Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)

Where a recovering ex-atheist skewers things with a sharp two-edged sword

About Answering Error Language & Interpretation Salvation Mechanics

A simple argument that John 6 is not referring to the Eucharist

By on

1 minute to read I mean, of course it’s not—but try convincing a Catholic of that.

I’ll have much more to say on this topic another time, but the following (rather obvious) syllogism struck me while reading through John 6 today:

  1. Under Catholicism, many of those who take the Eucharist will nonetheless not have eternal life, due either to taking it without real faith, or because of the sacramental treadmill.
  2. But whoever feeds on Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood will have eternal life (John 6:54).
  3. Therefore, the Eucharist is not Jesus’ flesh and blood.

And there that is.



I am with you. Could not a rebuttal be that Jesus’ command is high context and faith is assumed?

The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood [in faith] has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Dominic Bnonn Tennant

I dunno, do you find that convincing? :)

More importantly, though, this doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem, because even those who eat and drink in faith have no guarantee of eternal life. That’s why I included the sacramental treadmill.

Harry R.

Beside the fact that Jesus says NOTHING about “in faith”. He plainly and decisively states “the one who DOES it “HAS eternal life”. The context shows it is not Communion, but having faith in Him, not Communion at all.
Fantastic syllogism!