Posted on 03/31/2015 2:42:14 PM PDT by RnMomof7
If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and, if indeed, consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language, then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. (Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood. by Mike Gendron)
“There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. There simply isn't any indication of this. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood? That would be ridiculous...
...The Mass is supposed to be a re-sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the body and blood represented in the Mass become the broken body and shed blood of Christ. In other words, they represent the crucifixion ordeal. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it became His actual sacrificial body -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all”. (Matthew Slick Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.
|
Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?
Jason Engwer
"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." - John 6:35, 6:63
Catholics often claim that John 6 is a passage about the eucharist, and that Jesus was teaching transubstantiation by telling people to "eat His flesh and drink His blood". Typical is the April 22, 1998 edition of Mother Angelica Live, a television program on the Roman Catholic network EWTN. The guests on the program, Bob and Penny Lord, argued that Jesus wouldn't have let people leave Him, as some did in John 6:66, if His statements about "eating My flesh and drinking My blood" were not to be taken as actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. Supposedly, Jesus allowing those people to leave Him is evidence that He was teaching transubstantiation, and that He was unwilling to compromise that teaching in order to have more followers. Surely He would have explained to the people in John 6:66 what He really meant if He wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood, right?
Actually, there are some problems with the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6. In verse 35, Jesus identifies what the "eating and drinking" are. They represent coming to Him and believing in Him. Trusting in Christ, not participation in Roman Catholic mass, eliminates a person's hunger and thirst. Throughout John 6, statements about faith in Christ are interspersed with the statements about "eating and drinking" (verses 29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64). As Jesus often did, He was using an analogy to illustrate a point. In this case, He was illustrating a true faith, a faith that involves a person coming to Christ, believing in Him, and then never hungering or thirsting again as a result. This is why Jesus told people that He is the bread of life, and that they are responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said these things before the Last Supper. People were just as responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood before the eucharist was instituted as they were after.
Not only does the Catholic interpretation of John 6 miss the theme of the passage, but it also rests on some bad assumptions. Did Jesus really let the people in John 6:66 leave Him without a clarification of what He meant? No, He didn't. In verses 35 and 63, Jesus reveals that He isn't referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. If some who heard Him missed or forgot what He was saying in those verses, that was a problem with them, not with Jesus.
And was it even the concept of actual eating and drinking that motivated the people in John 6:66 to leave Jesus? Possibly not. The immediate context of their departure is Christ's teaching about His own foreknowledge and predestination (John 6:64-65). Catholic apologists often overlook the verses immediately before verse 66, and go back to what Jesus was saying earlier in the passage. Why should we do that? We really don't know all of what was motivating the people in John 6:66. For all we know, they may have left because what Jesus said in verses 64-65 convicted them that they didn't truly believe in Him.
It's also possible, of course, that they did think Jesus was referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. Does it follow, then, that Jesus would have tried to keep those people from leaving Him if He really wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking? No, it doesn't. He knew that these people had never really believed in Him (John 6:64). And contrary to what Catholic apologists suggest, Jesus didn't always clarify His teachings to those who rejected Him. In Matthew 13:10-17, Jesus explains that He purposely kept some people from understanding what He was teaching. In John 2:19-22, Jesus refers to His body as a "temple", which many people misunderstood as a reference to the actual temple in Jerusalem. He didn't explain to these people what He really meant. We read in Mark 14:56-59 that some people, long after Jesus had made the statement in John 2:19, were still thinking that He had referred to the actual temple in Jerusalem. And in John 21:22-23, we read of another instance of Jesus saying something that was misunderstood by some people, with the misunderstanding leading to the false conclusion that the apostle John wouldn't die. Yet, Jesus didn't clarify the statement. It was John who clarified it decades later in his gospel. (Any suggestion that John didn't clarify chapter 6 in his gospel only begs the question. How do Catholics know that passages such as John 6:35 and 6:63 aren't clarifications of what Jesus meant?) When Catholic apologists claim that it would be unprecedented for Jesus not to further clarify His message to the people in John 6:66, if He wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking, they're mistaken. He could have been following the same pattern we see in Matthew 13:10-17, John 2:19-22, and John 21:22-23. To this day, people continue to disagree about what Jesus meant by some of the parables in Matthew's gospel, for example.
Catholic apologists sometimes argue that the metaphorical concept of eating somebody's flesh and drinking his blood always had a negative connotation among the Jews. They point to passages of scripture like Psalms 27:2 and Revelation 16:6. Therefore, if Jesus was using such terminology in a metaphorical way, He would have been telling His listeners to do something negative. Since Jesus wouldn't have done that, He must not have been speaking metaphorically. The problem with this Catholic argument is that it's erroneous in its first claim. While metaphorically eating flesh and drinking blood did sometimes have a negative connotation, it also sometimes had a positive connotation (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnoblood2.html#john6). And since Jesus gave us a positive definition in John 6:35, there's no need to look for any other definition.
We're told by Jesus and the apostle Paul that the bread and wine of the eucharist remain bread and wine even after consecration (Matthew 26:29, 1 Corinthians 11:26-27). The Roman Catholic view of communion is filled with errors, some of them undermining fundamental doctrines of scripture. Citing John 6, or citing John 6:66 in particular, doesn't change that.
|
I subscribe to the London Baptist Confession. When I read Augustine, I see him using the same metaphor as Jesus. How is that a problem? I have repeatedly explained we see this form, A is B, as a direct metaphor, which it is in both the Gospels and in this passage of Augustine.
Here’s the problem: Saying something IS something doesn’t automatically invoke an Aquinan theology of substances. Indeed, during the first major debate over the Eucharist, in the 9th Century between Ratmamnus (symbolic view) and Radbertus (realistic view), Augustine was used in defense of the symbolic view and Radbertus had to explain his way around Augustine.
