 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
RWJ
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | VIsalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Richard | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
________________________
How do you respond to those Protestants who contend that these verses are determinative for understanding Jesus' discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood - as though he were only intending the discourse to be understood metaphorically, rather than literally?
In other words., all he said about the flesh needs to be understood in the context of his acknowledging the flesh to be of no avail.
|
|
|
tedjenczewski
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Richmond, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 392 |
| First Name: | Ted | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Presbyterian, revert Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 02:17 am |
|
| Dave Armstrong's "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" Ch4, pg 89, has an excellent discussion of John 6, 63. He notes that when ever the words "flesh" and "spirit" are opposed to each other in the NT they never refer to literal flesh vs. figurative flesh. But they contrast sinful human nature with human nature enriched by grace. Carnal flesh cannot receive God's word, but only flesh endowed with the spirit of God's grace can receive His word. So Jesus was not refering to His flesh when he said this, but of those of us who would try understand what He said in the prior verses without faith supported by grace. It is very possible that V 59 should have initiated a new paragraph in the text so the shift in ideas would have been more clear. After all, when the original letters of the NT were written, there was no punctuation, sentences, paragraphs etc, just strings of words on a page. Last edited on Sat Oct 4th, 2008 02:23 am by tedjenczewski
____________________
"...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1Tim 3, 15
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2524 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Welcome to the forum, Richard.
What I offer stems directly from Ted’s words above. The concept of the passage cannot be to deny what Christ has asserted for most of the chapter up to this point. Nor can we agree with the Protestant forcing his words here into a meaning they do not naturally have.
Following is what the Navarre Bible Commentary has to say about the passage in context. Its purpose is not to counter any Protestant interpretation, but to allow Christ’s exposition of the Eucharist speak for itself.
60–62. Many of his listeners find the eucharistic mystery completely incomprehensible. Jesus Christ requires his disciples to accept his words because it is he who has spoken them. That is what the supernatural act of faith involves: that act “whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe that the things which he has revealed are true; not because of the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed ‘by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, and who can neither be deceived nor deceive’” (Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap. 3).
As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help his disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe” (Jn 14:29).
63. Jesus says that we cannot accept this mystery if we think of it in too human away, in other words, by just seeking to indulge our senses or having too earthbound a view of things. Only someone who listens to his words and receives them as God’s revelation, which is “spirit and life,” is in a position to accept them.
66. The promise of the Eucharist, which caused arguments (v. 52) among Christ’s hearers at Capernaum and scandalized some of them (v. 61), led many people to give up following him. Jesus had outlined a wonderful and salvific truth, but those disciples closed themselves to divine grace; they were not ready to accept anything which went beyond their very limited horizons. The mystery of the Eucharist does call for a special act of faith. St. John Chrysostom therefore advised Christians: “Let us in everything believe God, and gainsay him in nothing, though what is said be contrary to our thoughts and senses. […] Let us act likewise in respect to the [eucharistic] mysteries, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind his words. For his word cannot deceive” (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on St. Matthew, 82).
From the beginning, the problem with the people gathered at the synagogue in Cafarnaum on this occasion was that they were thinking materially and not spiritually. They wanted bread, they wanted portents and miracles. They did not want what Christ had come to give them. And he made this clear to them from the outset: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor 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 has God the Father set his seal” (John 6:26–27). This is the reason he confronts them in verses 61–65, and it is the reason they turn away from him in disgust.
You can see that the Catholic understanding is quite different from the common one found among Protestants. It merely takes Christ’s words at face value and shows how they fit into the overall Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. It is easier to accept, in my opinion, because it does not require us to switch between literal and figurative meanings in the same passage. The natural flow would remain with the literal. Protestants mostly refuse to do this because it would negate their rejection of the reality of the sacramental elements being truly Christ’s body and blood.
David
|
|
|
RWJ
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | VIsalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Richard | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
| Thanks, guys. I appreciate your replies. Very helpful.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1571 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
David Emery summed this up quite nicely! The next time I run into a Protestant friend of mine who insists it's okay for evangelicals to call their communion service a "eucharist" and what Jesus said in this section of John's Gospel was "allegorical," I'll have something to share with him. But of course, after this, I'm sure my friend will no doubt be overjoyed to hear a Catholic say, "Hey, it's in the Bible, doesn't that settle it? 
