Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)

[Marcos100]

Hello folks I would like to share with you some information, especially for those who believe in a literalistic transubstantiation, those who believe the wine become transubstantiated into His physical blood.

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did not say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of** this** bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

 

[YADA]

Hello folks I would like to share with you some information, especially for those who believe in a literalistic transubstantiation, those who believe the wine become transubstantiated into His physical blood.

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

You are imposing your interpretation upon this passage … you have separated the “flesh” Jesus has referred to as not being the flesh He took on in Mary’s womb but some “spiritual flesh” he brought with him or obtained at some point before this discussion … with nothing other then your saying that is what the passage means

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not

I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass. Again … this is your interpretation - imposed upon the passage … Jesus is God … God is everywhere … you make Jesus small and impotent … We receive Jesus fully … Body, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist … Jesus was, is and ever shall be …God is not finite but infinite … Jesus, Himself gives us this great gift of Himself as the Bread of Life … His life - given to us …

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did not say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of** this** bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

We partake of the of the Eucharist in the manner Jesus set in motion at the Last Supper … that s when Jesus first offered the Bread and Wine as His Body and Blood …and set in motion every future Eucharistic Celebration … you want to argue without the context of all passages referencing the Eucharist and the Early Church’s actions, writings and understanding plus 1500 years of Christian practice

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

Jesus in many passages after His Resurrection - became known in the Breaking of the Bread - Like the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus … Jesus walked with them, talked with them … but it was not until the Breaking of the Bread that they received Him fully …when they physically ate

Paul tell us that to eat and drink without discerning the Body and Blood is to eat and drink unworthily … Partaking of the Eucharist unworthily can lead to sickness and death … this is eating … physically eating … partaking not common food and drink but Bread and Wine that has been transformed into a spiritual food … this is not some merely symbolic quaint practice - just something to occupy time and entertain while we come together … it is not pretending … it is not just for show … It is real …

Your problem is you want to know and worship God in a merely metal/intellectual manner … We are humans who learn and engage our world and our God in the physical … we have five senses … we encounter God/Father/Son-Jesus/Holy Sprit/Trinity utilizing all our senses … It maybe a great mystery - you may have a hard time wrapping your head around it … but that is the process Jesus - not the Church He founded - set in motion … that is the Christian experience from the First Christians to this very day …

 

[Marcos100]

Yeah, you are right, the word spirit doesnt mean symbolic, but it does mean non-physically.

 

[ericc]

Yeah, you are right, the word spirit doesnt mean symbolic, but it does mean non-physically.

And Jesus is both physical and non-physical. Fully Man and fully God. The heresy of not admitting to this duality of natures was sorted out long ago by the Church against the gnostics and other heretics. So where do you stand? Jesus can do both physical and non-physical. Are you saying that Jesus can’t , shouldn’t, or couldn’t give his Body for us to eat literally (whether physical or non-physical)?

 

[Marcos100]

And Jesus is both physical and non-physical. Fully Man and fully God. The heresy of not admitting to this duality of natures was sorted out long ago by the Church against the gnostics and other heretics. So where do you stand? Jesus can do both physical and non-physical. Are you saying that Jesus can’t , shouldn’t, or couldn’t give his Body for us to eat literally (whether physical or non-physical)?

All I am saying is:

" the words that I have spoken to you are** spirit** and they are life.
But there are some of you who do not believe. " John 6:63-64

Strong’s Number: 4151 Spirit:
primarily denotes “the wind” (akin to pneo, “to breathe, blow”); also “breath;” then, especially “the spirit,” which, like the wind, is invisible,** immaterial** and powerful.

Jesus is saying His words are non-physical. If he is contrasting something or not , that is another topic.

 

[Marcos100]

Hello folks I would like to share with you some information, especially for those who believe in a literalistic transubstantiation, those who believe the wine become transubstantiated into His physical blood.

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did not say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of** this** bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

 

[10gr8kids]

It is ironic that those who believe you can just pick up a Bible, and read and understand, are so convinced that you can’t take Jesus at His word when He says, “Take and eat, this is my body”

I believe there is a good reason it is recorded in the Bible that many do not believe because it is a hard saying to accept. Those who do not believe in the real prescence should contemplate on these words.

Now I have to go and get ready to receive the greatest gift ever given, my God and my Savior in the most Holy Eucharist.

Thank you Lord for granting me the grace to believe and partake in You. Please lead all those who truly seek the Truth to see You in the Eucharist, and come share in this gift of Yourself. Amen. Father, I offer you the Body and Blood of Your Most Precious Son for the unity of all Christians. Amen

 

[fasolislithuan]

Marcos:

Where in John 6 is said to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink Jesus’ blood are symbolic? If you believe in Sola Scriptura show us where (verse, please) the symbolic aclaration appears. That symbolic interpretation only appears in the protestant eisegesis constrained by their aprioristic theological error (denial of Real Presence) but it’s not in the text. Tell us where, Jesus or John the evangelist clarify us that symbolic sense.

