No. It’s in scripture. The earliest scripture it appears in is 1 Corinthians 11:22-26. This predates all the Gospels and all the books where the Eucharist is mentioned.
Paul said there that Jesus had told him about it through revelation.
Tradition- I don’t pay any attention to it. It is man made. If there was a “tradition” that Simon Peter was Attila the Hun, I wouldn’t believe it.
In the opening of the Gospel of John, the writer says he is John the Apostle.
Matthew does not say who he is. He does not even say his name is Matthew.
That was made up later by men.
We don’t even know that he was killed by anyone. Scripture is silent on what happened to Paul.
I admire the Catholic Church and it’s doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I believe that having scripture and doctrine defined for us by those with divine authority eliminates the pandemonium and confusion that results with us doing our own interpretation.
My son converted to Catholicism and I have strongly considered it. There are a few obstacle I have to reason through before I can do it.
I don’t disdain Catholicism, at all.
Are you here with the question in this thread as an investigative foray into transubstantiation and the Eucharist, then?
Because without the Eucharist, which is the “Source and Summit” of the Catholic faith, Catholicism isn’t Catholicism.
Yes, Jesus did really say that. John wrote this way after the three synoptic gospels were written. Everybody knew this. There was no need to repeat what everybody already knew. However, the saying in John 6 can only be understood as referring to the Eucharist.
The early church attested to Matthew, an apostle as the writer, Mark got his info from Peter. Ignatius was a follower of John, and relates the reality of the Eucharist, as true flesh and true blood.
Now in reference to John 6 I have written on this explaining the reality of the Eucharist.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6.html
I also dealt with an indepth rejection of John 6 as only speaking figuratively here:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6response.html
I guess you will have to write a gospel for yourself that tickled your itching ears, Bill. Eusebius reports that John had read the other three Gospels and affirmed their accuracy, and that John had said that he wrote his gospel to fill in details and events left out by the other three. Differences in narrative style and editorial decisions on content seem like spurious bases for determining the veracity of what John and the other biographers wrote.
John 6 was not instructions for the Eucharist and did not institute it.
From the Catholic Catechism:
[1323](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1323.htm’)
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135
It says Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper the night He was betrayed.
Did John 6 take place at the Last Supper? No
Eusebius wrote in the 4th century AD. John wrote in the 1st century. Did Eusebius know John? Of course not.
Did John leave notes about what he had read? Where are they?
Did John leave notes about his thought process when he wrote his Gospel? Where are they?
How could Eusebius possibly have known what John had read or what John was thinking when he wrote his Gospel?
If you believe that, I’m glad that Mr Haney isn’t still around to fleece you of your money.
john 6 pointed forward to the Eucharist. Just as he said He’d give his life to the world pointed forward to Him giving his life on the cross, it pointed forward to the Meal that he would institute. He explained that he would eventually. No one says John 6 is where He instituted it but pointed forward to the reality of what it would be and what it would do. When it was actually instituted no doubt the apostles understood the meaning of what he said in John 6. John 6 was the promise, the fulfillment was in its institution.
He passed on what he believed both in writing, and his disciples. One of his disciples is Ignatius of Antioch, who went to his death about 107-110 AD.
Here is what he said about the Eucharist:
“those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up” ( Smyrnaeans 6.2).
true flesh true food, which he repeatedly mentioned in John 6:51-58
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." -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D
It is an antidote against death. If you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have eternal life reflecting John 6:51-58. So I’ll take the disciple who studied under John, the apostle himself, over you, , about 20 centuries later, with all due respect.
John 6 was not referring to the Eucharist because the Eucharist had not yet been instituted. It was instituted at the Last Supper, according to the Catholic Church. That’s like saying that Wilkes Booth was pointing ahead to Oswald- meaningless drivel.
The argument is silly. He pointed to its institution just as he pointed to his death. He died later so the promise was completed later too. You have the right to unbelieve Jesus, that is your choice. Those who followed John believed in the reality of the Eucharist as already documented by Ignatius, as well as those who followed John, such as St. Justin Martyr and St. Ireneaus.
I have no interest in what Ignatious, Justin Martyr and Ireneaus said. They didn’t know Jesus and they were not at the Lords Supper. Anything they said they were told by someone else or they made it up. Anyone can do that to prove anything they want to. You used them for filler trying to sound authoritative.
I never said I don’t believe Jesus. That is disinguinity on your part, which I won’t give any time to.
Paul is the first one to mention the Eucharist as a ritual.
Later authors (Matthew, Mark and Luke) picked it up from Paul and repeated the story.
Thee is no evidence that any of these people were there at the Last Supper.
John was there. In his Gospel he gives a detained account of the Last Supper and does not mention Christ’s institution of the Eucharist.
The claim that everyone knew about it and there wasn’t any use in repeating it is as lame as a rubber crutch.
He didn’t mention it because it didn’t happen. Paul invented it. That’s what I think.
