Eucharist Vs John 6

Carson,

Well, Carson, that's truly too sad if you really do consider yourself to be chritian. Isn't our duty as chritians never to give up on non-believers--even if it is nothing but your perception that I am a non-believer. I too get discouraged when a non-believer, such as yourself, is ever blinded to the obvious. But, then I remember that Scripture says the wise shall be confounded, and you certainly are very wise, Carson. But, I will always have faith and hope that my diligence and determination will reach somebody. It may never be you or anybody that I converse with on the MBs, but there are always those silent lurkers who may benefit from what I have learned.

Not disappointed at all.

And I have enough faith for the both of us Carson. I will not give up on you.

Every christian is aware of this.

I know it sure seems that way sometimes. But, lots of prayer and faith in God can work miracles. So, I never give up.

No, it's not a choice for me. I don't choose what to believe; I just believe what the Spirit reveals to me.

Beauty?

So is God.

Yes, He knows that those of us who believe were sent to Him by His Father.

No, I don't have it my way . . . that's what my sister calls a "Burger King" theology. Nor do I have it your way or the RCC's way, I have it God's way.

God Bless you, Carson, you remain in my prayers.

Lisa

 

Hi Lisa,

Nice to meet you! I hope we do OK also. I'll try to behave myself and make some sense, I promise!

Why bizarre?</font>[/QUOTE]It's right out of ToonTown. "My flesh is food indeed." "Hot dang, let's party! Who brought the silverware?!" This is Real Bad Humor, not Real Life. It's also based on the false presumption that the only two options open to those who believed literally were to walk away or to start carving up Christ on the spot.

At first they were.

As I asked Thess, upon what do you base this assertion?</font>[/QUOTE]Just my interpretation, but I would be very surprised if it was contradicted in any important way by Church teaching.

Yes, the Real Presence was believed in, taught by and promoted by many throughout the history of Christianity. However, there were also many who made it abundantly clear that Jesus was being figurative when He spoke of eating/drinking His flesh/blood.</font>[/QUOTE]The Church's teaching on this has always been clear and unwavering. It is not the opinions of individuals in the Church which determines truth, but the infallible teaching of the whole Church, as led by the pope and the bishops. For a Catholic, the interpretation derived from Tradition and Magesterium trump any other form of interpreting the Scriptures.

Et cum spiritu tuo!!

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pointed out
#1. That NO disciple took Christ LITERALLY so that the LOYAL disciple took a LITERAL bite out of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously Catholics are supposed to "pretend" like they don't notice that ONLY the unfaithful discisples in John 6 MAKE the RC argument for LITERAL interpretation and the FAITHFUL disciples make absolutely NO attempt to "bite Christ" NEITHER is the statement of AFFIRMATION that matches Christ's OWN summary statement - "rejected by Christ". Though it is DEVOID of all references to biting Christ.

Devasting to the "LITERAL BITING" doctrines of Catholicism when speaking of LITERALLY eating LITERAL flesh in John 6.

But INSTEAD of Christ pointing out that they are being slow to understand OR even John's narrative pointing out 'THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND' what we see is AFFIRMATION from the FAITHFUL disciples that is in FULL HARMONY with Christ's OWN summary statement regarding LITERALLY eating FLESH for eternal life "The FLESH IS WORTHLESS the WORDS that I speak are SPIRIT and are LIFE".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. That Christ ended with HIS OWN SUMMARY that the LITERAL view of flesh in his teaching would "be WORTHLESS" as literally eating it would NOT lead to "Eternal Life" - that (Just as in Matt 16 and Deut 8) it stands for "TEACHING WORD".

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

Wrong. I FOCUS on the fact that the CONTEXT (exegetically) for the SUMMARY statement of Christ speaking of FLESH as a source of LIFE - is His John 6 discussion on eating flesh to get ETERNAL LIFE. Not just ANYONE's flesh - but HIS.

IN the SUMMARY He does not say "OTHER people's flesh does not matter but MY FLESH is the one that when eaten brings/gives ETERNAL LIFE".

INSTEAD OF that Summary that Catholicism "NEEDS" - Christ provides the CONTRAST between literal flesh and HIS WORD JUST as the non-Catholic view "NEEDS".

