John 6 Debate

Dr. Jim Guinee v. Mr. Scott Windsor

First Rebuttal of Mr. Windsor to Dr. Guinee

To make things clear, Dr. Guinee's "Opening Statement" has been put in boxes with green background and my words are outside those boxes.

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

My thanks to Scott Windsor for offering me the opportunity to debate, and for pointing out that we can all learn from this.

Please read what I write carefully (and pray that I will read carefully what SCOTT writes), with an open mind and open heart. I am not here to attack anyone, but to plow through the scriptures to ensure that we can more adequately understand what we must believe and do as Christians.

Ready? Have you opened your heart and mind? Okay...

Well thank you for the respectful and warm welcome to this debate.

So...the debate at hand centers on John 6 (although not exclusively) , with respect to Jesus' command for us to eat His flesh and to drink His blood. What does He mean?

Is he speaking literally? figuratively?

My worthy opponent will probably argue BOTH :)

But we will let him speak for himelf.

I seek to show you that we cannot and even should not take Jesus literally... that when we do, we are suddenly beset with a number of scriptural problems and contradictions. And since God is not the author of confusion, by showing that Jesus is only being figurative in John 6 can we prohibit distorting the scriptures.

For the time being, I will rely only on scripture. Scripture is God- breathed (2 Tim 3:16), scripture makes us wise for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, scripture should certainly allow us to clearly build a case, one way or the other.

I am resisting the temptation to divert this into a discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture and/or the subject of sola scriptura.

My case again is taking the negative -- Jesus' commands to eat His flesh and drink His blood are figurative.

Here are ten specific reasons that will reinforce my view:

1. Jesus' discourse on "eat my flesh, drink my blood" occurs approximately two years BEFORE the Last Supper. Therefore, it is highly unlikely He is talking about communion, given the enormous gap (relative to His ministry) between these two events.

The entire theme of the gospel of John is not "eat my flesh," but that Jesus is the Son of God, and by believing in the Son of God, we can have life in His name (John 20:31). This theme is reiterated OVER and OVER in the gospel.

We must ask ourselves if we HAVE to consume the flesh of Jesus, and to do so to have eternal life, why this command to eat His flesh and drink His blood is never repeated in the gospel.

In fact, nowhere in the synoptic gospels are we EVER told that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood for the purpose of having eternal life.

In fact, nowhere in the rest of the New Testament are we EVER told that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

This is an amazing omission on the part of the Holy Spirit!

With all due respect, Dr. Guinee, there was no omission! It's right there in John 6! Upon what precedent are you saying it must be repeated to be valid? If you cannot come up with a reference to support that a command must be repeated to be valid, then I respectfully request that you retract this argument as null and void.

Even without waiting for such reference, since it is clear that this command IS GIVEN in John 6, I request you retract the statement that there was "an amazing omission on the part of the Holy Spirit!"

Ask yourself this question - "How many times must your Lord command you to do something before you are required to obey Him?"

Are we really expected to take on isolated set of statements from Christ, thematically and chronologically removed from the Last Supper, and force a meaning on them that causes us to wonder why if it is so salvifically imperative it isn't RESTATED in the rest of the New Testament?

Now, lest my opponent think that I am arguing there is a set number of times Christ must say something for us to believe it, I have many more arguments that will buttress the notion that the absence of "eat His flesh" (and the corresponding "drink His blood") is a clear indication that it is NOT literal. It is a figurative statement from Christ, one of His many figurative statements that taken figuratively lead us to the real truth -- that we must come to Him and believe in Him for eternal life.

That is the way of salvation.

Jesus Himself in John 6 clarifies this for us:

John 6:35 "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

Coming to Him and believing in Him would also necessitate obeying Him! Think about it, how much "belief" have you put in someone that you will not obey?

Now to deal directly with Dr. Guinee's attempt to deflect here in saying "lest my opponent think I am arguing there is a set number of times Christ must say something for us to believe it...," well, that's precisely the point which destroys Dr. Guinee's opening argument! I do believe there is a set number of times Christ must say something in order for us to believe it - ONCE!

