Many of His followers deserted over the assertion that you have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you. (And when Jesus says "do this n remembrance of me", that's how we know the Apostles are able to transubstantiatiate bread, and this must be passed down to their successors, because people after them would not have life if they don't receive the Eucharist.) But, what does Jesus do? He turns to His apostles and asks them if they shall also leave. What's more? The doctrine of transubstantiation is the doctrine which Judas could not accept! The deceit of Judas was made clear: he was a devil. Saint Paul says that if you receive communion unworthily, you are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. If you call yourself a Christian, and don't believe in transubstantiation, you are not one of His followers who left Him, but a Judas.
John 6 UNDENIABLY proves Apostolic teaching on the Eucharist
Other urls found in this thread:
therealpresence.org
newadvent.org
twitter.com
Judas betrayed him because he was greedy and wanted to make cash, His 'followers' left Him because He wasn't giving them what they wanted. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Why are you making a cult out of everything?
Is this the power of Protestant exegesis? They clearly left him because they were disturbed that Jesus doubled down twice and told them he was absolutely talking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Even the disciples tell him "This is a hard teaching"
There's also the interpretation that Judas wanted a revolutionary messiah, that he wanted a Barabbas. In Mathew 26:25, Judas refers to Jesus as "Rabbi" (a jewish, then pharisee title) instead of as "Lord". In John 13:21-32 Jesus gives Judas bread so the Devil can enter him to sell Jesus for His mission to be completed. Luke also talks about Satan entering Judas, and states that the jews offered him money after he promised to turn in Jesus. The scriptures say Judas sold Jesus for money, but do not explicitly say that he just wanted the money, nor that it was his primary motif. Then why did he do it? It's not explicitly stated, cause the important thing here is that fact that Jesus was imprisoned, tortured and crucified. Judas rejected Jesus and he ended up despising the money he got for it and hanging himself; that's the true teaching here, the despair you'll end up with if you reject Him.
What about John 12:3-6? That was clearly about Judas wanting to steal money. It was shortly after he missed out on money there that he accepted the payoff.
Please read the whole passage, OP.
Jesus tells the Jews that He is the heavenly manna. The ancient Hebrews ate the earthly manna but still died later, but if one eats Jesus' flesh and drinks his blood they will live forever. People stop following him after that because it's too weird.
Then Jesus explains to the disciples that he is not speaking of something carnal but of something spiritual, and that to eat and drink him means to be sent to him by the Father and to come to believe in his words.
The passage is indeed related to the last supper narrative (down even to mentioning that Judas will betray Jesus) but by itself does not prove the real presence and in fact does not even indicate a ritual meal at all.
Right after he explains to them not once, not twice but THREE times that he's not joking and that they must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood? Right after his followers left because he just reinforced his point that he wasn't talking metaphorically?
Your interpretation doesn't fit witch what actually occurred and it definitely doesn't fit with the language Jesus used since he used the Greek word to "gnaw" to describe the eating. That's not metaphorical language, that's Jesus explicitly making his position clear that he's talking literally, and that's why his followers got disgusted and walked away.
After all that for Jesus to turn around and say "Nah bros, I was just pranking them, I was just talking about sola fide guys" is a tremendously retarded reading of the text. He just lost most of his followers, why would he only explain to his disciples that he was talking about faith when a bunch of his followers left him because they understood he wasn't talking metaphorically?
The protestant reading of John 6 doesn't work at all. It's a desperate attempt to try and twist what Jesus made clear, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are his literal body and blood. Period. He said it three times, take him at his word, he means it.
Where did I say it was metaphorical? Where did I talk about sola fide?
Furthermore this reading is patristic.
You make a false distinction between "Jesus insisted on the verb of chewing" and "Jesus is talking about faith in Him". In fact to make this false distinction harms the proper understanding of what the Eucharist is. But it also harms the obvious reading of the text.
This is where you should be written off. People going back to the Greek are always doing it to make controversial claims that their audience can't check because they don't know Greek. Do you even know Greek, or did you read this in a commentary somewhere and are just taking someone else's word for it?
By this logic, I guess Jesus means you literally need to be born again. Time to hop back into your mother's womb!
Show me in the Bible where it even uses the word 'symbol'–in fact, if we were to take 'eat flesh' and 'drink blood' (as per Psalm 26:2, Isaiah 9:20, Isaiah 49:26) as metaphors, it means to be persecuted in a bloody manner, and to be destroyed. When the Jews say "how can this man give us his flesh to eat"? Jesus didn't correct them, saying they misunderstood, it was just a metaphor, no, He says that you must eat His flesh to have life in you. For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He is the true bread that has come down from Heaven. If there's one thing the Bible is clear on, its the Eucharist.
Again I never spoke of metaphor or symbolism. And I do believe in the real presence. But John 6 isn't directly about it.
First off, you're ignoring where he did exactly that in John 6:63, where he explains in full detail that he is talking about his words. Also Matthew 16:6-12, same exact thing. John 4:31-34, very similar thing.
