Monday, May 09, 2011

PeaceByJesus on the Lord's Supper

PeaceByJesus has provided some exegetical notes on "take eat, this is my body" etc. I'm not aware of any Roman Catholic or Lutheran response to him. A response to his arguments would, however, be welcomed in the comment box here.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

10 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Subscribe.

johnmartin said...

Where is the explanation of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" as an expression used in the psalms as a curse. If Jesus statement was not meant to be literal then Jesus must have meant unless you curse me you shall not have life in you.

Also explain why the disciples left Jesus after he gave the speech in John 6.

Why is Jesus the lamb of God who is to take away the sins of the world and the passover lamb had to be eaten for Israel to enter into the sacrifice before the exodus event.

As the NT is the new Exodus from sin and Jesus is the passover lamb, then how do we enter and remain in the new Israel of God, without eating the passover lamb or the new manna.

Jesus said he is the bread of life and compared himself to the manna in the desert that had to be eaten. How then can Jesus be greater than the manna, and yet not be eaten in the NT?

Please explain why the disciples said “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” concerning the feeding on his flesh.
John 6: 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

After explaining the meaning of this statement concerning eating the flesh many left him. did they leave him over a metaphor concerning eating flesh or did they leave him over a literal statement repeatedly made about eating flesh and drinking blood?

If they left Jesus over a metaphor, please show us biblical rpecedent for this action as follows -

1. Men leaving a prophet and the faith over a statement they knew was only a metaphor.

2. Jesus being thoroughly incompetant in his explanation whereby he taught eating flesh was a metaphor, but everyone in the narrative knew it was to be taken literally.

ChaferDTS said...

To eat and drink Jesus means to believe in Him for eternal life which is based on His death on the cross. Jesus is spiritual food which brings eternal life. As He is called the bread of life in the context of John 6. Roman Catholicism in it's ignorance of proper biblical exegesis wants to use John 6 for it's heretical doctrine of transsubstantiation in which the institution of the Lord's Supper is not even in the context of the passage. Roman Catholicism basically miscites that passage for it's false doctrine. Jesus is eaten spiritually by faith in Him for eternal life is the whole point of what Jesus is talking about. JM for a Roman Catholic who condemns Protestants for private interpretation sure does alot of private interpretation of Scripture. Passages I might add have not be given any dogmatically defined interpretation for at all.You are guilty of the very things you accuse Protestants of doing. The people in John 6 left for their unbelief in Jesus Christ. They could not get the idea that Jesus had to die on the cross for sins.

johnmartin said...

Chafer - Jesus is eaten spiritually by faith in Him for eternal life is the whole point of what Jesus is talking about.

JM - False, because the audience was already composed of disciples and therefore they already believed in Jesus. This is why many of them left him at the end of his bread of life discourse. They simply found his literal teaching too confronting to believe him any more.

Chafer - The people in John 6 left for their unbelief in Jesus Christ. They could not get the idea that Jesus had to die on the cross for sins.

JM - False again. The hard saying was the saying that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. There is virtually nothing at all directly related to the cross in the bread of life discourse. This is clear evidence Jesus meant what he said. They really had to eat and drink, just as He said they had too and they rejected that teaching.

You'd think if that teaching was only a metaphor then the Lord and savior Jesus Christ would have simply told them because they already had faith. It is rather obvious He did not tell them it was a metaphor because it was meant to be taken literally.

Furthermore, if you say eat my flesh and drink my blood is a metaphor, then it means to curse someone in the psalms. This is evidently absurd and shows the Catholic position is the only exegetically tenable position available within the text.

There are inumerable problems with the reformed position on the Eucharist and none of the problems/questions brought up here have been addressed, let alone answered in this thread.

ChaferDTS said...

"False, because the audience was already composed of disciples and therefore they already believed in Jesus. "

Some were unbelievers . You evidently never read John 6:64 which states this fact.

