Eucharist Vs John 6

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, Mar 21, 2003.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Charles has mentioned that a new thread should be started on the subject of the "real presence" and the Eucharist so we can focus on the topic.

    And Charles also pointed out that mean spirited debates are wearing on the soul.

    Good points all in my view.

    So in that spirit...

    1. John 6 is not the Eucharist. But it sets the stage for Christ's meaning of body and blood. In that context His disciples were not commanded to take a bite out of Christ's body as He spoke to the crowd. Why not?

    Why did Christ say in John 6 that literal flesh was "worthless"?

    2. As for the "real presence" when we read about "Christ IN you the hope of Glory" Col 1:28 - is that "Really" true? Is that the "Real Presence"?

    What about When Christ says of ALL Christians "Wherever two or three are gathered in My name there I AM in your midst" - is that really true? Is that the Real Presence?

    3. When a priest is defrocked and delcared to be a heretic - but retains "the Power to turn the bread into the body of Christ" - is that then a "magic power that the apostate priests Possess?"

    Thoughts to consider. Looking forward to the discussion.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    I had an excellent discussion about the Eucharist with GraceSaves and others a while back. It was very civil and very informative. But, alas, I can't find it anywhere because all the old threads seem to have disappeared from here! :confused:

    Neal
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Neal - Yes I noticed that. A lot of good ground was covered that will simply have to be summarized again.

    Hopefully our Catholic bretheren will not mind participating in this exercise again.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Australian Baptist Student

    Australian Baptist Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi there, I am having a discussion on this in a catholic phorum, so will copy one of my posts there to here (for what its worth!!).

    As John records Jesus' usage of our need to eat and drink him at some lenght, I started my study at John 4:10. As with the later passage, the woman here would have been content to settle for plain water, while Jesus uses her desire for this water to point her to deeper needs. He offers her a spring of water that will well up in her "to eternal life". As we later find out, this refers to the living Spirit of God. Turning to 6:26, here again, the crowd would have been content with plain bread, but again, Jesus uses that expressed desire to point them to a deeper need. He states that the Son of Man will give them "food that endures to eternal life". In response, they ask, "what must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus reply is that "the work of God is this, to believe in the one he has sent." So works plural, by which we may please God (good deeds, obeying the commandments etc) is changed by Jesus to one work, belief in him. That is all we need do (according to this passage) to please God. It points to the one thing needed, faith. As John 1:18 said, "to as many as believed in him, he gave power to become children of God."

    They had eaten the bread he had already given them, and he now turns their attention to the true bread (vs 32), the bread of God (vs 33), the bread of life (vs 34). He is seeking to raise their thoughts to heaven. He is also working off their quote from the Old Testament, "he gave them bread from heaven to eat." Jesus is the true bread from heaven, vs 35, "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will neverthirst." Our desire for spiritual/heavenly things is fully satisfied in Jesus, even to eternal life. Look at verse 40, "Everyone who looks to the Son of Man and believes in him will have eternal life."
    Verse 47, "He who believes has everlasting life."

    Jesus clearly states here that it is belief in him that he is focusing on - how this will fulfill all our desires.

    Now, vs 48, Jesus notes that manna was food for the body only, that those who ate it still died. He contrasts this to himself, the bread of life. (vs 51) Anyone who eats him has eternal life. "This bread is my flesh which I give for the life of the world".

    What do we make of this? Is Jesus saying unless you partake of the eucharist, you will die? Firstly, that would contradict Jesus' own commentary/explination in verses 40 and 47, which clearly state that belief in him is the one thing nessesary. Nothing in 51 speaks of faith, and it would place a bodily act between the soul and salvation. The very strength of the language opposes the idea that the eucharist is meant here. It would oppose verses 40 and 47, and say that the one thing nessesary for eternal life is to recieve communion. The grammar also opposes this view. "a man may eat and not die" has the "eat" in the aorist tense. This is a greek tense for a one off, punctilliar act. It focuses on the once and for all action of recieving Jesus - anyone who partakes of Jesus has eternal life. Note that in vs 51, "the living bread that came down from heaven", the "came down" is also in the aorist tense, the single act of the incarnation. "Anyone who eats it" again has the "eats" in the aorist tense. The greek imperfect tense, which notes a continuous or repeated action is not used here, and so its primary reference is not to the eucharist (in "in as often as you do this", the "do" is in the present tence, not the aorist). Indeed, even the "I will give for the life of the world" is also in the aorist, denoting Christs once for all sacrifice at calvary.

