Posted on 02/03/2024 1:55:54 PM PST by Antoninus
The well-used quote: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops," may be found in a variety of forms. Perhaps the most colorful version of it is: "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."
This saying has been attributed to one of several Fathers of the ancient Church and to Protestant revolutionaries from more recent times. Most often, it is claimed to be taken from the writings of St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom. After a thorough search, I have come to the conclusion that this saying is of more modern provenance, likely originating from a Protestant polemic which made very liberal use of a homily from St. John Chrysostom.
So to respond to the question posed in the title of this post: Is the literal floor of Hell paved with the literal skulls of bishops? The answer is: No, probably not as such.
That said, I looked up the homily of St. John Chrysostom to which this quote is often attributed, and what I found there is, perhaps, even more daunting than the rhetorically evocative version that most folks are familiar with. The work in question is St. John's Third Homily on the Acts of the Apostles. The passage in question is the following which I am pasting here for future reference:
"I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind. Many are the exigencies which throw a man out of his natural temper; and he had need have a thousand eyes on all sides. Do you not see what a number of qualifications the Bishop must have? To be apt to teach, patient, holding fast the faithful word in doctrine [see 1 Timothy 3:2-9; Titus 1:7-9]. What trouble and pains does this require!And then, others do wrong, and he bears all the blame. To pass over every thing else: if one soul depart unbaptized, does not this subvert all his own prospect of salvation? The loss of one soul carries with it a penalty which no language can represent. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value, that the Son of God became man, and suffered so much, think how sore a punishment must the losing of it bring! And if in this present life he who is cause of another's destruction is worthy of death, much more in the next world. Do not tell me, that the presbyter is in fault, or the deacon. The guilt of all these comes perforce upon the head of those who ordained them.
Let me mention another instance. It chances, that a bishop has inherited from his predecessor a set of persons of indifferent character. What measures is it proper to take in respect of bygone transgressions (for here are two precipices) so as not to let the offender go unpunished, and not to cause scandal to the rest? Must one's first step be to cut him off? There is no actual present ground for that. But is it right to let him go unmarked? Yes, say you; for the fault rests with the bishop who ordained him. Well then? Must one refuse to ordain him again, and to raise him to a higher degree of the ministry? That would be to publish it to all men, that he is a person of indifferent character, and so again one would cause scandal in a different way. But is one to promote him to a higher degree? That is much worse.
If then there were only the responsibility of the office itself for people to run after in the episcopate, none would be so quick to accept it. But as things go, we run after this, just as we do after the dignities of the world. That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life. Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost."
Read the entire Third Homily of St. John Chrysostom on Acts of the Apostles here.
What more is there to say, really? Except this -- may our bishops understand the gravity of what they do when they preach that which is contrary to traditional Church doctrine and morality.
Believe means obey. Look at the original meaning of the word.
Obeying is a work.
Now read James chapter 2.
You can’t say you believe unless you do the will of God.
That said, I do agree if a person is a follower of Christ they are to do what He says.
Check the passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper for context. Do this in remembrance of Me.
Let's first look at the Pauline epistles and then the Gospels. Paul in 1 Corinthians writes
16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.And in Chapter 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.Why would you be drinking judgement on yourself if it is just a symbol??????
27 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. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves
So no, even in the letters of St. Paul it is clear that the Eucharist is NOT just a symbol - it is Body and Blood of Christ and if you eat and drink of it "without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgement on yourself"
Let's first look at the Pauline epistles and then the Gospels. Lord God Jesus Christ tripled down on the fact that this was the REAL body of Christ
"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."It is this language that arouses murmuring from the Jews about its meaning, and rightfully so; at this point, our Lord is using language that is somewhat symbolic and could be interpreted any number of ways. He has yet to clarify His meaning. Our Lord will go on to clarify His statement with an even more shocking assertion:
"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (John 6:54-55)
If our Lord meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, what you certainly do not do is rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion. Yet this is what our Lord does here. Contrast this with our Lord's behavior in Matthew 16:11, when the disciples take His words about bread literally when He only meant it figuratively (""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees") or in John 11:13-14 ("Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus is dead"). In each case, the disciples think Jesus is speaking literally when He is actually speaking figuratively, and to ensure that He is not misunderstood by His followers, Christ clarifies Himself. Note how differently He behaves in John 6: The people are scandalized by what appears to be a very shocking statement of literal truth, and far from dissuade them from this opinion, our Lord goes out of His way to state the truth even more literally and bluntly!