"This is why many of them left him at the end of his bread of life discourse. They simply found his literal teaching too confronting to believe him any more."

What you claim is " literal " is not really literal intepretation properly defined. They left because of their unbelief as stated in verse 64-66 of John 6.

"False again. The hard saying was the saying that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. There is virtually nothing at all directly related to the cross in the bread of life discourse. This is clear evidence Jesus meant what he said. They really had to eat and drink, just as He said they had too and they rejected that teaching."

RCC views it as refering to Jesus future death on the cross and the Lord's Supper. You are out of step with Roman Catholic teaching on that part. And for what ? Just for for sake of disagreeing with me. How sad. All sides agree what Jesus said was true which you really beg the question as to what is the correct interpretation of the passage. What we dont find in the passage is people physically attacking Jesus in a practice of cannibalism that you evidently are contending happend there. Where in the text do we see Jesus being bitten physically there if we are to believe what you are saying ? Where do we the institution of the Lord's Supper ? We do not. That was instituted one year afterwards which you evidently not aware of. Where do we find the elements of the bread and wine changed in the elements in to the body , soul and spirit of Jesus Christ there ? We do not. The context is His future death on the cross.

"You'd think if that teaching was only a metaphor then the Lord and savior Jesus Christ would have simply told them because they already had faith. It is rather obvious He did not tell them it was a metaphor because it was meant to be taken literally.Furthermore, if you say eat my flesh and drink my blood is a metaphor, then it means to curse someone in the psalms. "

You are not interpreting it literally. You are not following the literal grammatical historical method of interpretation. You appeared to have missed the words of Jesus Christ in verse 63 in John 6.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

"This is evidently absurd and shows the Catholic position is the only exegetically tenable position available within the text."

Several errors are noted there.It is false to equate Catholic with what is known as Roman Catholicism. They are not one and the same. Secondly, The RCC has no dogmatically defined exegesis of John 6 at all. You are using your own private interpretation of the text itself. The funny part is Saint Augustine contradicts the RCC position of John 6 in his exposition of it which evidently you never read.

"There are inumerable problems with the reformed position on the Eucharist and none of the problems/questions brought up here have been addressed, let alone answered in this thread."

All you have done is assumed your position really and begged the question.

johnmartin said...

JM2 – I don’t contend. You merely assume from my statement. The message was given after a miracle to show the crowd He had the power to transform matter. After this the crowd only had to believe and trust the words of Jesus would come true when he had completed His mission. This is the problem confronting peter, who turns and believes after many disciples left Him. Belief in Jesus was not complete at the time the bread of life discourse was given, simply because He had not yet completed His mission. Once the mission was completed with the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, then the Eucharistic sacrifice could be offered and the disciples enter into the Eucharistic feast.

Chaf - Where in the text do we see Jesus being bitten physically there if we are to believe what you are saying ? Where do we the institution of the Lord's Supper ? We do not. That was instituted one year afterwards which you evidently not aware of. Where do we find the elements of the bread and wine changed in the elements in to the body , soul and spirit of Jesus Christ there ? We do not. The context is His future death on the cross.

JM2 – The future death on the cross is the means by which the bread and wine can have any meaning as a sacrifice when they are turned into the body and blood of Christ. The future fulfillment of the institution of the Eucharist provides very little problem for the Catholic position at all. After all the institution is where the words this is my body and this is my blood are stated.

JM1 - "You'd think if that teaching was only a metaphor then the Lord and savior Jesus Christ would have simply told them because they already had faith. It is rather obvious He did not tell them it was a metaphor because it was meant to be taken literally.Furthermore, if you say eat my flesh and drink my blood is a metaphor, then it means to curse someone in the psalms. "
Chaf - You are not interpreting it literally. You are not following the literal grammatical historical method of interpretation. You appeared to have missed the words of Jesus Christ in verse 63 in John 6.

