B
benhur
Guest
Words can gnaw at you more than eating. Just look at some of the saints and how "words’ gnawed at them. I tell you you can chew on the Lord’s words much more than a piece of meat.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
benhur
Guest
And what were the words Jesus spoke that are spirit and life (John 6:63)? Why, the very words recorded in the previous verses:
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Why is there a separation of the Word and the symbolic? Both are true. Neither should be rejected.Words can gnaw at you more than eating. Just look at some of the saints and how "words’ gnawed at them. I tell you you can chew on the Lord’s words much more than a piece of meat.
You seem to be rejecting the literal for an analogical meaning
E
Erich
Guest
They left Him because they could not accept the literal meaning of the words he had just finished speaking. When Jesus said that He is a door or a vine, did the disciples take Him literally or metaphorically? They took Him metaphorically, did they not? No one asked, “How can this man be a door?” Or, “How can this man be a vine?” Did they? Did anyone jump up and say, “This is a hard teaching; who can accept it,” and then leave Him? Did they? No, of course not. Those listening to Him that day took Him to be speaking literally…even His own disciples. So much so, that many of them left Him over this teaching.The disciples that walked away had trouble with his words from the beginning of His ministry
John 6:51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
Does Jesus say, or does He not say, that the bread which He will give us to eat, is His flesh, which He will give for the life of the world? I’m sorry, but that is about as clear as it gets. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Was that real flesh on the cross or symbolic, metaphorical flesh? Real flesh! So, the bread He gives us to eat, if we are to take Jesus at His word, is it real flesh or symbolic, metaphorical flesh? Real flesh! If not, then the words of Scripture just don’t add up. And, when His listeners don’t fully appreciate what He is saying in verse 51, does He tell them that they’re misunderstanding Him? No. He repeats Himself (like He does nowhere else in Scripture) and emphasizes what He was saying in an even more strident manner.
John 6:53-55, “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.”
if Jesus didn’t mean what Catholics think He means, then what exactly does He mean? Also, if Jesus let His disciples walk away from following Him, even though He knew it was simply a misunderstanding on their part, what does that say about Him as a teacher, as a Rabbi, as God? Can you name other instances in the Gospels where Jesus’ disciples didn’t understand what He was saying? I can. And, in each and every instance of the disciples not understanding, what happens? I’ll tell you what happens: either they go to Jesus to ask Him what He meant, or Jesus goes to them, even without them asking, and explains what He meant. But, that didn’t happen in this instance…how come? Could it be because Jesus knew that there was no misunderstanding on their part…they got it exactly as He meant it? And, the difficulty of understanding and believing what He said put their faith to the test, and they failed that test?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Why then, in the Lord’s words, does it speak of us as eaters (or gnawers or chewers if you prefer) rather than eaten?Words can gnaw at you more than eating. Just look at some of the saints and how "words’ gnawed at them. I tell you you can chew on the Lord’s words much more than a piece of meat.
A
Abu
Guest
As the priesthood established by the Christ, originating in His Catholic Church, is necessary for the bread and wine to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ this is yet another error engendered through not understanding Christ, and thus not following Him.Benhur #318
I do follow the church on this.I do eat Christ
B
benhur
Guest
You bet.To avoid eating human flesh,no matter how divine.Why is there a separation of the Word and the symbolic? Both are true. Neither should be rejected.
You seem to be rejecting the literal for an analogical meaning
E
Erich
Guest
You probably aren’t aware of this, but the phrase “eat the flesh” is indeed used as a metaphor in Scripture…a metaphor that conveys something wicked and evil:You bet.To avoid eating human flesh,no matter how divine.
Psalm 27:2, “When the WICKED came against me to eat up my flesh, my ENEMIES and FOES…” (KJV)
Micah 3:2-4, “You who HATE THE GOOD and LOVE THE EVIL, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people…”
Isaiah 9:20, “They snatch on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor’s flesh…”
We see that, in the Bible, the phrase “eat the flesh” has very negative connotations. It is not a good thing. It is something evildoers do to others. So, if Jesus was speaking metaphorically, then, using the Bible to interpret the Bible, as I assume you do, one would have to conclude that He was saying something pretty bad, right? Yet, He says you must do this bad thing to have eternal life. Could you help me to understand this, please?