This is demonstrated more plainly in the verb Jesus choose for the word eat. Initially, the verb is phago (φάγω), which simply means "to eat", and much like the English word, can have a variety of meanings. I can eat something literally. I can "eat something up" as a way of expressing delight in it. I can say "eat my dust" to express that I am faster than the person I am saying it to. "Eat your heart out" means to suffer from envy or jealousy while to say I could "eat a horse" simply means I am really hungry. To eat one's words means to be proven wrong about a fact previously asserted, while when I was a kid, Bart Simpson popularized the phrase "eat my shorts", which meant "Get lost." Phago has all the same shades of meaning. Our Lord uses phago in John 6:48-53.
But interestingly enough, in John 6:54 Jesus switches the verb He uses to represent the concept of eating. Instead of the broad, equivocal term phago, He changes to the very pointed term trogon. Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. When our Lord begins to use trogon for "eat" in John 6:54, He is removing the last kernel of doubt from His listeners as to the proper interpretation of His words. The proper English equivalent of trogon would be masticate, which is the scientific term for the act of chewing and is unambiguous.
From John 6:54 on, Christ only uses the word trogon when referring to how believers will "eat" His flesh. A particularly interesting passage in John 6:58, where our Lord uses both phago and trogon together. The passage reads:
"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever."
The verb "eat" is used twice here, once with reference to the Israelites eating the manna, the other to the faithful eating the Body of Christ. In this passage, Jesus uses phago when referring to the Israelites eating manna but again uses trogon when referring to Himself. The meaning is plain; Jesus wants us to understand that we will "eat" His Body in the most literal, direct sense of the word. This is why He uses sarx for flesh and trogon for eat. Had He meant this teaching to be symbolic, it is hard to understand why He would have
(A) chosen such univocal terms when other more general terms were available that He had used on other occasions.
(B) continued to stress the apparent literal truth of His statements to His scandalized listeners.
(C) failed to offer any clarification or warning that His words were not to be taken literally, even when He had done this on other occasions.
Even when His own disciples start to desert Him, He does not modify or clarify this teaching in the least. This is odd, given the other occasions that He had corrected His disciples understanding were not nearly so serious as this. We would think that in this case especially, if Jesus did mean these words symbolically, He would have said so.
One final thought. It might be objected that Jesus was always misunderstood by people. His own statements about destroying the Temple and raising it up were taken out of context by the Pharisees and used as evidence against Him at His trial, and Jesus made no attempt to clarify Himself to them. Similarly, it could be argued that the fact that Jesus didn't clarify Himself to the unbelieving Jews in John 6 does not mean that He was not actually speaking symbolically. Unbelievers always have and always will misunderstand Jesus, and even as Christ was silent before Pilate, so was He content to let these unbelievers go away confused in John 6.
This is a plausible argument in general, because it cannot be denied that our Lord does remain silent at times and that He apparently feels no obligation t clear up the muddled thoughts of unbelievers, which are usually based on willful disbelief than on sincere confusion. Yet that argument does not hold up in John 6, for the simple reason that it is not only to the unbelieving Jews that He makes these comments, but also to His own disciples, and that even after the Pharisees leave Him, He does not attempt to explain away the literal language in His statements even to His disciples privately.
Does Jesus have an obligation to explain Himself to disciples? While parables are symbolic language are often used by our Lord when He deals with the public or unbelieving, corrupt leadership, we see that Jesus does in fact does explain the meaning behind His parables to His disciples privately. We see this with the Parable of the Wheat and Tares in Matthew 13 ("Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field") and again in Matthew 20:17 when our Lord took the twelve apart privately and explained to them the details of what He had been prophesying about His Passion. So, while allowing unbelievers to walk away confused is plausible, our Lord never sends the disciples away confused. He always takes care that they at least understand His words in the proper sense, and in John 6 He allows them to believe His words to be literal. They may not understand the words at the time (hence Peter's confused but faithful utterance that "You alone have the words of eternal life" in John 6:68), but they believe Him nonetheless.
