Interpretation of John 6:51-66...

kelly1

Hello all, I'd like to get some views from non-catholic Christians on the meaning of these verses from John 6:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus' audience understood that Jesus was talking about his literal flesh and blood. Why else would he have lost disciples that day?

Thoughts please.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, I'd like to get some views from non-catholic Christians on the meaning of these verses from John 6:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus' audience understood that Jesus was talking about his literal flesh and blood. Why else would he have lost disciples that day?

Thoughts please.

Just to say that his disciples leaving adds no weight to your view. They took him literally and left. Which doesn't mean they were correct in talking him literally.

Later..

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, I'd like to get some views from non-catholic Christians on the meaning of these verses from John 6:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus' audience understood that Jesus was talking about his literal flesh and blood. Why else would he have lost disciples that day?

Thoughts please.

Just to say that his disciples leaving adds no weight to your view. They took him literally and left. Which doesn't mean they were correct in talking him literally.

Later..

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Just to say that his disciples leaving adds no weight to your view. They took him literally and left. Which doesn't mean they were correct in talking him literally.

ok, Jesus lost disciples by saying what He did. Don't you think he would have clarified his message and not lost disciples if he was speaking figuratively? In verse 37, Jesus says "...and whoever comes to me I will never drive away". Clearly he wasn't driving anyone away. They just couldn't accept what he was saying.

51: This bread is my flesh
53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life
55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink
56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them

Jesus made his meaning clear 5 times!

Sorry, your theory doesn't hold water.

Why do you think the doctrine of the Real Presence wasn't challenged for approximately 1500 years?

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, Jesus lost disciples by saying what He did. Don't you think he would have clarified his message and not lost disciples if he was speaking figuratively?

Not necessarily. Jesus wasn't focused on gaining and maintaining a following. He often spoke obliquely and didn't clarify himself.

In verse 37, Jesus says "...and whoever comes to me I will never drive away". Clearly he wasn't driving anyone away. They just couldn't accept what he was saying.

I don't think you can take this so simplistically. Those who come to him are, I think, those who come to him in the fullest sense. Those who believe in him and who he is. It doesnt mean the milkman.

A proof text for OSAS as it happens

51: This bread is my flesh
53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life
55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink
56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them

Jesus made his meaning clear 5 times!

The question remains- did he mean this literally. Just because you don't leave him on account of this difficult thing doesn't alter the need to address that question.

Why do you think the doctrine of the Real Presence wasn't challenged for approximately 1500 years?

FOr the same reason OT doctrines weren't challenged for even longer periods? Religions can take hold until the time when they are surpassed.

Time elapsed is no indicator of anything. Ask anyone whose opened a very aged, yet corked bottle of wine

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question remains- did he mean this literally. Just because you don't leave him on account of this difficult thing doesn't alter the need to address that question.

Why do you think Jesus mentioned flesh and blood then if he didn't mean it literally? What was he trying to convey?

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, I'd like to get some views from non-catholic Christians on the meaning of these verses from John 6:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Jesus is using the metaphors for life of bread and blood. He tells us that He is the living embodiment of eternal life come down from Heaven ... and he will give His life ... to bring the possibility of eternal life back into the world.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
They took Him literally ... and therefore couldn't understand what He was talking about.

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Jesus is clearly talking about Himself when He says 'this is the bread that came down from heaven'.
He is talking metaphorically here ... He is the bread and blood of eternal life ... and to live forever, we must 'eat' or partake of the life that Jesus Christ is ... by believing on Him.


60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Again they took Him literally ... and therefore couldn't understand what He was talking about.
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. Jesus is confirming here that He is going to be physically present for but a short time ... and when He ascends into Heaven His (Holy) Spirit will be the (eternal) lifegiver, after His physical depature.

The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Everyone will not believe on Jesus Christ ... and thus be Saved.

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus' audience understood that Jesus was talking about his literal flesh and blood. Why else would he have lost disciples that day?
Yes, He is talking about His physical life using the metaphors for life at the time , the bread of life and the blood of life.

Thoughts please.

My answers in blue above.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, I'd like to get some views from non-catholic Christians on the meaning of these verses from John 6 . . .

I'm a Catholic myself, but I believe that non-Catholic views on this are pretty diverse, and don't easily slot into a simplistic "physical reality"/"purely symbolic" dichotomy. Most of the major Protestant traditions in fact affirm the doctrine of the Real Presence, but they express it in a variety of different ways.

