what you are trying to get Jesus to mean. Which is why I used the common Idea of spirit and reality from ancient thinking.

in Christ,
Ralph

 

You are truely blessed. I wish I could go daily...

WM

 

I'm not very familiar with them. Would you clarify?

WM

 

Then Anabaptists were quite varied; some believed that the bread and wine were only symbols. Others believed that plus something more, a spiritual presence.

Calvin's views were more elaborate. I'll quote from a book on Reformed theology that I have: "Calvin interprets the 'Real Presence' as a spiritual union between the believing communicant and the ascended Christ..." "By His immediate working, the Holy Spirit becomes the link between Christ and the believer, and He unites them so intimately that we become bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. This intimate union occurs not only during the celebration of the sacrament but is a process constantly going on. Calvin's definition of the 'Real Presence' is entirely spiritual..." "Calvin's views are probably expressed most fully and adequately in the Scotch Confession of Faith (1560), Art. XXI..." I won't quote the article here, but part of it is rewording what I quoted above.

 

Not really, Bob....as I was baptised in the Catholic church and went to Catholic schools. The whole mystery of the Euchatrist is exactly that....a mystery and that of faith.

I fell away from my Church and went to other churches and indeed to other faiths.....but returning to the RCC was like a homecoming of the prodigal son (daughter in my case).

 

It's not really convoluted. Just as Nicodemus got it wrong in John 3, so did the disciples that left Jesus get it wrong. In both cases Jesus meant what he said. Here it is in logical summary. Ie the answer to your initial accusation. 1) One must be born again by the Spirit). 2) One must eat his flesh ( by the Spirit). 3) The Spirit cannot equal symbolism because then one is only symbolically born again but not in fact a new creature. Therefore in both cases we aren't talking about symbolism. Therefore as I said it becomes incredibly important by what Jesus meant when he said "spirit" and in Jewish thought as well as Greek philosophy the spirit is the reality behind all that exist therefore Jesus is who is a contemporary of his day speaking to men in their context who would have understood this concept.

And here you go again forcing me to look at a passage in pretext. As a Baptist John 6 wasn't clear. I remember asking my pastor how this passage was to be understood. We got into the whole discussion about belief but he agreed the language was too in in favor of promoting in some way eating Jesus flesh. So in the end do you know what he told me? "I don't know." And what bothered me about that answer is that depending on what you believe that is a key point in the Christian faith. The witness of the early church suggested that it didn't agree with the Baptist language. And a basic Baptist principle is that the scriptures could be interpreted by all in a simple reading of it with out assistance. Though this is belied by Acts 8:26-40. Then I'm finding out that this isn't the case. Then my paradigm might just be wrong. See when you look at things objectively you don't stubbornly hold on to your paradigm if the evidence is against it. So it is clear you keep wanting to hold on to your preconceived view. Rather than be truly objective. As for it is a stretch to believe a Baptist would come to the Catholic view by study of scripture and history I can only say look at the Baptist who became Catholic on this board alone and ask them. There is a Baptist Preacher in Kentucky several years ago that made national headline news by becoming Catholic and eventually a priest. There is author David Curry who was a strict fundamentalist who's parents where university teachers at Moody Bible Institute (also for a while) Missionaries who came to be Catholic just by study. Its not that much of a stretch. I think you are so caught up that you are right (which is ok in itself) that you cannot conceive that you may be wrong (which means in reality you aren't objective and cannot be objective. I suggest you study these things for yourself. My father and I were arguing once and he said to me when I explained what I believed to be the symbolism of communion and that the primitive church must believe as I did. When he said. "but that's not what they thought!" So I studied it and for all my father's faults found he was right about that.

 

No. As I said it isn't because Jesus wasn't taken "too literally". If Jesus discussion with Nicodemus was just symbolism. Then when one is born again you must accept that one isn't regenerate. Jesus is being literal with being born again. Ie you are a new creature. As Paul says

Where Nicodemus gets it wrong is not in the reality of being born again but by the mode. So it is with Jesus discussion in John 6. Jesus really wants you to eat him. However, the mode is by spirit which is reality itself. Clear as day. Lets look at each point.

lets take a look at this without pretext which is what you keep trying to do. You provide the pretext of the passage thus you are providing eisegesis. But an honest person doesn't do that knowingly as you suggest. Remember The Baptist contention that early Christians did not believe this is already in doubt by the writings of the earliest Christians outside the NT. So an approach to the passage must be reconsidered objectively. Which you refuse to do.

Interestingly enough lets really look at the passage. It certainly isn't the institution of the Lords meal as Luke as in Luke 22. But it certainly is in context of 1) a meal which is 2) in community and 3) during Passover. All elements of communion. How does the whole discourse begin?

BTW for the "Kingdom debate "at hand" means right now not in some far distant future, but I side track myself. What was Passover meal but the meal which fore shadows Jesus own communion meal. Which foreshadows Christ but not only having him sacrificed for us so that condemnation passes over us but as the Lamb of the OT is eaten so is the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. You can't miss the connection. Even Baptist stuck in eisigesis have to admit that!

Now as we discuss this I would like to point out one thing. The Gospel of John isn't written with as much regard to Chronological events as to make theological statements. So I find it interesting to note that in John 2 Jesus performs the miracles showing that he can change one thing into another at the wedding feast of Cana. Just after this miracle John the gospel writer points out Jesus teaching about being born again which is a human being changed from one thing into another. So in John 6 we have the feeding of the 5 thousand which show Jesus multiplies the food sufficient for all then we have the "bread of life" discourse in conjunction with Passover. And finally the actual beginning of the discourse in which we see a meal discussed.