    So what is in focus here is the singular, decisive act of taking Jesus as one's saviour, sacrifice and Lord. Clearly, we remember and affirm this act in the eucharist, but it is not the eucharist which is the subject here. Jesus is speaking to unsaved people about their need for him. He has already clearly stated that belief in him is the only work nessesary for eternal life. He is not contradicting himself, or talking about the last supper here. He is not saying we are saved by eating communion. The eating here refers to recieving Christ. Look at John 4:34, where to do the Father's will is Jesus meat. Did he mean actual meat here, or is this a metaphor? We draw our life and our strenght from our relationship with Jesus. Without him, we are dead.

    Look at John 6:63, "The spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing, the words I have spoken are spirit." It is not flesh that Jesus is talking about here, just as it was not bread when he told the disciples to beware the leaven of the pharisees. Matthew 16:6-9. "they discussed it among themselves saying, "we brought no bread", but Jesus, aware of this said, "O men of little faith, why do you discuss amonst yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet percieve? ... how is it that you failed to percieve that I did not speak about bread ...then they understood that he was talking about the teaching" Its not about the bread - "the flesh counts for nothing" Mark 7:19, Jesus says that whatever you eat does not enter the heart, but just goes through the stomach and out. Its not about the metaphor. Its about our thought, our teachings, about who we believe in. Its a great and powerful symbol, but its not about the bread.

    John 6:68, Peter is grasping this, and says "you have the words of eternal life." Not, you have the flesh and blood of eternal life.

    This is brought out most clearly in John 7:37-39, where the "drinking" metaphor is continued. "Whoever is thirsty, let him come to me and drink, whoever believes in me, as the scripture says, streams of living water will flow from within him." Jesus parallels drinking with believing, just as the one work for eternal life was to believe in him, metaphored as eating him. Look at John's commentary in verse 39, "this he spoke of the Spirit, who those whom believed in him were later to recieve." Those who believed in him were to recieve. The drinking Jesus here is clearly explained here as believing in Jesus.

    To conclude, Jesus is teaching in all these references our need to believe in him. The eating and drinking are not literal, "the flesh is nothing", "I did not speak about bread" to do the Fathers will was Jesus "meat." As this passage clearly teaches, the one single work for eternal life is to believe in Jesus. John 6:40, 47.

    If you are still reading, thanks for sticking with me. I really enjoyed digging in the Scriptures, and trust you also are blessed as you do likewise.

    God bless, Colin
     
  5. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob>>- Yes I noticed that. A lot of good ground was covered that will simply have to be summarized again.

    Hopefully our Catholic bretheren will not mind participating in this exercise again.<<<

    raymond: Hello Bob, thanks for the invite. btw, I am new here, so pardon me if I make a party foul, or mess up my post. Feel free to criticize my style, and give me pointers. I have yet to figure out out how apply the 'ubb' codes.

    Also feel free to criticize me, if you feel I am stepping on someone's toes, or being inconsiderate. Feel free! and don't be afraid to direct a well aimed epithet or two in my direction. The only thing I ask is if you get the urge to insult me, please make it hurt....otherwise I don't get anytime off purgatory....

    As per our discussion on the Eucharist....
    It seems to me that one thing my non-catholic brothers and sisters often neglect to do when trying to figure out how to interpret Bible passages about the Lord's Supper, is to simply see how those passages were understood in the early Church.

    To me it's a matter of context. Everyone says Scriptures should be read 'in context', but then many ignore the context of what we know about the early Church's doctrines. I am afraid some of this is due to 'sola scriptura'.

    's.s.' seems to forbid Christians from studying the biggest contextual clue to interpreting the Scriptures, i.e. 'how were they understood by the first people to get their hands on them?'

    One thing seems logically clear from the outset:
    it would be impossible for people who believe they are really eating Christ, to have had Communion with Christians who insisted that they were *not* eating Christ. Can we agree on this?

    raymond
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Raymond,

    Welcome to the party brother!

    May I just say I really REALLY like your attitude. It is good for the soul.

    Well not wanting to add envy to your list of sins for which you must atone - but as for that remark above may I just say [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I am humbled by the challenge to provide adequate torment that you might be more directly accepted into eternal bliss. I count it an honor.

    Context - exegetically speaking has very little to do with errors introduced decades or centuries AFTER the apostolic letter of the NT apostle was penned.

    Context argues that we first look at what is IN the text. Then that we look at the way it is used in that author's letter and other related letters.