As we know, there’s a long history of enmity between Catholics and Protestants - enmity which, if we are honest, has much to do with struggles for power and domination, and often rather little to do with matter of faith.

This creates a very polarised discourse in which differences in belief and practice between the two traditions are magnified, even distorted. So, for example, some Protestants (and not a few Catholics) say that the Catholic belief is that Christ is “physically present” in the Eucharist. In fact the Catholic church does not teach this, and never has. Conversely, many Catholics (and some Protestants) will assure you that Protestants regard the Eucharist as “merely symbolic”. This is flat-out untrue of the major Protestant traditions that we encounter in Ireland, and even among traditions which do reject any notion of real presence I’ve lost count of the theologians who become apoplectic at the use of the word “merely”.

It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on what various Christian traditions hold in common. Most of the major Christian traditions in Ireland affirm the Real Presence and use, not identical, but quite similar language to explain what they mean by that.

- Catholics describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a “substantial”, “spiritual” or “sacramental” reality - but not as a “physical” reality. They are likely to speak of the breach and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. The term “transubstantiation” is used to express the Catholic position in Aristotelian philosophical language. (But, while Aristotelian philosophical language was once state-of-the-art as far as describing the nature of reality, it hasn’t been much used for the last four centuries or so, so explaining Eucharistic beliefs with Aristotelian language is not that helpful to most people.)

- Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine. They are more likely to speak of the bread and wine “being” the body of Christ, rather than “becoming. The Lutheran position is sometimes called "consubstantiation", in distinction from the Catholic “transubstantiation”, although most contemporary Lutheran theologians reject the term as inaccurate or confusing. (Again, it draws on Aristotelian language.)

- Formal Anglican teaching affirms the Real Presence while rejecting “transubstantiation” but - as is characteristic of Anglicanism - within the church there’s a range of views on how this should be understood. Some Anglicans hold a position which is basically the Catholic position; others hold a Lutheran position. Still others prefer to affirm and contemplate the mystery of the Real Presence rather than trying to explain it. And probably some are in the “merely symbolic” school.

- Methodists affirm the Real Presence, but say that this is a “holy mystery”. They also affirm that, in celebrating the Eucharist, we do not merely remember the sacrifice of Christ but we “re-present” it.

- Calvinists - and this view would be influential among Presbyterians in Ireland - sees the Real Presence as a spiritual reality. Sometimes it’s referred to as a “pneumatic presence” (from the Greek pneuma, spirit). The flesh and blood of Christ are offered to all in the sacrament, but the individual encounter with Christ requires a response of faith from the believer; hence it’s ultimately the faith of the individual which “completes” the Real Presence.

- The view that the Eucharist is essentially a memorial meal, but not more, is called the Zwinglian view (from the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli). In Ireland this position is found in many Baptist and some Evangelical congregations. Probably people in this tradition would be uncomfortable affirming any kind of “Real Presence” language.

OK, most of those statements are probably gross over-simplifications, and within each tradition there is some diversity of views. But it’s probably true to say that the great bulk of Christians in Ireland do belong from traditions which affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they employ a variety of ways of talking about what this means.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Peregrinus, thanks for the post. You did great research there.

kelly1

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

The way you've replied makes it difficult to reply to your comments.

J C wrote: »

Jesus is using the metaphors for life of bread and blood...

I agree with that much. 'Bread' is clearly a metaphor. But, 'body and blood' are not.

J C wrote: »

They took Him literally ... and therefore couldn't understand what He was talking about.

They took him literally because Jesus meant what he said literally. Can I get your take on why he used the words 'body' and 'blood'? Why did Jesus not just stick with the bread metaphor so as not to confuse people?

J C wrote: »

Jesus is confirming here that He is going to be physically present for but a short time ... and when He ascends into Heaven His (Holy) Spirit will be the (eternal) lifegiver, after His physical depature.

I must say that's a very liberal interpretation and I've no idea how to came to that view. Jesus is in fact telling us that his flesh in itself is of no benefit to us but that the Spirit within the flesh is what gives life.

J C wrote: »

He is talking about His physical life using the metaphors for life at the time...

What do you mean by physical life? You mean his physical body?

kelly1

Thanks for your post Peregrinus. I'm trying to focus on the John 6 verses and avoid (for now) any discussions of the Eucharist, Blessed Sacrament etc.

