Clement of Alex. interprets John 6 symbolically?!

[Maccabees]

Only one problem with that Jesus did literally give up his flesh for the life of the world in John 6 in the very same context he gives us his flesh and blood to eat. You have these statements backt to back in the same discourse.IF he didn’t literally give us his flesh on the cross then you might have a point but you have created a gnostic heresey if you deny this.

 

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

Only one problem with that Jesus did literally give up his flesh for the life of the world in John 6 in the very same context he gives us his flesh and blood to eat. **You have these statements backt to back in the same discourse.**IF he didn’t literally give us his flesh on the cross then you might have a point but you have created a gnostic heresey if you deny this.

That doesn’t change the fact that his statement is not literal regarding eating of his flesh. Jesus is swinging back and forth between the symbolical and literal during the whole discourse. For example he calls himself the bread that comes down from heaven. He wasn’t literally bread.

Jeff

 

[twf]

For those of you who understand John 6 metaphorically, how do you explain the following?

1. Jesus allowed them to leave, and even questioned his apostles if they would leave, because this was a hard teaching.
2. Why did Jesus use language that the people would take (and obviously did, in the passage) literally? Why use such a poor metaphor then? (Eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood means to inflict bodily harm, metaphorically, in the language of the time). The people clearly took it as literal.
3. Why did Jesus use an even more graphic term for ‘eat’ (trogon…as in to ‘gnaw’ or ‘chew’) later on, after the Jews had grumbled. At first he used the general term ‘to eat’, but re-emphasized the point with more graphic language later.
4. Why does He try to make it sound so obvious to the crowd that He is speaking literally, with such statements as “my flesh is real food…” after they have already misunderstood him? This simply leads to more confusion.
5. If He is not speaking of His literal flesh, then what did Jesus offer up for the world? The same flesh He commands us to eat, is to be offered up for our sins (Jn 6:51-52). He makes it clear that the bread He bids them to eat is His flesh which He shall offer for the salvation of the world.
6. Considering the wider context…earlier in the chapter, John recalls the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. What is John tellling us here? There seems to be an obvious conection, as they are placed so close together in the Gospel, and both involve ‘bread’ being offered for many.
7. Considering the wider context of the New Testament, we must also consider the use of the word *poiein *, used by Christ when instituting the Eucharist, has sacrificial undertones. It is not the ordinary word for ‘do’ (as in ‘do this in remembrance of me’) but the same verb used in the Greek OT to refer to the sacrifices that were done as a ‘reminder for sin’ (See cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm)…and in 1 Corinthians 11, it is interesting that, when partaking of the Holy Communion unworthily, one is said to be sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

In Christ,
Tyler

 

[Maccabees]

jphilapy:

That doesn’t change the fact that his statement is not literal regarding eating of his flesh. Jesus is swinging back and forth between the symbolical and literal during the whole discourse. For example he calls himself the bread that comes down from heaven. He wasn’t literally bread.

Jeff

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Well he is swingling literal did he not give his flesh for the life of the world? The bread is symbolic and he tells us right here what the bread symbolizes “This bread is my flesh,”
Are you calling Jesus explanation wrong?
Your arguing with not only the catholic church here but with Jesus?
Think about what you are saying. The tradition of your pastor should not surpass the words of Jesus.

 

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Well he is swingling literal did he not give his flesh for the life of the world? The bread is symbolic and he tells us right here what the bread symbolizes “This bread is my flesh,”
Are you calling Jesus explanation wrong?
Your arguing with not only the catholic church here but with Jesus?
Think about what you are saying. The tradition of your pastor should not surpass the words of Jesus.

No macc I am not disagreeing with Jesus. I am disagreeing with an intrepretation of what Jesus is doing and saying there.

Jesus said the he is is the bread. That is symbolic implying that he is our life. Jesus said he was giving his literal flesh on the cross. But the eating of that flesh is symbolic. What it means is that by faith in his literal death we receive the Holy Spirit which is our life. Hence the whole picture Jesus is teaching here is about the indwelling of the Spirit in our life. Jesus is teaching that we are to become one with him by his Holy Spirit. Just as food becomes one with the body and just as blood is for life. So by his Spirit we are made one and given life.