    Context argues that we conside the "primary audience" not those who would "hear about it centuries later". The intended meaning to the primary audience of the first century - is the primary criteria for "context" as it relates to the audience.

    Sola Scriptura is what is used to "keep us honest". This allows "context" to be first and foremost - that which is set by God. It is the context of what is IN His Word, the use of that same teaching in other places IN His Word and how the author intended it to be used by the primary audience - first hand readers/listeners of that very word.

    People coming along decades and centuries later are "not the first people to read the letter to the Galations" for example.

    Agreed. It is also logically clear that the saints, the apostles, the faithful followers of Christ standing next to him in John 6 "did not think they were literally eating Christ".

    It is also clear that Christ is not saying in John 6 "Someday in the near future my flesh WILL become food". Christ claimed that it was already reality then - and was true from the moment of His coming to earth - coming down out of heaven from God.

    In Christ

    Bob

    [ March 24, 2003, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
  7. 3AngelsMom

    3AngelsMom
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/3mom.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't want to derail, but is that true? The meaner people are to you the shorter your time in purgatory?

    If that is the case, WHAT are all the Catholics here always WHINING for???

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    BobRyan said:
    First of all, they did not think they were doing anything except listening to Christ talk about the nature of his teaching. Nobody was eating anything at this point in time...

    It was clear to the people standing next to Jesus that he was speaking literally according to the text of Scripture in the Gospel of John. According to the text, they understood Him very literally as in 6:52 -

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    Why would they say this if they understood him in any other way than literal? How do you say that they did not understand Jesus literally here with their response?

    Of course Jesus' direct response to them, realizing that they were taking Him literally was in the next verse 53:

    Why did Jesus not correct them in their thinking? Why did He immediately restate a literal rendering of the subject in obvious doubtful question?

    Jesus' response to them was:

    Context here is Jesus speaking to Jewish believers of the Law. They believed that the actions of their flesh saved them. Jesus is equating his spirit his diety of coming down from heaven in flesh form, as real food, not just temporary food. Physical and spiritual in nature, vs. fleshly in nature only. When Jesus said he was manna, they understood exactly what he was saying. And it made them very angry based on the context of their understanding of manna.

    Jesus also spoke in actions, not just in words. The text shows CLEARLY that those around Him understood him very literally by their questions regarding His words. He did not change thier thinking on the matter with a symbolic explanation, but rather let them walk away from Christ forever to be eternally lost.

    This is a pretty big missunderstanding if Jesus let these disciples that were following him actively in real life, walk away in complete misunderstanding. Yet He did according to the text.

    Not only is the text very literal here, those folowing in the Apostles footsteps, taught by the Apostles in unity, believed and understood these passages to be literal. You can accuse the very early fathers as being decades removed, and tutored and taught by real Apostles as your basis to invalidate their understanding of such Scripture, but reformation theology is removed 1600 years regarding 'no-presence'.
     
  9. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    raymond:Hello BobRyan! Thanks for the welcoming words. I hope I can continue to be a source of amusement. I will make a good effort anyway...

    When I mentioned trying to understand the context of the NT by understanding how we know the early Christians understood the NT, you did mention 'decades', so I assume you are familiar with the following quotes from Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Sorry to trot them out so soon but perhaps some of our fans have yet to see them.

    &gt; Ignatius:(circa 110 AD)"Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one
    &gt; Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one
    &gt; altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my
    &gt; fellow-servants, the deacons."(Philadelphia,4)
    &gt;
    &gt; Justin Martyr:(Circa 150 AD)" Concerning the sacrifices once offered by you Jews,
    &gt; God...has spoken through Malachi the prophet:'I have no pleasure in you,'
    &gt; says the Lord,'and I do not accept your sacrifices from your hands, because
    &gt; from the rising of the sun to its setting my Name is great among the
    &gt; Gentiles. And in every place incense and a pure sacrifice are offered to my
    &gt; Name, because my Name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord, while you
    &gt; have profaned it.'(Malachi 1:10-12). Already, then, did he prophesy about
    &gt; those sacrifices that are offered to him in every place by us Gentiles,
    &gt; speaking, that is, about the Bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the
    &gt; Eucharist. And he added that his Name is glorified by us and profaned by
    &gt; you"(Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,41).
    &gt;
    raymond again: Do you see a way to reconcile your belief about the Lord's Supper with Ignatius' and Justin's? This is the reason why I asked if it would be possible for people denying that Christ is literally present in the Lord's Supper to be in the same "church" as those
    who affirm His Presence.

