A Catholic explanation of John 6

[Mannyfit75]

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

 

[runandsew]

Jesus said this. I didn’t. If you have a problem with these verses then you’d have to take it up with Him. If you can, I’d certainly like to see you refute the following verses.

Jesus = Living Bread (John 6:51)
Living Bread = Flesh (John 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = work of God (John 4:34) Already explained.
Work of God = believe on Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = have everlasting life (Jhn 6:40) Everlasting life is the result of eating his flesh.
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)
.

You have to keep in mind that John 6 is written in context with the Passover, so to interpret any of this, you have to remember that Jesus is the new Passover lamb which will be slain for us.
And on Passover, they had to slay the lamb, and eats its flesh. If they did not do so their first born son would have been killed.

 

[Mot_Juste]

Sir,

In the construction of your argument, I contend that the following point steals a base.

REMEMBER, JESUS DEFINED MEAT HERE
Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Reading John 4:34 in context we see his disciples offering Jesus food, but he refuses, saying “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” What makes you think that the food Jesus eats is the same food he offers us to eat? (I personally believe that in our glorified resurrected bodies, if by the grace of God we enter into his kingdom, we will taste of that same food. But here, on Earth, do you think we eat the same food as Jesus? He eats from his Father’s table directly, a roof under which we are not fit to go.)

Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

This is a powerful verse, but it cannot settle the dispute between us. To you “believing”, I think, means confessing Jesus as Lord with your lips. To me, “believing” includes believing all of Jesus’ words, such as “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”. (Of course you believe those words too, but only as metaphors for belief itself, whereas the Catholic church teaches a sacramental reality more “real” than visible reality.)

–Bill

 

[MrS]

.
Yes

so according to you if you partake of the Eucharist you do not die?

 

[VociMike]

What do Catholics claim about this verse? Thanks

I don’t know, all I know is that it is obviously true for Catholics that we do indeed see the Son in the Eucharist. Not symbolically, but actually and really. In that sense, the verse speaks for itself.

 

[VociMike]

OK, believers, What ALL does “believeth in me” include?

Does obedience have anything to do with “believeth-ing”?

Absolutely, it does.

Jn 3:36: He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

 

[VociMike]

I have no problem with the Words of what Jesus said concerning that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I have read John Chapter 6 so many times. There isn’t any word to describe His words as mere symbolism.

And further, if “eat my flesh” was just idiom for “believe in me”, why did they only start to grumble and dispute and eventually leave Christ when He talked about eating His flesh? Why did they not start to grumble and dispute and leave when He spoke about believing in Him, if they both meant the same thing? The Protestant position cannot explain this extraordinary difference in behavior to what they claim were just two different presentations of exactly the same message.

 

[VociMike]

REMEMBER, JESUS DEFINED MEAT HERE
Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

No, He defined His meat. Why would we presume that our “meat” is exactly the same as God’s “meat”? Is our work to die on a cross for the salvation of mankind? I don’t think so.

 

[runandsew]

believers:
Well it seems like we didn’t make any progress yesterday on understanding each others interpretation. I can see how your interpretation can be one of the spiritual interpretations of John 6, but I believe that it is not the only meaning, or even the main meaning. I pray that you will be open in your faith life to hear truth even if you at this time of your life don’t precieve it to be truth.

Origen taught that there were several senses of Scripture, that is that it can have several meanings, or fulfillments.
Here is a cut and paste from the biblechristiansociety website explaining these senses:

Senses of Scripture

A.** Literal Sense **
~Literal interpretation of scripture takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey.
Example: It’s raining cats & dogs.
Meaning: Its raining hard.

B. **Spiritual Sense **
1. Allegorical Sense-refers, ultimately, to Christ.
~ Crossing the Red Sea; with 1 Corinthians 10:1-2
~ Abraham & Isaac; with God’s sacrifice of His son, Christ.

1. Moral Sense-how we apply scripture in our daily walk with Christ.
   ~ 10 Commandments
2. Anagogical Sense-concerned with our ultimate destiny.
   ~ Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)

 

[BrianH]

I see some cracks opening in the veneer finish of yours, Brian! You’re getting close.

A mortal sin, sadly, eliminates all of your stored graces and prevents you from going to heaven. That’s why we need to repent and avoid mortal sins.

And when we fall, we need to go to confession.

Actually NotWorthy, we used to agree a lot more. The explainations are so far away from the plain text I cannot believe I adhered to a literal version of this
Thank you for your attempt to explain it though and have a good day.

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually NotWorthy, we used to agree a lot more. The explainations are so far away from the plain text I cannot believe I adhered to a literal version of this
Thank you for your attempt to explain it though and have a good day.

Yes, I noticed that, too. I appreciate you trying to learn. At least, I appreciate that you are coming to Catholics to learn what we teach, rather than elsewhere.

I never went to English to learn Algebra, and I never understood how so many Catholic experts have never stepped into a Church.

Take care, Brian!

 

[Nicene]

That was my next point…

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

One of the conditions for the flesh of Jesus is eternal life. The Eucharist cannot promise eternal life. Therefore, it is not the flesh of Jesus and just a wafer.

And this is wherein the mistake lies.