Jesus is teaching that we eat of Him by living in and following his Spirit.

By faith we receive the Spirit by the Spirit we have life.

Jeff

 

[stumbler]

jphilapy:

Here is the problem I see. You are only willing to attribute a partial literalness to Jesus words. Notice that you say “akin to cannibalism”.

The literal interpretation of Jesus words do not come out to something that equals “akin to cannibalism”. His words intepreted literally are nothing less than “cannibalism”. So you either have to go the whole way and say that Jesus is literally teaching “cannibalism” or go the whole way and say that he is not teaching something literal.

I think you are letting your modern conception of “cannibalism” hinder you here. I said “akin to cannibalism” because it was not as we understand that practice today. Jesus literally did give us his flesh to eat. Nothing partial about it. The problem with the Protestant objection is that they keep trying to force John 6:52 into a “let’s carve up Jesus now” reaction. Whereas, as I indicated before, Jesus was talking about the future.

Now the literal question of the crowd was “how?” was Jesus going to do this. And in the future, Jesus explained “how” he would literally give us his flesh to eat. He told us the truth (John 6:53 “verily, verily!”). He was not called “the Lamb of God” for nothing.

jphilapy:

Now why didn’t Jesus stop the disciples? Because he requires nothing less than their complete trust. The disciples who stayed did trust him completely. They, like Abraham knew that God would not require them to do something immoral.

There is no indication that the troubled disciples in 6:52 saw this as a moral problem. Rather they saw it as craziness or an impossibility. In the Protestant conception, this is the one time Jesus lets his followers leave on a false understanding. Both before and after this incident, Jesus explains his metaphors. And Jesus is not testing an individual here. He is speaking to a large group (and a large group leaves him). Further, Jesus plainly says he is telling us the truth in John 6:53. This is no test. As such, the “complete trust or leave me” interpretation seems very, very strained, if not impossible.

Jesus was being literal. The audience understood him to be literal. John understood him to be literal. John taught his followers that Jesus was being literal. They passed on to us that literal meaning. It was held as literal for 1,500 years. Then came the Protestants.

 

[Maccabees]

No macc I am not disagreeing with Jesus. I am disagreeing with an intrepretation of what Jesus is doing and saying there.

Yeah right you can’t handle the truth!

Jesus said the he is is the bread. That is symbolic implying that he is our life.

Oh many your calling out Jesus I can’t beleive you went there. **This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” **
The bread is symbolic and he tells us right here what the bread symbolizes "This bread is my flesh,"
Are you calling Jesus explanation wrong?
Oh you did you have some nerve to call Jesus wrong does Jesus say the bread symbolize anything else besides his flesh. Here’s a hint No. He gives the one explantion you deny.
Think about what you are saying. The tradition of your pastor should not surpass the words of Jesus.

Jesus said he was giving his literal flesh on the cross.

We agree

But the eating of that flesh is symbolic. What it means is that by faith in his literal death we receive the Holy Spirit which is our life. Hence the whole picture Jesus is teaching here is about the indwelling of the Spirit in our life. Jesus is teaching that we are to become one with him by his Holy Spirit. Just as food becomes one with the body and just as blood is for life. So by his Spirit we are made one and given life.

OK this is a spin job where is this in Jesus words?
He nowhere says it is symbolic heck in the synoptics he makes it clear “This is my body” “This is my Blood” where is the symbolic interpretation? IF you conclude that than the Jesus on the cross is symbolic and we have no life. He tells us what the bread is **"This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” **

Jesus is teaching that we eat of Him by living in and following his Spirit.

True and the main way we do this is by obeying him and that entails eating his flesh like he commands us to do.

By faith we receive the Spirit by the Spirit we have life.

John 6
By faith we receive his body and blood in the eucharist in which we have life. 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. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.

 

[stumbler]

jphilapy:

I am disagreeing with an intrepretation of what Jesus is doing and saying there . . . Jesus said he was giving his literal flesh on the cross.

Actually, he literally did not say that in John 6.

jphilapy:

But the eating of that flesh is symbolic.