The assertion that the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man in John 6 is symbolic simply doesn't hold weight when examined linguistically and in the context of other statements made by our Lord. Taken with the fact that the Early Church understood these words to be literal as well, as we have a pretty strong case for the Catholic position on our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist.Lord God Jesus Christ tripled down on the fact that this was the REAL body of Christ
"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."It is this language that arouses murmuring from the Jews about its meaning, and rightfully so; at this point, our Lord is using language that is somewhat symbolic and could be interpreted any number of ways. He has yet to clarify His meaning. Our Lord will go on to clarify His statement with an even more shocking assertion:
"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (John 6:54-55)
If our Lord meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, what you certainly do not do is rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion. Yet this is what our Lord does here. Contrast this with our Lord's behavior in Matthew 16:11, when the disciples take His words about bread literally when He only meant it figuratively (""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees") or in John 11:13-14 ("Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus is dead"). In each case, the disciples think Jesus is speaking literally when He is actually speaking figuratively, and to ensure that He is not misunderstood by His followers, Christ clarifies Himself. Note how differently He behaves in John 6: The people are scandalized by what appears to be a very shocking statement of literal truth, and far from dissuade them from this opinion, our Lord goes out of His way to state the truth even more literally and bluntly!
This is demonstrated more plainly in the verb Jesus choose for the word eat. Initially, the verb is phago (φάγω), which simply means "to eat", and much like the English word, can have a variety of meanings. I can eat something literally. I can "eat something up" as a way of expressing delight in it. I can say "eat my dust" to express that I am faster than the person I am saying it to. "Eat your heart out" means to suffer from envy or jealousy while to say I could "eat a horse" simply means I am really hungry. To eat one's words means to be proven wrong about a fact previously asserted, while when I was a kid, Bart Simpson popularized the phrase "eat my shorts", which meant "Get lost." Phago has all the same shades of meaning. Our Lord uses phago in John 6:48-53.
But interestingly enough, in John 6:54 Jesus switches the verb He uses to represent the concept of eating. Instead of the broad, equivocal term phago, He changes to the very pointed term trogon. Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. When our Lord begins to use trogon for "eat" in John 6:54, He is removing the last kernel of doubt from His listeners as to the proper interpretation of His words. The proper English equivalent of trogon would be masticate, which is the scientific term for the act of chewing and is unambiguous.
From John 6:54 on, Christ only uses the word trogon when referring to how believers will "eat" His flesh. A particularly interesting passage in John 6:58, where our Lord uses both phago and trogon together. The passage reads:
"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever."
The verb "eat" is used twice here, once with reference to the Israelites eating the manna, the other to the faithful eating the Body of Christ. In this passage, Jesus uses phago when referring to the Israelites eating manna but again uses trogon when referring to Himself. The meaning is plain; Jesus wants us to understand that we will "eat" His Body in the most literal, direct sense of the word. This is why He uses sarx for flesh and trogon for eat. Had He meant this teaching to be symbolic, it is hard to understand why He would have
(A) chosen such univocal terms when other more general terms were available that He had used on other occasions.
(B) continued to stress the apparent literal truth of His statements to His scandalized listeners.
(C) failed to offer any clarification or warning that His words were not to be taken literally, even when He had done this on other occasions.
Even when His own disciples start to desert Him, He does not modify or clarify this teaching in the least. This is odd, given the other occasions that He had corrected His disciples understanding were not nearly so serious as this. We would think that in this case especially, if Jesus did mean these words symbolically, He would have said so.
One final thought. It might be objected that Jesus was always misunderstood by people. His own statements about destroying the Temple and raising it up were taken out of context by the Pharisees and used as evidence against Him at His trial, and Jesus made no attempt to clarify Himself to them. Similarly, it could be argued that the fact that Jesus didn't clarify Himself to the unbelieving Jews in John 6 does not mean that He was not actually speaking symbolically. Unbelievers always have and always will misunderstand Jesus, and even as Christ was silent before Pilate, so was He content to let these unbelievers go away confused in John 6.
This is a plausible argument in general, because it cannot be denied that our Lord does remain silent at times and that He apparently feels no obligation t clear up the muddled thoughts of unbelievers, which are usually based on willful disbelief than on sincere confusion. Yet that argument does not hold up in John 6, for the simple reason that it is not only to the unbelieving Jews that He makes these comments, but also to His own disciples, and that even after the Pharisees leave Him, He does not attempt to explain away the literal language in His statements even to His disciples privately.