Yet, even though there was a metaphor, “eat the flesh,” that was used by the Jews, as evidenced by Scripture, the Jews who were standing there at the time took Christ to be speaking literally, not metaphorically. Verse 52, “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Verse 60, “Many of His disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?’” And, in verse 66, they left Him. They left Him because they could not accept the literal meaning of His words. So, again, even though there was a metaphorical meaning for what Jesus was saying, the folks standing there took Him literally.
B
benhur
Guest
Actually, if I recall correctly, a Catholic once explained that one of the words for eating was quite violent (so they did not understand of doing violence to Jesus), and in essence I would say that is what happened to secure our salvation, a very evil, coming upon the body of Jesus and putting Him on a cross. For sure Jesus was referring to His atoning death in this discourse. He even chided them saying you do not understand this (my death) and I haven’t even told you yet about my upcoming Ascension! They wanted an earthly King, much what like Satan offered Jesus in the desert , and this they wanted from the beginning of following Him.You probably aren’t aware of this, but the phrase “eat the flesh” is indeed used as a metaphor in Scripture…a metaphor that conveys something wicked and evil:
Psalm 27:2, “When the WICKED came against me to eat up my flesh, my ENEMIES and FOES…” (KJV)
Micah 3:2-4, “You who HATE THE GOOD and LOVE THE EVIL, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people…”
Isaiah 9:20, “They snatch on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor’s flesh…”
We see that, in the Bible, the phrase “eat the flesh” has very negative connotations. It is not a good thing. It is something evildoers do to others. So, if Jesus was speaking metaphorically, then, using the Bible to interpret the Bible, as I assume you do, one would have to conclude that He was saying something pretty bad, right? Yet, He says you must do this bad thing to have eternal life. Could you help me to understand this, please?
Yet, even though there was a metaphor, “eat the flesh,” that was used by the Jews, as evidenced by Scripture, the Jews who were standing there at the time took Christ to be speaking literally, not metaphorically. Verse 52, “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Verse 60, “Many of His disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?’” And, in verse 66, they left Him. They left Him because they could not accept the literal meaning of His words. So, again, even though there was a metaphorical meaning for what Jesus was saying, the folks standing there took Him literally.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
And why can’t the Sacramental reality be the literal fullness of this?Actually, if I recall correctly, a Catholic once explained that one of the words for eating was quite violent (so they did not understand of doing violence to Jesus), and in essence I would say that is what happened to secure our salvation, a very evil, coming upon the body of Jesus and putting Him on a cross. For sure Jesus was referring to His atoning death in this discourse. He even chided them saying you do not understand this (my death) and I haven’t even told you yet about my upcoming Ascension! They wanted an earthly King, much what like Satan offered Jesus in the desert , and this they wanted from the beginning of following Him.
B
benhur
Guest
Because it is eating flesh primarilyAnd why can’t the Sacramental reality be the literal fullness of this?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
That’s why He used the elements of bread and wine, so that it wouldn’t be cannibalism but still fulfill both the sacramental and the symbolicBecause it is eating flesh primarily
B
benhur
Guest
What do you mean by sacramental ? I thought for sure it is His body and His blood as well as His divinity ,but still flesh and blood. Not sure if there is a way around it, even if veiled then transformed with/from elements.That’s why He used the elements of bread and wine, so that it wouldn’t be cannibalism but still fulfill both the sacramental and the symbolic
D
Denise1957
Guest
Well said. I’ve heard this same explanation before, regarding the word ‘trogo’ as being meant to say or mean…“gnaw, or chew.” Like an animal chews, or a cow chewing its cud. It’s obvious that it’s to be taken in a literal sense, even if others on this thread will not see it as such.And what were the words Jesus spoke that are spirit and life (John 6:63)? Why, the very words recorded in the previous verses:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. … Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t put “air quotes” around the verb eats as you are doing. In fact, the Evangelist tells us the word Jesus used was trogo which literally means “to gnaw, crunch, chew.” If I remember correctly, *trogo *is only used 6 times in the entire New Testament (5 times by John and 1 time by Matthew), 4 of them right here. It seems to me that it takes more imagining to not see that Jesus had something very literal in mind!