Btw, this is from the CCC:

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

That's a physical presence.

homer911

Hi Noel

I think you need to look at the verses in between those you are quoting to get the full context e.g. John 6:63-64

"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"

So if the flesh is of no avail, why would we need to eat the flesh?
By saying His words are Spirit, is He not saying that this is a spiritual teaching, not a literal one?

(Not saying I'm right btw, just asking the question)

kelly1

homer911 wrote: »

Hi Noel

I think you need to look at the verses in between those you are quoting to get the full context e.g. John 6:63-64

"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"

So if the flesh is of no avail, why would we need to eat the flesh?
By saying His words are Spirit, is He not saying that this is a spiritual teaching, not a literal one?

(Not saying I'm right btw, just asking the question)

Hi Homer, I did quote those verses you mentioned. "63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."

I think Jesus is trying to point out that the physical flesh (protein etc) is not what gives life. It is the Spirit contained in the flesh that gives life.

Again:

51: This bread is my flesh
53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life
55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink
56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them

Jesus didn't say "unless you receive my Spirit, you have no life in you". He made it very clear that he intends us to consume his flesh. This cannot be a metaphor and he made no effort to suggest that it is. 'bread' is the only metaphor he used.

homer911

kelly1 wrote: »

Hi Homer, I did quote those verses you mentioned. "63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."

Apologies, missed that, was scanning the verse numbers in the left margin

homer911

I really struggle with the notion of physical consumption of flesh and blood, as I'm sure the followers who turned away from Jesus did as well. Jews would have been well familiar with old testament teaching on the consumption of blood, recognising that this is the life essence of the animal.
I've seen some references to Jewish tradition equating the consumption of bread with the consumption of God's word (Torah specifically) and that by Jesus equating his body and blood in this way with salvation, He is saying that He is more important than the Torah and that we must trust in Him, rather the Law.

kelly1

homer911 wrote: »

I really struggle with the notion of physical consumption of flesh and blood, as I'm sure the followers who turned away from Jesus did as well.

That's why he gave us his body and blood under the disguise of bread/wine.

My take on John 6 is that Jesus was testing his followers faith. They were probably thinking he'd gone mad. Was he going to start slicing himself up and hand out pieces of his flesh? They didn't understand that he intended the achieve this more palatably through the Eucharist.

Mt 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

homer911

Thankfully this difference of opinion/interpretation is not a critical matter for salvation

kelly1

homer911 wrote: »

Thankfully this difference of opinion/interpretation is not a critical matter for salvation

I wouldn't be so sure. This is the reason I'm bringing this subject up.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day

koumi

In pre christian/new testament times or at least in temple times, there was a jewish ritual which called for each family to take into it a lamb to dwell amongst them, fed and nurtured and at a given time brought before the temple to be sacrificed in atonement for the cleansing of the sins of the family. They would lay hands over the lamb and transfer all uncleanliness and unrighteousness into it and the blood of the lamb washed away all those deeds. The lamb was then prepared and eaten by the family.

Jesus came to be the lamb so to take away the sins of mankind, in this manner.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks for your post Peregrinus. I'm trying to focus on the John 6 verses and avoid (for now) any discussions of the Eucharist, Blessed Sacrament etc.

Btw, this is from the CCC:

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

That's a physical presence.

I look in vain for the word "physical" in the text you quote. I'm seeing "true", "real" and "substantial", but not "physical".

And, no matter how many church documents you google, you'll find this is always the case.

Not to tell you what you are thinking, but the error that is commonly made here is to assume that "substantial" means the same as "physical".

Not in this context, it doesn't. Cast your mind back to the explanation you were given in school of the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Remember that? They told you that there was a distinction between the "substance" of a thing - its interior reality, the whatever-it-is that makes the thing what it is - and the "accidents" - the observable features that point to that interior reality. So, for example, an apple is an apple because it has apple-ness, it has "apple substance", but the things that cause us to recognise it as an apple - the red colour, the round shape, the sharp taste, the crunchy texture, the appley smell, etc - are all "accidents" of apple. They are not the inner reality, but they point us to the inner reality. If I, e.g., stew the apple it loses its shape, it changes its texture and colour, it smells differently, etc, but it is still apple. The accidents can change, but the substance never changes.

Right. The Catholic church didn't make this stuff up. This is philosophical language derived from Aristotle, who argued that what we perceive through the senses is not the ultimate reality of things; our perceptions can mislead us, or things can be real even if no-one perceives them at all. And the Catholic church employed this language to explain the Real Presence; the substance, the inner reality, of the consecrated elements had changed (hence, "transubstantiation") while the accidents remained the same.