Paul was from Tarsus. Tarsus was full of Greek Mystery religions which abounded with feasts for the dead and blood drinking. He thought he would transfer some of that to Christianity.
How much else in the synoptic Gospels do you dismiss?
It’s more than just a ritual, of course.
As for everything else in your reply, it’s just a repetition of what you’ve already said.
You’re perfectly free to hold that view, of course. You asked for explanations and rejected them all, and insist on sticking to your view. What were you really looking for here?
PS: Maybe you missed my last question to you. It’s an important question given what you shared. It’s not one you need to answer to me. It’s one you need to answer to yourself.
I dismiss glaring contradictions.
Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Herod died in 4 BC
Matthew 2:1
Luke says that Jesus was born during the first Israeli census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. That was in 6-7 AD.
Luke 2:2
Matthew Mark and Luke say that the last supper was on the first day of Passover.
John says it was a day earlier and Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover.
Matthew says that Jeremiah predicted Judas’ fate. Then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof.
There are more.
’
I have no interest in what Ignatious, Justin Martyr and Ireneaus said. They didn’t know Jesus and they were not at the Lords Supper. Anything they said they were told by someone else or they made it up. Anyone can do that to prove anything they want to. You used them for filler trying to sound authoritative.’
Ignatius studied directly under John and knew of the reality of the Eucharist. So he heard it from the horses mouth. His language fits the CAtholic interpretation of John 6, which you are free to disregard, but don’t take that what a direct disciple of John has no relevance that is disingenouos to say the least. These people went to their death, and their lives were based on what they heard. Ignatius went to his death based on what John preached to him. Your psycoanalyzing 2000 years later diminishing what they went to their death believing in is disingenuous. You dismiss Jesus at your peril.
'> Paul is the first one to mention the Eucharist as a ritual.
Later authors (Matthew, Mark and Luke) picked it up from Paul and repeated the story.
You have no evidence that Paul is the first one to mention the Eucharist as ritual. It is much more than ritual btw. Matthew was a witness and he is traditionally the first writer of the gospel. He wrote that down what he heard. In fact Paul is getting this from the apostles themselves. Paul didn’t just make this up. He got this from the apostles/disciples and passed it on. 1 Cor. 11:2, before he talks about the institution of the Eucharist, he talks about maintaining the traditions. He spent time with the apostles who passed it on to himself. that oral tradition that he got from the apostles he was so confident that what he related to the institution is what he got from the apostles, not the other way around. Paul did not just make this up, and the gospel writers say, Oh, that sounds nice, and they blithely say ‘let me copy Paul’. Give me a source anywhere before 19-20th century skeptics that say that. Who in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century said anything like you say about it now? Those people who died with their lives at stake, believing what Ignatius proclaimed John 6 meant doesn’t matter, those closest to the time means nothing but skeptics make up stuff 20 centuries later never thought up before means something?
BTW, John 6 is infused with the Eucharist setting going back to the beginning of John 6, which sets his stage for the Eucharistic discourse peppered throughout the whole chapter but you are not interested in a look at John 6. I’ve already given you some links that examine John 6, but you can care less, he probably didn’t say that anyway. Again John had Jesus explanation in John 6 as an elucidation on the Last Supper that would follow. Matthew was there. Luke goes into great detail in affirming in the beginning of his gospel that he went to great detail that everything he presented was based on speaking to the actual eyewitnesses. Mark got his information from Peter himself. So they all attest to their reliability. Now, you want to dismiss it, that is your perogative. Paul took from them, not the other way around. To talk about this coming from Greek mystery religions show you have no idea about this at all about where this comes from. This is from the Old Testament, there are many things from the Old Covenant that is fulfilled. About the paschal lamb for example. The Institution of the New covenant, the Exodus 24 background, Jeremiah 31, the Jewish roots of this. This is a covenantal meal. There is absolutely no hint of borrowing from Greek Mystery religion. If you were really interested in it, you’d read something like this.
805998392%7c&msclkid=60d4d430eeaf11a5da698a983cb946e2#isbn=0385531869&idiq=12749495
But you don’t really care about this at all, that is the true background. There is absolutely no evidence that Christianity got this from Greek Mystery Religions. Those church fathers who wrote about this stuff, borrowed not from Greek mythology but from the Old Covenant that was fulfilled by the lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. This thing about the new covenant in his blood, goes back to Exodus 24, not Greek mythology. That idea that he transferred this from Greek Mystery religion is silly.
Explaining to whom? They are not forcing Catholicism on anyone. It’s a choice.
This is the last time I’ll spend anymore time on you. I didn’t realize your ignorance until I read the above.
1 Corinthians was written in about 57 AD. Paul WAS the first New Testament author to mention the Eucharist!
Matthew was written 65-80 AD.
There is absolutely no evidence that Matthew was the Apostle Matthew. The author does not even claim his name is Matthew. That he was an eyewitness is a total fabrication.
Paul wrote that he got it directly from Jesus in a revelation.
Type away and I’ll just ignore you.
