Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

Sola scriptura is apostolic doctrine, I thought everyone knew that!

With roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, and of those roughly 64% being Catholic or Orthodox, both of which utterly reject Sola Scriptura, I’d say that you are actually in the minority in this understanding.

LetsObeyChrist:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. –New American Bible

First I’d have to ask what scriptures you think Paul is talking about here? Since the entire NT hadn’t been written yet, and most certainly the canon had not yet been determined, he can only be referring to the OT. That puts the NT out of the purview of this statement. If you want to take the position that the OT fulfills these requirements, fine by me, but then you’d need to provide other scriptural evidence that covers the NT. The NT simply can’t be used to back up sola scriptura.

Further, I am still confused as to how this would mean that ONLY the bible can equip a man for every good work. Maybe an anology will help explain my question. If my goal for today is to travel to my job, I might have two options to get there. Let’s say I own a car. The car fully equips me to get to work. Now, I might also have public transportation available to me. If I choose to take the bus, this will also fully equip me for the task at hand. Now, if I say to someone, the car I own fully equips me for getting to work, it doesn’t imply that is the ONLY way to get to work. It doesn’t exclude the bus as a method for getting there. It doesn’t even address the bus. It simply doesn’t speak to whether the car is the ONLY way, or one of many ways to achieve my objective. It says my car will fully equip me to get to work. This is true, but says only what it says and nothing more. It doesn’t prove sola car-a, and neither does the above prove sola scriptura.

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

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.

Ah, but that’s exaclty what some of them did think. That he was crazy. They didn’t get it.

It seems very clear that in verse 64, Jesus is indeed talking about those that are of the spirit and those who are of the flesh. He’s saying the words are spirit and truth. He’s implying that only those who are called “given to him by the Father” in verse 66] (i.e. those who are of the spirit) will understand or “get it”.

The surrounding verses give a better context.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

You are reading transubstantiation into their words. To prove your point, find an ECF that uses the word transubstantiation or exposits its meaning.

Did you ever consider the fact you believe in a symbolic Eucharist just as do many Protestants.

Whereas they see a spiritual connect to Christ’s body and blood, Transubstantiation says the connect is not in the accidents, only in the substance (which is unseen and not experience in this dimension).

Therefore the bread and wine (the accidents) are only symbols of the body and blood of Christ (the substance) for these exist in a different dimension than the one we inhabit.

In both there is no real connection to the body and blood of Christ.

I dont think you have a clue what I believe. I certainly dont believe in a symbolic Eucharist. I bellieve that the Bread and Wine IS the Lord Jesus Christ. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is called the REAL Presense and by REAL we mean REAL. Your notions of accidents and substance are novel to say the least and the formulation of Transubstantiation was developed to counter the very errors you believe. If you cant see that Ignatius and Justin believed in the Reality of the Body and Blood then you need to read it again.

Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, IS both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus

I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible

Flesh and Blood of the Incarnated Christ of the Seed of David. The REAL Jesus. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

No ONLY his flesh. Not ONLY Spiritual. The WHOLE Christ.

The Host IS Jesus Christ

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ralphinal:

If he did not literally mean eat my flesh and drink my blood, why did he let the vast majority of his followers leave? Why did he not stop them? Why did he allow this to be a charge against him before the Sanhedran? Why does St. Paul feel the same way? After all, if it is purely symbolic then why would there be a sin connected to receiving unworthily?

The context begins showing these were not sincere disciples and they reject doing what Jesus answered is the Work of God they must do:

John 6:27-30 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. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

This scene then repeats itself in context, Christ using “eat…flesh…bread…drink blood” as a symbol for doing the one thing that results in eternal life, believe in Christ, they objecting.

Put these verses side by side and you will see this fact:

John 6:26-37

John 6:38-46

John 6:47-67

Then Christ explains why they will refuse to accept His explanation His words are spirit and life and not flesh:

John 6:64-67 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.

From all this it becomes clear Christ is separating the wheat from the chaff, the false brethren from the true. He purposely repeats what scandalized them to reveal their true identity, betrayers.

God did not enable them to believe in Christ therefore they chose to reject the true meaning of His words, that they must do the one ACT that results in life, believe in Christ.

This is not unique, throughout the gospels we see Christ rejecting the praise of the unthinking, posing hard questions to His disciples to weed out the casual believer.

Matthew 19:16-24 16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. …21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions.

No modern evangelist would have driven this one away with such a demand for total commitment. Christ did here and elsewhere exactly that.

 

[SteveG]

David Brown:

    Only act resulting in life is act of believing
    Act of eating.....is act reslting in life
    Therefore, act of eating is act of believing.

Now, with a valid form, all that remains is to establish the truth of the premises. Since your opponents assert the minor premise ("Eating…), it is unlikely they will object to that, so it looks like the first premise is what will have to be their target. Any takers?

Ooo! Ooo! Me, me!
Since the first premise is ‘Only act resulting in life is act of believing’ we need only find a scripture which speaks contrary to that. Easy enough…

** Matthew 19**

• 16: And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”
  17: And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
  18: He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
  19: Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
• …But wait, nothing about eating or believing. How can that be? This thread is what happens when you use private interpretation to try to force your paradigm on scripture. Things get stripped of their larger context. ALL three, eating, believing, keeping the commandments (can we find others) are interrelated and connected to such a degree that they can not be seperated and formulated as equivalents as LOC has done in his initial premise.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Are you certain that your interperpratation of “spirit and flesh” is correct? On what do you base this interpretation? Thanks!