Valuable as a payment for sin - but WORTHLESS as a literal source of food that when literally eaten would give eternal life - JUST as Christ said of it in HIS OWN summary.

You see - your argument DOES require that ONLY the doctrine of the unfaithful disciples be discerened in John 6 - and so you impute it ALSO to the faithful disciples who INSTEAD of stalling at "literal flesh as FOOD as a source of LIFE" go BEYOND that to "YOU have the WORDS OF LIFE". Failing to be allowed see the CONTRAST between the two groups and INSISTING that ONLY the doctrine of the UNFAITHFUL will do - you simply argue what Catholicism "NEEDS" in John 6 RATHER than what the text says.

But to one that is not bound by those RC rules - it is obvious that the TWO groups of disciples took VERY DIFFERENT views and their words are in fact VERY DIFFERENT in the text of John 6. Impossible to miss unless you are pretending not to notice as a way to "defend" the RCC. A problem that a non-RC would not have.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I found another great quote on the Eucharist by J.N.D. Kelly, a well-known Protestant Church historian:

"[T]he Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice ... Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache [ca. 70 A.D.] indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist...

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (Early Christian Doctrines, 196–197).

Later, Kelly also writes, "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Ibid., 440).

I can't wait for finals to be over with so I can start on my summer reading list. One of the texts I want to devour is The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina - I was fortunate enough to meet the author this past semester at the University when he visited for a Scripture seminar that was being held; he only lives 40 minutes from here on the outskirts of Pittsburgh.

 

Later, Kelly also writes, "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Ibid., 440).

And excellent exegetical study on John 6 from a RC perspective.

You make a good point about not going to a first century church Apostle when we can go instead to a fifth century catholic source.

I applaud your approach.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I'm obviously missing something. What fifth century Catholic source are you referring to? Was it something in an earlier post?

I didn't see Carson refer to anything like that (in his most recent post, at least -- but I admit I haven't been following this entire thread). As far as I can tell, he's quoting a (presumably modern) Protestant historian.

Thanks,

Mark H.

 

Good point Mark. That quote I included was a 20th century quote not a 5th century quote and the earlier quotes from Carson were late 2nd, 3rd and 4th century quotes.

Hopefully we can all find that the Bible authors are "first century" sources.

Clearly this "evidence" that is utterly lacking externally - and that is mere quesswork internally - is insufficient to place the document early in the 2nd century let alone the first.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson,

A Catholic friend of mine from another Message Board sent that book to me, along with Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism. I finished Aquilina's book and have actually read over much of it two or three times, still working on Keating's book. Aquilina's writing was a nice read, no condescension or sarcasm. I think I like him. He simply put forth facts as he perceives them without any spitefullness. Keating's a little hard to swallow, not to mention I've heard most of his arguments numerous times throughout my debates with Catholics. :D

Anyhoo, completely off topic, I invited my friend mentioned above to come over to the Baptist Boards, which he promptly attempted to do. His name is Mark, also, BTW. However, his application was denied due to his denomination--I guess the board didn't consider him born again because he's Catholic. Are no Catholics considered "born again?"

God Bless!!!

 

We have a number of Catholics posting here - why are new Catholic members not added on the same basis as the existing ones?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know of two Catholics who were denied entry also. Guess they want to keep us from getting too big of an advantage. If we have both truth and numbers instead of just truth you will be overrun.

 

Very funny Thess.

Now I have a question on the subject of this thread.

It "appears" that when it comes to John 6 the RC posts on this thread have yet to make a single point stick. This "appears" to be a complete route of the RC position from John 6 alone.

A number of points have been made on the non-Catholic side without any successful challenge from the RC side.

#1. The RC view relies SOLELY on the POV of the faithless disciples in John 6.

#2. The FAITHFUL in John 6 express an entirely DIFFERENT focus than the faithLESS in John 6.

#3. Christ's OWN SUMMARY IS directly connected to the subject of John 6 and HIS use of FLESH in His summary is IN THE CONTEXT of HIS use of the term FLESH in the entire chapter's discussion.

#4. THE ENTIRE point of the discussion was "taking action to obtain LIFE" and HIS summary SHOWS that His WORD was that LITERAL element that needed to be LITERALLY TAKEN.

