Interpretation of John 6:51-66...

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.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

Pretty well all the major Christian traditions are agreed that it's the real presence of Jesus. What they disagree about is how it's the real presence of Jesus.

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well all the major Christian traditions are agreed that it's the real presence of Jesus. What they disagree about is how it's the real presence of Jesus.

How many traditions, for example, adore the Blessed Sacrament? Catholic, Orthodox and who else?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

What do you then make of:
Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
(NKJV) John 6:32-33

The Manna is a strong symbolic reference to the Lord Jesus. It was miraculous food (food from Heaven) that kept the Israelites alive.

Bob_Marley

santing wrote: »

What do you then make of:
Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
(NKJV) John 6:32-33

The Manna is a strong symbolic reference to the Lord Jesus. It was miraculous food (food from Heaven) that kept the Israelites alive.

It means the 'true bread from heaven', the Eucharist, is not actually bread at all but truly Jesus Christ, the bread of life.

John 6 48-52 continues with

"I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 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?”"

kelly1

santing wrote: »

What do you then make of:
Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
(NKJV) John 6:32-33

The Manna is a strong symbolic reference to the Lord Jesus. It was miraculous food (food from Heaven) that kept the Israelites alive.

I really would appreciate it if you could address my "flesh and blood" questions which I've asked several times at this point.

To answer your question, the verse you quoted clearly means that Jesus is using the word bread as a metaphor for food and that "He" himself is that food. "He" refers to Jesus' entirety i.e. body, blood, soul and divinity.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

kelly1 wrote:

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.

It is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Bread bought at the highest price, His Passion and Death on the Cross. To deny this is a great wrong, because you deny the supreme value of His Suffering and His Death.

kelly1

t352kupibc0w4o wrote: »

It is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

Agreed!

t352kupibc0w4o wrote: »

Bread bought at the highest price, His Passion and Death on the Cross. To deny this is a great wrong, because you deny the supreme value of His Suffering and His Death.

Bread bought? I think you mean salvation?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

kelly1 wrote:

Bread bought? I think you mean salvation?

Of course, but seeing we are using the word "bread" to describe the Holy Eucharist, I thought the word "bought" would help to simplify matters for those who are not yet enlightened.

Bob_Marley

t352kupibc0w4o wrote: »

Of course, but seeing we are using the word "bread" to describe the Holy Eucharist, I thought the word "bought" would help to simplify matters for those who are not yet enlightened.

didn't know you were a Buddhist

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bob_Marley wrote:

didn't know you were a Buddhist

What do you mean? The Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.