Posted on 05/28/2008 1:33:50 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You
Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation -- the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words "Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic.
If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is -- Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively.
Counterfeit Miracle
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.
Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)
Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.
Produces Dilemma
It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.
Figurative In Old Testament
The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)
Jesus Confirmed
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).
Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.
Y’all have to admit, you wouldn’t get chats like this at those other poser sites. :->
“Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words “Hoc corpus meus est.”
First of all, please use the correct term. It is not a wafer, it is a HOST. The word host has a big difference in meaning from the word wafer.
Second - the priest calls down the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This is certainly logical, for if we Christians believe that a virgin, a young HUMAN woman can conceive in her womb the Son of God through the overpowering of the Holy Spirit, it then is also possible that the Holy Spirit can transform the host into the body of Christ.
The apostle, John, writes a gospel which is different in all aspects from the other three gospels, yet does not contradict them. John does not rely on a lot of miracles, but on the words of his Lord and Savior. It is up to us to determine whether Jesus was telling the truth, or was introducing confusion. The fact that Jesus was sad when many of the people turned away from him (in the 6th chapter of John), and asked his apostles whether they would also leave him, seems to indicate that Jesus was very serious about what He said.
People can agree or disagree with the meaning of the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John, but at the end of the gospel, the apostle, who was the closest apostle to Jesus and His Mother, Mary, specifically states that he has written his testimony so that everyone will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, so that all may have eternal life.
From a practical stand point, the theory of transubstantiation falls when you look at the practices of Christians detailed in the Didache. The preachers who called the Agape Feast that communion was a part of were picked by the congregation, no special words were spoken and no hierarchy existed to pass along the purported mystical powers to the clerics.
I agree with your about the reason John’s Gospel was written - Amen!
Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.
I agree with your about the reason John’s Gospel was written - Amen!
Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.
Also - the men RCs call “priests” have no authority to “call down” the Holy Spirit of God. And nowhere in Scripture is this magic show the Spirit allegedly performs even hinted at.
In John, Jesus performs 7 major miracles. Virtually every one is either preceded or followed by a major discourse of Jesus which somehow relates to the miracle in question. Also, it is interesting to note the seven miracles performed by Jesus in the book of John are virtually identical to the seven miracles performed by the prophet Elisha in the book of 2 Kings.
Roger that! Actually this was a pretty fun and informative thread as opposed to the flame wars which are so common on the religion board. Maybe there is something to this Ecumenical designation.
At least you admit that this is only an interpretation of the text. But then I have to ask you, by what authority do you claim that I must accept your interpretation?
“Calling that wafer a “host” crosses the line for me - and others who bow not to the pope or the RCC. Unless one accepts what we consider a heretical interpretation of the text, that wafer is nothing more than a wafer. Unless it is a host to microscopic vermin.”
When you call the host a wafer, you are exercising your freedom to accept or deny Jesus’s exact words - or the interpretation given to them by the RC church. However, please do not refer to the communion host (or wafer, as you call it) as possibly “containing microscopic vermin.” I realize you are probably being sarcastic, and do not mean to insult. Never-the-less, are you 100% certain that your interpretation is correct. What if you are not correct? Perhaps a bit of caution in your written words might be in order. Not for me of course, but in respect for Jesus.
Have a good day!
“In John, Jesus performs 7 major miracles.”
Yes, of course. I only wrote that he did not concentrate only on miracles. But John’s gospel is entirely different in scope from the other three gospels. The others are largely a chronological set of events, miracles, parables, discussions, etc. But John’s gospel details Jesus’s dialogue with his apostles and disciples which define Jesus’s relationship with his Father in heaven, and how we are to live our lives. It is much more philosophical and spiritually based.
I don’t recall ever having to tell you that you must accept my interpretation. I exhort you to look to the Scriptures, not any church doctrine, as THE authority revealed by God.
I appreciate your civility.
You are correct and I thank you for assuming that I was not meaning to insult by my comments.
The communion wafer can only be a host if something lives in it. From a Reformed perspective, Christ is not in that wafer, so it would have to harbor some other form of life to rightly be called a host. The only thing I could think of was microscopic vermin (not a technical term, I realize).
I respect the Lord Jesus - just not aberrant doctrine.
And if my interpretation of Scriptures leads me, and others, to accept the truth of the Catholic faith?
From a Reformed perspective…
Reformed perspective? Are you not adding human tradition to the revealed word of God?
The Didache calls the Eucharist a “sacrifice”. Also, Who is the “Vine of David”?
From the Didache:
14:1 But on the Lord’s day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted,
14:3 for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.
John 6:60 is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Then how did the thief on the cross recieve salvation without ever eating this physical flesh? He did consume Jesus spiritually and was told as a result he would dine with Jesus this day in paradise.
eipen oun autois o Iesous, amen amen lego umin, ean
me phagete ien sarka tou uiou tou anthropou kai piete
autou to aima, ouk echete zoen en eautois.
Using English letters instead of Greek, the term "phagete" is what is used. The root is "phago" which is a masculine term meaning "glutton".
Nowhere does the term "esthio" appear in John 6:53 nor in Rev. 2:17. The argument is ridiculous IMHO.
In English letter it is "phagete" not "phaghte".
Just in case someone catches it :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.