Bread of life Discourse

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 06:00 PM'] --"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."-- [/quote]
John 6:63 - [quote]"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."[/quote]
This can also be taken as you cannot understand why you must eat my body because you think worldly, but it is only by faith you can understand why. He did not say "my flesh profits nothing" because certainly Jesus' flesh is not worthless. To say that only the spirit of Christ brings profit and not his flesh is to split the natures of Christ and to say one is more important than the other. Jesus is one. He wanted to be fully available to us - Body, blood, soul, and divinity.

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay forget the beat thing. i admit it's weak. also i was mixing my points and being confusing anyway. but there are other interpretations.

first if you're misinterpreting or ignoring my points, it's like a strawman because you're creating something that i'm not saying. also if i'm saying that you're doing this, that is not an ad hominem because i'm not using that as a way to win my argumet, i have other argumentation. i say it to point out that you are doing this. but anyway i admit it's not much of a stawman. but you're not allowing for other interpretations and simply saying other interpretations cannot be but giving no reasons.


--"Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.--

i know this doesn't read like this in the bible. but you can interpret it in this way.

--I tried to prove to myself that the Real Presence wasn't real, too...and when I abandoned my agenda, I found "words of spirit and life."--
you need to explain this. if you "found" that the real presence is "proved" by this, then i'd think you had an agenda. this verse very much could be the explanation that says he was not speaking literally.

--It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.--
notice what you said here is exactly what i said:
--They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.--

again, you say his spiritual message was that he was being literal but in a non carnal flesh canibal sense. we say that he was just tying the loaves parable to himself. we both agree they weren't concerned wit hspiritual babble. you're assuming that after jesus explained taht he was talking figuratively they walked away because they thought he was being literal. that's not what we think. they walked away because they did not want to follow the spiritual babble that they must follow him by believing in him.


also, what i'm getting at with the early church is to expose the ignorance most catholics have about the early church and the real presence. it was a pervasive belief, yes. you can point to all the quotes at catholic.com and others who believed in it. but you probably can't answer questions about where the real presence or not belief was held in all christian cities, or at least prove it beyond simply saying that everyone believed it. maybe it can be done, i've not seen it. i've seen thigns suggesting that not all believed in it necessarily. i also have other points and questions that would expose more.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 15 2005, 08:39 PM'] --"Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.--

i know this doesn't read like this in the bible. but you can interpret it in this way. [/quote]
Yes but you can also interpret it to say "Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you cannot be understood by them because they do not rely on the spirit of God to understand but rather their own flesh (humanity)"

[philothea]

Two thoughts:

First, obviously having Jesus -- who is God -- existing in this world as edible pieces of (apparent) bread and drinkable (apparent) wine is an [i]extremely weird[/i] idea. Right? We may be used to it, but if you imagine hearing about it for the first time -- it's very hard to believe. I cannot imagine a person, much less a whole bunch of people who suddenly thought that this extremely bizzare transubstatiation thing was real.

Unless, of course, they were told on very, very good authority that it [i]was[/i] real.

Second: You don't get many devout Catholics even considering the "get together and have some snacks while you remember me" interpretation of the last supper and bread of life discourse. That's because if you go to a mass, or adoration, or benediction with an open heart and mind, it is, for many of us, overwhelmingly obvious that Jesus is present. It was obvious to me as an unbaptized agnostic eight-year-old, sitting in an ugly modern church.

Getting nitpicky about words is ridiculous. If God wants His people to understand something, He'll make it clear enough. We understand, and have done so for a long time.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 15 2005, 09:39 PM'] you need to explain this. if you "found" that the real presence is "proved" by this, then i'd think you had an agenda. this verse very much could be the explanation that says he was not speaking literally. [/quote]
This verse could never be taken that way, as I've pointed out. It would mean major inconsistencies. My agenda was to disprove the Real Presence...or at least prove that it wasn't Bible-based...it didn't work. I saw the light and had a change of heart.

[quote]--It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.--
notice what you said here is exactly what i said:
--They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.--[/quote]

Actually, I said that they [b]did[/b] want spiritual "babble" (although it's far from babble), whereas you said they didn't. Then I asserted that it's ridiculous to claim that they weren't, because it's obvious from the Gospels that they were.

[quote]we both agree they weren't concerned wit hspiritual babble.[/quote]

No, we don't.

[quote]you're assuming that after jesus explained taht he was talking figuratively they walked away because they thought he was being literal. that's not what we think. they walked away because they did not want to follow the spiritual babble that they must follow him by believing in him. [/quote]

No, I'm saying that He never explained that He was talking figuratively in the first place.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[QUOTE]Actually, I said that they did want spiritual "babble[/QUOTE]
again you said it yourself:
[QUOTE]It makes no sense that they would reject it [i]because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things[/i].[/QUOTE]
You must be talking about another point or just in this sense they didn't want spiritual battle. I think explanation is needed since you did say that at least in a sense. I can sorta see how if your read your quote in a different way, you might mean it makes no sense what I just said about htem being concerned with earthly things and not spiritual babble. But it's poorly worded that I'm not sure if this is what you meant, so you should explain because it does appear to say that you said that, yes?



