Your logic once again is absurd from the beginning, and testifies to the blind devotion to Rome by which they see everything she says, and everything they say in promotion and defense of her, as being incontrovertible.
Among other things, the logic that imagines that Divine promises of God's presence perseverance as a medium and stewardship of Truth, means a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, and which is necessary for assurance of Truth, has already been shown to be fallacious, as is holding to Jn. 6:53 as literal while upholding Lumen Gentium 16, etc. (if you are born again then you have life inside).
Here, even if Rome was correct on the table of the Lord,or dozens of other things, that simply does not illustrate or translate into "that Rome cannot be wrong," nor does the absence of a verse in Jn. 6, when that text was not even made a point of examination (that I saw) mean one does not have plausible explanation for it.
Instead, it testifies to desperation in seeking to maintain the Rome as infallible and Jn. 6 as literal in the light or the fact that physically eating physical food to gain spiritual life or qualities, and consuming human flesh is nowhere seen in Scripture, much less by kosher Jews, and is instead a form of paganism.
But what is seen in Scripture is much figurative use of eating and drinking, including that of men being called "bread" and drink being called the blood of men, (Jn. 4:34) and words of God being "eaten."
And unlike physical eating food in order to gain eternal life, this figurative language is what is consistent with John, and in which and in the rest of Scripture no one is ever shown obtaining life in them, becoming spiritually alive, by physically eating, but by believing the gospel message. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) And in telling souls how they may know that they have eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) John never mentions the Lord's supper, but that of believing on Christ and seeing its fruits.
Nor is the Lord's supper ever set forth as as a means of grace or a remedy for spiritual problems in the church in all the church epistles and Rv. 2+3, as it is only manifestly described once, (1Cor. 11) and in which the issue is on the manner in which they show the Lord's death, effectually recognizing, by their communal sharing, the church as body of Christ for which Christ died, as explained
And which was part of a communal meal, a "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) nor just a wafer, and nowhere interpretive of the gospels are NT pastors ever shown even distributing bread, much less turning it into human flesh and blood.
As for your proof text, "plausible reason" what Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that i expect should eat His flesh “indeed” is easy to see, though the Roman mind meld disallows it, which is that it was for the same reason that the Lord spoke enigmatically elsewhere, as in preceding chapters inJohn, such as in referring to the temple being destroyed, and of being "born again," and of water giving eternal life. Jn. 2,3,4) These and parables also were misunderstood as was even referring to hypocrisy as "leaven." But as such cases the Lord revealed what was meant to those who walked with Him, as is the case in Jn. 6. In which the illustration that the Lord provides (Jn. 6:57) of how one would live by Him was that of how He lived by the Father, which was not by literally eating His flesh and blood, but by living by/serving Him according to His Word, with doing His will being His "meat." (Jn. 4:34)
This Word was made flesh, and provided them the Truth of Himself being the Messiah who would became the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, (Jn. 1:29) and how to worship and serve God. Thus "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)
And thus in Scripture it is by believing the gospel that one obtains life in them, even as "begat he us [believers] with the word of truth." (Ja. 1:18) And believers live by Christ as letting "the word of Christ dwell in you richly," (Col 3:16) even "the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified," Acts 20:32) And which is mainly the letters of Paul explaining the gospel of grace and holy living. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3:14)
Only this manner of receiving the Lord and living by Him is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and in which, in contrast to Rome, taking part in the Lord's supper is not set forth as the source and summit of the Christian life, but in its only manifest description (besides a "feast of charity") it is set forth as an effectual expression of faith by the manner in which it is practiced. Thus that the end of Jn. 6 the Lord states that rather than physically being with them in their stomachs, He was going to leave them, and that the "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" as regards actually giving life, and which distinction is consistent with John's constant contrast btwn that which is physical, earthly, versus spiritual and eternal, and "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
Thus Peter's response is not that Christ has the flesh of eternal life gained by eating, but "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69)
And again, faith in this Truth, upon which the church was founded, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," and thus faith in His death and resurrection, versus faith in "transubstantiation," is what is elsewhere set forth as what obtains spiritual and eternal life. And which John preaches. (John 11:25-27)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
Thus having begun with the metaphorical use of eating and of Christ's flesh and blood, we end up with receiving the words of the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ as obtaining life and living thereby.
As for "indeed," (alēthōs: Jn. 6:55) that simply means "of a truth," as in Luk 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God". Or Luk 21:3: "Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all." Both are understood in a certain sense as being "of a truth," and likewise "of a truth my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, and thus "he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,"
Yet in what manner the word made flesh is consumed is not determined by the use of "alēthōs," but that is seen in the light of Scripture. In which, as said, physically consuming flesh is not what is taught as the means of abiding in Christ, but that of the word of Christ abiding in them, and obeyed, which the Lord mainly used Paul as the interpreter of a the gospels and supplementary to them. (1 Timothy 4:15)
As for 1Cor. 11:17-34 , that was already been explained, showing that nowhere does it say to discern” His body in the Eucharist, which again is more romish reading into the text, but contextually refers does not refer to the nature of the elements consumed in the Lord's supper, but to recognizing the nature of the church as the body of Christ for which He died, (Acts 20:32) by how they showed His death by that communal meal. And which is the issue in the next chapter as well.