To miss the connection to 1) Passover and 2) to a new communion meal is outrageous! So no we can't agree the discussion has nothing to do with the communion meal.

Here again. You ignore the very words of Jesus.

It cannot be admitted because of the language Jesus uses here. Be begins using the same general term for eating as the questioning Jesus the word phago which means " to eat (consume) a thing" And then takes it further and for emphasis repeats what he said but with a significant word trōgō which means "to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)" Obviously some biting going on. So that cannot be agreed to either just by language of the text.

This isn't a valid point because he talking in context of the covenant meal which is at the time of Passover.

Yes and note he says he has already given his life for the world but hasn't been crucified yet another problem for your line of thinking. To connect it with the point above. Jesus came down to sacrifice himself and give of himself to be eaten like the Passover lamb.

Now we see all of them very confused and troubled but Peter speaking for all 12 of the disciples said in a sense " no matter we know you are speaking the truth which is life."

The two are in no way similar. You made an invalid connection. Ie there is no connection other than the fact the word bread was used but it isn't even in the same context. Don't treat scriptures like a smorgishboard. In Matthew 16 the disciples thought Jesus was comparing them to the Pharisees because they forgot to bring bread. Not even remotely close. Jesus explained to them what he meant clearly because Matthew 16 then says

therefore you made an invalid connection there.

 

Continued....

not at all. Unless you want me to believe that you believe that a person born again is no different before he was born again. Do you?

Now you are being factious. The mode is different because it is by the spirit which I have explained is not the same as mere Symbolism. The Passover lamb must first be sacrificed before it is eaten even as Jesus must be crucified before he gives of himself to us in communion. You are making a lot of extravagant assumptions.

As I remember Deut 8 "bread" isn't a teaching tool but a fact. And despite it having the property of curbing our hunger for a time it really doesn't give us life that we can only get in God.

John 1 cannot be a progression because it doesn't even mention bread.Unless, you want to do a study on the word "word" which is logos in Greek and it doesn't even have the exact same connotation as the Hebrew which didn't use the word "word" but מוֹצָא mowtsa' which means to proceed forth or out of. The term word is implied. So it cant really be a progression.

Again it wasn't about "taking him too literally" as much as understanding mode. Unless as I've said you want to suggest a born again person isn't changed in essence.

As I've shown you they are not compatible as the OT doesn't use word in that passage. ANd it certainly isn't related to Logos.

So this assumption is plain wrong by plain reading of the text.

 

It is hard to believe that there is still argument over John 6. It is so clear and so simple! Jesus is decribing what it is to believe in him for eternal life. He uses a simple analogy of how our bodies partake bread ("eat") and water ("drink") to quench our hunger and thirst and sustain physical life. Likewise, partaking of Christ by faith not only satisfies all our spiritual needs but obtains eternal life.

There is not even a remote hint in this text concerning the Lord's Supper much less the silly Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

Welcome Back Biblicist! I hope the family is doing well. I figured Christians haven't stopped arguing about this since the Reformation, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see it stopped being argued here on Baptist Board. Yes it is simple. You must believe that that Jesus is the bread of life which comes down from heaven that you must divest yourself of eating it.

Clearly "eats of this bread" = "and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh" or crucified body. Clearly you must believe this. And Judas did not believe it.

 

Thanks for the "welcome"! The family is well.

However, your interpretation of John 6 is simply wrong! You are jerking a few verses out of the greater context and interpreting them in contradiction to the greater context of the chapter.

You are making the words of Christ MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the audiance as the Lord's Supper had not even been instituted, the cross had not yet occurred. He is speaking of something they could obtain right then at the point of speaking.

Eating physical substance to sustain physical life is simply an analogy. Your intepretation rejects the analogy and maintains necessity of eating physical substance for eternal life. His body and blood is physical substance just as the doctrine of transubstantiation demands. He is not basing his message on FUTURE tense verbs but PRESENT TENSE verbs.

Jesus is taking the physical analogy to teach a spiritual truth about the nature of receiving eternal life through faith rather than the nature of the Lord's Supper which had not even been instituted. No one could possibly literally eat Christ's body or drink his blood at this point - no one! If this was the way to obtain eternal life at this point then none of his audiance could possibly have obtained it and Jesus is simply misleading his audiance. He is talking about something his actual audiance at that actual time could do, not somthing they could not do. Yet Catholicism makes his message to them about eternal life meaniningless, empty and useless AT THE POINT of speaking.

Furthermore, he makes the point of his analogy obvious twice previous to the disputed passage and then it is repeated again after this passage in the words of Peter:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not[/B].

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Jn. 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

The analogy is simple and clear. A person partakes of Christ by faith as a person partakes of food by eating and drinking. Literal eating and drinking physical food is necessar for physical life, just as spiritually eating and drinking of Christ by faith is necessary for spiritual life. However, Rome rejects the obvious analogy and demands the physical is the essential for the spiritual thus making his message MEANINGLESS and USELESS to the actual audiance hearing him as NONE could obtain eternal life by such a message at such a time to such an audiance.

However, as understood by Peter, eternal life by faith in Him had already been obtained, and thus could be obtained AT THE POINT IN TIME of this message.

Your doctrine makes the message an exercise of futility as far as the actual audiance obtaining eternal life right then and there!