In fact if it would have a symbolic sense in John 6 we have a clarification as it happens in John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speakin of the temple of his body”

That’s a clarification of a symbolic sense in Jesus’ words that is inexistent in chapter 6. That’s why the protestant interpretation (eisegesis) is definitely wrong. The text doesn’t support their position, and neither the history of the Church.

You have to explain also these words: "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. Where is the clarification of the evangelist telling us that “food indeed” and “drink indeed” are actually other thing, somethin similar to a “spiritual food” and a “spiritual drink” as protestants claim. That clarification is absolutely inexistent and protestants in despair know it.

Is Jesus’ flesh food indeed, is Jesus’ blood drink indeed? Indeed. But for many incredulous aren’t. This is only a subject of faith. If your faith demands a logical explanation, a sort of rational faith to understand Jesus’ words in John 6, because you only trust in your reason to understand Jesus’ words you cannot understand nothing, and it’s impossible you can believe Jesus’ eucharistic words. It is impossible to accept we literally have to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink Jesus’ blood from the perspective of the flesh because our reason tell us is repugnant. But this is the result of a carnal and insufficient faith. That is why Jesus says: “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”. Only from a spiritual perspective, from the spirit we can believe and understand Jesus’ hard words as Peter says:* “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;”*, but if we limit to read God’s word from the flesh and not from the spirit, then the flesh is of no avail because with our reasonings of flesh and without our spiritual faith we would never accept Jesus’ eucharistic words.

 

[Marcos100]

Metaphors and Similes

While the simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing IS the other. While the Simile says “All flesh is AS grass” (1Pe 1:24), the Metaphor carries the figure across at once, and says “All flesh IS grass” (Isa 40:6). This is the distinction between the two…The Simile says “All we like sheep,” while the Metaphor declares that “we are the sheep of His pasture.”…Ps 23:1 The Lord is my Shepherd”… It is He who tends his People, and does more for them than any earthly shepherd does for his sheep…Metaphors are so numerous in the Old Testament, that it is impossible to give more than these few to serve as specimens and examples.

First Corinthians 11
Some proponents of the Eucharist argue that First Corinthians 11 supports
transubstantiation. They refer to verse 29 that states: “For he who eats and drinks in
an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s
body.” A thorough read of First Corinthians 11, reveals that the Corinthians were
not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not
discerning the Lord’s body meant not discerning in the bread and wine the symbols
of Christ’s body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently, as if it were a
common feast.
It is evident that this was the leading offense of the Corinthians. Those who were
eating and drinking in an unworthy manner were getting drunk and selfishly eating
before others in the body of Christ. Paul states this as the problem in verses 20 and
21. There is no indication that the apostle Paul believed in or taught
transubstantiation.In fact, Paul repeatedly refers to the blessed bread as normal bread after it hadbeen blessed. 19 Paul states in verse 26—“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”
Notice also that Paul explains that we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper “till He
comes”. The words “till He comes” pre-supposes that the Lord has ascended on
high. 20 Therefore the Lord’s Supper is in remembrance of His death and resurrection
until He returns. This agrees with what Jesus ordained when He said, “Do this in
remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19).
Finally, it is apparent that First Corinthians 11 uses figurative language to
describe Communion. The cup is referred to figuratively: “This cup is the new
covenant in My blood…” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Of course the cup was not the actual
covenant but symbolic of it. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,
you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Surely we are
not to drink the cup. This is a figurative reference to the wine inside the cup.

 

[Marcos100]

Do you have any other arguments to show us???

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did **not **say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

 

[fasolislithuan]

…

Marcos, you continue without answer a lot of questions we have made to you. What is the historical substratum of your interpretation on John 6? Perhaps merely your interpretation? Calvin? Another reformer?

I’d only like to know what is the historical support of your claim. In fact there is a lot of modern theories about a lot of historical doctrines of the Church maintained for a lot of people with a lot of errors, so for checking the real value of your propositions we have to know what is the historical support of your claims. Do you have any serious support (historical antecedents in the history of the Church) or is only another private interpretation of a Sola Scriptura’s modern follower? If is the last case you would to know that your interpretation hasn’t any true authority, it’s only a mere opinion without support in apostolic tradition. And of course is wrong, not because you are less inteligent than us but because is the Church of Christ established (and not any eventual and private interpreter of the Bible) the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[YADA]

Marcos, you continue without answer a lot of questions we have made to you. What is the historical substratum of your interpretation on John 6? Perhaps merely your interpretation? Calvin? Another reformer?