#5. IF YOU were to take the present day LITERAL RC view back in John 6 - every faithful RC standing around Christ at the time would have immediately bit Him - and the Gospel story would have ended in John 6.

These points are clear and obvious. And the RC response has been to dodge them in the form of "I am not listening to you so I can still be RC".

Now here is my challenge.

In every debate, every argument there are always points made on one side vs another. But Christians should have the honesty to at least "see" the points that are made by those that take another view and honest enough to "admit" the relative strength of those arguments.

Is there an RC on this board who has read this thread and seen the points above as basically "going without an answer"? It "appears to be obvious".

There have been attemps by RC posters on this thread to go to "other texts" to make their case. And I do admit that if we ignore John 6 there ARE much better places to make the RC case. But if we stick with John 6 and look at the DETAILs - there is "no mystery" as to why the RC posts on this thread avoid exegeting the chapter like the plague.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I just have one question. Now that you've overthrown 2000 years of Catholic theology, are you going to Disneyland?

(I hope we're occasionally allowed to just have a chuckle here!)

 

Indeed you are allowed to have a chuckle.

But I would still "like" to see the level of integrity and honesty that "can possibly" be brought to the discussion - human nature being what it is.

In the case of the Thread "HOW should Catholics EXPECT non-Catholics to view the CC" - I think that "some level" was achieved at the end.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"It "appears" that when it comes to John 6 the RC posts on this thread have yet to make a single point stick. This "appears" to be a complete route of the RC position from John 6 alone."

Only in the mind of those like you who refuse to truly believe in Jesus Christ and his words but rather go after what tickles your ears Bob. I just don't see the route you do. But no amount of explanation would ever do for you Bob. Then flesh and blood hath not revealed these mysteries to you Bob so I will pray that the father in heaven steps in. There's not much chance otherwise.

#1. The RC view relies SOLELY on the POV of the faithless disciples in John 6.

That's your interprutatoin/distortion of something that can easily be taken the other way. And we don't take John 6 in a vaccum. The Bible overwhelmingly supports our position in Ex 12, Malachi 1:11, Matt 26, Rev 19 and many many more. So you haven't even come close to convincing me of your worldly wisdom Bob. Sorry.

#2. The FAITHFUL in John 6 express an entirely DIFFERENT focus than the faithLESS in John 6.

There focus was on the words of Jesus and how they were difficult to believe. Yes, eating his flesh and drinking his blood would be hard to believe. Especially for a Jew. But the difference is that they believed those words because they believed in him. Once again I don't agree on your take and the real looser in this whole discussion of course is Sola Scriptura because you have not come near adaquately defending your view.


#3. Christ's OWN SUMMARY IS directly connected to the subject of John 6 and HIS use of FLESH in His summary is IN THE CONTEXT of HIS use of the term FLESH in the entire chapter's discussion.

Oh well then what he was talking about in v. 51 wasn't about his flesh hanging on the cross. "and the flesh that I will give is my life for the world.".

#4. THE ENTIRE point of the discussion was "taking action to obtain LIFE" and HIS summary SHOWS that His WORD was that LITERAL element that needed to be LITERALLY TAKEN.

He is the Word Bob. I actually don't disagree with you here. You are raising a false dichotomy. I think a point has been missed in this thread. We do consume his word. That is not a view that is foreign to Catholicism for the first half of the Mass is the Liturgy of the WORD in which we hear his words and then they are confirmed in our soul when he comes to us in the liturgy of the Eucharist. To say that we are to partake of his word does not mean that his flesh was not sacrificed for the Word was made flesh. He is still the pascal sacrifice that must be eaten (Ex 12). No longer symbolized but a reality.


#5. IF YOU were to take the present day LITERAL RC view back in John 6 - every faithful RC standing around Christ at the time would have immediately bit Him - and the Gospel story would have ended in John 6.

No Bob, this is a silly and childish arguement that you cling to as if it were a silver bullet. If he were standing in front of me I would have no reason to bite him as he would be with me. But today he is with us in the Eucharist.
God bless.