I have no argument against the fact that this statement is made chronologically separated from Christ's celebration of the First Eucharist, the fact is that is absolutely true! It is also absolutely true that Christ did not say this was something He was giving them then and there, but that it is something He will give (John 6:51) so clearly He has explicitly stated that the "giving" will be sometime in the future.

2. Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" is not a literal one but one of the seven (seven being the perfect number in scripture, for it represents God) "I AM" statements in the Gospel of John that utilize metaphorical statements:

a. "I am the bread of life" (6:35, 41, 48, 51)
b. "I am the light of the world" (8:12)
c. "I am the door of the sheep" (10:7, 9)
d. "I am the Good Shepherd" (10:11, 14)
e. "I am the Resurrection and the Life" (11:25)
f. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6)
g. "I am the true vine" (15:1,5)

All of these metaphors are used by John to reiterate the message of his gospel writing: Jesus is God who came to save the world, and belief in Him is the way to salvation.

Please note that in the other figurative statements, nowhere are we required to take those statements literally, forcing us to conclude that we must commit some act with our flesh in order to validate the literal interpretation.

We aren't called to walk through a literal door that Jesus becomes, we aren't called to drink from an actual vine that Jesus turns into.

Why then should we expect to take Jesus' "eat" and "drink" literally when it is disconcordant to do so in light of these other great "I am" statements?

Well first off here, there are many more times in John's Gospel where Jesus uses the words "I am." Secondly, at least two of your "perfect seven" are not figurative at all! Of course I refer to the "bread of life" as not being figurative, but also are the statements that He is the resurrection and the life (that's actually two statements, which messes up your count of seven right there) - the statement that He is the resurrection is absolutely literal! Jesus also IS "the way" to heaven, for no one get to the Father, but through Him. Where this may seem figurative due to the metaphorical language, it is an absolute literal truth. And again we mess up your "count" with the "way, the truth and the life" - that's three things, not one and one of those three is a repeat from the previous! So while I accept some numerological approaches to Scripture, attempting to force this "perfect seven" concept here to make the point you're trying to make - just isn't a valid statement.

Again I must reiterate - metaphorical language does not equate to a figurative meaning! The use of metaphorical language, in most of the citations you make above, are literal truths.

3. Jesus' consistent use of "veiled" teachings - non-literal statements - are consistent throughout the gospel of John, and always reveal the inability of the Jews to see the spiritual message in Christ. They always take him literally, and miss His truths:

a. "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (2:19b) referring to the crucifixion and resurrection of His body; the Jews mock him thinking it is the temple that took 46 years to construct.

b. "You must be born again" (3:7b) referring to Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus; Nicodemus takes Jesus literally and asks how a man can enter his mother's womb a second time

c. "The water of everlasting life" (4:14b) the Samaritan woman at the well, who believes it is actual water that will never need to be replenished

d. "Food to eat of which you do not know" (4:32b) the disciples cannot understand how Christ consumed food when there has been no meal for quite some time; Jesus later adds that His "food" is to do the will of the Father

e. "Jesus feeds the multitudes" (chapter 6) Jesus then retreats, for the Jews want to take Him as their "king"; Jesus having no intention of setting up an earthly kingdom retreats to solitude

There are more of these figurative statements that come AFTER chapter six; the aforementioned are listed here to set the theme of Jesus' teachings. The entire gospel is replete with examples of Jesus speaking of spiritual things, and the listeners misunderstanding Him because they keep taking Him LITERALLY.

Before I continue, let me ask you what is "figurative" about your statement "e."? The feeding of the multitudes was a literally true event. His retreat into the mountains was a literally true event. The fact they wanted to take Him by force and make him king was a literally true event.

That being said, I do not deny there are figurative statements in the Scriptures and in St. John's Gospel. Pointing out figurative statements does not detract from the literal command Jesus gives to us, and repeats several times to us, in John 6.

Therefore we can conclude that Jesus does NOT wish for us to take Him literally, lest we miss His spiritual truth!

