Apologetics for the Masses #418: GotQuestions.org (one more time)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

The Protestant website - GotQuestions.org - and John 6:51 (Part 4)

General Comments

Hey folks,

A few things:

1) For those of you in the Birmingham area, I will be giving one more apologetics seminar this Tuesday (April 5th) at St. Theresa's in Leeds; 6:30 - 8:00 PM.

2) If any of you are in the Fresno area, I'll be there next Friday, April 8th, to speak at the breakfast meeting of the Catholic Professional and Business Club at 8:00 AM. The breakfast will be at Pardini's. If you're interested in attending, contact the CP&BC at: cpbcfresno.org.

3) If you are in the Huntsville, AL area, please let me know if you would be interested in attending a Lunch and Learn - meet at a restaurant for lunch, some fellowship with fellow Catholics, and enjoy (hopefully) a short (10-12 minute) presentation on the faith (by yours truly) and then a Q&A session. If you are interested, hit "Reply" to this email and let me know your interest and I'll put you on a notification list for when it happens.

4) Happy National Atheists' Day! (See Psalms 14:1)

Introduction

This week, I am continuing the Q&A with GotQuestions.org that I've been focused on in some of the last few newsletters. Again, GotQuestions.org is apparently a popular Protestant website for getting answers to theological questions. If the numbering of their questions is accurate, they've answered over 1,000,000 questions to date. So, to review, I asked them the following theological question: In John 6:51, Jesus is talking about giving us this bread to eat, and the bread that He says He is going to give us to eat is His flesh which He will give for the life of the world. So, when did He give His flesh for the life of the world? And, was this flesh real, or symbolic?

If it's real, then Jesus is talking about giving us His real flesh to eat in John 6:51-58. If it's symbolic, then Jesus didn't really die on the Cross, it was only a symbolic representation of His flesh and blood. Either way a Protestant answers that question, they have a problem.

So far, the person answering the questions for GotQuestions.org - AB - first said John 6:51 was talking symbolically, then in his second answer he said it was Jesus' real flesh being talked about. Then in his 3rd answer he went back to symbolic and in his 4th answer he went off on a transubstantiation tangent. I decided to try one more time, and instead of AB answering my question, I had someone new - Sally - give it a go.

Below I start with the last question I asked, followed by their latest answer, from Sally, and then a few comments from me and then my next question to them.

Can you identify all of the problems with Sally's answer? Some of them are egregious. I'll talk about them in my comments below.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Question 1091819 (from John)

I hope you can bear with me for one more question, and I apologize if this comes across in any way as being difficult, but the Catholics I'm dealing with are saying that you are not really answering the question that I asked and that your answers so far have contradicted themselves. So, this is the question directly from a Catholic, I would appreciate your help with it: In John 6:51, Jesus says that "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Jesus is going to give us some sort of bread to eat, and no, He is not talking about becoming a loaf of bread. But, what bread is He going to give us? You say he is going to give us spiritual bread. But, He says that the bread He is going to give us to eat is His flesh. Great! Which flesh? His symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual flesh, or His real flesh? Well, it is the flesh that He is going to give for the life of the world. So, was the flesh that He gave for the life of the world His real flesh, or was it His symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual flesh?

It is agreed by all of us that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross. So, the crucial question is: Was the flesh on the Cross, which Jesus gave for the life of the world, His symbolic, metaphorical, and spiritual flesh, or was it His real flesh? If it is His real flesh that He gave on the Cross, then it is His real flesh that He gave for the life of the world, which means it is His real flesh that He is referring to as the living bread which He is going to give us to eat. So, again, was the flesh that Jesus gave on the Cross for the life of the world real, or was it merely symnbolic, metaphorical, and spiritual? Thank you!

Answered by: Sally (GotQuestions.org)

Answer:

Having been raised in an Irish Catholic family; educated from Kindergarten through High School in private Catholic schools; having married a Catholic; having raised, and educated my children in the Catholic religion, I well understand their belief in transubstantiation, as it relates to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Here is the entire passage of John 6:51, taken from the King James Version, including the surrounding verses, which add more clarity, John 6:48-58: “48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, how can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.”

When Jesus declared that He is ‘the bread of life’ (v.48), He was saying that just as bread is necessary for physical life, so Jesus is necessary for spiritual, as well as eternal life. In other words, all men metaphorically ‘feed’ on something; some ‘feed’ on entertainment; some ‘feed’ on work; some ‘feed’ on sexual gratification, and some ‘feed’ on interacting with other people (socializing), plus many more obsessions, but none of this satisfies the inner need for the eternal; a need that God has placed within the heart of every human being, as expressed in Ecclesiastes 3:11: “He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.”

Jesus spoke of the ‘manna’, eaten by the forefathers in the wilderness, but they died a physical death anyway. Consuming the ‘living bread’, which came down from heaven, gives the person eternal life, and He follows this statement by saying that He ‘is the living bread’. In other words, Jesus was speaking metaphorically of eating and drinking, which are necessary to sustaining physical life, but He was referencing the necessity of becoming a partaker in Him, and His sacrifice, which made atonement for sin and opened the door to eternal life to those who would believe.