I will reiterate that Sola Scriptura is the big looser here. Of course I am not really sure that you believe in that doctrine anyway because your a subscriber to the theology of Ellen G. White which is not scripture.

Blessings

 

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. - Acts 15:19-20 NASB emphasis added

 

By the way Bob, why did it take until the 21 century for someone to come up with this brilliant arguement of yours (the knives and forks thing). I certainly don't find it in the first 1500 years of Church history. Though you do have company in that the pagans came up with a similar complaint against the Christians in the 2nd or 3rd century, calling them canabals. That does give your brilliant isegesis a somewhat flesh and bones feel to it.

Dualhunter, not quite sure what that verse of yours is supposed to have to do with partaking of the Lord in the Eucharist. It has to do with participating in sacrifices that are clearly not to the one true God. But in Malchi 1:11 God told us he would give us a PURE GRAIN OFFERING, which is Jesus Christ that we must partake in. "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you.". Now do you think that God would ask us to do something even symbolically that was forbidden. Hmmm, pre-marital sex is forbidden so let's symbolically do it. Somehow it just doesn't seem right either.

Bless you both

 

The question is not why would God ask us to do something even symbolically that was forbidden, but why would God command us to do something that was forbidden?

Consider why God told us not to do those things. We are to abstain from idols, because there is 1 God who is Holy and the creator of the universe, but idols are themselves merely things created by man. We are to abstain from sexual immorality because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and "the two shall become one flesh" and so the temple of the Spirit is holy to God and not to be joined to the unholy (such as a prostitute). We are to abstain from blood not because blood is sinful, but because:

10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
12 "Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'
13 "So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.
14 "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.' - Leviticus 17:10-14 NASB emphasis added

The blood of Christ was shed for atonement, not for literally drinking.

 

Sorry dualhunter but it doesn't cut it. Christ could modify the law. He did it in Matt 5 when he said: You have heard... but I say... about various topics of the law, adultery, killing, etc. etc. In John 6 he modifies the old prohibition against the prohibition of taking blood found in Lev 10 and 17, saying you must partake of my bloood (and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you shall not have life within you.). It is precisely because the blood contained the life of the animal that we are to partake of Christ's blood in the Eucharistic celebration. For it is his divine life that we want in us as partakers in his salvation. Yes he atoned for our sins but that does not negate the need for his grace to be applied to our lives. Symbolic communion is as much a violation of the Old Law prohibiting ingesting of blood in Leviticus as literal communion had Christ not changed the law, which as God he has the power to do. We are not snow covered dung but he wishes to dwell within us and change us. That is what the Eucharist is about. You can deny it all you want but it is true.

Blessings though.

 

Jesus did not change the law. He corrected the misconceptions that the Jews had, where they were confusing the role of the legal system with the roll of each person. The law demands justice, an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Jesus did not change this to love your neighbor as yourself, He restated what the scriptures said, that a person is to love his neighbor as himself.

18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:18 NASB

Likewise the verses I posted before show that your statement about about drinking blood being allowed in the New Covenant is false.

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. - Acts 15:19-20 NASB emphasis added

So you have accused Christ of commanding us to break God's command to abstain from blood.

 

There it is AGAIN - complete failure to argue the point FROM John 6 and show ANYTHING OTHER than the POV of the faithLESS disciples as the POV of the RC. My point was the John 6 text - and EVEN in your attempt to "respond" you make NO MENTIONE of John 6 to PROVE that the RC position IN John 6 can be supported by anyone ELSE in the John 6 scenario BESIDES the faithLESS disciples.

Your own response is proof of that obvious point - posted - again.

No the FaithFUL disciples did not respond "Jesus is difficult to BELIEVE" - rather the faithFUL discples said "YOU HAVE the WORDS that bring/produce LIFE" and the ENTIRE POINT of the John 6 dicussion was "what must be done to obtain LIFE". INSTEAD of affirming that being a cannibal or biting Christ would do it - in THEIR response the faithFUL discples affirm Christ's OWN Summary - "YOU HAVE the WORDS of LIFE".

But NOT for faithFUL Catholics today. AND as POINTED OUT - IF these faithful catholics today were to be the loyal disciples of John 6 - a great "biting of Christ" would have occured and the Gospel would have ended then and there.