Actually, he said he was telling us the literal truth: " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Nor are these the words of symbolism. The use of “trago” for “eat” is vividly realistic.

jphilapy:

teaching here is about the indwelling of the Spirit in our life. Jesus is teaching that we are to become one with him by his Holy Spirit. Just as food becomes one with the body and just as blood is for life. So by his Spirit we are made one and given life. Jesus is teaching that we eat of Him by living in and following his Spirit. By faith we receive the Spirit by the Spirit we have life.

The only problem is that John the Apostle didn’t tell his disciples that.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Hey, sounds like he’s describing some Protestants I know!

Speaking of Protestants, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Kelly also writes:

“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

 

[Maccabees]

You don’t understand St Ignatius studied only under the author of John 6 Saint John the apostle himself I mean what does he know?

jphilapy studied under his pastor Billy Bob Jr who sudied under pastor Bill Bob Sr; oh well forget it this what we call a tradition of man. Misinterpreting the Bible 2000 years after the fact.
Show me a denial of the body and blood in the early church’s eucharistic theology and I will convert to BIlly Bob’s church’s tomorrow.

 

[stumbler]

Maccabees:

Show me a denial of the body and blood in the early church’s eucharistic theology and I will convert to BIlly Bob’s church’s tomorrow.

Ah, what did the ECF’s know anyways. Why, because of the oppressive patriarchal ecclesia, they had to hide there true beliefs. Their writings were actually written in “opposite code” so you need modern historicritical analyses to uncover these hidden “literal truths” (or was that “symbolic truths” … I forget).

 

[Maccabees]

Perhaps this explains Jesus I really don’t mean This is my body, this is my blood. But I will say it anyway just for kicks, Eat my flesh and drink my blood I mean the opposite.

Why would Jesus say the opposite of what he truly means. This is gnostic, I think low church protestants have a lot of gnostic in them as they seperate the spiritual from the material a very early heresey.

 

[jphilapy]

folks you gave me a lot of replies

Anyway here is a question. According to John 6 we are to eat of the flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. Now you say that is the bread and wine. So in order to have eternal life one must eat of the bread and wine. However the Vatican II says that protestants are not charged with the charge of history. Although they have an imperfect communion they can be saved as long as they are properly baptised. Now isn’t that a contradiction? I mean if the eating of the eucharist is necessary for salvation then why aren’t protestants required to take it by the catholic church?

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

stumbler:

I think you are letting your modern conception of “cannibalism” hinder you here. I said “akin to cannibalism” because it was not as we understand that practice today. Jesus literally did give us his flesh to eat. Nothing partial about it. The problem with the Protestant objection is that they keep trying to force John 6:52 into a “let’s carve up Jesus now” reaction. Whereas, as I indicated before, Jesus was talking about the future.

I really don’t know what the difference is between eating a human being today and eating one in the first century. Please explain the difference?

Jeff

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

folks you gave me a lot of replies

Anyway here is a question. According to John 6 we are to eat of the flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. Now you say that is the bread and wine. So in order to have eternal life one must eat of the bread and wine. However the Vatican II says that protestants are not charged with the charge of history. Although they have an imperfect communion they can be saved as long as they are properly baptised. Now isn’t that a contradiction? I mean if the eating of the eucharist is necessary for salvation then why aren’t protestants required to take it by the catholic church?

Jeff

Don’t confuse “can” with “will”. It is just a statement acknowledging that God can do whatever he desires to do, especially in the cases where someone was raised in a non-Catholic religion and is invincibly ignorant of the Truth through no fault of his own.

 

[stumbler]

jphilapy:

I really don’t know what the difference is between eating a human being today and eating one in the first century. Please explain the difference?

You’re making a strawman here. It is not the act but your modern conception of the act that is problematic. Let me illustrate by looking at your original posts above:

jphilapy:

that means Jesus intended himself to be eaten as he was standing there … His disciples that left thought he was telling them to engage in cannibalism, that is, kill him and eat the flesh off his body.

