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?

[Iscool]

I suppose the Lord would prefer we discuss, even if by lack of agreement, His Word above many other topics that occupy our time.

But that is not to be the case...The one side refuses or is incapable of discussing scripture; the scripture that contains the words they use to develop their false doctrines...

They have created their own bible to replace the scripture of God...

[Iscool]

The interesting thing is that tribes that do this believe that they take on some of the charastics of the one they eat..

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

[Iscool]

I got my question answered and made my point. I have no interest in plating in this specific mudhole any more.

Too late...Now you need a bath...

[Iscool]

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

Yes we certainly do...

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Mystery is solved...

[roamer_1]

Understanding which disciples left Him and which 12 remained in spite of this hard saying of Jesus, depends on which of the spirits is being followed, and whether a disciple loves Jesus or merely knows about Him.

Ah, but this hits the nail on the head! And one might note that those who left him were those who thought he spoke of cannibalism - the actual flesh and actual blood - It is those who stayed that heard the solution to the riddle, from Yeshua's own mouth, that he was speaking of spirit, and that the flesh counted for nothing...

Good Post.

[Iscool]

Excuse the catalogue approach. It's not mere pedantry. It's illustrative of the most ancient Christian communities with the most ancient understandings of Scripture, many of whom know Greek, Western Syriac and Aramaic very well, some of whom are not under the direct jurisdiction of Rome OR Constantinople --- who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.

Those communities you speak of didn't have any scriptures to understand...What information they got came from the hierarchy of the religion...

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...

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It is those who stayed that heard the solution to the riddle, from Yeshua's own mouth, that he was speaking of spirit, and that the flesh counted for nothing...

You have the chronology wrong. They heard your "solution to the riddle," then they abandoned Jesus.

The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Your interpretation of John 6 also contradicts St. Paul.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [i.e., died]

[RnMomof7]

Ya would think huh? Except by the time they get home the ‘magic’ has worn off”

[sayfer bullets]

Which is the correct Bible, then...

Gotcha...something worth fighting over any day.

Which is it then?

[Resettozero]

Thanks. Yours was better.

Holy Spirit is very kind to us.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Mystery is solved...

Sola Scriptura = Your personal interpretation of Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

St. Paul explains that what appears to be bread is the Body of Christ. The language couldn't be more plain.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [i.e., died].

The same belief was held by the next generation of Christians.

Justin Martyr (151 A.D.)

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66).

[Rashputin]

Oh goodie, another example of, "that's what Scripture says, but that's not what I want it to mean".

One in a series of articles refuting the clear words of Scripture and proving beyond doubt that Scripture Alone always comes down to nothing but Self and Self Alone.

In the end, such doctrine almost always leads to the individual replacing Christ with Self the same way it replaces Scripture with Self.

[roamer_1]

Excuse the catalogue approach. It's not mere pedantry. It's illustrative of the most ancient Christian communities with the most ancient understandings of Scripture, many of whom know Greek, Western Syriac and Aramaic very well, some of whom are not under the direct jurisdiction of Rome OR Constantinople [...]

Appeals to pedigree are invalidated by the first two hundred and fifty years - Both Paul and John declare that iniquity was already entering the Church in their time, so traditions forming even then were heretical. 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. That there is so very little evidence before 300AD (extant, in situ, and really before 400AD) defies any proofs after the fact.

[...] who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.

Again, a matter of little consequence, because one cannot omit the Hebrews - The undoubted authors of the text - who, even in their Messianic strains, find no solace at all in the theory of the Eucharist... The vast majority of whom, btw, believe it (rightly in my mind) to be a syncretism from Mithraism, whose rite is closely related, and whose root runs far deeper than Christianity in Egypt and Persia. And without a chain of evidence dating all_the_way_back, an adaption from paganism seems very likely.

Yet even if there were inescapable and perfect evidence of an early date, without sure linkage into Judaism, from which Christianity undoubtedly came, There can still be no legitimacy.

Thus, a simpleton such as I, who would question such things (rightly and in good conscience), must necessarily return to the originating contract, where no such uncertainty exists. Having found no authorized agent proffering authorized change (which is literally impossible), I will be content to stick with the original terms. Hence sola-scriptura.

[roamer_1]

You have the chronology wrong. They heard your "solution to the riddle," then they abandoned Jesus.

I will accept that correction, and thank you for the clarification - Even so, it was the ones who thought of literal cannibalism (which is decidedly against Torah, with out a doubt) that left.

Your interpretation of John 6 also contradicts St. Paul.

IMHO, eisegesis on your part - I have no reason to make drinking blood necessary.And equally, having found no evident establishment of a sacrament (actually forbidden), I no doubt read Paul differently than you do.

[Iscool]

Which is the correct Bible, then...

It certainly isn't the catechism of the Catholic religion...

[Iscool]

Sola Scriptura = Your personal interpretation of Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

My interpretation??? Breads means - bread...In any language...

Justin Martyr (151 A.D.)

You go ahead and pick Justin Martyr...Obviously he was delusional...

I'll stick with Paul the apostle...The who wrote the verse...

[Iscool]

In the end, such doctrine almost always leads to the individual replacing Christ with Self the same way it replaces Scripture with Self.

The reality is, is that it is your religion which replaced Jesus with itself and convinced you people that you're too stupid to understand what the scriptures say in spite of this:

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Paul was talking to us...He may have been talking to Catholics as well...

[knarf]

Is there ANY scriptural evidence the apostles that did not depart ... actually practiced communion, or the eucharistic practice ... of bread to flesh, wine to blood ?

[RnMomof7]

Appeals to pedigree are invalidated by the first two hundred and fifty years - Both Paul and John declare that iniquity was already entering the Church in their time, so traditions forming even then were heretical. 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. That there is so very little evidence before 300AD (extant, in situ, and really before 400AD) defies any proofs after the fact.

Catholics do no want to admit that even in the NT church false teaching and false doctrine were present.. their own church fathers held differing views on some things ..

Even Augustine felt John 6 was a metaphor ...What the early church chose to believe on this were up to the individual conscience ...it was not a Roman doctrine demanding belief until 1215

[RnMomof7]

One in a series of articles refuting the clear words of Scripture and proving beyond doubt that Scripture Alone always comes down to nothing but Self and Self Alone.

Not declared a doctrine until 1215 ...Augustine believed it was a metaphor so Protestants are in good company