Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?

In Plain Sight ^ | March 31,2015 | Jason Engwer

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

figurative speech

---

his audience, the Apostles, travelled the known world teaching, baptizing and making disciples.
the Universal Church they left behind handed down the teaching from the Apostles that this was not figurative speech.
glad this mistake was corrected 1,500 years later ( sarc )

[rwa265]

Then there is the unanswerable question of why John did not mention the institution in the Upper Room Discourse in John 13-17. John is the only gospel that does not mention it ... but does mention lesser events like the Triumphal Entry.

---

An even more unanswerable question is why would John write about it? As you stated, the Holy Spirit revealed the institution of the Eucharist in the other three Gospels. Paul also wrote about it in 1 Corinthians 11 before the Gospel of John was written. So why would John need to write about it a fifth time?

Also, the breaking of the bread was an established practice by the time John wrote his Gospel. Luke writes about the breaking of the bread several times in Acts and Paul wrote about it in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. So by the time John wrote about the foreshadowing in Chapter 6, the followers of Christ had already had the words spoken at the last supper written on their hearts. So why would John feel the need to write about it again?

Also consider John’s reason for writing his Gospel. He writes in John 20:31, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” John’s narrative of the triumphal entry is tied in with the raising of Lazarus and ends with the Pharisees saying to one another how they are gaining nothing as the whole world is gone after Jesus. Too John, is was more important to write about this.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Is Jesus Christ a creature?

yes or no?

[CynicalBear]

How about “do this in remembrance of me” just as Christ instructed? In remembrance of His broken body and shed blood on the cross just as He instructed. No magical mystical changing of some cracker into something it isn’t. Just a symbolic remembrance of His broken body and shed blood.

[RnMomof7]

Is Jesus Christ a creature?

HuH??? make your point

[CynicalBear]

Why do you keep insisting that Jesus sinned by eating blood and causing other Jews to do it also?

[Springfield Reformer]

Jesus wasn’t using a metaphor in this instance.

I am aware of your assertion, but still waiting for evidence why the ordinary rules of language should be abandoned here.

He never blessed a particular door and said that door is me.
He never blessed a particular vine and said that vine is me.

Blessing the bread and the wine was an ordinary and customary part of the passover celebration.  For thousands of years, no Jewish participant, that I am aware of, ever expected the matza to be any thing but matza.  The form Jesus gave is absolutely that of a direct metaphor.  Please provide an actual reason for disregarding that fact.

we have the writing of the Apostles and Fathers and the 2,000 year testimony of the Church.

I am edified by the writings of many.  I as a Christian am only conscience-bound to what God has said, and not the traditions of men, be they 2 or 4 or 6000 years old.

Paul told us in his day there were some who did not discern ( recognize ) the Body, as the saying goes, nothing new under the sun.

Indeed, and still they have trouble recognizing it.  Imagine how surprised they will be on judgment day when those who ill-treated their brothers in Christ failed to see them as the body of Christ.  Because that body of Christ, the family of believers, and not the bread or wine, is the locus of Paul's concern in 1 Corinthians 11.  Indeed that whole section is about the body of Christ, the worthiness of even the least member of it, because each one of us carries the gift of the Holy Spirit, and each has something of value to give within that body, and each was the object of Christ's supreme love at the cross.  This is why one should never partake of the remembering of Christ's sacrifice, while treating those for whom Christ died in an unloving manner.  It is a wretched hypocrisy, and it does and should bring us under the disciplinary hand of God.

But no, no mystical, gnostic-like "recognition" of deity in the bread.  That sort of mysticism was never part of the Lord's Supper until much later.  Seeing it here is anachronistic projection, and a rejection of nearly the entire context surrounding the "proof text." But like you say, nothing new under the sun.  

Peace,

SR

[RnMomof7]

How about “do this in remembrance of me” just as Christ instructed? In remembrance of His broken body and shed blood on the cross just as He instructed. No magical mystical changing of some cracker into something it isn’t. Just a symbolic remembrance of His broken body and shed blood

The Passover miracle pointed to Christ.. it was a "type" of Christ

The Jews were told to remember this miracle with a yearly celebration ...and so ..at the remembrance , Jesus explains that He was the fulfillment of the Passover, and now do this in remembrance of Him ..no longer the historic type ... The broken unleaven bread , was His body, the blood over the door post was His blood which would be spilled on the cross.. He was the lamb to be slayed ...all the OT pointed to Him.. every prophet, every Law, every Jewish Holiday pointed to Him

[RnMomof7]

Bump

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

read Leviticus 17, the prohibition is against eating the blood of any creatures.

one might want to ponder the Biblical statement the life is in the blood.
then one might want to ponder that Scripture interprets Scripture and that all Scripture is true.
then one might to ponder how we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ.
so obviously drinking the blood of Christ is not a sin, does not violate Leviticus 17.

