Replies

That brother, is a superb scholarly refutation of the sophistry of Staples and his parrots and the absurd carnal Catholic misapprehension of John 6. Praise be to God. Bookmarked and pinged to others.

I was unaware of the Staples debate and of Barnes, yet now i see where some of the argumentation the poster partly parroted came from, and your response covers most of the same arguments and compliments my responses earlier in this thread

the topic was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and it centered on Jesus’ famous words in John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” After about three hours of debate, I could sum up Barnes’s central objection in one sentence—a sentence which just happens to be found in the New Testament: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53)

Apart from the issue of just "how," the issue is how can the Lord claim it is absolutely unequivocally necessary that one literally consume His physical flesh and blood in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life.

That Jn. 6:53 is an absolute imperative is clear from examining other "verily verily" statements, so that this consumption is as unequivocally necessary as is for sinners to be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God. (Jn. 3:3)

Yet for all the demands of Catholics that we submit to this as an unequivocal literal necessity they themselves do not, for it means no sinner can be saved who denies the Catholic "Real Presence," while Rome herself affirms (though SSPX types may disagree) that properly baptized Prots have life in them, and some can have eternal life without believing in the "Real Presence."

And in the light of the abundant use of figurative language in Scripture, and in which, as said and shown, men are both called "bread" for Israel, and water is called the blood of men, and the words of God are eaten;

and of John's use of such for Christ and spiritual things, and in characteristically using the earthly, the physical as allegorical to the spiritual, as also shown;

and the the fact that nowhere is literally eating anything is the means by which sinners obtain have spiritual and eternal life, then the metaphorical apprehension of Jn. 6:29ff is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

in his Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, E.O. Phinny recounts a conversation from the Babylonian Talmud where the various schools debate over who will "eat" Messiah and when. This did not refer to Messiah physically, but referred to the material bounty expected upon the arrival of Messiah. Apparently some were "preterists," in the sense they though Hezekiah's reign was the Messianic fulfillment, while others were futurists and waited for a time yet to come. The bottom line is, the notion of "eating" Messiah had already taken root as a metaphor for Messianic blessing and bounty, so depending on who was there, you could have contrary factions in the crowd taking one of several positions on what Jesus actually meant

This was new information to me, while it remains that the only example of souls literally consuming physical flesh and blood in order to obtain spiritual qualities is among pagans. But which is consistent with Rome.

yes, Jesus does offer clarification to His disciples, and most often only to them,

Indeed, and as shown, while allowing the lost to continues in their misapprehension, ass seen with their understanding that He was referring to the physical temple. The problem is that Catholics simply refuse to accept the only interpretation that is consistent with John and the means of obtaining spiritual life.

And just as the Nicodemas clarification is a redirect from the physical to the spiritual, so too is John 6:63 the clarification that Jesus in no way is advocating a corporeal eating of His flesh, but shows forth a spiritual meaning, belief as a way of consuming and drawing sustenance from the Bread of Heaven, Jesus Christ,

Indeed that is the only consistent understanding. Nowhere do souls obtain spiritual life by taking part in the Lord's supper, so that they do not have it until they do.

2. In John 4:7-15, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left the famous “Samaritan woman at the well” in her misunderstanding when she thought Jesus was offering her literal, physical water. But is that really what we find in the text? If this is what Barnes did, and I am taking Staples at his word here, then I would agree that by the end of the conversation the woman is beginning to get where Jesus is going, that the water He speaks of is somehow connected with recognizing Him for who He is..Barnes is right in one thing, if indeed he says Jesus didn't give the full answer, because He didn't. Jesus did encourage her to think in spiritual rather than corporeal terms, yes, but He didn't talk about this water as a representation of the infilling of the Holy Spirit upon regeneration, a doctrine that would not be fully manifested until after Pentecost..

Correct, and this is another example of the manner of teaching in John, and in which we see a clear parallel.

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. (John 4:14-15)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he . (John 4:25-26)

I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman , which testified, He told me all that ever I did. (John 4:38-39)

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. (John 6:33-34)

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life . (John 6:63)

So in Jn. 4 the Lord offers water for eternal life, and in Jn. 6 he offers bread. As you said, the explanation in Jn. 4 is somehow connected with recognizing Him for who He is, the Messiah, and believing on Him, and likewise that is what John 6 speaks of.

All these texts in John are understood in the light of the rest of Scripture, and John always says everlasting life is by believing on Christ as the Messiah, for as elsewhere, believing in the Son of God and His atonement that one obtains spiritual and eternal life . 1 John also details how one can know they have eternal life, but says zero about literally consuming the body of Christ, but instead speaks of faith in Christ and His atonement. (1Jn. 4:10,14).

As a consequence of truly believing on Christ then one will take part in the Lord's supper, but this is not to obtain spiritual life but to show it, that of the communal unity with Christ in His death in love for each other, the focus being on Christ and the body He bought with His sinless shed blood, not bread in the only place where the gathering together is manifestly described. ( 1Cor. 11:20-34 cf. 1Cor. 10:16,17)