But here's the thing. In this language, everything that we mean by "physical" - shape, state, texture, atoms, molecules, boiling point, freezing point, temperature, volatility, everything - is accident, not substance. So the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation - the substance changes, while the accidents do not - is not merely not a teaching that the physical nature of the thing has changed; it's a teaching that the physical nature of the thing has not changed. The "substance" that has changed is not the physical substance; the physical substance has not changed at all. It's the metaphysical substance that has changed.

The reason this causes such confusion is that, while the Aristotelian substance/accidents language was state-of-the-art for talking about the nature of things back in the day, it's nowadays not used at all (except to explain transubstantiation, and even there you have to start by explaining the language you're about to use, which is not really a great start for an explanation). In every other context where you hear the word "substance", it's likely to mean physical substance. And this is what misleads people into thinking that "transubstantiation" is a claim that the physical reality of the consecrated elements has changed. But this is wrong; it's not the physical reality that has changed, but something much more real that that.

There have been attempts to express the nature of the Real Presence in more contemporary philosophical language – “transignification” and “transfinalisation” have been tried. And no less an authority than Josef Ratzinger – who was but a humble cardinal at the time, and who incidentally explicitly denies that the consecrated elements are physically the body and blood of Christ – has tried to express the matter using the language of “incorporation”. But I’m not sure that they achieve very much. And, on the other hand, I’m fairly sure they’re not of great interest to most Christian believers. Nor do they need to be. Perhaps the point about a mystery is that you don’t have to understand so much as to enter into it.

Peregrinus

koumi wrote: »

In pre christian/new testament times or at least in temple times, there was a jewish ritual which called for each family to take into it a lamb to dwell amongst them, fed and nurtured and at a given time brought before the temple to be sacrificed in atonement for the cleansing of the sins of the family. They would lay hands over the lamb and transfer all uncleanliness and unrighteousness into it and the blood of the lamb washed away all those deeds. The lamb was then prepared and eaten by the family.

Jesus came to be the lamb so to take away the sins of mankind, in this manner.

While the Jews of Jesus' time and before did have a ritual of sacrificing a lamb as described, so far as I know it had, for them, no connection with atonement or cleansing from sin. It was the Christians, who inherited the custom from their Jewish roots, who invested it with that particular significance.

For Jews, the significance of the paschal lamb was as a sign and a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and his people. In the foundational story, the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, the blood of the sacrificed lamb served to distinguish the homes of Israelites from the homes of their Egyptian overlords. Therefore, to commemorate the Exodus by engaging in the sacrifice was, firstly, to affirm one's identity as a member of the Jewish people and, secondly, to acknowledge and commemorate God's liberation of his people from slavery. (Not the slavery of sin, but actual slavery.)

There's a separate Jewish tradition, the scapegoat, in which an animal symbolically takes on the sins of the people. In the time of Jesus there was an annual ritual based on this, celebrated at Yom Kippur. But it was celebrated just by the High Priest, not by each family. And the animal wasn't sacrificed; it was turned loose in the wilderness. And (as the name suggests) the animal was a goat, not a lamb.

homer911

kelly1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. This is the reason I'm bringing this subject up.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day

But this would point to a works based salvation, which the Bible is pretty clear about (Ephesians 2:9). If I was a Muslim or an athiest, walked off the street into a Catholic mass and shared in the Eucharist, that would not make me a Christian. I don't believe the language is as simple as you make it out to be

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

I look in vain for the word "physical" in the text you quote. I'm seeing "true", "real" and "substantial", but not "physical".

That's just nit-picking.

"...is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity"

Body and blood are both physical. What more to you need?

homer911 wrote: »

But this would point to a works based salvation, which the Bible is pretty clear about (Ephesians 2:9).

That's a real stretch! You really think consuming the Eucharist is works?? You really think you can sit back and do nothing, not even pray, and still be saved??

kelly1

Does anyone have a solid argument to show that Jesus wasn't talking about his literal body and blood, however unpalatable that idea might be?

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

That's just nit-picking.

"...is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity"

Body and blood are both physical. What more to you need?

Body and blood are not just physical, is the point, and in Catholic teaching it's not the physcality of body and blood which are present in the Eucharist; it's the reality, the spirituality, the (metaphysical) substance. Catholic teaching is that the physicality of the consecrated elements remains that of bread and wine.