Taking Him literally does not mean we must miss the spiritual truth! We must eat His Flesh, or we have no life in us. The first part is literal - we MUST eat His Flesh; the second part is spiritual, for obviously we still have physical life in us, thus the statement about "life" is the spiritual life. We must be careful not to equate spiritual to figurative, these mean totally different things and we should not allow us to be distracted by such an invalid equation.

4. Another note on the literal and figurative language in the gospel of John: note how the pattern of going from literal to figurative in order for Christ to make a teaching point is broken when the Catholic insists on a literal interpretation of "Eat my flesh."

We keep going from a literal point so that Jesus can use it to make a spiritual one.

Again my opponent makes the mistake of equating figurative to spiritual. The spiritual is quite literal as well!

So, let's go back to the bread of life!

When Jesus and the Jews begin discussing the bread of life, we DO start with literal bread, because the Manna from heaven WAS literal bread from heaven.

But now in order for Jesus to be literal when He says "Eat my flesh" I think we have broken our pattern

We had literal turning into figurative to make a teaching point:

Drinking water -- living water Born of water -- born of Spirit Bread of life -- belief in Christ

But when the Catholic takes Christ back into the literal, the pattern is broken.

The pattern my opponent speaks of, if this is a valid pattern, is broken when we go from "Bread of life" to "belief in Christ." He has just made a huge jump there, and haven't supported it in the least. Just becaues you can place words to some sort of poetic meter doesn't mean there is a spiritual truth to your meter. The Bread of Life IS Jesus Christ, THAT is the point of John 6! Jesus literally/spiritually (and NOT figuratively) IS the Bread of Life. I do not believe Dr. Guinee is arguing against the FACT that Jesus literally IS the Bread of Life - no, his argument is the FACT that we are commanded to eat THAT BREAD. We must not lose focus on that fact! Jesus make a literal command to eat His Flesh, which IS the Bread of Life.

5. The drinking of blood was forbidden in the Old Testament, particularly from a living creature. In fact, before the levitical law was established God instructed Noah: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." [Genesis 9:4-5]

And in the levitical law it CLEARLY states:

"...therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of NO MANNER OF FLESH: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eatheth it shall be cut off" [Leviticus 17:14]

Please note the Hebrew word is "basar," which refers to the flesh of MEN and ANIMALS. So how can Jesus command the Jews, disciples, and apostles to break the Written law of God???

"Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: I came not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you (that) until heaven and earth shall pass away not one iota or tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all comes to pass. Whoever then shall break one of the least commandments and shall teach people so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-19]

When Jesus is crucified, the law is lifted, and yet in Acts 10, it appears the apostles are still abiding by the dietary restrictions:

"He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, `Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' `Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. `I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' " [v. 10- 14]

Certainly Peter could not have claimed to have NEVER eaten anything unclean if the restrictions have been removed.

Moreover, when the early church begins to understand that the dietary restrictions of the levitical law are lifted, blood is still OFF LIMITS:

"But that we write unto them, that they ABSTAIN from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and FROM BLOOD." (Acts 15:20; see also Acts 15:29)

Even if Jesus changed the Law concerning eating and drinking blood, He had not done so yet, because his reference to clean and unclean foods came chronologically later than when Jesus spoke in Capernaum in John 6.

Thus another reason why we cannot and should not take John 6 literally.

Let's take these in reverse order:
The argument against chronology is invalid for as I have already pointed out, Jesus said this is something He WILL GIVE. He did NOT say that He IS GIVING it then and there.

The prohibition of drinking blood is the drinking of the blood of animals. When Jesus has declared "My Blood is TRUE DRINK INDEED" - that is NOT a figurative statement. If the Lord Himself commands something, then we MUST DO IT! And we MUST NOT rationalize our way out of following His direct commands!

The argument regarding what Peter said makes no sense at all. He said he had not eaten anything impure or unclean, so whether or not the restrictions were in place is irrelevant, he had not done it, period, so yes he could claim to have never eaten anything unclean.