As we see in your posts, current Protestant use of the “cannibalism” objection results in adding the meanings “kill me” and “eat me now” and “eat the flesh off my body” to the words of Jesus. But these meanings are missing from the original text. So your “conclusion”:

jphilapy:

But we know he didn’t intend that so he couldn’t have meant it literally.

is fallacious. It is attacking a strawman because it is based on these false meanings which are not found in John 6. (I don’t know if that makes Protestants neo-pagans, but that is exactly the kind of reasoning that helped fuel the Roman persecutions of the early Church.)

At no time did Jesus say “kill me” or “eat me now” or “eat the flesh off my body” to the crowd. He was speaking in the future tense. The crowd’s question was “how?” was Jesus going to effect this. The issue is strictly about “eating flesh, drinking blood” in the future.

Once you have properly removed the “kill me” and “eat me now” and “eat the flesh off my body” aspects, you are left with just “eating flesh, drinking blood” in the future (just as Scripture lays it out). The crowd thinks it is just crazy talk. They can’t imagine “how” Jesus will do this. But “verily,” that is exactly what Jesus does deliver.

And this “unquestioningly realist” interpretation is precisely what the early church believed. For you to be right, the apostles themselves must have failed to teach properly. No thanks. Down that path madness lies.

The Catholic Church takes the literal meaning of Scripture as primary. (Or more precisely, from CCC:116 “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”) I find it profoundly ironic that Fundamentalists, and others who claim to follow Scripture, in this case insist on doing violence to the literal reading of the text, not because Scripture or early Church history tells them so, but because they refuse to believe anything that the Church teaches.

You want a “personal relationship” with Jesus? It doesn’t get any more personal than what is found in the Eucharist.

 

[mtr01]

Another reason a purely symbolic interpretation of John 6 doesn’t work is that “to eat one’s fleash” and to “drink one’s blood” were idioms in ancient semitic culture that meant to physically harm someone (along the lines of to “rip the head off” someone). To understand the passage in a strictly symbolic way is to reduce our Lord’s words to nonsense: “only if you do me grievous physical harm will you have eternal life”. It simply does not work.

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

folks you gave me a lot of replies

Anyway here is a question. According to John 6 we are to eat of the flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. Now you say that is the bread and wine. So in order to have eternal life one must eat of the bread and wine. However the Vatican II says that protestants are not charged with the charge of history. Although they have an imperfect communion they can be saved as long as they are properly baptised. Now isn’t that a contradiction? I mean if the eating of the eucharist is necessary for salvation then why aren’t protestants required to take it by the catholic church?

Jeff

C’mon over, Jeff. We’re keeping a place for you. :tiphat:

 

[jphilapy]

stumbler:

You’re making a strawman here. It is not the act but your modern conception of the act that is problematic. Let me illustrate by looking at your original posts above:

As we see in your posts, current Protestant use of the “cannibalism” objection results in adding the meanings “kill me” and “eat me now” and “eat the flesh off my body” to the words of Jesus. But these meanings are missing from the original text. So your “conclusion”:
is fallacious. It is attacking a strawman because it is based on these false meanings which are not found in John 6. (I don’t know if that makes Protestants neo-pagans, but that is exactly the kind of reasoning that helped fuel the Roman persecutions of the early Church.)

Stumbler,

When Jesus said “eat my flesh” what did the disciples who left understand that to mean? Eat my flesh only has one meaning. Either that meaning is literal or it isn’t.

Even Augustine understood it as I do.

**Augustine on John 6:
**“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

True and the main way we do this is by obeying him and that entails eating his flesh like he commands us to do.

So you are saying that obeying any commandment is the equiv. to eating of his flesh?

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

stumbler:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jphilapy
teaching here is about the indwelling of the Spirit in our life. Jesus is teaching that we are to become one with him by his Holy Spirit. Just as food becomes one with the body and just as blood is for life. So by his Spirit we are made one and given life. Jesus is teaching that we eat of Him by living in and following his Spirit. By faith we receive the Spirit by the Spirit we have life.

The only problem is that John the Apostle didn’t tell his disciples that.

John also didn’t tell them that smoking dope is wrong. What part of what I am saying is incorrect?

Jeff