This isn't just nit-picking; it's a common misunderstanding and one that gives rise to a considerable degree of scandal, so it's important to correct it. Besides, it seems odd to open a thread on non-Catholic perspectives on the eucharist, but to dismiss as "nit-picking" a presentation of the Catholic perspective, and a suggestion that belief in the physical presence is fact a non-Catholic perspective; the very subject of the thread.

homer911

kelly1 wrote: »

That's a real stretch! You really think consuming the Eucharist is works?? You really think you can sit back and do nothing, not even pray, and still be saved??

That's exactly my point, but not an opinion I subscribe to

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholic teaching is that the physicality of the consecrated elements remains that of bread and wine.

Don't you mean the accidents are bread and wine? And the substance is Christ in his entirety?

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Nick Park

When we think about the historical context of Christ's words, it's very hard to see how they refer to the bread and wine of the communion meal at all.

Jesus is addressing a crowd in Galilee. Why would he use a cryptic reference to a ceremony which would not be instituted until a later date?

Given the symbolism used elsewhere in John (streams of water flowing out of him, being a door and a vine, his body being a temple that will be rebuilt), it would appear much more likely that his words in John 6 are also symbolic.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

Jesus is addressing a crowd in Galilee. Why would he use a cryptic reference to a ceremony which would not be instituted until a later.

I don't know why Jesus brought the subject up at that time. But the next time he talked about consuming his body and blood was a the Last Supper. "This is my body, take and eat."

Surely this what Jesus was talking about in John 6? What else could it be about?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Does anyone have a solid argument to show that Jesus wasn't talking about his literal body and blood, however unpalatable that idea might be?

Just read it in context and accept the explanation the Lord Jesus gives at the end:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
(NASB) John 6:63

To put it clearly: It is the Spirit who gives life; eating flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Don't take it as literal flesh, but spiritual!

kelly1

santing wrote: »

To put it clearly: It is the Spirit who gives life; eating flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Don't take it as literal flesh, but spiritual!

Then why did Jesus mention flesh and blood at all? Was he trying to confuse people?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Then why did Jesus mention flesh and blood at all? Was he trying to confuse people?

Let me first pose a more important question: Do you believe that eating of the host (even if it was only once) gives you eternal life? And if so, what does eternal life mean then?

kelly1

santing wrote: »

Let me first pose a more important question: Do you believe that eating of the host (even if it was only once) gives you eternal life? And if so, what does eternal life mean then?

I believe John 6:54 says just that. Why doubt Jesus' words? And how else could we fulfil his words except through the Eucharist?

John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day

Surely I don't have to explain what eternal life means? Can you answer my questions please?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe John 6:54 says just that. Why doubt Jesus' words? And how else could we fulfil his words except through the Eucharist?

Well, reading the RC Catechism it doesn't seem that eating the host once is enough to go to heaven.... But I am glad you admit that is the meaning of the statement here. If you compare this statement with other references to Eternal life in John's gospel, than it becomes clear that it is not eating (as the Lord Jesus already explains) but believing that is at stake. The Lord Jesus says quite a few times even in chapter 6 (e.g. 27, 40, 47) that faith is required (and enough) to obtain eternal life. It is the unbelief of the Jews that kept looking at the physical aspect, they couldn't see the spiritual truths the Lord Jesus was teaching them.

That it is not the Eucharist here is quite obvious, a. the eucharist is not mentioned at all in John's Gospel, John is the ONLY author that leaves that bit out - whereas he is most detailed on what happened during that night. He doesn't leave it out because he didn't believe it happened, no, he leaves it out because it did not fit his story line. He also leaves out the 3 hours of darkness, the sweating of blood in Gethsemane etc.
The second reason why it cannot be the eucharist is because that didn't exist yet, it was instituted probably a year later (or maybe more) and only for his disciples, not to the unbelieving Jews.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't you mean the accidents are bread and wine? And the substance is Christ in his entirety? . . .

Yes. But physicality is accident, not substance.

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But physicality is accident, not substance.

ok, I thought you might be coming from that angle.

To my simple way of looking at it, Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist but he has "disguised" himself as bread and wine.

It's a bit of a mind-bender to discuss what is "physically" present. At the end of the day, it's a mystery.

kelly1

santing wrote: »

...If you compare this statement with other references to Eternal life in John's gospel, than it becomes clear that it is not eating (as the Lord Jesus already explains) but believing that is at stake. The Lord Jesus says quite a few times even in chapter 6 (e.g. 27, 40, 47) that faith is required (and enough) to obtain eternal life.