That is why when they came together it was "not for the better, but for the worse," for even though they did consume the elements, yet of a truth in reality they actually came together "not to eat the Lord's supper," (1Cor. 11:17,20) , because while sppsdly declaring the Lord's death for the church, yet "in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken..and shame them that have not." (1 Corinthians 11:21)
This was sheer hypocrisy, as it is was not just a wafer and a sip of wine that they shared, by a communal meal, and by some coming hungry, and then going and filling their faces, and not even waiting for others to eat together, they were denying the body of Christ as being made of up members for whom He died, and thus treat each other accordingly, and in which God placed both those who had some excess and the needy "that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1 Corinthians 12:24-25)
Paul thus censures this selfish manner as contrary to what they were supposed to be celebrating, and proceeds to recall the words of the institution of the Lord's supper, concluding with For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō-preach; declare] the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
And seeing as this is what they are supposed to be showing, and were not as per Paul's rebuke of their hypocrisy,
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord....For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27,29)
Wherefore , my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
Thus it is manifest that the problem was that of the manner in which they came together to eat the Lord's supper, that of coming hungry, going ahead and eating to their full ("drunken") and shaming those that had not. And thus they effectually were failing to recognize the body of Christ, as being "not one member but many," for whom He died, and thus they were not really coming together to eat the Lord's supper, (v. 20) as they were not showing, declaring, preaching the Lord's death.
And thus your idea that they were being censured for not recognizing transubstantiation is that of forcing texts again to support your church of Rome.
But of course you assert you are right because Rome cannot be wrong as you see her, so you cannot allow the text to contradict her. By one who advised those as myself should be exterminated. Yet at least even the NAB commentary recognizes on 1Cor. 11:28:
The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011028-1
You believe in the scripture alone, — read it every once in a while. It is not a slur, — it is a logical conclusion
Rather, it is an y unwarranted slur by one who manifestly examples superficial exegesis in attempting to make conclusions which are predetermined by Rome look Scriptural. And thus your frequent recourse to what the RM page calls "spitwads."
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away. Which advice i have been spurning in even responding to such, and i suspect that you gain an indulgence for defending Rome, or seek to use up our time and energy responding to your specious assertions. So why should i continue?
annalex: point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.
Leaving the two pages of fluff and random scripture quotes, this is your substantive answer:
seen in Scripture is much figurative use of eating and drinking, including that of men being called "bread" and drink being called the blood of men, (Jn. 4:34) and words of God being "eaten."
That is nothing of the kind:
[33] The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? [34] Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work. (John 4)Where is "figurative use" here, especially of the Eucharistic food Jesus is about to give?
the rest of Scripture no one is ever shown obtaining life in them, becoming spiritually alive, by physically eating, but by believing the gospel message.
Right, but a part of that message is John 6 and the doctrine on the Eucharist. You read "believing the gospel message" and think Protestant faith. Think whole entire Catholic faith, because nowhere did Christ said "some stuff that I told you is really a figure; please ignore it".
As for your proof text, "plausible reason" what Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that i expect should eat His flesh “indeed” is easy to see
Finally...
the Lord revealed what was meant to those who walked with Him, as is the case in Jn. 6
Certainly. At the Last Supper Jesus says "this is my body" and no one asks how could it be. When St. Paul mush later describes a Eucharist celebrated and corrects the celebration y insisting that the congregation "discerns the body", -- that is the faith of the Church at that point. Jesus did explain, and the disciples became priests and did as He commanded them to do. No Protestant memorial snack to be seen anywhere, real presence and the real body of Christ to be "discerned".
This Word was made flesh
Correct. You forgot whose side you are arguing? Adn if not, where is your plausible evidence of figurative use of "meat" and "flesh" in John 6? All you did was explain to us the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is word made flesh and is a necessary component of living Catholic Christian faith.
As for "indeed," (alēthōs: Jn. 6:55) that simply means "of a truth,"
Yes. That is supposed to negate what Christ said?
As for 1Cor. 11:17-34 , that was already been explained, showing that nowhere does it say to discern” His body in the Eucharist, which again is more romish reading into the text, but contextually refers does not refer to the nature of the elements consumed in the Lord's supper, but to recognizing the nature of the church as the body of Christ for which He died, (Acts 20:32) by how they showed His death by that communal meal
St. Paul cites the words of Christ at the Last supper, "this is my body given up for you, eat it". While St. Paul does speak of the Church being the body of Christ figuratively in other chapters, in 1 Cor. 11:29 the body" is the same body as in Luke 22:19, -- Christ's body.
You fail again. The Corinthians indeed were not discerning the nature of the Eucharist, but that nature is that it is Christ's body and not food for the stomach, as the text of Paul's speech shows. It is also consistent with the distinctions made in John 6, where Christ explains that the Eucharist does not feed the stomach.
superficial exegesis
The Holy Scripture is not a riddle that without a Protestant pastor cannot be figured out. When it says "A is B" that it is not superficial exegesis to understand that A is indeed B, without roundabout musings how the Bible does not mean what is written in it.
Which reminds me, you did not even touch the Last Supper subject. "This is my body, which is given for you". So Christ, according to the Protestant charlatans, gave not His body but some allegory on the Cross? Or, since we are to understand that it is faith that we symbolically eat in the Eucharist, Christ's faith died on the Cross?