You can see that the Catholic understanding is quite different from the common one found among Protestants. It merely takes Christ’s words at face value and shows how they fit into the overall Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. It is easier to accept, in my opinion, because it does not require us to switch between literal and figurative meanings in the same passage. The natural flow would remain with the literal. Protestants mostly refuse to do this because it would negate their rejection of the reality of the sacramental elements being truly Christ’s body and blood.
(emphasis, mine.../sb)
It's a very nice way of saying, here's a small thread to pull from the old, worn and quite threadbaren rug of the Reformation and watch it all fall to pieces shortly afterwards!
And welcome to the Forum, Richard!
Last edited on Sat Oct 4th, 2008 09:23 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2446 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:58 pm |
|
Here is what I had about this passage in my book, referred to above. I cited Fr. Bertrand Conway:
Conway goes on to refute the most common Protestant response -- that of citing John 6:63 to the effect that when Jesus contrasts spirit and flesh, He is proclaiming the purely symbolic nature of the Eucharist:
The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never mean literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of sinful human nature (flesh) contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God (spirit) . . . 29 Christ's meaning, therefore, is clear: My words are such as the mere carnal man cannot receive, but only the man endowed with grace. St. Chrysostom says: "Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense . . . You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing" (In Joan., 47, 2).30
29 See Mt 26:41, Rom 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 7:1, Gal 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26, 1 Pet 3:18, 4:6.
30 Conway, The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, 251.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1571 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
Dave,
When it comes to the Fathers in this matter, doesn't it still all fall on St. Ignatius' words about how one must approach the Eucharist and know that it is indeed Jesus and all loyal Christians must follow through on what the Church teaches and expects? After all, once terms like "allegorical" "human constructs" "nuanced" etc. are used to wiggle away from those "difficult sayings" -- aren't they more or less excusing rationalizations for outright rebellion in the face of clear-cut expanatory teaching directly from Jesus?
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2524 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 02:16 am |
|
Steven Barrett wrote:Once terms like "allegorical" "human constructs" "nuanced" etc. are used to wiggle away from those "difficult sayings" -- aren't they more or less excusing rationalizations for outright rebellion in the face of clear-cut expanatory teaching directly from Jesus?
That’s exactly what I was saying above, as you pointed out earlier. We do not need the Fathers of the Church to say it, because Jesus says it clearly enough to begin with. But if people insist that his words do not mean what they say, we do have the Fathers and indeed ordinary grammarians of any age who can speak in his defense. 
David
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 481 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 03:28 pm |
|
Hi all-
From a logistics standpoint (because I ain't no scholar), if Christ really meant that His flesh had no value (I've already forgotten the exact wording- May God give me a biblical mind), then His suffering and death on the Cross could not heal us. Anything that affected HIs humanity would be of no value to us, just that which affected His divinty.
Love to you all today-
Laura
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2446 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
The fathers are indeed very united on this matter:
History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources
St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence
Clarifications (Under Fire), of St. Augustine's Eucharistic Doctrine, and a Counter-Challenge to Protestants Who Try to "Co-Opt" Him
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1571 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:40 pm |
|
David Emery,
Thanks. I'll never forget how hard it was trying to stay awake one morning during an adult Bible class one Sunday and something had come up and I asked for clarification because it seemed to cross wires with something I instintively knew didn't square up with both Church history and theology. Although I can't recall the exact issue, I'll never forget the cold-bucket-of-water effects that instructor's words had on me when he uttered the words "human construct."
Too bad I was still too stunned to remind this (retired preacher) that the Bible tells us in Matthew 16 that Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles considerable leeway when it came to "human constructs," and this was three centuries before the ultimate, (albeit guided and Blessed by the Holy Spirit) "human constructs" -- the entire canon of the OT and NT came along.
"Where in the Bible do you find 'human constructs,' hmmmm?" Dang, I was too stunned to zing him back with that!
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Current time is 10:10 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