As for the other thing about people misunderstanding, read this;
Mark 4:10-12
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Which is exactly why reading until a cutoff point before John 6:63 where Jesus explained to his disciples is not advisable. Yet this is what people gladly do if they have ulterior motives to interpreting things. So they can just omit the explanation in John 6:63 and provide their own private interpretations in place of it.
How can anyone interpret this as being anything other than transubstantiative? Have Prots not read Exodus? Are they not aware of the symbology? Why does Revelations refer to Christ as the Lamb of God if he was not the Paschal lamb? Why was the lamb slain and eaten every day on the altar by command of God in Exodus?
No, he says "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" a little later. Also a lot of leading up to that is people taking Jesus to literally, like Nicodemus thinking to be born again means you have to climb back into your mother's womb, or the woman at the well thinking Jesus was talking about literal water, in verse 34 they think he means literal bread. Also he says "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." so I guess you catholics never need to eat?
Incredible… do you think that maybe he's talking about our flesh, that suffers from concupiscence? That living according to our fallen nature profits nothing?
How does Jesus answer? "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"–for 1500+ years being born again was understood as being baptized, not putting your faith in Jesus. Passages proving baptismal regeneration include:
1 Peter 3:20-21
Acts 22:16
Acts 2:38-39
Mark 16:16
1 Cor. 12:12-13
Colossians 2:11-13
Galatians 3:26-27
Titus 3:5
Baptists clearly go against the Biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist. And what of
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
- St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the beloved Apostle John) "Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
Another one from St. Ignatius of Antioch
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp (disciple of the beloved Apostle John). Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 4:17:5)
Matthew 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread (Douay-Rheims)
Douay-Rheims - NT Published 1582 (wiki)
King James Bible was published in 1611.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2837
2837 "Daily" (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of "this day," to confirm us in trust "without reservation." Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: "super-essential"), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the "medicine of immortality," without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: "this day" is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.
The Eucharist is our daily bread. The power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive. . . . This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgrimage.
The Father in heaven urges us, as children of heaven, to ask for the bread of heaven. [Christ] himself is the bread who, sown in the Virgin, raised up in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the tomb, reserved in churches, brought to altars, furnishes the faithful each day with food from heaven.
"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."
- Ignatius of Antioch"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Bible) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
St. Ambrose (340-397 AD)
Chapter 9 (newadvent.org
In order that no one through observing the outward part should waver in faith, many instances are brought forward wherein the outward nature has been changed, and so it is proved that bread is made the true body of Christ. The treatise then is brought to a termination with certain remarks as to the effects of the sacrament, the disposition of the recipients, and such like.
50. Perhaps you will say, I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ? And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.
51. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down and it became a serpent. Exodus 4:3-4 Again, he took hold of the tail of the serpent and it returned to the nature of a rod. You see that by virtue of the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the serpent and of the rod. The streams of Egypt were running with a pure flow of water; of a sudden from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth, and none could drink of the river. Again, at the prophet's prayer the blood ceased, and the nature of water returned. The people of the Hebrews were shut in on every side, hemmed in on the one hand by the Egyptians, on the other by the sea; Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided and hardened like walls, and a way for the feet appeared between the waves. Jordan being turned back, returned, contrary to nature, to the source of its stream. Joshua 3:16 Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed? The people of the fathers thirsted, Moses touched the rock, and water flowed out of the rock. Exodus 17:6 Did not grace work a result contrary to nature, so that the rock poured forth water, which by nature it did not contain? Marah was a most bitter stream, so that the thirsting people could not drink. Moses cast wood into the water, and the water lost its bitterness, which grace of a sudden tempered. Exodus 15:25 In the time of Elisha the prophet one of the sons of the prophets lost the head from his axe, which sank. He who had lost the iron asked Elisha, who cast in a piece of wood and the iron swam. This, too, we clearly recognize as having happened contrary to nature, for iron is of heavier nature than water.
52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.
53. But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.
54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.
thread hidden
gay
You're both correct friends, Judas was being greedy and foolish with his choices.
Is this the power of Protestant exegesis?
You mean common sense?
When Judas killed himself, was he thinking "woe is me who failed to partake in communion"?. No, he was in grief over betraying the one who loved him the most. Peter made the same mistake and it's what drove him to weeping and grief, which led to repentance. Judas on other hand, finding no solace in what he'd done, killed himself. Where's the indication of any of your Catholic heresy in that story?
It doesn't say this anywhere in the gospels. It just says he felt guilty for causing an innocent man to be put to death. Stop adding to the Bible you reprobate.
I'm a Presbyterian and we don't believe it is just bread and wine. Also, read the whole thing. It actually proves Calvinism.
Presbyterian's view of spiritual presence only is still not the Real Presence as it was always taught and passed down.
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches see the Mass or Divine Liturgy as a Sacrifice. They can trace their lineage back to Jesus and the Apostles. They have Apostolic Succession and validly ordained Priests. Their Eucharistic views are more consistent with the Early Church Fathers and first 1500 years of Christianity than Protestant Views. That difference in what is meant by Real Presence that still exists from Apostolic Churches is big and I don't know of any other Christians that prostrate themselves before a Consecrated Eucharist.
Malachi 1:11
"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."