David Guzik (1), in his commentary on John 6, states: When Jesus said, “The bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world:”, Jesus plainly explained what He meant by bread in this context. That bread was His flesh, given for the life of the world. It was His soon-coming work on the cross when He gave His life as a sacrifice pleasing to God the Father and as a substitute for guilty sinners. To give one’s flesh can scarcely mean anything other than death, and the wording here points to a death which is both voluntary (‘I will give’) and vicarious (‘for the life of the world’). The words, then, are a cryptic allusion to the atoning death that Christ would die, together with a challenge to enter the closest and most intimate relation with Him. Now, brothers and sisters, the food of your faith is to be found in the death of the Lord Jesus for you; and, oh, what blessed food it is! Here our Lord plainly declares that his death was to be a vicarious sacrifice and atonement for the sin of the world; and that, as no human life could be preserved unless there was bread (proper nourishment) received, so no soul could be saved but by the merit of his death. Jesus explained that receiving Him as bread was not receiving Him as a great moral teacher, example, or prophet. It was not receiving Him as a good or great man or noble martyr. It was receiving Him in light of what He did on the cross, His ultimate act of love for lost humanity.”

Just like the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day, Catholicism has willfully twisted His words, with reference to His flesh. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, at the Last Supper (the last meal Jesus celebrated with his disciples), something happened. Ordinary bread and wine were turned into His actual body and blood. (2) The word, transubstantiation, means: The bread is literally changed into the body of Christ, and the wine is literally changed into the blood of Christ, in such a way that only the appearance of the original elements remains.

In the Catholic Church, the belief is that the priest commands Christ to leave His seat at the right hand of the Father, at which time the bread becomes the actual body of Christ, and the wine becomes His actual blood. This is called “Transubstantiation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 368, The Eucharist – Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life.) This is performed in Catholic churches, world-wide, approximately 250,000 times per day. It is an abomination to teach that the God of all creation, Jesus Christ, would obey the command of a fleshly, sinful priest, and turn Himself into a wafer of bread, or a cup of wine, to be consumed by people who do not know the truth. Jesus used bread as a symbol of the fact that it is He who sustains life - that He “is the bread of life…”, as written in John 6:35: “Jesus 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.” Also, He broke the bread as a symbol of His body being given as an atonement for sin, as stated in Luke 22:19: “And 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." He used wine as a symbol of His blood being shed for the forgiveness of sin, as expressed in Matthew 26:27-28: “27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”

Jesus sacrifice on the cross was sufficient payment for sin, once for all (Hebrews 10:10), but the Catholic Mass is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1367, as follows: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice…the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” In other words, according to their tradition, Jesus is sacrificed over and over again during the various Masses, celebrated on the altars of Catholic Churches around the world, approximately 250,000 times per day. This is a direct contradiction and denial of what is written in Hebrews 7:26-28: “26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the [sins] of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, [appoints] a Son made perfect forever.”

Confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and truly believing that He was raised from the dead, is all that is necessary for salvation, as declared in Romans 10:9-10 states: “9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Jesus explained the fact that He is the ‘bread of life’, and that those who believe in Him shall never hunger, or thirst, in John 6:35: “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

My Comments

First, notice the presentation of the Catholic bona fides to convince you that she knows what she is talking about: "Having been raised in an Irish Catholic family..." Spare me! She wasn't raised in just an ordinary Catholic family, no! An IRISH Catholic family. Then, she was educated from K-12 in private Catholic schools. Then, she married a Catholic. Then she raised her kids Catholic. So she "well understands [Catholic] belief in transubstantiation, as it relates to the Sacrament of the Eucharist." Uhh, well...based on what you've said in your answer...no, you don't! Some of the things she says about Catholic teaching on the Eucharist display an egregious ignorance of Catholic teaching, if not outright deliberate misrepresentation.

For example, she states, "In the Catholic Church, the belief is that the priest commands Christ to leave His seat at the right hand of the Father, at which time the bread becomes the actual body of Christ...It is an abomination to teach that the God of all creation, Jesus Christ, would obey the command of a fleshly, sinful priest, and turn Himself into a wafer of bread, or a cup of wine, to be consumed by people who do not know the truth."

No, what is an abomination is her pathetic ignorance, if not outright deliberate misrepresentation, of Catholic teaching! Nowhere...NOWHERE!...does the Catholic Church teach that the priest "commands" God to do anything, much less to "leave His seat at the right hand of the Father"! Has a single one of you reading this ever been taught that the priest "commands" Jesus to leave His seat at the Father's right hand at the consecration? If you have, let me know.

Besides, why would Jesus have to "leave His seat at the right hand of God"? She mentions that He is apparently called down to do this "in Catholic churches, world-wide, approximately 250,000 times per day." That means He is in a whole lot of places, world-wide, at the same time, so why would we teach He has to "leave His seat" in Heaven? I mean, obviously we believe He can be in more than one place at a time.