[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying that He never explained that He was talking figuratively in the first place.[/QUOTE]
how does the "spirit and life" thing not act as a possible disclaimer to what he just said? I think it has something to do with the supposed inconsistencies you found?
[QUOTE]This verse could never be taken that way, as I've pointed out. It would mean major inconsistencies.[/QUOTE]
You have not shown any inconsistencies with this interpreation of believing in him.
[QUOTE]1. The people loved His parables before, except for the Pharisees and other such parties with agendas (I see a pattern here with agendas). It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things. [/QUOTE]
His parables did not include believing in him and stuff. Maybe you should provide the parables that you claim so closely relate to believing in him to the point that they are analougous to your point.

[QUOTE]2. They rejected it because it was a "hard teaching." Parables are generally soft stories used to show ideas. If this was a parable (and it wasn't), then the truth it was intended to show was still so strong that it was rejected in its entirety by almost all of Jesus' disciples.

Those who believed stayed and those who did not, did not stay. Those who did not stay were concerned with getting their bellies full and such, not the spiritual babble of believing in him if he was claiming there's more than getting bellies full.

[QUOTE]Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [/QUOTE]

also note here before his "parable":
[QUOTE]I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? [/QUOTE]
This is harder core evidence that they werethinking carnally. Before he even said anything in the parable he made that slight referecne to what we interpret as his death on the cross. I think at this point, you'd have to agree they were jumping to conclusions based on just what was said and not thinking spiritually.

Also, when they said, this saying is hard, who can accept it? they were continuing to interpret literally because they had a literal earthly undersatnding of everything. They couldn't see to look at the parable spritually being drawnn from the loaves to himself. And they didn't see to look spiritually at something more than getting bellies full when he explained that he was talking figuratively.

[QUOTE]3. The language of the Bread of Life Discourse does not suggest a parable.[/QUOTE]
I agree that if he used stronger wording in the orginal language, (I assume this is what you mean by wording) then it'd appear to be literal. But not necessarily.


Please refute this:
[QUOTE]Those who believed stayed and those who did not, did not stay. Those who did not stay were concerned with getting their bellies full and such, not the spiritual babble of believing in him if he was claiming there's more than getting bellies full.

Also, when they said, this saying is hard, who can accept it? they were interpreting literally because they had a literal earthly undersatnding of everything. They couldn't see to look at the parable spritually being drawnn from the loaves to himself. And they didn't see to look spiritually at something more than getting bellies full when he explained that he was talking figuratively.[/QUOTE]
Is the stronger wording thing your trump card?

Edited May 16, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 

Jhn 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 

Jhn 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.  [/quote]


Also, this is what I was refering to earlier to Bro Adam and them. Not the door thing like I said. Here Jesus says something and doesn't clarify it to those who walk away. So *if* they did walk away because they did not understand, this passage indicates that Jesus would not have been prone to necessarily correct them.

Edited May 16, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[urbo42]

The Greek is pretty amazing to read, there are at least two verbs for eating. One is a regular eating, but the one used in John 6:53 is to gnaw on the flesh. How awesome is that?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Also, this is what I was refering to earlier to Bro Adam and them. Not the door thing like I said. Here Jesus says something and doesn't clarify it to those who walk away. So *if* they did walk away because they did not understand, this passage indicates that Jesus would not have been prone to necessarily correct them. [/quote]
So the Jews thought he was crazy and Jesus didn't correct them. Also notice that his disciples did not know until after he died what he was talking about.

Same might be said about the John 6 parable.

Keeping in mind that this is if they walked away not knowing what Jesus really meant. This is another argument than the one I am currently making mind you.

[Socrates]

Dairy, you've provided no arguments against the real presence. All your "interpretations" are quite a stretch and really are quite differenct from what it actually says in the Bible (which supports the Real Presence).

You have no evidence that the Real Presence was not what is beleived in by the Early Church. The fact that the Real Presence was never denied by Christians until after the Protestant revolt should tell you something. If a certain belief has been held by the Church as far back as we can trace, the burden of proof is on thise who would assert that contrary beleif was originally held. You've got no evidence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Dairy, you've provided no arguments against the real presence. All your "interpretations" are quite a stretch and really are quite differenct from what it actually says in the Bible (which supports the Real Presence).[/quote]
I've got just as much evidence as you have..
Without that change in the word eat, you'd have nothing.
With the word, I'm not sure, but it's a lot to base the whole thing on one verb change in a sentence.


The early church beliefs I will delve into later as it appears no one want to stand up to the rigor of my questions. Same might be said to me but yea..
I try to find out the info that I need to draw connections between where christians lived, when, and if they believed in the eucharist as the Catholic Church says, and then draw some conclusions, but it's harder than you'd think! Which as of right now based on things like the didache and just my lack of finding what I need, I'd give the benefit that they all did not believe, you can give the benefit as you want. If you take all the evidence for one side of something and present some of the facts in cettain way, you can believe anything.. (can be said bout anyone but yea)

Anyway, I'm sure someone would take me up on it though instead of being like well you're not doing it! if they weren't afraid of not being able to answer my questions..