The argument regarding the lifting of the Law upon Jesus' resurrection also doesn't work. The Apostles, at least some of them, were also still enforcing the Law regarding circumcision - which was also post-resurrection - declared to be unnecessary.

Regarding the argument that of Jesus not coming to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it - Dr. Guinee has basically just contradicted his own argument! In Acts 10 are not some of the Levitical Laws abolished? The Law which Jesus refers to is clearly not the minor dietary laws - but THE LAW, as in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments).

Regarding the Hebrew word "basar" and the argument that it means the flesh of both men and animals, well, so does the English word "flesh" relate to animal and human flesh!

Regarding the first point made in this section, that of the Levitical Law, my opponent is attempting to use an ancient and likely health-based law to trump what our Lord and Savior and God has clearly and explicitly and REPEATEDLY commanded us to do! All attempts to rationalize this command away aside - we cannot avoid the FACT that Jesus made this as a direct command - and even while many of His own disciples were walking away - BECAUSE THEY TOOK HIM LITERALLY - He does not clarify this command in the least! He lets them walk and turns to The Twelve and challenges them as well, "will you also leave?!"

6. In John 6, after Jesus has repeatedly affirmed that He gives His flesh and blood for the world, the Jews and many of His disciples are scandalized. By eating the flesh, and drinking the blood? No, the scandal is His claim to be divine:

"Many therefore of the disciples, when they had heard this, said, `This is a hard saying, who can understand it?' Then Jesus knew IN HIMSELF (implies they quibbled out of listening range) that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, `Does this offend you?' " [John 6:60-61]

Is eating the flesh the scandal? Jesus' response suggests otherwise:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?" [v. 62]

Remember this whole discourse starts with Jesus claiming to be the true bread FROM HEAVEN and that "No man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

The assertion of divine sovereignty, v 64, referring back to v 37ff and v 44ff, was a stumbling block and an offense. The Jews thought they had free will to come to God on their own, and Jesus told them they couldn't, but that only those whom the Father gave to the Son could come, and only those drawn by the Father to the Son could come and be saved.

We must ask Dr. Guinee to go back and read the verses which directly preceed John 6:60-61!

In verse 53 Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unles you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

In verse 54 He says: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Verse 55 says: "For My flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink."

Verse 56: He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Verse 58: "This (speaking of Himself) is the bread which came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Verse 59 just states where He said these things, and then we get to 60-61. CLEARLY they are grumbling over the fact that He's commanding them to eat His flesh and drink His blood. If I were to walk into a room and tell people to eat my flesh and drink my blood - that too would be a "hard saying" and who could listen to it, could you?

7. Much has been made of Jesus' "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood." Catholic apologists will quickly note that the word for eat here is "trogos," which means to "gnaw" or "crunch." And as Karl Keating suggests, "This is not the language of metaphor." However, one has to discern literal and figurative usage not on the choice of words themselves but the context in which they are used.

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ("this signifies, represents" or "stands for").

And Jesus is not the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood": One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" [II Sam. 23:17]

Interestingly, when Jesus presides over the Last Supper, all three synoptic gospels use the word "phagos" when Jesus says "Take, eat, this is my body" [Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22] and "eat this passover" [Luke 22:15]. Further, when Paul speaks about communion in 1 Cor 11, he does not use "trogas" but "phagos."

As stated, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so John's Greek language may suggest part of John's stylistic writing. John might have used "trogos" instead of "phagos" for several reasons:

a. Think of how similar "crunch" is to "crush." Remember Isaiah says He was CRUSHED for our iniquities -- His body was crushed on our behalf.

b. According to biblical scholars John's Gospel was written partly to defend against the heresy of docetism, the false belief that Jesus was not really a human being, He only seemed to be a human being. they took this heresy to the point of arguing Christ only SEEMED to suffer. With John using "flesh" instead of "body," as well as "crunch" instead of "eat" -- THE FLESH (has to be real then) WAS CRUSHED. Blows a hole in their silly theory, doesn't it?

