Replies

This is simply redundant Romanism. So how many times must your your pasted polemics be exposed as specious?

1) From the nature of the words used One specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the “food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood.

Wrong. In the very same book leading up to Jn. 6 the Lord said that eternal life was obtained by "drink," and that doing His Father's will was His "meat." (Jn. 4:24) For indeed, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

And which Jn. 6:57 corresponds to:

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

And which was said to explain how we are to live by consuming Christ, which John and the rest of Scripture nowhere says is by literally physically eating anything, but by receiving and believing His word in our innermost being, which word is the only thing that is said to "nourish" the believer spiritually, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds him up. (Acts 20:32)

In addition, David plainly and distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord . And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

Thus, consistent with the Catholic "plain language" hermeneutic, this must by taken literally, and explained by some metaphysical philosophy. But which abundant use of figurative language the apostles would have been familiar with. .

Thus the "realistic expressions" polemic does not warrant its conclusions

2) From the biblical usage of the figure “to eat one’s flesh” In the language of the Bible, to eat another’s flesh or to drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him, to bring him to ruin and to destroy him.

Wrong, as the apologist has just displayed his ignorance of Scripture in not knowing of David calling drinking water the blood of his noble men, who essentially laid down their lives for David.

In addition, it is irrelevant whether the use of “to eat one’s flesh” is in the negative sense, as the point is that such language is used metaphorically. Paul said the same thing to believers as the Philistines said to each other in "quit you like men, be strong," (1Co. 16:13; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) but the former is not disallowed by the latter.

Moreover, Christ was brought to a type of ruin, and Moses said that the Canaanites were “bread for Israel: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And other examples of such metaphorical language include:

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “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,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which again, the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a external Aristotelian type of metaphysical explanation to justify.

3) From the reactions of the listeners The listeners understand Jesus to be speaking in literal truth – How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53) – and Jesus does not correct them, as he had done previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3,3; 4:32; Matthew 16:6).

Wrong again, as in Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

“What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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 6:62-63)

But as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually.

From the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium Finally, we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist

Wrong on more than one count, as first, Augustine is not even teaching what the RC quotes him here as doing, from what i could find, but in context in his ill-defined rambling discourse (which is what it would be seen as if posted here by one of us) he says, "it is said "the flesh profiteth nothing" in the same manner as it is said that "knowledge puffeth up... Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge shall be profitable...so here also, "the flesh profiteth nothing" only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and and it profiteth very much." "If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing?.... Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the Spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. "We are united by faith, quickened by understanding...." This is what is meant by the ministration of Christ's body and blood.

Nor is Cyril manifestly teaching the RC "Real Presence" in the other quote, at least not there. Secondly, these uninspired men are not Scripture, nor is the often claimed “unanimous consent” of the fathers even a literal reality, while we have freely available only a small portion of all the 20 or so are estimated to have written.

And paradoxically it seems that the collections we have available were compiled by Protestants.

Instead of these men being as Scripture, they often passed on erroneous traditions of men that are not in Scripture and even contrary to it.

Finally, nor does Rome take their word as gospel, but judges them more than they judge them. For Rome is her own autocratic authority, while her own basis for that, that of the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, is unScriptural, and unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome, and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created being in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm. Etc.