    That given, I think it would be very hard for you to claim any spiritual heritage from either of the above 'Fathers', whereas both of them seem to harmonize quite well with what the RCC still teaches about the Lord's Supper.

    Do SDA's pretty much write off the 'Early Fathers' as apostates?

    your brother, raymond

    btw, I may be slow in getting back to you and the gang, as I am leaving town for a few days.
     
  10. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, good to see you, Raymond! Sorry I haven't anything to say on the topic, yet, but just wanted to say "Hi!" before you leave town.

    Haruo (Leland on BaptistLife.com)
     
  11. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    raymond,

    And reading John 6 in context, you'll will see that everything about this section is figurative and spiritual. Yet, we are supposed to believe that slapped smack dab in the middle of this, He get's literal? :confused:

    Okay, you're Catholic right? Therefore, you believe in the concept of "Development of Doctrine?" Right? So, even if you had evidence that the earliest christians believed in the Real Presence, what if they didn't have a proper understanding of John 6?

    Anyhow, you quoted early fathers. How about I quote a couple for you? First let's look at your quote from Martyr.

    How do you purpose that this proves the belief in the "Real Presence?" Eucharist merely means "thanksgiving." You'll have to show more to prove Martyr believed in the Real Presence.

    So, here are a couple more:

    Clement of Alexandria: The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood.

    Augustine: He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.

    A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice . . . for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the tru sacrifice.

    In fine, He Himself, when He says, "he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us.

    But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eatheth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth . . . Just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eathing drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him, that is, by receiving Him as the eternal life, which we did not have from ourselves.

    We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our Ransom, His blood. For he spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink . . . When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you;" . . . His disciples were offended . . . What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you? . . . Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . . That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life."

    Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He ho saith, "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?" Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.

    This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

    AND . . .

    "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man;" says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

    Each of these quotes were taken from William Webster's The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. However, if you want I can cite the correct texts of Augustine for you. It was just simpler for me to quickly grab Webster's book than to look up each quote.

    God bless!
     
  12. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    CHAP. 2 THE FLESH AND BLOOD


    John 6:53-58 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
    54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
    55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
    56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
    57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
    58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

    The next spiritual truth that we will examine is the Eucharist. The church of Rome contends that Christ was speaking of changing the bread and wine of the above verses, into the literal body, and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. She also contends that true believers must partake of this literal body and blood. Of course, the only ones that can perform this transubstantiation, are the priests of the church of Rome. In this way again, the church of Rome has sought to set herself up in a position of power and authority over all.

    If indeed, bread and wine must be transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, and only the priest's of Rome can perform this miracle, then all are dependent upon Rome for salvation. So now, Peter was handed special authority over the church of Christ, whom the Popes now represent. In this manner, a mere man has been put in between humanity and God. Now also, the priests in subjection to this man, have been given by him, the power to perform this miracle by which the true believer may partake of Christ unto salvation. Both of these claims to authority come to the church of Rome by the literalization of spiritual truths in the holy scriptures. They also both put mere men between humanity and God, a thing which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came specifically to abolish. We will discuss this issue in more depth in following chapters.

    Let us examine the spiritual truth of the above verses which is ignored by the church of Rome. After saying in verse fifty six, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him", Christ goes on in the very next verse to explain what he had just said. " 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me " Are we to suppose from the above verses, that Christ was continually changing bread and wine into the literal body and blood of his Father, and eating him, so as to live by his Father? Of course not. We know that the Father lived within the Son through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which he gave to his son ( Jn. 1:32 ). This is why Christ came to earth, and became one of us. So that He could dwell within the believer through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. This does not happen by ingesting the literal body and blood of Christ, but by faith in the son of God, and submission to his will. Observe the following scriptures.

    John 17:17-23 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
    19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
    20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
    21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
    23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    The Father was in Christ, and Christ was in him. This was not accomplished by Christ eating the literal flesh and blood of the Father. Likewise, Christ does not live in the believer by the ingestion of his literal flesh and blood. Christ was our example in all things, as the Father was in Christ, and Christ in Him, so are we to be in Christ, that the Father and Son might be in us. Verse seventeen points out how this takes place. True believers are sanctified through God's truth, His word is truth. It is by the ingestion, or taking in of God's word, that believers receive the Holy Spirit of God. This is a spiritual experience, not a literal one. However, it will have literal effects in your life, by conforming the believer into the likeness of the Father and Son, which is salvation.

