Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[Sirach14]

John 6:55 " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. In other words, my blood is real, and my flesh is real.
John 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."
The point Jesus trying to make is that we cannot accept this mystery if we think of it in too human a way. Only a person who listens to Christs words and receives them as God’s true revelation, which is “spirit and life” can accept them.

 

[martino]

LetsObeyChrist:

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

In the Aramaic language that our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eath the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute or assault them. Let me demonstrate:

IS 9:19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 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

**49:26 **I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and **they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. **Then all flesh shall know that I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."Micah 3:3 who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron.

2 Sam 23:16 Then the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took and brought it to David. But he would not drink of it; he poured it out to the LORD, 17 and said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men.

Rev 17:5 and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly.

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire,

So according to your “elementary” interpretation of John 6, what Jesus is really saying is this:

“He who ‘persecutes and assaults’ me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”

Nice work handling Sacred Scripture!

 

[CANman]

Hey,
Since St. John said “God is Spirit”, and we must worship Him in “Spirit and Truth” should we then only worship Him figuratively and not “really”?

 

[CANman]

Part II,
Any other verse of Scripture that show the word “spirit” meaning only figurative"?

 

[Sirach14]

LetsObeyChrist:

I don’t believe you are taking the context into full consideration, Christ’s hearers objected to “gnawing His flesh” as being offensive.

Jesus expressly rejects the interpretation ‘gnawing His literal flesh quickens or is profitable’ saying:

John 6: 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Observe Christ defined His words teaching cannibalism for life are “spirit and life.” However that cannot be if it is the “spirit that quickeneth” and not “flesh that quickeneth” as He just seemed to say. He contradicting Himself if now the flesh profits nothing.

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is if we interpret “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” to mean the outer covering, the flesh or literal meaning of His teaching cannibalism, covers the real spirit of His words, that these represent believe in Him and then they are life to the doer.

In other words Christ says “eating the flesh profits (quickens)” and “eating the flesh does not profit (quicken).”

The only way He is NOT contradicting Himself is where the symbol “flesh” refers to different things.

Context indicates flesh as the Jews interpreted it is literal flesh, but symbolic of ingesting the truth about the Person and Work of Christ, “believing” as Christ meant it.

As the Jews meant it, it does not profit as then they would be executed for murder and cannibalism.

As Christ meant it, the Spirit would quicken them after they believed in Christ and so they would have eternal life.

John 6:64: Christ just gave His disciples a command to to eat His flesh, and now you are trying to say that Christ meant this was all a waste of time? Is this your interpretation of what ’ the flesh is of no avail’ means? "And were the disciples to understand the line ’ the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life’ as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for ‘symbolic’
Remember the Bible never uses the word Spirit in a symbolic sense.

 

[Sirach14]

Panis Angelicas:

Unfortunately, your interpretation does not concur with those of the Apostles, who were there with Jesus at that time.

Pax Christi. <><

They don’t concur with the Church Fathers either. I mean who should we believe, the Apostles, who received their teaching from Our Lord Himself, and the Apostles in turn handed the teaching to the Fathers, and then to the Church; or do we believe someone who was born two thousand years later who has made up his mind never to believe what the RCC teaches about the Eucharist.

 

[Joanna]

LetsObeyChrist:

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

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

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH ON ME hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

This interpretation of the phrases “eating my flesh…drinking my blood… eating the bread” is confirmed by the context:

John 6:51-65 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man BELIEVETH ON ME (eat of this bread), he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye BELIEVETH ON ME (eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,) ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth me,) even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth of this bread) shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

All this verbal acrobatics just to get around the fact that Jesus meant eat my flesh and left the miracle of Himself in the hands of the twelve and those who would follow in the authentic, ordained priesthood.

Why is it that while many christians among our “separated brethern” take sacred scripture quite literally, from the creation of all that is in six days; to Noah, the flood and the Ark; to Jonah in the belly of a great fish? BUT when it comes to the Lord of the Universe performing this miracle of love and creation at His own omnipotent word, “Take and eat. This my body,” they choke!

 

[jkdrum]

LetsObeyChrist:

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

by your logic if I would stop beliving in broccoli I would not have to eat it.

josh

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Panis Angelicas:

Unfortunately, your interpretation does not concur with those of the Apostles, who were there with Jesus at that time.

Pax Christi. <><

The text doesn’t indicate what the apostles believed about Christ’s words, they just knew He had the sayings of ever lasting life.

It is implied by contrast with the “betrayer-disciples” that they knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore THEY would NOT allow an enigmatic saying stumble them.