Also, I’d like to mention to the non-Catholics here that the Christians at the time took it literally. We have it in historical writing that St. Polycarp celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. I don’t think that a disciple of St. John, who knew and walked and talked with Jesus himself, could have taught something wrong to his disciple St. Polycarp about the meaning of the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
E
Erich
Guest
When Jesus said that He is a door or a vine, did anyone ask, “How can this man be a door?” Or, “How can this man be a vine?” Or say, “This is a hard teaching; who can accept it,” and then leave Him?Because it is eating flesh primarily
So, when Jesus said that the bread which He will give us to eat, is His flesh, which He will give for the life of the world, why did folks say “This is a hard teaching; who can accept it,” and then leave Him?
If Jesus didn’t mean what Catholics think He means, then what exactly does He mean? (And, why should we believe your own non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible over that of the Church which He founded?)
B
benhur
Guest
Glad to see the figurative in those other spiritual realities, as I think the bread is, except as you say, He continues with it as in eating. That is what we ponder, does the figurative bread then switch to a literal eating, or are both figurative ?When Jesus said that He is a door or a vine, did anyone ask, “How can this man be a door?” Or, “How can this man be a vine?” Or say, “This is a hard teaching; who can accept it,” and then leave Him?
So, when Jesus said that the bread which He will give us to eat, is His flesh, which He will give for the life of the world, why did folks say “This is a hard teaching; who can accept it,” and then leave Him?
If Jesus didn’t mean what Catholics think He means, then what exactly does He mean? (And, why should we believe your own non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible over that of the Church which He founded?)
That Christ goes further with the figurative bread with “eating” flesh as He does not with “vine”, “door”, “shepherd” etc. indicates only the imperativeness of what He is getting at, the Cross. I think we both agree it is more critical than the other figurative names, especially at this juncture when folks were following for wrong reasons.
Those disciples that left took it literal and certainly not figurative nor spiritual.
B
benhur
Guest
My understanding is that the current Catholic view evolved over a thousand years, and that at the beginning there were various interpretations held, of which we still see today, though now outside of the CC.If Jesus didn’t mean what Catholics think He means, then what exactly does He mean?
E
Erich
Guest
In John 6:51, Jesus says that the bread which He will give us to eat is His flesh which He will give for the life of the world. Did He give us His literal flesh or His figurative flesh for the life of the world? Literal or figurative? Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no? Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no? Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?Glad to see the figurative in those other spiritual realities, as I think the bread is, except as you say, He continues with it as in eating. That is what we ponder, does the figurative bread then switch to a literal eating, or are both figurative ?
How can you believe that Jesus gave His real flesh on the Cross, yet also believe that Jesus only gave us His symbolic flesh as the bread He gives us to eat, when John 6:51 clearly identifies the bread Jesus will give us to eat as the real flesh that He will give for the life of the world on the Cross? You have a theological inconsistency on your hands.
B
benhur
Guest
Not really. Again it is easy to just say literal straight across the board, except that this is a spiritual matter. That flesh came to fix a spiritual matter is not inconsistency. Those disciples that left had everything literal and totally left out the spiritual.In John 6:51, Jesus says that the bread which He will give us to eat is His flesh which He will give for the life of the world. Did He give us His literal flesh or His figurative flesh for the life of the world? Literal or figurative? Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no? Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no? Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?
How can you believe that Jesus gave His real flesh on the Cross, yet also believe that Jesus only gave us His symbolic flesh as the bread He gives us to eat, when John 6:51 clearly identifies the bread Jesus will give us to eat as the real flesh that He will give for the life of the world on the Cross? You have a theological inconsistency on your hands.
We are not the gnostic folk that Ignatius rebuked for not believing that Christ died in the flesh. Just that we eat by faith spiritually. To eat human flesh is inconsistent with Judaism.
Further it is inconsistent to take the eating literal and not strictly spiritual for the reward is strictly spiritual. You do eat His flesh as a Catholic yet every Catholic for the past two thousand years has died, even though Jesus said if you eat his flesh you would be unlike those that died in the wilderness and live forever. It is a spiritual reward for a spiritual eating, by faith.
A
Abu
Guest
Jesus the Christ doesn’t foster your pandering to pondering. Such rejection of the Christ while claiming to follow the Bible is now habitual.benhur #335
That is what we ponder, does the figurative bread then switch to a literal eating, or are both figurative ?
Accept the clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," establishes the reality.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.
Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).
With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:
- Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
- By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the Supreme Vicar of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.