Edited May 17, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 17 2005, 09:13 AM'] I've got just as much evidence as you have..
Without that change in the word eat, you'd have nothing.
With the word, I'm not sure, but it's a lot to base the whole thing on one verb change in a sentence.


The early church beliefs I will delve into later as it appears no one want to stand up to the rigor of my questions. Same might be said to me but yea..
I try to find out the info that I need to draw connections between where christians lived, when, and if they believed in the eucharist as the Catholic Church says, and then draw some conclusions, but it's harder than you'd think! Which as of right now based on things like the didache and just my lack of finding what I need, I'd give the benefit that they all did not believe, you can give the benefit as you want. If you take all the evidence for one side of something and present some of the facts in cettain way, you can believe anything.. (can be said bout anyone but yea)

Anyway, I'm sure someone would take me up on it though instead of being like well you're not doing it! if they weren't afraid of not being able to answer my questions.. [/quote]
No one's "taking you up" on your arguments, because you don't have any. To be honest, it's quite hard to even follow what you are trying to say (other than that Jesus meant something totally different than what He said, and failed to explain this to anybody, even when they began leaving Him).

What is the "change in the word eat"?

If you have any solid evidence that the early Church beleived anything different about the Real Presence, please bring it forward.
Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to go with what the Church teaches, rather than what Dairygirl proposes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[QUOTE]Change in the word eat is when at first Jesus says to eat him with the word phago in greek. Then he uses trogo, which is another form of the word eat, but here to slowly chew like a cow (or something along these lines). This could indicate that he's emphasising that you have to eat literally, and I agree it's a good point that he did change the word (assuming the Greek that we used is okay in that one spot change), but I think it's too much simply biblically speaking to stake a belief on only one change. I know you'll say you have more to base your argument on in the bible, but it's all circumstantial. To see why I say this please read the everything already posted above. (I'm not sure if you did as you did not know what I was referring to when I said eat)

One point at a time:
[QUOTE]I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? [/QUOTE]
Considering that prots think he was referring to his death in the flesh that acted as the bread for belief. Will anyone agree that the Jews were jumping to conclusions/not necessarily thinking spiritually here just based on what Jesus had said so far?

[QUOTE]No one's "taking you up" on your arguments, because you don't have any.[/QUOTE]
You cannot know know what my arguments are as no one's taken me up. What I want someone to do is post some early chruch evidence that they think proves their belief in the real presense was unanimous. Then you have to answer all my questions regarding the evidence. (again I admit the questions may or may not be relevant or copouts, that's for everyone to decide for themself)

Edited May 18, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Please see the quotes in the Real Presence thread for what the early Church Fathers had to say about the Eucharist.

[Matt Black]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 10:45 AM'] I was reading this today and thought it was fascinating. The next time a Protestant states that John 6 is nothing more than a symbol, go ahead and say "oh, okay". Then share with them what it would have meant to the disciples if Jesus shared with their culture that they were to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' symbolically. To those he was talking to, it would have meant that those who follow him were to mock and scorn him, to beat him and his family. Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him. [/quote]
To reply to the OP, I've come across two main Protestant objections to the Catholic interpretation of this passage:

1. v63, where Jesus says that the flesh does not profit but the spirit does, thus suggesting a purely spiritual meaning to eating His flesh and drinking His blood ie: through faith in His death and all that means for us

2. The fact that no-one tried to eat ([i]phagein[/i]) or bite ([i]trogein[/i]) Him there and then; if His hearers had interpreted His words literally and physiaclly, then they would have done that.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[desertwoman]

Um..... my dad and I are raised protestant and we both believe that we are eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ for he said this is my body, do this in remembrence of me. Even the church I went to when we had communion when we went up to partake of the bread and wine they would say body of Christ, blood of Christ.

[scardella]

the quote you gave:
[quote]Jn 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
[/quote]
Here, we see 2 main differences from the John 6 passage:
1. It doesn't say anyone walked away.
2. It DOES say "But He spoke of the temple of His Body."

Doesn't it seem reasonable that if the author did interpret John 6 symbolically, he would definitely add that in? People unfamiliar with the faith would have read it and done exactly the same thing in walking away from this "lunatic". There is no apology for the words. We are left with the stark contrast of the Apostles who accepted the teaching and the others who walked away.

regarding v63.
1. "My words are spirit and life"
2. What are Jesus' words? "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood."
3. What's the problem?

Let's review:
1. Jesus uses graphic words to describe that they have to eat His Flesh to have everlasting life.
2. Everyone is baffled by this statement.
3. Some reject him and leave, while others do not.
4. Jesus makes no attempt to call them back and explain it as symbolic.
5. The author makes no attempt to explain it as symbolic.
6. Jesus does not afterward explain to his Apostles that it is symbolic. Instead, he asks them if they are going to leave as well. In effect, he's leaving them with the impression that they have to eat Him and drink Him.
7. The early Church Fathers were clear that THEY believed it. Why is this significant? They were much closer in culture and time to the events, and several had direct contact with the Apostles. We can be reasonably sure that such a situation would give them a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Faith. "Faith comes from what is heard" - St. Paul, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against [the Church]" - Jesus

Is this an adequate treatment?