John 6:65-71 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

As for those “disciples” who insisted upon the literal interpretation, they did so to reject Christ. Their god was their belly:

John 6:26-27 26 Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

It is interesting to note this chapter essentially repeats the same “act” three times:

Arrange the following verse groups side by side and you will observe something similar to an event caught in a “time loop,” where (as Trekkies will know) things can repeat themselves slightly different each time yet the end is the same:

John 6:26-37

John 6:38-46

John 6:47-67

It then becomes clear these “disciples” were antagonistic to Christ and 1)He repeats what scandalized them to separate the wheat from the chaff 2)then takes away their excuse for rejecting Him by clearly rejecting their literalist interpretation 3)explains why He did not expect they would heed His rebuttal.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

He didnt say that at all. Your reading into it your Interpretation. The Words “Flesh and Spirit” when opposed to each other in the NT never mean figurative and literal. Flesh means the sinfull nature of carnal man, contrasted with the nature empowerd by the Spirit. His meaning is clear. Carnal man cannot understand Him, only those of the Spirit can.

If flesh = sinful nature then “eat my flesh” means = “eat my sinful nature”?

Clearly you cannot maintain your position before any prelate or you risk becoming anathema to the Catholic Church.

metal1633:

YOU, like those who left Him that day, are thinking after the Flesh, not the Spirit.

To such insult I have only one reply:

Numbers 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: 25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: 26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

[Origen]

I’m sorry, my friend, but your entire argument is based on an invalid syllogism.

People swim.
Fish swim.
Therefore Fish are People.

Specifically, this is what Aristotle called a Figure 2 syllogism (middle term in the predicate, both premises), with mood AAA (premises in the form All S is P).

It is not a valid argument, my friend.

This is why scripture should be read within the living Tradition of the whole Church (Catechism 113). The human mind is fallible, and easily fooled by errors. The community of faith helps us avoid errors and brings us nearer to the truth.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

flick427:

To continue off of this, why does Jesus affirm it so many times? He does so by saying “verily, verily” (the words “truely, truely” in other versions). It is a hard thing to understand, and like ralphinal points out, the followers started leaving. Jesus has already told people elsewhere in His words that he who believes in Him may have eternal life…but for some reason John felt it was important in his writings to make a note of the disciples murmuring and walking off this time…why?, because eating of the flesh of the Son of God is a hard concept to grasp.

Your theory is not parsimonous to the data.

The context shows their god was their belly

John 6:26-31 26 Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

John 6:36-37 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.

They already reject (the Father has not enabled them to believe) and they use their literalist interpretation of Christ’s words as their excuse to reject Him.

The flip side is Christ repeating exactly what scandalized them, to separate the wheat from the Chaff. In effect He is saying to them:

John 13:27…That which thou dost, do quickly.

Christ knows these will not accept His rebuttal of their literalist interpretation, they cannot:

John 6:62-67 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

Rather Christ documented the absurdity of interpreting His words to mean cannibalism:

In effect verse 64 argues “as it is the Spirit who quickens (not flesh), eating my flesh won’t profit you (then likely you will be executed for murder()” ; Therefore my words are spirit and they are life.

How can words be spirit and life if they are not symbols of these things?

Thus Christ removed their excuse for rejecting Him in the day of God’s judgment of the secrets of men’s hearts.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Origen:

I’m sorry, my friend, but your entire argument is based on an invalid syllogism.

People swim.
Fish swim.
Therefore Fish are People.

Specifically, this is what Aristotle called a Figure 2 syllogism (middle term in the predicate, both premises), with mood AAA (premises in the form All S is P).

It is not a valid argument, my friend.

This is why scripture should be read within the living Tradition of the whole Church (Catechism 113). The human mind is fallible, and easily fooled by errors. The community of faith helps us avoid errors and brings us nearer to the truth.

Your analogy is not true, my syllogism does not equate verbs and so fail to be universal in their quantity.

Try again

ps that bit about Aristotle, nice.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Origen:

I’m sorry, my friend, but your entire argument is based on an invalid syllogism.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing."People swim.

Fish swim.

Therefore Fish are People.

Specifically, this is what Aristotle called a Figure 2 syllogism (middle term in the predicate, both premises), with mood AAA (premises in the form All S is P).

It is not a valid argument, my friend.

This is why scripture should be read within the living Tradition of the whole Church (Catechism 113). The human mind is fallible, and easily fooled by errors. The community of faith helps us avoid errors and brings us nearer to the truth.Unlike your non analogous syllogism my argument is valid and sound because the quantity is universal, the verbs are something ONLY people can do whereas yours is not. In your syllogism “Swim” is equivocal, fish swim differently than people and many other types of creatures can swim.

My syllogism operates solely in context of John 6, only therein do I maintain it is a valid deduction from the data at hand, parsimonous.

Here is a unique kind of belief/eating only true believers can do that results in life to the doers.