I guess it depends on who’s life you want in you, I have decided only Jesus Christ and him alone can satisfy my soul.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

I as a Christian am only conscience-bound to what God has said

---

yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

God said it’s His Body.

it seems the more like being conscience-bound to follow the 16th century tradition of men.

peace

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

The Passover miracle pointed to Christ.. it was a “type” of Christ

---

excellent!
the OT is full of types and shadows pointing to Christ.

but.......once Christ came, the need for types and shadows went away, the promised one came!

we no longer have need for types, shadows, symbols, etc.

we now can receive Christ!

[CynicalBear]

Jesus said He was the "lamb" that was slain.

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

I thought Catholics claim to believe what Christ said. Are you now telling us that you don't believe what Jesus said? Are you now changing to metaphor?

[CynicalBear]

>>we no longer have need for types, shadows, symbols, etc.<<

So in Revelation when it calls Christ the "lamb that was slain" it's actually a lamb?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

I am aware of your assertion, but still waiting for evidence why the ordinary rules of language should be abandoned here

---

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

[Springfield Reformer]

yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I understand that to you it wouldn't seem so. Happily, each of us will stand or fall before our own Master, and not the misunderstandings of our mortal critics. That's actually beneficial to both of us. :)

BTW, you have yet to offer any proof why this clear metaphor should be disregarded, and the rules of ordinary language suspended. Do you have an offering in that regard? Or should we consider that part of the conversation closed?

Peace,

SR

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

So in Revelation when it calls Christ the “lamb that was slain” it’s actually a lamb

---

the questions get sillier and sillier.

“Lamb of God” is a title attributed to Jesus.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

That’s actually beneficial to both of us. :)

---

amen to that! I am glad to agree with!

we disagree, clearly it is not a metaphor and never was considered a metaphor by the Church.
we are going in circles.

[RnMomof7]

read Leviticus 17, the prohibition is against eating the blood of any creatures.

So are you saying that cannabalism is Ok under levitical law ?

one might want to ponder the Biblical statement the life is in the blood.,

As indeed it is.. That is why Jesus poured out HIS life for us on the cross

He poured out HIS life for us !

then one might to ponder how we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ. so obviously drinking the blood of Christ is not a sin, does not violate Leviticus 17.

That makes no sense at all..are you saying that it was fine for the to break levitical law because the life is in the blood?..Funny how God missed that

One might just ask if Jesus had any blood left after He hung on the cross for 8 hours.. and had His heart area speared by a sword

Luke 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.…

Might it be the body that ascended into heaven had no blood for you to drink?? Something to ponder

I guess it depends on who’s life you want in you, I have decided only Jesus Christ and him alone can satisfy my soul.

Unfortunately the cracker god is not the Jesus of the bible. The Jesus of scripture saves to the outermost..

He is not re-sacrificed daily on an altar...He is not locked in a golden prison to "keep Him safe"

He is King of Kings and Lord of lords ..subject to no mans call

[Springfield Reformer]

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

An excellent demonstration of my central point. Remember what a metaphor is.  If I say "chicken soup," and I am actually presented with literal chicken soup, I do not have a cross-reference between two dissimilar domains.  That contrast of domains is exactly what triggers the metaphor analysis processing of the human mind.  No contrast, no metaphor. Soup is soup is soup. Big deal.

BUT, if someone is holding something which is clearly not His body, a piece of bread for example, and yet calls it His body, the metaphor recognition wire is tripped, and we automatically begin to look for the lesson of the metaphor, which Jesus provides explicitly, in that like the broken bread, His body is broken for us, and that like the flowing wine, His blood has flowed for us.  Add to that all the prophetic significance of the Passover meal itself, and you have a tremendous, wonderful metaphor of our Savior's great gift of Himself to us. Oh yes, this is most definitely a parable of unmatched love, and one we should never ever forget, to the praise of His glory!

Peace,

SR