Believing in Jesus also means believing his teachings. And he taught "54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." You can't pick and choose, it's all or nothing. Part of believing in Jesus is believing that he meant the words in verse 54.

santing wrote: »

That it is not the Eucharist here is quite obvious, a. the eucharist is not mentioned at all in John's Gospel,....

So what if the word Eucharist isn't mentioned? It's not mentioned in the bible at all afaik. So, I'm asking the question again, why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? What was the significance of that, if it's not meant literally? And if he was talking figuratively, why did Jesus lead them to believe he was talking literally?

When Jesus said, "I am the door", nobody jumped up and said, "how can this man be made of wood"!

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Believing in Jesus also means believing his teachings.

After having correctly interpreted them (whether the interpreter is yourself or someone you chose to interpret for you)

kelly1

I'm going to ask this question once again.

Why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? What was the significance of that, if it wasn't meant literally?
And if he was talking figuratively, why did Jesus lead the people to believe he was talking literally? He didn't go on to say that he was speaking figuratively.

Can someone please answer that?

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm going to ask this question once again.

Why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? What was the significance of that, if it wasn't meant literally?
And if he was talking figuratively, why did Jesus lead the people to believe he was talking literally? He didn't go on to say that he was speaking figuratively.

Can someone please answer that?

People speak figuratively all the time, and they don't feel the need to say "I'm speaking figuratively".

For example, you yourself have repeatedly used the word "literally" in this thread. The strict meaning of "literally" is "of or relating to letters (i.e. the letters of the alphabet); to verses; to literature". The sense of "free from metaphor or allegory" is, ironically, a figurative meaning of the word. So you've been using that word figuratively in this thread, and you haven't said so.

As you point out yourself, the real presence is a mystery, and mysteries are the kind of things we can only speak about with figurative language. So the standard theological reading of the texts you quote is that, yes, they are figurative; that what Jesus is discussing here is a spiritual reality. Different Christian traditions have different takes on what that reality is. All of them, though, would agree that the claim being made by Jesus here is an astonishing and extravagant one, and the fact that some of his listeners were offended or repelled is not that surprising, and doesn't necessarily indicate that they thought he was advocating cannibalism. Even if they had understood his claim in any of the the ways that Christian tradition has elaborated it, they would still have found it startling.

kelly1

Peregrinus, you haven't answered my question.

Again, why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? If he used the words flesh and blood figuratively, what do they represent?

Btw, could you clarify please, are you Catholic or not? I'm guessing not.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Peregrinus, you haven't answered my question.

Again, why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? If he used the words flesh and blood figuratively, what do they represent?

Btw, could you clarify please, are you Catholic or not? I'm guessing not.

I am Catholic, and I understand the words to refer to his real flesh and blood. But not his physical flesh and blood.

As to what the followers who fell away over this issue thought he meant, we don't know. They may have thought that he was referring to physical flesh and blood, and advocating cannibalism. They may have thought that what he was saying was simply incomprehensible, or was bizzare, and lost interest for that reason. They may have thought that he must be speaking metaphorically or symbolically, and wanted a teacher who would speak more plainly. They may have thought something else. The evangelist doesn't tell us.

The only hint is in verses 65-66: "[Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.' From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." Earlier on in the chapter, we're told that the teaching about flesh and blood was seen as a "hard teaching" and the disciples "grumbled" about it, but it seems that what actually causes them to leave is when Jesus says that "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them". This could have given them the impression that the flesh-and-blood teaching is an esoteric, mystical teaching, not easily grasped or accepted and, if you don't get it, well, maybe this is not your destiny; the Father has not "enabled" you.

And, significantly, those who stay don't stay because they have understood or accepted; they stay because they feel they have no choice ("Lord, to whom shall we go?") and because, even if they don't necessarily understand everything Jesus is saying, they have faith in him ("We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.")

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Believing in Jesus also means believing his teachings. And he taught "54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." You can't pick and choose, it's all or nothing. Part of believing in Jesus is believing that he meant the words in verse 54.