This hearkens us back to John 1:14 "And the Word was made FLESH, and dwelt among us"

I fail to see how "crunch" instead of "eat" does anything to the literal argument. When we eat meat, we "crunch" it in our teeth. It appears we also need to remind Dr. Guinee that "crunch" is not the only meaning of "trogos." "Trogos" also means to "gnaw" or to "eat," and according to Strong's it also conveys "the idea of a craunching sound," so again the use of "trogos" leads us to a more literal understanding.

What I find interesting though is that "trogos" is not the only word used here for "eat!" In fact in verses 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58 use the word "esthio" which means "to eat." Verses 54, 56 and 58 (58 has both forms) use the word "trogo" - but both words mean "to eat." I truly fail to see where Dr. Guinee's point 7 has any merit for his argument.

8. Romans 8:9-11 says, "it is by the Spirit and only by the Spirit that Christ dwells within us."

ONLY by the Spirit? This would contradict taking in his literal body!!

Further, Paul refers to the Israelites being spiritually nourished in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10), partaking the SAME Christ we do.

We must ask ourselves -- did the Israelites eat the flesh of Jesus Christ and drink His blood?

NO. They did not.

Mr. Windsor will surely not argue that prior to the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ that He availed His flesh and blood to the Israelites, will he?

No. Since they obviously did not receive Christ's literal body and blood, Paul must be speaking of "eating" as "believing."

Again I must reiterate to Dr. Guinee, and to all those reading along, that "spiritual" is NOT the opposite of "literal!" Our debate has nothing to do with God's ability to "literally" work in the spiritual realm of things. For a Christian, the spiritual is quite literal! Somehow Dr. Guinee has gotten on a premise of equating spiritual to figurative - and that is just not so. If "done in the Spirit" it is still "literally done."

9. Christ accomplished an enormous amount of miracles, so many that we have only a truncated version (John 21:25), and while the Gospel accounts of the miracles we know He performed are never sufficiently detailed, we are given enough to know that a miracle DID OCCUR. Lazarus rose from the dead, the water turned into wine, demons were exorcised, lame walked, blind saw. There is always enough description of the miracle to not only know it occurred but the astounding reactions of the witnesses.

Yet there is not one detail in any of the Four Gospels that Jesus turned bread into flesh, and wine into blood, and certainly no astonishment recorded on the part of the Apostles.

First off, that the Apostles - who were already challenged to leave Him over this teaching and decided to stay with Him - were not astonished was due to the fact that they had seen all these other miracles, first hand, and seldom is their astonishment mentioned. The fact that they accepted the Lord at His Word is not something which should shock or astonish any Christian.

No where in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Yet, after the priest performs his super natural act of transubstantiation, the wafer and wine look, taste, smell and feel the same. It has the appearance of a counterfeit miracle because no noticeable change has occurred. When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

And we call this a "Mystery of Faith" for a reason! It takes "faith" to "see" the miracle! However, this is not always so. There are several Eucharistic Miracles recorded where the bread and wine have changed not only in substance, but also in the accidents or "elements" as Dr. Guinee has refered to them. For such testimonies, I offer you this link:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
Now, I do not wish to make these testimonies a point of this debate, the only point here is that Dr. Guinee has stated "(Nowhere) in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence indicated no miracle took place." That much, I believe, is true - but there have been such miracles regarding the Eucharist - for those who have eyes to see.

"Then he told them, `Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.' They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, `Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.' [John 2:8-11] This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Noting, "and His disciples put their faith in Him." So why should we expect to see "astonishment" from them when they accepted Jesus' Word in saying, "This IS My Body..."?

10. The belief that Christ is literally present in the elements is not supported by scripture, due to the verses that suggest Christ will have a second coming, when He will be physically present, returning to earth. Until then he is at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3), and will return to us "in the same way you have watched Him to go into heaven" (Acts 1:11).

It is true his presence remains with us, but not in bodily and perceptible mode in which it will be again at the last day (Acts 1:11). Much like the sun hangs in the heavens, and yet brings its light to earth, we have Christ seated by His father's side and yet shining his light down to earth.