    Matt 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    We all eat food to live, but those who take in the word of God, and live by it, will live forever. This is how God dwells within the believer, not by eating and drinking some wine and bread that some claim to have changed into the body and blood of Christ. It requires no change of heart, or mind, to eat some bread, and drink some wine. On the other hand, it requires submission to God, to believe, and act upon his word. This can be accomplished only by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God, and it unquestionably changes the heart, and actions of the believer into the likeness of their Lord's. This spiritual truth is lost sight of, in the literal interpretation of Christ's words regarding the subject at hand.

    John 14:15-21 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
    21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    Those who love God will endeavor to keep his commandments. Only those who have made this choice, that is to allow Christ to rule in their lives, will receive the Spirit of truth. Without this Holy Spirit, it is impossible to serve God, or keep his commandments. The world cannot receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit comes by way of acceptance of, and submission to the word of God. This is why only true believers can enter into the experience that Christ is referring to when he speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. By literalizing this truth, and making the act the mere ingestion of bread and wine, the church of Rome has set up a system, and a people who have only a form of godliness, denying the power thereof.

    1 Cor 11:24-27 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
    27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    As Paul points out in the above verses, partaking of the bread and wine, is a reminder of the Lord's death on our behalf, till he comes again. This is exactly where all true believers begin, and maintain their walk with God, at the foot of the cross. It is by entering into Christ's death, the full submission and surrender of self, that Christ is enabled to live within us. Accepting Christ's death for us, not only in our place, but as our own death, that we make walk in newness of life, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. This is what it means to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To be in him at his death, that he might be in us in newness of life, his life, not our own. For Christ was obedient to the Father, even to the point of death, that we might die with him, in order to receive power to be obedient to the Father also. You in Christ, and Christ in you, the hope of glory. We will end this chapter with the following verses.

    Rom 6:3-7 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
    4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
    6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
    7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

    Gal 3:27 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    Col 1:26-27 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
    27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

    Bye for now. y. b. in C. Keith
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The trick is to find out exactly when those documents were really written. The comments of Ignatius declaring that Christ had only one flesh - is not as problematic for SDAs - non-Catholics etc as you might think.

    Justin Martyr on the other hand gives comments that are indicative of changes brought in about 100 years after the Gospel of John was written.

    (So again - I would challenge that as a "primary context" for John). Rather John becomes a context for Justin. AS well as every other tendancy in the church over that period of time.

    Correct me if I am wrong - but aren't catholics converted? I thought that the "connection" was not that Catholics are the great grandchildren of the 2nd century Christians - but that they are "christian".

    As it turns out - all Christians "got to be Christians" by being converted. Which means they ALL are spiritual descendants of the NT apostles.

    #1. WE regard the Apostles as the premere "Early Fathers" in terms of NT church doctrine.

    #2. We consider that those that followed - were sometimes influence by the traditions of man - that so easily influenced the members of the One True Church started by God at Sinai according to Christ in Mark 7:5-11. So although we mark them as saints - Christians, followers of Christ - we do not consider them to be infallible in doctrine.

    #3. We agree with the statements of Paul in Acts 20 that "From among your OWN selves" the wolves would arise seeking draw disciples after themselves.

    #4. We consider that "exegesis" starts with the text itself. In this case John 6 itself. It does not jump out of scripture and rush headlong into a quote 100 years distant from the writing of John to "get context". Exegesis starts with the author and the event being described. In this case the Words of Christ to the Jews long BEFORE the Lords Supper was celebrated.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was clear to the people standing next to Jesus that he was speaking literally according to the text of Scripture in the Gospel of John. According to the text, they understood Him very literally as in 6:52 -

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52 (1) Then the Jews (2) began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Why would they say this if they understood him in any other way than literal? How do you say that they did not understand Jesus literally here with their response?
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Charles,

    It is certainly clear that those who took him literally in John 6 - stormed off in disgust.

    Christ's illustration that the only way to get LIFE was to eat His flesh and drink His blood - offended those who took him literally.

    But his faithful - believing followers stayed - and begin shredding his flesh. oops -- I mean they stayed and were there When Jesus stated that "flesh is WORTHLESS" and that the WORDS that He spoke were in fact "LIFE".

    So when Peter is put to the test HE ALSO responds that the "WORDS of Christ are LIFE".

    And in Matt 16 we see the lesson repeated - the symbol is bread and the LITERALISTS are getting it wrong - so Christ repremands them until they "get" that by bread He means the "TEACHING" of the Pharisees.