I think that goes two ways.... It seems to me that you are stuck in a peculiar explanation. 1. I have clearly indicated that the Lord Jesus talks a lot about obtaining Eternal Life, esp. in John's writings, and from the context of the various verses, believing is enough. That means that whatever thsi verse means, it cannot say anything different.
2. I also challenged you about the consequence of this verse. It is esp. RC doctrine that you cannot know whether you are saved, yet the consequence of this verse is that you have salvation (eternal life) if you follow up. So to extrapolate to your system, everyone who ever ate from the wafer that RC think is the eucharist has eternal life. That's what this verse says to you, doesn't it? So what is it with purgatory, people with eternal life in purgatory? So to me it seems that you don't believe the second part of this verse.

kelly1 wrote: »

So what if the word Eucharist isn't mentioned? It's not mentioned in the bible at all afaik. So, I'm asking the question again, why did Jesus talk about his flesh and blood? What was the significance of that, if it's not meant literally? And if he was talking figuratively, why did Jesus lead them to believe he was talking literally?

When Jesus said, "I am the door", nobody jumped up and said, "how can this man be made of wood"!

1. Its not about the word. Its about the concept. The celebration of the last supper is not mentioned in this Gospel. Its completely incomprehensible that the John would write this passage about the Lord's Supper, and than leave the main story out.
2. The Jews weren't great listeners, they didn't believe the Lord Jesus. When the Lord Jesus offers the woman at the well water that will quench her thirst forever, water that springs to eternal life (John 4:13) she asks for it so she doesn't need to come back for more water. Meaning she accepted the Lord Jesus words - drink once, effect forever. The Jews in this passage ask for this bread forever - every day. They don't listen or believe him. Only when they reject his teaching the Lord Jesus adds the 'gruesome' words to his listeners. He wanted to provoke a reaction. And yes, we are alive, we have eternal life, because He gave his life for us. He is the real peace offering that was a meal for both God and man (Lev 3).

Bob_Marley

Interestingly, one of the reasons the earliest Christians were executed with zeal by the Romans, was under the pretense of cannibalism.
Seems the old twist the facts to suit tactic was just as popular back then.

I think if you believe God himself, for a specific purpose and spiritual sustenance, announces that a certain table is now fact, in all essence a chair, even though it will continue to retain the physical form and material properties of a table, and you should rest in said chair for your own benefit, who are we to argue ?

Or you can walk away saying, how can this 'man' give us his table as a chair ?

santing

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Interestingly, one of the reasons the earliest Christians were executed with zeal by the Romans, was under the pretense of cannibalism.
Seems the old twist the facts to suit tactic was just as popular back then.

Thanks Bob. A great overview of this pretence we can find at https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/why-early-christians-were-despised-11629610.html

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I think if you believe God himself, for a specific purpose and spiritual sustenance, announces that a certain table is now fact, in all essence a chair, even though it will continue to retain the physical form and material properties of a table, and you should rest in said chair for your own benefit, who are we to argue ?

Or you can walk away saying, how can this 'man' give us his table as a chair ?

The question is did He? Or did we make it appear that He did? “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11
We don't have any problem with this picture, Christ didn't become a Sheep Shepherd and we don't turn into Sheep. Yet the picture is so strong that David wrote a Psalm about it (Psalm 23) and Peter says:
"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, ... being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, ..." 1 Peter 5:2-4. So are we sheep? Peter says so, Christ says so and David says so!

Bob_Marley

santing wrote: »

Thanks Bob. A great overview of this pretence we can find at https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/why-early-christians-were-despised-11629610.html



The question is did He? Or did we make it appear that He did? “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11
We don't have any problem with this picture, Christ didn't become a Sheep Shepherd and we don't turn into Sheep. Yet the picture is so strong that David wrote a Psalm about it (Psalm 23) and Peter says:
"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, ... being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, ..." 1 Peter 5:2-4. So are we sheep? Peter says so, Christ says so and David says so!

And yet in the Gospel no one was deliberately recorded as saying how can this man be a Shepherd and how can we be Sheep ? . . that's it . . we're leaving. The listeners and writers clearly knew the implication and gravity in the case of eating his flesh and blood, and why it's specifically recorded as such.

kelly1

santing wrote: »

I think that goes two ways.... It seems to me that you are stuck in a peculiar explanation. 1. I have clearly indicated that the Lord Jesus talks a lot about obtaining Eternal Life, esp. in John's writings, and from the context of the various verses, believing is enough. That means that whatever thsi verse means, it cannot say anything different.

I really don't get the point you're making here.

We see from John 6:47 that belief is vital: "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life". That's a given.

I'm "stuck" on this explanation because I don't see any plausible alternative!

In verses 35 and 48, Jesus says "I am the bread of life". Clearly the metaphor here is bread. Nobody accused Jesus of being a real loaf of bread. His followers were still listening to him at that point.