What is even more egregious is that she cites the Catechism, right after saying this garbage, in such a way that it makes it seem this is all from the official teaching of the Church. When, actually, all she is doing is citing that the Catechism uses the word "transubstantiation" to describe the process of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood. And, she gives a page number for the Catechism, but no paragraph number. Furthermore, she doesn't mention which edition of the Catechism. In my Catechism, page 368 is all about Confession. Sloppy at best, deliberately deceptive, at worst.

Then, she cites some guy named "David Guzik" and his commentary on John 6. Who the heck is David Guzik? Is he infallible? What authority does he have that she should be citing him as an expert on John 6? Answer: absolutely none! Should I go by the Word of Guzik, or the Word of God?

Next, and this bordered on the absurd, she quotes the Catechism (correctly citing Paragraph #1367) about the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist being "one single sacrifice...the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." But then she goes on to say, immediately after quoting the Catechism, "In other words, according to their tradition, Jesus is sacrificed over and over again during the various Masses..." Completely ignoring what she just quoted from #1367, as well as completely ignoring Paragraph #1366, right before #1367, which states, rather clearly, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrfice of the cross..." "Re-presents," not "sacrifices again"!

I'm sorry, but this expert from an Irish Catholic family is either not very bright, or deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Again, the Catechism says Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. One and the same. Nowhere does any teaching of the Catholic Church ever say that we sacrifice Jesus over and over again at each and every Mass. Yet, that is the claim Sally puts forward here.

Finally, it is very important when you are dealing with folks like this, to pay attention to everything they say. For example, in the 2nd paragraph of her answer above, what do we find? We find that phrase that I absolutely love to hear coming out of a Protestant's mouth: "In other words..." In other words, by using that phrase, they are directly admitting that while they may have quoted God's Word, they now are giving you their very human and fallible and non-authoritative interpretation of God's Word. It's a bait and switch operation. Here is God's Word...I'm quoting it...no one can argue with God's Word...it's God's infallible Word. Oh, and here's my personal, fallible, very human interpretation of God's Word to tell you what it "really" means. In other words, she is asking me to believe the Word of Sally, or the Word of Guzik, as opposed to believing God's Word.

Always, always highlight that fact when you are dealing with Protestants. They are not asking you to believe God's Word, they are asking you to believe their fallible interpretation of God's Word. They do not go by Scripture alone, they go by their personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture alone. So, when they do that, always say something along the lines of, "Well, I absolutely believe the Word of God, but what I'm having trouble with is the Word of Sally (or Jim or Pete or Cindy or whoever it is you're talking to). Ask them: Should I believe the Word of God, or the Word of Sally?

I hope they didn't pass me off from AB to Sally because Sally, who is from an Irish Catholic family, is somehow considered the Catholic "expert" at GotQuestions.org. That would be like having Jack Kevorkian answering questions about pro-life issues.

Next Question From Me

Dear Sally,

Thank you for your answer to my previous question. However, my Catholic friends are saying you didn't really answer their question. Possibly my wording wasn't clear, so permit me to rephrase their question:

In John 6:51, Jesus says He is going to give living bread for people to eat. He then specifically identifies this living bread as being His flesh, which He will give for the life of the world.

In your previous answer, and in AB's answer, you both agree that Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world on the cross. So, the Catholics ask: "Was Jesus' flesh on the cross real, or was it symbolic?" If your answer is, "real," then John 6:51 essentially reads this way: "...if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My real flesh which will be nailed to the cross."

If, however, He is talking about giving His symbolic flesh to eat, John 6:51 reads: "...if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my symbolic flesh."

The Catholics say you guys are trying to have it both ways - saying Jesus is talking about giving His symbolic flesh to us to eat, but then turning around and saying He's giving His real flesh for the life of the world, when it's the same bread in both instances. They say it is either one or the other: If John 6:51 is referring to "symbolic" flesh as the bread given for the life of the world, then it was only His symbolic flesh hanging on the cross. If it was His real flesh on the cross, then it is His real flesh that is the living bread to be given for the life of the world that is to be eaten.

So, which is it - real or symbolic in John 6:51 and on the cross?

(Also, as a Christian, I know you would not want to misrepresent the faith of others. But, you seriously misrepresented Catholic teaching in your previous answer in a couple of places. If you're interested I could identify those for you.)

My Comments

Essentially just repeating the question - one more time! - to see if Sally will be able to connect the dots, or if she just repeats herself or contradicts herself, or what. And, I mention her misrepresentations to see if she at all cares that she didn't get it right when it comes to Catholic teaching. We'll see...

Closing Comments

No newsletter this coming week as I will be traveling to and from Fresno on Thursday and Friday. I might be able to get something out Wednesday or Thursday of Holy Week, but if not, definitely something the week after. Just in case I don't get something out during Holy Week, I hope and pray all of you and your loved ones have a happy and holy Easter!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!