Now I know Augustine wasn’t fully consistent with the Baptist view. But in the words you presented here, there really is no conflict between what he said and what any Baptist might say. I have been a Baptist of one kind or another for over half a century. I would hope you could trust my testimony in this. But if not, there is nothing I can do about that. Think as you wish.
Peace,
SR
That’s worse than being called late for dinner.
This statement alone shows that folks are out to attack catholics or just plain ignorant of their theology.
First of all, it is NOT the priest's power to do anything. When the bread and wine are consecrated, it is believed the Holy Spirit comes.
Secondly, salvation does not depend upon the Eucharist alone. The Eucharist is communing with God (Jesus), realigning oneself and celebrating what was commanded by Jesus as a perpetual memory of His life, death and resurrection.
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
I personally don't know if Jesus was being literal in this passage, but reading it in the NIV, it appears literal. that's not the point. The point is that Jesus instituted the covenant meal so folks would come and celebrate a perpetual memory. Communing ones spirit with the spirit of God.
It is a special time in the life of hundreds of millions of people. Why do y'all care? If you don't believe that the Eucharist is a special thing, then don't do it. Why besmirch others for the way they choose to worship God?
It is NO WONDER so many people look at Christians and say to themselves, heck, they can't even agree. Why would I want to be part of all that infighting.
Ever look in the phone book of a major metropolitan area? Tell me how many denominations of the Christian faith there are? All of which have various theological differences, enough of a difference to divide churches and have folks go out and create NEW churches.
Does it make them wrong necessarily? I don't believe so.
God is more merciful than most of y'all believe. He is up in heaven looking down on man and shaking His head....”They still don't get it”.
By the way, before the grief comes a callin, I am not catholic, but I do believe that catholics love Jesus very much.
Furthermore, you will enter the pearly gates to find millions of Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals...you name it. Jesus told us that he was the gatekeeper. The way.
Men can be so stupid (proven for thousands of years), we just love to put God in own lil toy box and go out with our megaphones and declare how right we are. It is likely folks will get to heaven and find out how dedgum wrong they were all these years. None of us have all the answers...none of us! That includes Catholics. God loves us despite our stupidity....want proof? His name is Jesus.
Remember folks, we may not like, understand or worship the same, but it is satan himself that causes strife, backbiting, gossip, division. What better way to bring down a house than from within.
When Jesus said, “It is finished” , he was essentially saying that all of the enmity between God and man...is over. Jesus paid the price. So let folks worship the way they want to worship. It is between them and God.
This is Holy Week, for Christ's sake let there be an end to this constant strife among the people who claim to be His. We don't have to pretend to agree, we don't have to brush our differences under the rug but we have to stop treating each other like things.
I wholeheartily agree.
That old heretic Origen of Alexandria did. I guess he took Mt. 19:12 very literally. I wonder how many converts he made with that hermeneutic.
There's something else that is not just as symbolic as the bread and wine shared at the Last Supper, or even more so, and that is the sacrifices made since The Fall until the Cross which anticipated the Slain Lamb of God.
But neither the sacrifice of bulls and of goats, nor the shewbread could take away sin, nor can baked bread or grape juice which have never literally been changed.
Jesus did not pour out transubstantiated grape juice to cover and wash away sin.
Only the Blood which He shed once for all time and eternity could do that.
They, as well as other non-Catholics who take a Biblical stance, are not protesting false doctrines invenmted by the Roman organization. They are rejecting them. There are, actually, no grounds to fight over.
Don't you know the rules?
You are supposed to waste your time DEFENDING an unsupported charge of being a left-wing phony, NOT come back with a quick oneliner like the ACCUSATION!
There are Rolexes and there are Timexes.
Both of them tell time.
He sure did!
1 Corinthians 12:27
we disagree, clearly IS a metaphor!
Just because your chosen religion never considered it such is a sad commentary on it.
ALL of the protestants?
Oh that others were like you!
But so many place their faith SO much in the CHURCH; that it appears to us outsiders that Christ is being lessened.
The sacrificial animal, which was either a lamb or goat, was necessarily a male, one year old, and without blemish. Each family or society offered one animal together, which did not require the "semikah" (laying on of hands), although it was obligatory to determine who were to take part in the sacrifice that the killing might take place with the proper intentions. Only those who were circumcised and clean before the Law might participate, and they were forbidden to have leavened food in their possession during the act of killing the paschal lamb. The animal was slain on the eve of the Passover, on the afternoon of the 14th of [[Abib[1]]], after the Tamid sacrifice had been killed, i.e., at three o'clock, or, in case the eve of the Passover fell on Friday, at two.[2]
The sacrificial service took place in the courtyard of the Temple at Jerusalem. Strictly speaking, slaughtering could be performed by a layman, but in practice was performed by priests. The blood had to be collected by a priest, and rows of priests with gold or silver cups in their hands stood in line from the Temple court to the altar, where the blood was sprinkled. These cups were rounded on the bottom, so that they could not be set down; for in that case the blood might coagulate. The priest who caught the blood as it dropped from the animal then handed the cup to the priest next to him, receiving from him an empty one, and the full cup was passed along the line until it reached the last priest, who sprinkled its contents on the altar. The lamb was then hung upon special hooks or sticks and skinned; but if the eve of the Passover fell on a Sabbath, the skin was removed down to the breast only. The abdomen was then cut open, and the fatty portions intended for the altar were taken out, placed in a vessel, salted, and offered by the priest on the altar, while the remaining entrails likewise were taken out and cleansed.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_sacrifice
It appears that catholics think like catholics have been taught to think.
Rational folks ask:
"How can this CHURCH give us his flesh to eat?"
ALONE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.