Marcos does not have one … he declares that this is all metaphor but the context argues against him … the reiteration - the repetition - each one more emphatic then the last - tells us that it is not a metaphor - nor is it symbolic language … clearly the people have to physically eat … eat something … and that ‘something ’ the Body and Blood of Christ … How can this be is not answered on the plain … instead Jesus lays the foundation of His Church upon Peter [Cephas] - His [Jesus’] new Steward/Prime Minister … we won’t truly understand [if even fully then - this profound Mystery] what He means by eat His Body and drink His Blood until the Upper Room At the Last Supper when Jesus institutes the Eucharist -

Marcos cannot argue against the reality of the Eucharist based upon the whole of scripture … How St Paul informs that to eat without discerning the very Body and Blood of Christ is important … that to do so unworthily is to eat and drink [physically - the Eucharist] is to risk bodily illness and even death.

He only has Marcos’ says this is what the passage means - this is by Marcos’ intellect and or with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit … nothing more … But then every other Christian through out history can make that same claim * … even the Early Church Father’s who learned face to face with the followers of Jesus - the original Apostles … and they believed … not what Marcos does …

Who are you going to believe? …Me … I believe my own interpretation which - as it turns out - is also what Jesus’ Church teaches and those Early Church Fathers *

 

[Cathoholic]

Marcos100. You said in post 100 (emphasis mine):

Yeah, you are right, the word spirit doesnt mean symbolic, but it does mean non-physically.

That’s the problem here isn’t it? It is Jesus actually giving His flesh for the life of the world. That’s the issue here isn’t it?

You are scandalized.

“Spiritual” to you essentially means to “spiritualize away”.

You un-Biblically divorce Spirit from matter when . . . the Word has taken flesh and dwelt among us.

Jesus’ words concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood cannot be believed except by grace. Please ask Jesus for the grace.

Your position is a theological invention. It is a new-fangled tradition. It was burped up from the bowels of Hell and hatched by Berengarius of Tours in the ten hundreds A.D. and he even repented from this utter denial.

For someone who (likely) believes in justification by FAITH ALONE, this unbelief that you seem to exhibit for the words of Jesus is a possible perilous position to be in Marcos100.

You are NOT being “Scriptural” Marcos100.

I am not saying you are committing the sin of incredulity, but you are NOT being Scriptural, contextual, or historical.

You are in essence inventing your own “faith” Marcos100.

**
The denial of the command to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood is . . . . A tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.**

 

[Cathoholic]

One addition to my last post.

When I am discussing Berengarius of Tours, his situation has to do with “among the Christian community”. I am not talking about the heretical sects.

 

[zz912]

Hello folks I would like to share with you some information, especially for those who believe in a literalistic transubstantiation, those who believe the wine become transubstantiated into His physical blood.

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not

I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did not say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of** this** bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

Marcos, I have read, re-read, and re-read again the particular passage. I have prayed fervently to God for enlightenment about this issue. And I come to a completely different conclusion that you do on your interpretation of this passage. Who does Scripture say we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement over your interpretation of this passage?

 

[Robyn_p]

Yeah, you are right, the word spirit doesnt mean symbolic, but it does mean non-physically.

So you agree with us now that Jesus isn’t saying His words are merely symbolic. That’s good, we are making progress!

All I am saying is:

" the words that I have spoken to you are** spirit** and they are life.
But there are some of you who do not believe. " John 6:63-64

Strong’s Number: 4151 Spirit:
primarily denotes “the wind” (akin to pneo, “to breathe, blow”); also “breath;” then, especially “the spirit,” which, like the wind, is invisible,** immaterial** and powerful.

Jesus is saying His words are non-physical. If he is contrasting something or not , that is another topic.

Actually, although that is the official definition, in the Bible, “spirit” doesn’t automatically exclude a material element. It can mean that which is dominated, controlled or empowered by the Spirit. I’ll give an example from John’s gospel to demonstrate what I mean. (there are other examples in Paul’s letters, but I’m limiting myself to John right now because we are discussing his gospel)

In John 4:24, Jesus says, ''God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Now obviously, when he says God is spirit, he means it in the sense of the definition you gave. God is immaterial, non-physical. He has no body. But when He says ‘‘those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth’’ he can’t possibly mean we must worship in a non-physical, immaterial way. Why? Because that’s not possible for us! We aren’t angels. We have physical bodies. Even if you don’t worship in a formal, liturgical setting like Catholics do, you still aren’t worshiping in a purely immaterial way. You can’t separate what your soul does from what your body does. Not till you die anyways.