Whose eternal life is he speaking of here:

Jn 6:53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Yours or his?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
[/quote]

 

[runandsew]

B]John 6:53-54
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat (phago) the flesh (sarx) of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats (trogo) my flesh (sarx) and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

phago
1.to eat
2.to eat (consume) a thing
a.to take food, eat a meal
b.metaph. to devour, consume

Would anyone claim that phago in any of these uses is not a literal eating as opposed to a metaphorical “consumption”??? Remember of the two definitions of phago, the first means to eat as in “I ate lunch” and the second means “to consume” with the first sub definition (a) being a literal eating of food. Only the second sub definition (b) means to metaphorically consume something. So we must recognize that the primary definitions are to be presumed in all cases except where they can be shown to obviously not be the case. Having noted that, we can proceed to the verses of controversy between historic sacramental Christianity and anti-historical, anti-sacramental Christianity. Here are the verses in dispute

sarx

1. flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2. the body
   a) the body of a man

Trogo

1. to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)
   a) of animals feeding
   b) of men
2. to eat

The first thing that one who looks closely at the above definitions is that none of these definitions is metaphorical at all. (They are instead literal renderings.) The primary definition is to crunch or chew, which is about as literal as you can get. From the actions of the Jews after Our Lord spoke the passages in John 6:54-58, it seems that we can determine what the intended meaning was and it was clearly the primary definition. For if it was otherwise, the reactions of the crowd would not make sense.

The Jews understood Our Lord to be speaking literally.

His disciples understood Our Lord to be speaking literally.

Despite their incredulity, Jesus keeps emphasizing it without ever telling them that he was speaking figuratively. If a non-literal meaning was intended, it would be illogical to keep re-emphasizing it with greater force throughout the discourse as Our Lord did.

The change in verbs from phago (which generally means to eat literally) is later replaced with trogo which is a much more explicit verb (denoting a gnawing or crunching) would only make sense if it was emphasizing a literal meaning. Otherwise, Our Lord the greatest teacher this world has ever and will ever know really blew it big time here in explaining Himself clearly and unambiguously.

The crowds left Our Lord and he never corrected their misunderstanding if it was a misunderstanding (as he did in every instance where his parables were misunderstood). Therefore it must not have been a misunderstanding except in terms of HOW Our Lord would give them His flesh to eat as “food indeed.”

The Apostles themselves understood Our Lord to be speaking literally. (Indeed the text makes it clear that they were dumbfounded.)

from Matt1618

 

[RNRobert]

RNR… we might want to add Michael Voris’ site to the list of good stuff… in less than one year he has an up-n-running tv studio and is producing weekly, direct and to the point presentations of Catholicism. He is about 30 minutes from me… but I have only been there once… however I definitely will return…

the site:

catholictelevision.org/

I have all the season 1 podcasts on my iPod. Hopefully they’ll have season 2 available soon.

 

[MrS]

No

No

Because that is not what they think it teaches

I dont think either one is too hard to believe, But since you asked, I will take option A.

Well then…

!
Well that was…unconvincing

God will open eyes in His time/…

when that happens, let him see, who has eyes to see, and hear, he who has ears to hear…

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I had not read this thread with my own eyes, I would never have believed that otherwise intelligent people could reach such convoluted conclusions about the clear words of John 6.

So desperate are they to believe something - ANYTHING - other than what the “Romish” Church teaches to be true.

Peter was right; they do twist the scriptures to their own destruction.

 

[RNRobert]

If I had not read this thread with my own eyes, I would never have believed that otherwise intelligent people could reach such convoluted conclusions about the clear words of John 6.

So desperate are they to believe something - ANYTHING - other than what the “Romish” Church teaches to be true.

Peter was right; they do twist the scriptures to their own destruction.

And the thing of it is, no Christians believed any other conclusions about John 6 (and Jesus’s words at the Last Supper) until Luther’s revolt in 1517.

 

[BrianH]

We are not arguing that Jesus did not use literal words for eating. Who does that? What matters is his clarification, which he should not have had to do if they would have followed the whole speech a little closer!

 

[MrS]

We are not arguing that Jesus did not use literal words for eating. Who does that? What matters is his clarification, which he should not have had to do if they would have followed the whole speech a little closer!

Jesus did not clarify… this was not a parable that required further explanation.

Instead He repeated Himself 4 times… those who walked away just preferred to walk away… as our separated brethren do today.

The Real Presence, as presented in Our Lord’s words, and as given in ordination to the Apostles at the Last Supper… is unique to Catholcism (inspite of the wishful claims of others).

Only in the Catholic Mass will anyone come to see the consecrated host for what it is, and for what Jesus said it is
" …this is My Body… given up for you…"

Be not afraid…

.

 

[Nicene]

We are not arguing that Jesus did not use literal words for eating. Who does that? What matters is his clarification, which he should not have had to do if they would have followed the whole speech a little closer!

Jesus goes on to explain something different? As far as I know he says:

Jn 6:63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus is saying people cannot accept the mystery if they think in too human a way, carnally; “the flesh is of no avail”. But those who listen and accept Gods revelation, “Spirit and Life”, will believe him.

Jn 6:67: Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

No Lord, thank you for giving us the eyes to see and the ears to hear. We agree with Peter and apostles:

Jn 6:68: Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

Wondering if you would comment on post #131? Whose eternal life?

Pace and God Bless
Nicene