Jesus then goes a step further and explains the meaning of the bread metaphor: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". He reinforces the meaning in verses 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57.
Then in verse 58, he repeats the bread metaphor: "This [himself] is the bread that came down from heaven".

In verse 61, where he starts losing followers, he says "“....Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

It can be seen from this that he knew his followers were talking about his real flesh and blood but offered proof of what he was saying by pointing to the ascension to heaven that was to come.

Verse 63 tells us why Jesus asks us to consume his body: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing". This reflects the meaning of verse 53: "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"

santing wrote: »

2. I also challenged you about the consequence of this verse. It is esp. RC doctrine that you cannot know whether you are saved, yet the consequence of this verse is that you have salvation (eternal life) if you follow up. So to extrapolate to your system, everyone who ever ate from the wafer that RC think is the eucharist has eternal life. That's what this verse says to you, doesn't it? So what is it with purgatory, people with eternal life in purgatory? So to me it seems that you don't believe the second part of this verse.

In terms of salvation, it seems believing alone *can* be enough. The good thief on the cross was assured by Jesus of his salvation yet he wasn't even baptized. So why then have baptism and Holy Communion? Because these were the norms established by Jesus for the Christian religion. If there was nothing to be gained by the sacraments, Jesus would not have instituted them.

The taking of Holy Communion strengthens the bond we have with the Mystical Body of Christ.

What does purgatory have to do with this discussion?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

I really don't get the point you're making here.

We see from John 6:47 that belief is vital: "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life". That's a given.

I'm "stuck" on this explanation because I don't see any plausible alternative!

In verses 35 and 48, Jesus says "I am the bread of life". Clearly the metaphor here is bread. Nobody accused Jesus of being a real loaf of bread. His followers were still listening to him at that point.

Jesus then goes a step further and explains the meaning of the bread metaphor: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". He reinforces the meaning in verses 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57.
Then in verse 58, he repeats the bread metaphor: "This [himself] is the bread that came down from heaven".

In verse 61, where he starts losing followers, he says "“....Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

It can be seen from this that he knew his followers were talking about his real flesh and blood but offered proof of what he was saying by pointing to the ascension to heaven that was to come.

Verse 63 tells us why Jesus asks us to consume his body: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing". This reflects the meaning of verse 53: "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"


In terms of salvation, it seems believing alone *can* be enough. The good thief on the cross was assured by Jesus of his salvation yet he wasn't even baptized. So why then have baptism and Holy Communion? Because these were the norms established by Jesus for the Christian religion. If there was nothing to be gained by the sacraments, Jesus would not have instituted them.

The taking of Holy Communion strengthens the bond we have with the Mystical Body of Christ.

What does purgatory have to do with this discussion?

Maybe we need to look at the origin of the first 'flesh and blood' When the Lord Jesus tells the Jews that He is the manna given by God to the Israelites in the desert, they understand that He claims to be God or at least more than human. They reject His claim in verse 41. When they reject Him as Gods provision the Lord Jesus continues with the Manna picture - I am the real manna, and just as the Jews ate me in the desert to stay alive, so you also need to ate Me to receive eternal live.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Look, the Eucharist is a mystery. A mystery is something we will never understand. We can argue forever claiming that my view is right, and your view is wrong. We will never convince each other. It is a waste of time. Our finite minds will never solve it, and that is God's will.

kelly1

santing wrote: »

Maybe we need to look at the origin of the first 'flesh and blood' When the Lord Jesus tells the Jews that He is the manna given by God to the Israelites in the desert, they understand that He claims to be God or at least more than human. They reject His claim in verse 41. When they reject Him as Gods provision the Lord Jesus continues with the Manna picture - I am the real manna, and just as the Jews ate me in the desert to stay alive, so you also need to ate Me to receive eternal live.

You're not addressing Jesus' use of the words flesh and blood. Also the manna in the desert wasn't Jesus as you seem to be saying.

kelly1

t352kupibc0w4o wrote: »

Look, the Eucharist is a mystery. A mystery is something we will never understand. We can argue forever claiming that my view is right, and your view is wrong. We will never convince each other. It is a waste of time. Our finite minds will never solve it, and that is God's will.

It's a mystery in the sense that we can't understand exactly how Jesus can come to us in the guise of bread and wine. It's an article of faith. But it's vitally important to know if the Eucharist is just blessed bread or the real presence of Jesus. Hence this thread.