While it is well you illustrated what Aristotle called an invalid syllogism it is irrelevant and immaterial to mine.

 

[mlaforme]

when Jesus said to Nicodemas, “Ye must be born again” Did he mean it?

 

[mlaforme]

Nicodemas said" How can a man"
they said " How can this man give us his flesh"
It is a problem of their understanding how he would do this – the same problem as today

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

VociMike:

So then you believe that the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing? That’s what you’re saying, that “the flesh” in John 6:64 is Christ’s flesh. And don’t add words, don’t say “gnawing His literal flesh”. Stick to the Scriptures as written.

Catholic apologists like to trumpet the “gnawing” aspect of eating, I find it immaterial and irrelevant to the question but have no objection to inserting that meaning into the text if Catholic apologists insist.

That aspect of “eating” is irrelevant and immaterial because Christ denied His words were literal, He says they are spirit and life.

John 6:62-65 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

If Christ was speaking about flesh not His own, or about carnal nature not on the mind of these Jews at all, then Christ is a LOON, answering questions with irrelevancies.

He is directly addressing their literalist interpretation of His saying “eat my flesh” and to that exact He says ‘it is the Spirit of God who quickens, the flesh does not profit (in this regard).’

Observe carefully what Christ goes on to say:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Question: how can the words" “eat my flesh…drink my blood” be “spirit and life?” if they aren’t symbols meaning these things?

Answer: they can’t.

 

[Origen]

LetsObeyChrist:

My syllogism operates solely in context of John 6, only therein do I maintain it is a valid deduction from the data at hand, parsimonous.

Anyone can look at your Post #1 to see the form of what you described as an elementary argument. No semantic considerations apply. The form of what you said is invalid. It isn’t a matter of opinion.

It’s sort of fitting, though, that you came here to bait us with your Sola Sciptura outlook, and were summarily defeated by Scholastic Philosophy. It’s almost cliche the way that happened! Sort of a reverse ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, for lack of a better metaphor.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Joanna:

All this verbal acrobatics just to get around the fact that Jesus meant eat my flesh and left the miracle of Himself in the hands of the twelve and those who would follow in the authentic, ordained priesthood.

Why is it that while many christians among our “separated brethern” take sacred scripture quite literally, from the creation of all that is in six days; to Noah, the flood and the Ark; to Jonah in the belly of a great fish? BUT when it comes to the Lord of the Universe performing this miracle of love and creation at His own omnipotent word, “Take and eat. This my body,” they choke!

I was raised a protestant and one of the major and wonderful revelations I had when becoming Catholic was just this issue of the real presence.

The protestant separated brethren are the product of rebellion. Its right there in the name “protestant”, and although the originators are long dead, the spirit lives on, that rebellious spirit, which is why there are so many denominations. Most don’t even realize it. One of the aspects of evangelical protestantism is a tendency towards gnosticism where the body and soul are separated; body bad, soul good. The beauty of the original Christianity that we practice in the Catholic Church is that it flows from the original Jewish old covenant understanding of humanity as body and soul by the intention of the creator. When we recite the Creed we say we believe in the “resurrection of the body” and that is a critical understanding, not only that Christ rose from the dead which makes our faith possible in the first place, but that we will be raised from the dead in the last day. In other words we are incomplete as human beings without the joining of body and soul, that initial creation that God makes in the woman’s womb each time a baby is conceived.

There is a wholeness to the Catholic faith that is not there in most evangelical protestantism, whereby physicality and corporeal reality have a place. So much flows from that, including our clear understanding from day one of the real presence, the power of binding and loosing given to the apostles and their successors, the clear doctrines on contraception and abortion, the use of sacramentals. All of these are a recognition that Jesus Christ incarnated, took on physicality, became one of us body and soul, and used physical aids throughout His ministry, such as spitting in the dust and making mud to put on the blind man’s eyes.

This completeness will ultimately be fully realized in the new heaven and new earth God has promised, and Jesus will be there, with us in the flesh.

You are right, the implication for an evangelical protestant to accept the straightforward doctrine of the real presence is that he must become Catholic, for the only ones who can confect the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ are the successors of the apostles, who are given that power. A protestant minister could not do it even if he wanted to, so there is a great deal of theological credibility tied up in interpreting the passages of John 6 into symbolism. For them it can only be symbolic, for there is nobody who can effect the change through the Eucharistic prayer.

I think of the place of incompleteness where they are, from the point of view of having crossed over, and I pray with all my heart that they could do likewise, because seen from this side, the whole of Gospel comes together and makes sense in a way that it never can from the other side.

 

[mlaforme]

You seem to be much more educated than I am so, could you maybe bring your language down a little.
Just as a comparison when Jesus said " You must be born again " is that what he meant?