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.
Why is it you people chose to believe only the verses that 'appear' to condone the existance of your religion???
Jesus already said previously that He 'always' speaks in parables in 'mixed' company...There's your clue right there...
Jesus already pointed out to the crowd that even if they saw Him ascend to Heaven, they still wouldn't believe...Jesus said that He knew this crew and they weren't going to follow Him anyway...They weren't interested in following Him...They wanted free food...
Jesus gave no command to, or instructions on how to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood...
Jesus said 'when you BREAK bread, remember His body which is BROKEN...The broken bread equates to 'broken' body...You guys don't even break bread...or do you symbolically break bread and literally eat flesh???
I now have the UBS 3 in front of me as I type and I will transliterate:
eipen ouv autois 'o Ihsous, Amhn amhn legw 'umin, ean mh phaghte thn sarka tou uiou tou anthrwpou kai pihte autou to aima, ouk ekhete dzwhn en eautois.
It's right there - John 6:53 on page 347 of UBS 3.
Word games do force the Lord to inhabit a cracker.
The translators in the 1500s and 1600s, like those who translated the KJV, were drilled in Greek, Latin and Hebrew for ten hours each day at university by tutors and read every day from a wide library of original Greek and Latin sources - Plato, Aristotle, the Fathers, Thucydides, etc.
Men like Lancelot Andrewes had been reading texts in classical languages for hours each day for thirty years.
Nowadays most people who read the NT in Greek know only NT Greek and have never spent any time reading texts other than the NT in any depth.
The word is clearly phaghte.
Is it possible we have different greek bibles, and the one you use supports your contention?
If you agree that post 21 contains the same text you see at your link, then we are using the same text.
It's the twelfth word of the verse in post 21.
The chalice is no longer reserved solely to the celebrant of the Mass. The reason it was in the first place was to prevent spillage and profanation.
It's common in transliteration to use "h" to transliterate the letter eta, since it is a different letter from epsilon which is usually transliterated by "e."
Since the "h" sound in Greek is not a letter but a breathing, it is represented by " ' " so there is no confusion.
Yes, I think they were the same. I had presumed others who said they had a different word in their version. When I looked that up, I used their translator and it swapped the word, which apparently happened to someone else as well.
When you pointed it out, I knew just enough greek lettering to realise you were correct. I was serious that I don’t know greek. My brother was pretty good at it, I had no interest in it myself.
Thanks, Manfred. Good article.
Thanks, Manfred. Good article.
Exactly. What’s so hard about that? Says it pretty clearly to me.
>>Never seen a Catholic missing an eye or hand that he’d removed himself. I guess Jesus wasn’t being literal there.<<
Maybe he was, but Catholics trust that it takes a lot to offend us. XD
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Amen.
Justin Martyr, writing around AD 155, describes the early Christian belief about the Lord’s Supper like this:
“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed in the bath for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration, and who so lives as Christ has directed. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (First Apology, 1:62).
Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (”My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.), If He was, He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Christ certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Why would Christ reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively? Now point out how the Lord dealt with other situations where His listeners misunderstood the meaning of His words. In each case, He cleared up the misunderstanding. For example, the disciples were confused about His statement, “I have meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32). They thought he was speaking about physical food, real meat. But He quickly cleared up the misunderstanding with the clarification, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, that I may perfect his work” (Matt. 4:34; cf. 16:5-12). Back to John 6. Notice that the Jews argued among themselves about the meaning of Christ’s words. He reiterated the literal meaning again: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” (verses 53-54). In verse 61 we see that no longer was it just the wider audience but “the disciples” themselves who were having difficulty with this radical statement. Surely, if Christ were speaking purely symbolically, it’s reasonable to expect that He would clear up the difficulty even if just among His disciples. But He doesn’t. He stands firm and asks, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (Verse 62-63). Did Christ “symbolically” ascend into heaven after the Resurrection? No. As we see in Acts 1:9-10, His ascension was literal. This is the one and only place in the New Testament where people abandon Christ over one of His teachings. Rather than try to correct any mistaken understanding of His words, the Lord asks His Apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” (verse 67). His Apostles knew He was speaking literally. St. Paul emphasizes the truth of the Real Presence: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord . . . .Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of the Lord’s body and blood, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. For how can one be “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” if it’s merely a symbol? This Greek phrase for being “guilty of someone’s body and blood” (enokos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kuriou) is a technical way of saying “guilty of murder.” If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ, not Christ Himself, this warning would be drastically, absurdly overblown.
Not particularly surprising that the post resurrection pharisees of the Roman church would stand in defiance of what the Lord said in that same chapter:
" It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"
The feeding didn't save, or alter a single one of them according to the words of the Lord. He stated that they continued to follow him to keep their belly filled. The eucharist is a total fiction, intended to spiritually enslave weak believers. It is not in any way supported by the gospels. Taken in context, verse 53 has to agree with the preceeding verses, thus the eating and drinking is completely spiritual, as stated by the Lord in verse 63.
“Not particularly surprising that the post resurrection pharisees of the Roman church would stand in defiance of what the Lord said in that same chapter’
Perhaps the same could be said for post reformation pharisees of the Protestant church standing in defiance of what the Lord said and the Church practiced for 1500 years...
He did in certain and distinct terms in verse 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"
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.