Replies

John 6:53. If Christ were talking in a figure of speech, in a metaphor, it would have been His duty not only as the Son of God, but as a teacher, to correct the Jews.

And which the Lord did,, disallowing any presumption that eating the flesh actually benefited them spiritually, but that the Spirit gives life, that being, as Peter perceived after the carnally-minded proto-Catholics left, by His words, which are spiit and life.

And which, as said, is the only interpretation that conflates with the rest of Scripture, in which spiritual life is NEVER obtained by literally physically eating anything, but by believing the gospel message, and the Christ of it.

But that the Lord had to plainly correct misapprehensions of the carnally-minded is an ignorant premise, for instead the Lord purposely not only spoke "in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand" (Mark 4:11-12) as a judgment against them, but He also often spoke enigmatically so that true seekers would pursue the understanding of His puzzling sayings.

And which is what we see so much of in John, in which the "plain speaking" Catholics presume is the meaning was instead not what was being taught, as seen in the light of further revelation, as is also the case in Jn. 6.

In John 2, the Lord plainly stated right after cleaning out the Temple "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19) which the Jews understandable understood as plainly declaring that the Lord would rebuild the Temple that took 46 years to build.

Yet here there is no manifest effort by the Lord to correct them, and that He claimed He would rebuild the temple in 3 days was a charge at His indictment (adding that He would first destroy it: Mt 26:60,61).

Next, in John 3, the Lord speaks of being born again, which is thus understood by His learned hearer as inferring one must:"enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born." (Jn. 3:4)

Then in response the Lord speaks of the necessity of being being born of water and the Spirit, which still does not explain what He meant. And next in this short discourse the Lord speaks of two kinds of birth, the flesh and the spirit - which a typical contrast in John, but only later is it connected, if not explained, to believing on the Lord Jesus.

In the next chapter the Lord speaks of water He gives that forever quenches thirst, which is understood as being actual water. Which is later connected to Jesus being the promised Messiah, but how He gives this water is not explained.

Next, the Lord tells His disciples that He has "meat" that they do not know of, and which, true to form, they speculate that maybe someone brought Him food.

But to them He states that His "meat" or food is to do the will of His Father, for He taught that man "lives" by every word of God. And in John 6:57 He likens how He lives by the Father to how believers live by Him, and in both cases it is never by physically eating the flesh of the Father or the Son.

And consistent with John, in the next chapter the Lord states that the dead who shall hear the voice of the Son of God shall live, and which is what we read of in Acts onward, with those who believe on the Lord Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit, and living by His word, which is called "milk, and "meat" which "nourishes" and "builds up" believers..

And which as said, conflates with Jn. 6:63-68, in which the Lord once again explains the puzzling language which nowhere agrees with the rest of the rest of Scripture as the means of obtaining spiritual life, and living by Christ as per the literal understanding.

And which is not what the language at the Lord's supper - which John nowhere mentions - literally teaches either (not that Catholicism takes it plainly literal, as shown).

Rather than teaching that consuming the "real" body and blood of Christ is the means, or a means of obtaining spiritual life, Peter ("thou hast the words of eternal life" nowhere even mentions the Lord's supper in Acts or his epistles, but preached that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) And hearing the word of the gospel, and believing resulted in God giving them "the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:8-9)

Paul preaches the same, and only describes the Lord's supper in one of his 13 epistles, and as shown , censures Christians for not recognizing the church as being the body of Christ.

James never mentions the Lord's supper either, nor John in his 3 letters, or even the words "take eat..." found in the synoptics, which is an incongruous omission if he was teaching on the Lord's supper in chapter 6.

Nor does John mention the Lord's supper in the entire book of Revelation,

This absence is contrary to the the status and doctrine of Catholicism, in which the Eucharist is said to be "the heart and summit of the Christian life...by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church." (CCC 1407) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx)

But which is consistent with the hearing and believing the word of God being the means of obtaining and doing what Jn. 6 speaks of, with the word being milk, meat and nourishment. Thus once again Catholicism stands in stark contrast to the NT church of Scripture.