Does Jesus have an obligation to explain Himself to disciples? While parables are symbolic language are often used by our Lord when He deals with the public or unbelieving, corrupt leadership, we see that Jesus does in fact does explain the meaning behind His parables to His disciples privately. We see this with the Parable of the Wheat and Tares in Matthew 13 ("Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field") and again in Matthew 20:17 when our Lord took the twelve apart privately and explained to them the details of what He had been prophesying about His Passion. So, while allowing unbelievers to walk away confused is plausible, our Lord never sends the disciples away confused. He always takes care that they at least understand His words in the proper sense, and in John 6 He allows them to believe His words to be literal. They may not understand the words at the time (hence Peter's confused but faithful utterance that "You alone have the words of eternal life" in John 6:68), but they believe Him nonetheless.
The assertion that the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man in John 6 is symbolic simply doesn't hold weight when examined linguistically and in the context of other statements made by our Lord. Taken with the fact that the Early Church understood these words to be literal as well, as we have a pretty strong case for the Catholic position on our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist.
26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.Note that it is about the Eucharist that "you eat of the loaves and will be filled" and "LABOUR FOR that which endureth unto life everlasting"
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
It is still Jesus telling us to labor for the freely given salvation He is offering
And in James
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
The various books of the bible are clear that it is NEVER faith alone
That said...
Roman Catholicism likes to point to the Bread of Life Discourse as proof for their dogma of transubstantiation.
Simple question in light of v35: do you get hungry or thirsty?
Post #59 by Antoninus points out about works or not, to which you answered
Post #60: where you quoted Just John 6:28-30 which it seems to be your argument about "works"
To your post #60 is where I replied "you quoted John 6:28-29 but you cannot take the Protestant way (sorry) of excerpting a sentence out of the context of the rest of the paragraph / chapter -- read what is before verses 28 and 29 and after"
And I pointed out that John 6 is about the Eucharist that "you eat of the loaves and will be filled" and "LABOUR FOR that which endureth unto life everlasting"
It is still Jesus telling us to labor for the freely given salvation He is offering
In what way have you read 28-30 IN CONTEXT if you miss the fact that this is about labouring for that which endures unto life everlasting?
perhaps you mean Catholicism likes to point to this as proof of the Eucharist? Well it ain't only Catholicism, but also
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.
To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense -- unless that is what you, ealgeone, want to do????
Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
We truly eat of the Body and drink of His Blood through the Eucharist and when I do, I do not hunger or thirst for the eternal bread that God's grace has given us
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512
53 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.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
27 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.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
However, when this is read in light of the passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper support for Romes claims fall apart.
Also, at the crucifixion we don’t see the disciples attempting to collect His blood.
IF He literally meant for us to eat and drink His flesh and blood He did not offer them His actual blood during the Lord’s Supper.
So when the full council of Scripture is consulted your position is nullified.
As I noted to you or another poster I can give quotes from the same guys who would contradict your claims.
It is defined as follows.
4100 pisteúō (from 4102 /pístis, "faith," derived from 3982 /peíthō, "persuade, be persuaded") – believe (affirm, have confidence); used of persuading oneself (= human believing) and with the sacred significance of being persuaded by the Lord (= faith-believing). Only the context indicates whether 4100 /pisteúō ("believe") is self-serving (without sacred meaning), or the believing that leads to/proceeds from God's inbirthing of faith.
John makes extensive use of this word in his Gospel. IIRC it is used 81 times by John in various forms with 80 of these being in reference to believing in Christ.
26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. (key passage on our eternal security)
38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. (second reference to our eternal security)
40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48“I am the bread of life. 49“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
(We do this through believing in Him...but the Jews and some of His disciples don't understand what He's saying here.)
59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”
61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. (they left because of what He said in the immediate verses. they did not believe in Him)
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”
68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.
” 70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
*****
Believing in Him, or faith in Him, is the clear consistent message of the NT as to how we have eternal life.
| Matthew 26:26-29 | Mark 14:22-24 | Luke 22:14-20 | John 13:21-26 | 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 |
| 26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” | 22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”. | 14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. | 21When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” 22The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.23There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” 25He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. | 23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. |
Key Phrases/words:
Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).
29.11 ἀνάμνησις, εως f: (derivative of ἀναμιμνῄσκω ‘to cause to remember,’ 29.10) the means for causing someone to remember—‘means of remembering, reminder.’ ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν ‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 347). New York: United Bible Societies.
They're thinking literal food based on the CONTEXT of the passage.
It's always interesting how the Roman Catholic likes to move to the symbolic vs literal in this passage. For if they didn't their entire theology around this passage collapses.
What did Mary say at the wedding feast at Canna?
“Do whatever he tells you”.
That alone should be enough.
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.