But what does He mean then? He means our worship must be dominated and empowered by the Holy Spirit for it to be pleasing to God. It must be grace-filled. It can’t be a purely natural, earthly act. We can’t just go through the physical motions.

So the question is, in John 6:63, is Jesus using ‘‘spirit’’ in the way He meant God is spirit, or in the way he meant we must worship in spirit? Is he saying that the Eucharist is really an immaterial, non-physical reality, or is he saying the way they will eat his flesh will not be in a purely natural way, but grace-filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit? The only way we can figure this out is to do what you’ve been saying, look at the context.

In the verse right before verse 63, Jesus says: ‘‘Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?’’ THEN he says, ‘‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’’ Notice he tells them about his ascension into heaven, and then says his words are spirit and life. Why? Why does he even mention his ascension? Seems kind of out of place here. But we know Jesus never says anything for no reason. So there has to be something about his ascension that sheds light on his teaching about eating his flesh.

I think the fact that he brings up his physical ascension indicates he’s not using spirit to mean a non-physical reality here. Because as we later see, he physically, not immaterially, ascends into heaven. In other words, He’s telling them that just like His ascension will be a miraculous, grace-filled event not accomplished by mere human power, the way they will eat his flesh will be in a miraculous, grace-filled way, not in the natural, earthly way they are thinking. (i.e. cannibalism)

So saying ‘‘my words are spirit and life’’ doesn’t exclude a material element to his words. His words are spirit because He is not talking about eating his flesh in a naturalistic way. It will be empowered by the Spirit. It will be a miracle. It is only through the power of the Spirit that Christ will be made present in the Eucharist, because only the Spirit can give life.

 

[Marcos100]

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst v.35

There are 2 verbs implied in the verse above, EAT and DRINK.

Is this verse literal o figurative?

Some of you said it is both, I say it is figurative, but if you say both, you must know of a bread that will cease physical hunger and physical thirst forever.

 

[ericc]

Some of you said it is both, I say it is figurative, but if you say both, you must know of a bread that will cease physical hunger and physical thirst forever.

Did Jesus mentioned which type of thirst or hunger? Why do you assumed that it has to be physical i.e. of the flesh? Jesus said “he who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall not thirst.”

The bread of life that comes down from heaven one may eat of it and not die. He shall live forever.

In the Last Supper, Jesus took earthly bread, changed it to heavenly bread ( merely by saying “This is my Body” ) and shared it. You already know that of the flesh remains flesh i.e. dies (John 3:6). Obviously Jesus is referring to that of the Spirit. Is it surprising to you that Jesus took earthly bread, changed it to heavenly bread and asked us to consume it? Repeating as above " THOSE WHO COMES TO HIM AND THOSE WHO BELIEVED IN HIM’ shall not thirst/hunger.

So the question to you is :

1. Do you believe Jesus can change earthly bread to heavenly bread i.e. his body? The answer to this is really really important. Everything hinges on this.
2. If you do, will you go to him, believe in him and eat/trogo him for everlasting spiritual life? Do note that you have to come to him. He won’t force feed you. Also note that you have to believe it. Otherwise Paul won’t insist that one must discern his Body.
3. Or are you offended by what he said?John 6:61. Or are you those that do not believe?John 6:64. Is it a hard saying to you?

If you believe Jesus can change earthly bread to heavenly bread, then you are deliberately being obstinate/disobedient by refusing to eat the heavenly bread offered by Jesus himself.

Or do you prefer to do word gymnastics? I don’t have to mentioned John 6:67 as you already have done it. The question is whether do you want to come back to the table for that Bread that gives you everlasting life? He won’t beg you, but invite you to eat his body. Is it the hardness of your heart that is rejecting Him?

 

[Cathoholic]

From Marcos 100:

I say it is figurative, but if you say both, you must know of a bread that will cease physical hunger and physical thirst forever.

So is your point here Marcos100, is that YOU . . . . NO longer have spiritual hunger or thirst for Jesus anymore?

How about a spiritual “hunger” for righteousness? Do you NOT have THAT too Marcos100?

MATTHEW 5:6 6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

The denial of the reality of actually receiving ALL of Jesus is an invention. This denial is a tradition of men that nullifies the Commandments of God!

 

[zz912]

Marcos, I have read, re-read, and re-read again the particular passage. I have prayed fervently to God for enlightenment about this issue. And I come to a completely different conclusion that you do on your interpretation of this passage. Who does Scripture say we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement over your interpretation of this passage?

Marcos, were you able to find the Bible passages that deal with the situation we have here? Who does the Bible tell us to turn to for resolution of this question?