That's a nice poetic way of looking at ONE WAY that Christ is with us, but it is in utter denial of the FACT that Jesus Himself declares bread to be His Body and wine to be His Blood. This Mystery of Faith is accepted BY FAITH! Jesus said it, and we BELIEVE Him!
It is beautiful to see how St. Thomas sets out the objections with all their force, and humbly, firmly and fervently attaches himself to Christ's words. "The fact that the body and the blood of Christ are in this sacrament", he tells us, "cannot be perceived with the senses or with the understanding; it can be perceived only by faith, which is founded on divine authority". Then, with St. Cyril and with the Church, he repeats the text from St. Luke: "This is my body, which will be given for you", and comments, "Do not doubt that this is true, but receive the Saviour's word with faith, for he is the truth; he does not lie" (S. Th. q 75, a. 1).
[qtd on: http://ewtn.com/library/Theology/TRANSUBT.HTM]
The point that this belief is not supported by Scripture is just simply not true. Matthew 2:26, Mark 14:22 and Luke 22:19 all report that Jesus stated "This is My Body..." and St. Paul repeats the same words and further testifies that those who partake in it "unworthily" eat and drink judgment unto themselves for not rightly recognizing the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:23-29). So again I reiterate, to state the Catholic belief is not supported by Scripture is false. Just because Dr. Guinee does not interpret these passages the way the Church ALWAYS HAS does not mean the Church's interpretation is not supported by Scripture.

On a somewhat related note, in 1 Corinthians Paul says "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." [1 Cor 11:26]

Why is the Lord's death proclaimed "until He comes" if the wine and bread have already been transubstantiated? There is no mention here of any physical presence, but the communion is spoken of as a COMMEMORATION.

Let us ask Dr. Guinee to continue reading, just a few more verses down and read: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord." [1 Cor. 11:29] St. Paul clearly states the reason they are judged here is because they have not discerned the Body of the Lord!

In conclusion, I believe I have laid out for you my general and specific arguments for a figurative interpretation of the debated discourse in John 6, the only interpretation that makes biblical sense.

I will now sit and allow Mr. Scott Windsor to present his initial case.

I will expect him to deal with the arguments I have presented, at a certain point in the debate.

Further, I will expect him to answer a number of questions, the first of which I will leave for him and other Catholics to ponder.

Romans 8:5-8 says "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

So if Jesus really does command us to literally eat His flesh, a non- Christian, a lost sinner, reads John 6 and believes Jesus to be speaking literally.

What would prevent this lost sinner from going to Mass on Sunday and immediately consuming the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved?

Would it not be pleasing to God for him to do so?

If not, why not?

Respectfully,
Dr. Jim Guinee

  1. What would prevent "this lost sinner" from going to Mass on Sunday and immediately consuming the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved? Physically, nothing would, but if he approaches and receives that Eucharist unworthily, then he would not be eating and drinking to his salvation, but to his judgment!
  2. Would it not be pleasing to God for him to do so? That's not so easy to answer - we cannot speak for God. If God determined that this "lost sinner" partook of the Eucharist worthily, then God has so determined it. If "this lost sinner" has not examined himself properly (1 Cor. 11:28) then he would take upon himself the judgment refered to in the next verse (1 Cor. 11:29).
  3. Dr. Guinee asks "why not?" The obvious answer is that the "lost sinner" does so in ignorance of what is expected prior to receiving. To not fully understand what is expected and to do one's best to fulfill what is expected may be outright offensive to God and far from "pleasing."

And with that, I have answered to every section of Dr. Guinee's "Opening Statement" - which has also been included here complete and unabridged.

Dr. Guinee's next rebuttal will be an answer to this one from me. While I have been preparing this rebutal, Dr. Guinee has been preparing a rebutal to my "Opening Statement." Thus, after I have answered Dr. Guinee's rebutal and he has answered mine - I propose the next phase, the live chat and cross examination, will take place. After the live chat - we present our closing statements and this formal debate will come to an end. Of course, continued discussions may continue in the Catholic Debate Forum on Yahoogroups.

I remain,

Your humble servant in the Lord Jesus Christ,

Scott Windsor<<<