On taking John 6 literally

triablogue ^ | October 16, 2005 | Steve

[RnMomof7]

On taking John 6 literally

Roman Catholics claim to take Jn 6 literally, unlike the Baptists. But what exactly does it mean to take Jn 6 literally, and who is more literal, the Catholic or the Baptist?

1.Here is what I take a literal interpretation of Jn 6 to mean. Some time around the year AD 30 or so, Jesus performed three nature miracles (the multiplication of food, walking on water, stilling the storm) situated on or about (the E. shore of) the Sea of Galilee.

The next day, in a synagogue located in Capernaum, on the NW shore of the Sea of Galilee, a debate took place between Jesus and the Jews, prior to the Last Supper, centering on a comparison and a contrast between Jesus and the manna in the wilderness.

2.What does a “literal” Catholic reading of Jn 6 amount to? They treat Jn 6 as an allegory of the Mass. What it symbolizes is what takes place whenever the Mass is celebrated, every day, in different parts of the world.

They justify this anachronistic and allegorical interpretation on the grounds that they deny the historicity of the original setting and substitute, in its place, a sitz-im-leben supplied by the life of the Johannine community at the tail-end of the 1C or so, residing in Asia Minor or Shangri-la. By “they,” I mean the standard Catholic commentators on John like Ray Brown and Rudolf Schnackenburg.

3.There is also a striking difference in how a Catholic and a Baptist defines a true body. For a Baptist, the true body of Christ would be the same sort of body—indeed, the very same body—as we see on display in the Gospels and Acts (Mt 28:9; Lk 24:39-40,42-43; Jn 20:17,20,24-29; Acts 1:4; 10:41).

This would be the visible, tangible body of a 1C Palestinian Jewish man, of a certain height and weight—a body that you and I would recognize for what it is.

For a Catholic, however, the true body of Christ is an invisible, intangible, unrecognizable entity hidden beneath the species of bread and wine.

One can’t help noticing that the way in which a Catholic defines the true body and real presence of Christ bears a startling resemblance to those millennial cults (e.g., Millerites, Campingites, J-Dubs, hyperpreterists) which predict the visible, bodily return of Christ, only to redraw the terms of fulfillment when their prediction fails to materialize. They assure us that Christ really did return, and is truly is present with his people, but you just can’t see him, that’s all. He actually did come back in AD 70…or was it 1844?…or was it 1914?…or was it 1994?

[Boogieman]

“Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.”

No, Protestants don’t object because of “matter”; we are not manicheanists. We object because this view put grace subject to works, in that in order to obtain grace, you must first do certain works. The Bible tells us that the chronology is the opposite. First you recieve grace, and then your spirit is regenerated, enabling you to do good works.

[Boogieman]

“Oh, like when He ripped the door off of a house, held it up, and said, “This door is me”?”

So one can’t be speaking figuratively is there is a prop involved?

[Elsie]

Roman Catholics claim to take Jn 6 literally, unlike the Baptists.

Oh they do NOT!

They quite plainly do NOT accept verses 28-29 as LITERAL!

[Elsie]

Crickets

(Maybe this is where all the MORMON crickets came from...)

[Elsie]

When the thread gets to 500 or so; I’m bailin’!!!

[Elsie]

Again, we have the crystal clear words of St. Paul.

Again, we have the crystal clear words of Jesus of Nazareth:

 
 19.  You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 
 24.  You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.   
 26.  Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.  

 33.  "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 

 

 

 

In for a penny; in for a pound.

 

[Elsie]

Jesus was very explicit in his words and I believe in His specific instructions.

OK...

[Elsie]

Why do you just try to change the subject?

No change at all; but another EXAMPLE being shown that shows John 6 in a different light.

Why does Rome want to dismiss other words of Jesus?

[Elsie]

The reason the German and English speaking people didn't get it was because they got their hands on the scriptures they could understand...And found out the truth...

...they've got to be taught,
before it's too late.