Chaf - John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

JM2 – Sure does and that’s why they should have believed Him after He had told them of what they were to eat and drink to have eternal life. Evidently the spirit is given in this action after the spirit has moved to cause the disciples to believe the bread and wine are really the flesh and blood of Christ.

johnmartin said...

JM1 - "This is evidently absurd and shows the Catholic position is the only exegetically tenable position available within the text."

Chaf - Several errors are noted there. It is false to equate Catholic with what is known as Roman Catholicism. They are not one and the same. Secondly, The RCC has no dogmatically defined exegesis of John 6 at all. You are using your own private interpretation of the text itself. The funny part is Saint Augustine contradicts the RCC position of John 6 in his exposition of it which evidently you never read.

JM2 – They are one and the same. The separation is merely a ploy made by desperate reformation types who need to play word games to avoid the problems presented.

Several passages in John 6 are used in the CCC and other church documents in relation to the Eucharist. As such those passages in John 6 have a normative meaning that is Eucharistic.

St Augustine had an exegesis of the passage that uses the language of sign. So yes Augustine thought the Eucharist was a sign and you know what, so does the Catholic Church. However the Eucharist is as always, more than a mere sign, just as St Augustine also taught.

You have not presented any compelling reasons at all to overturn the literal understanding of John 6 to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ.

JM1 - "There are innumerable problems with the reformed position on the Eucharist and none of the problems/questions brought up here have been addressed, let alone answered in this thread."

Chaf - All you have done is assumed your position really and begged the question.

JM2 – another claim without any teeth and again, no answers are given to overcome the problems presented. This is nothing unusual of course. The Gospels and Paul are thoroughly Catholic in every respect and not one passage can be provided for any distinctively Protestant beliefs. Not one.

johnmartin said...

JM1- "False, because the audience was already composed of disciples and therefore they already believed in Jesus. "
Chaf - Some were unbelievers . You evidently never read John 6:64 which states this fact.

JM2 - So the group was composed of disciples and those who were engaging Jesus. V

JM1 - "This is why many of them left him at the end of his bread of life discourse. They simply found his literal teaching too confronting to believe him any more."

Chaf - What you claim is "literal" is not really literal interpretation properly defined. They left because of their unbelief as stated in verse 64-66 of John 6.

JM2- V66 clearly says many disciples left him, which infers they already had faith. Evidently John 6 is not compatible with the human invention of the reformation theology.

JM1 - "False again. The hard saying was the saying that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. There is virtually nothing at all directly related to the cross in the bread of life discourse. This is clear evidence Jesus meant what he said. They really had to eat and drink, just as He said they had too and they rejected that teaching."

Chaf - RCC views it as referring to Jesus future death on the cross and the Lord's Supper. You are out of step with Roman Catholic teaching on that part. And for what? Just for for sake of disagreeing with me. How sad.

JM2 – Actually the church believes the Eucharistic flesh serves more than one purpose so you don’t know what you are talking about.


Chaf - All sides agree what Jesus said was true which you really beg the question as to what is the correct interpretation of the passage.

JM2 – Your statement doesn’t mean anything.

Chaf - What we don’t find in the passage is people physically attacking Jesus in a practice of cannibalism that you evidently are contending happened there.

Turretinfan said...

JM:

So many of your comments are just assertions: either assertions that you are correct or assertions that the Reformed are not.

I'm not sure how to help you focus on actual arguments. One way is for me to remove comments that I think have nothing except assertions in them.

Do you have a better suggestion for me to help you?

-TurretinFan

PeaceByJesus said...

Thank God if you found that page helpful, though it is an early (for me) work that has seen only minor revisions, and I am sure it could use some proof reading and improvement. Too tired now and have other works, but thanks for linking.

I do find it rather clear that taking both the immediate and larger context of Scripture into consideration, Jesus is speaking allegorically, and that Jn.6 cannot be used to support the RC view, and i do not think Rome has infallibly defined it as so doing. But then again, they have not infallibly defined much of Scripture in any case.