    Interesting that in John 6 Christ speaks of the manna that came down out of heaven - and "the lesson of manna" according to Deut 8 is "Man does NOT live by bread alone but by the WORD that comes from God".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    bobryan said:
    Yes those who took Him literally stormed off in not only disugust, but utter disbelief in such, just as yourself. As you say, those who believed Him stayed and believed Him. The earliest recorded documents that we have of Chrisians that were descended directly from those same Apostles, understood these passages literallly as they were taught by those who spoke with the saviour. Your interpretation is certainly an interpretation. Your credibility is a little far removed from what I consider objective or even authentic.

    What is important about their storming off, was that after addressing Jesus with their literal rendering, Jesus did not explain a symbolic rendering of His statements. He emphatically restated His assertion as a direct response:

     
  17. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus also spoke in actions, not just in words. The text shows CLEARLY that those around Him understood him very literally by their questions regarding His words. He did not change thier thinking on the matter with a symbolic explanation, but rather let them walk away from Christ forever to be eternally lost.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66 As a result of this many of His (1) disciples (2) withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a pretty big missunderstanding if Jesus let these disciples that were following him actively in real life, walk away in complete misunderstanding. Yet He did according to the text.


    A restatement of my earlier post that nobody has repsonded to. I have a big problem with this. Why would Jesus not correct these people based on merely a mis-understanding. I thought Jesus' main desire was the salvation of all men? Why did He not expalain clearly that He was only being symbolic here?
     
  18. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Charles,

    Why do you (and other Catholics) presume that the meaning and value of what Jesus taught would be less, simply because He was speaking symbolically? Jesus often used figures and symbols to teach. That does not lessen the value of what He is teaching. God is a spirit. To worship Him spiritually or commune with Him spiritualy is every bit as real as if you were worshipping or communing with Him in the flesh.

    Why? Let's see why: Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

    Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

    Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

    Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

    Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

    Jhn 6:68 [Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.


    The first thing one should notice about this passage is that Jesus did in fact clarify Himself--in John 6:63. Second, that even though He did clarify Himself there were still those who walked away. So, you ask why? Look at 6:64. Jesus knew there were those with hardened hearts who were never going to understand or believe. He also knew that those who were sent to Him by the Father did/would understand. Those stayed. How do we know they understood. Look at verse 6:68. Peter said they stayed because Jesus had the words of eternal life--not because they needed to eat His flesh.

    At least you didn't generalize "us guys" as fundementalists. ;)

    Yes, He did. But, He, being God, could supernaturally identify the "lost causes." LOL :D

    Who says Jesus was being flippant? It's the Catholics who believe for some reason that if Jesus was speaking "figuratively" instead of "physically literal," His message was not as important.

    God bless!!
    Lisa

    [ March 26, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]
     
  19. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    lisamc said:
    Not my issue. If it was symbolic, then fine, no problem. The issue is whether He was speaking literally or figuratively. I never said Jesus cannot act supernaturally. I am examining this text, and those who came immediately after the Apostles that understood these passages literally. I just want to understand how Evangelicals came to a newer understanding that this is symbolic after so long a time has already passed.

    Your answers are fine. However, you are still saying in essence that Jesus did not render to these folks an explanation as He usually did in parables because he knew they would not believe. Also, those standing next to Jesus did not have the Gospel of John to read from, so they could only rely on what Jesus told them at that time.

    When they asked Him about the literal rendering specifically, Jesus in no way gave them an immediate sybolic explanation, but rather, immediately restated exactly what he said that caused their literal concern. Jesus in action on the spot.

    Now, this passage can certainly be looked at as symbolic or literal. I do not discount this at all. However, it is either one or the other. Bottom line, I trust the Apostles' teaching to their immediate successors and the testimony of the first Christian pastors and leaders immediately after the Apostles on this matter. First of all a literal rendering is supported by the text. The first Christians taught a literal rendering. I have no problem with that. Interpretations are far and vast, and easy to come by.

    There is absolutely no doubt one can make these things symbolic. Baptism is also made symbolic in the same manner by many today. Although the text of NT scripture is even more clear on that matter. But it 'can' be read symbolically.

    I also want to say, that I of course do not believe Jesus said anything flippantly. My mistake and bad choice of words.
     
  20. DanielFive

    DanielFive
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Charles,

    I haven't had time to read the whole thread so I don't know if this point has already been made.

    Given that the RC Church has forbidden the cup (The Wine/Blood) to the people at communion since the year 1414, doesn't this mean that all those catholics that have not recieved the cup since then have no life in them?

    God Bless,

    Enda
     

Share This Page

Loading...