Before they are six, or seven or eight...

[Elsie]

Smackdown of the bogus argument posted.

Your butterfly floatin' is pretty good!

But your bee stingin' needs a wee bit more work done on it.

[Elsie]

Jesus Christ Himself said, This is my body

Jesus Christ Himself said, "You vipers!"

[Elsie]

"Do this in memory of me"

[Rashputin]

"Oh, ye of great misinterpretation...

ROTFLOL

Sure, everyone has been wrong from Jesus Christ Himself & the Apostles right through the fifteen 
hundred or so years up until the wonderful enlightenment of
 Self and Self Alone came along.

The next sentence, And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?, is just trivia and not noteworthy at all, right? LOL, sorry, the real blood and the real body of Christ are present in the Eucharist.

Christ said it, I believe Jesus Christ, people who insist that the Word made flesh was a fumble nut who couldn't make Himself clearly understood are free to continue making that argument.

Some people have faith in Christ, others follow Eve and place their faith in their Self, that's the bottom line.

The really interesting thing is that it's always Scripture Alone folks who stomp their little feet and yell, "that's what Scripture says, but that's not what it means" whenever something doesn't fit the currently adopted "Christian" lifestyle.

Divorce, serial polygamy, infanticide by "contraception", tattoos, body piercings, cohabitation before marriage, all now one-hundred and eighty degrees from what was taught less than a hundred years ago. Such is the fruit of "Scripture Alone" and "Faith Alone"

Both are but smoke and mirrors from the same serpent who encouraged Eve to rely on her Self.

[ex-snook]

"So then cannibalism takes on some positive overtones...I think if I was Catholic, I'd admit to being a cannibal... "

A baby in its mothers womb lives off the mother's body and is not described as a cannibal. So become a Catholic, you won't be a cannibal. Jesus continues to do miracles.

[CynicalBear]

>>Mat:…23"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,<<

That's exactly what Catholics do when they hold up the monstrance.

[WildHighlander57]

Good Question!!!!!!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Your 'catalogue approach' merely demonstrates that adoption of the Eucharist was a very early addition, from before the various splits which define the liturgical churches which you would endorse."

This is even more problematic, because it suggests that the whole Church, "before the various splits," actually accepted what Jesus and St. Paul said about the Eucharist being Jesus' Real Body and Blood, and no church body seriously disputed that for 1500 years. This means the Holy Spirit abandoned the whole "un-split" Church to gross error and left it there for a millennium-and-a-half --- until some Western Europeans finally "got it" that Jesus wasn't serious about that Body and Blood stuff anyhow (yuck).

"Gates of Hell" wins the first 1500 rounds? And you think the Holy Spirit was perhaps asleep?

1 Kings 18:27
And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."

But I don't think the Holy Spirit is like that. I think the Holy Spirit can be relied upon to "lead us into all truth", to protect His Church, and to endorse the words spoken by Jesus Christ.

[HossB86]

Oh, like when He ripped the door off of a house, held it up, and said, “This door is me”?
You prove the point - - was Christ a door? A vine? A cornerstone?

No? Then he DID use figurative language. Just as he did at the Last Supper.

Oh, ye of great misrepresentation.

Hoss

[ADSUM]

You act first to do works such as Baptism, Confirmation, Receiving the Holy Eucharist, Confession, Marriage and then you receive the graces from God. Since the time of the Council of Trent theologians almost unanimously have taught that the sacraments are the efficient instrumental cause of grace itself.

The Church teaches that there is a difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. An easy way to understand actual grace is to remember that it enables us to act. It is the strength that God gives us to act according to his will. Sanctifying grace is a state in which God allows us to share in his life and love. When we speak of being in the state of grace, we mean the state of sanctifying grace. There is no mortal sin in us. This grace comes to us first in baptism and then in the other sacraments.

[CynicalBear]

>>then you receive the graces from God.<<

That's not grace. That's merit.