From the context. They object to Christ’s saying they must eat His flesh and drink His blood for life, such cannibalism scandalizes them.

John 6:61-67 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

Christ’s rebuttal is three fold.

First He asks how could they interpret His words so offensively when they already knew He was not speaking literally (vs 34) and is doing Messianic/Moses type signs that prove He is from God. Would seeing His heavenly glory be enough for them to properly interpret His words?

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Christ answers His own question, ‘No’ in vss 36-37; 65-66, they will refuse Christ’s explanation His words are spirit and life (not flesh) because God has not enabled them to believe in Him. They will use His saying to excuse their rejection of Him.

Then, lest they have any excuse Christ points out eating literal flesh (including His own) could not profit them at all as it is the Spirit who gives life:

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

Christ’s words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” are “spirit and life.”

The only way that can be true is if the literal meaning is NOT what Jesus meant by them, it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.

The outer symbol clothes the true meaning as flesh does spirit and life.

Christ refuted their inconsistent interpretation of His words, where at first they accepted the figurative meaning of Himself as the bread that fell from heaven they must eat (Jn 6:34) but then inconsistently refuse the demand they give this command more than lip service and believe in Him for their salvation.

This Christ did so they would receive the full measure of punishment for their sin in the day when the secrets of men’s hearts are revealed. He knew God had not enabled them to believe so they could not accept His words:

John 8:46-48 46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me: 47 He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

We seem to be drifting again, though the strong winds blowing in the thread make that almost inevitable.

In spite of all the prooftexting, we have yet to see any statement from the denier of real presence that he quotes from a body of writing, Holy Scripture, that has any authority. Now of course, this authority is not in question, but the basis for the authority of Holy Scripture is HUGE when it comes to its interpretation and application.

Also, we have seen evidence presented that we are dealing with a belief of the Apostolic Faith that was well established before there even was a New Testament, and the denier has not addressed that point, either.

Unless and until these points are addressed, the denial is rather baseless, and the arguments presented in support of it very artificial and unconvincing. Why, the question arises, does the denier not address these points? (Rhetorical question.)

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

First He asks how could they interpret His words so offensively when they already knew He was not speaking literally (vs 34) and is doing Messianic/Moses type signs that prove He is from God. Would seeing His heavenly glory be enough for them to properly interpret His words?

Wait a moment. You are saying he is speaking literally that he came down from heaven? If I don’t want to believe that, can I say he is speaking symbolically, since he uses that to defend the allegedly symbolic act of eating his body???

I think we have to interpret both as literal or both as figurative since he is using one to defend the other.

My choice is literal since we KNOW he came down from heaven.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Little Mary:

When Christ refers to His body and blood He says “My” flesh. Not “the” flesh.

It is all clear and straightforward.

I, too, would like to know on what you base your interpretation.

The only act that results in the Spirit quickening unto life is believing in Christ, eating literal flesh does not do it:

John 6:64-65 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Therefore Christ’ words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” must mean the only thing that results in life, believing in Christ.

That is why Christ said His words are spirit and life, not flesh.

The flesh is covering the spirit and life of His words, the symbol “eat my flesh…drink my blood” covers His real meaning “ingest me in truth, believe in Me for your salvation.”

By contrast, eating the “bread” (leaven) of the Pharisees does not result in life:

Matthew 16:5-13 5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread. 8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[jpusateri]

12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Yes and in parables with eating metaphors, he explains that he is not to be taken literally. He does NOT in John 6, so that in itself, while not iron-clad proof, is another piece of evidence that he is not speaking in a parable. He always explained his real meaning to the close disciples. But he doesn’t in John 6.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Curious:

Matthew 18: 8-9 says this. If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. NKJV

In John 6, Jesus didn’t say that he was speaking figuratively, and neither did He here. He didn’t say it was a parable, or a figure of speech. But I don’t see many limbless, eyeless Christians wondering around (except if they’ve been in accidents or victim of disease or something.) :ehh:

Contrary to your Pope’s belief, Christ definitely is speaking literally in Mt 18:8f, the idea is to repent of sin and not dismember oneself because Gehenna is a horrible place of PHYSICAL torment (not metaphorical).

But that is there and now we are in a different context where Christ’s sayings are obviously ‘spirit and life, not flesh’

These disciples knew Christ was speaking figuratively:

John 6:33-35 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.

Christ explained why they refused to be consistent and began to interpret these words offensively, God did not not enable them to do what His saying required, believe in Him.

 

[ncgolf]

LetsObeyChrist:

The only act that results in the Spirit quickening unto life is believing in Christ, eating literal flesh does not do it:

John 6:64-65 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Therefore Christ’ words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” must mean the only thing that results in life, believing in Christ.

That is why Christ said His words are spirit and life, not flesh.

The flesh is covering the spirit and life of His words, the symbol “eat my flesh…drink my blood” covers His real meaning “ingest me in truth, believe in Me for your salvation.”

By contrast, eating the “bread” (leaven) of the Pharisees does not result in life:

If it Christ’s flesh and blood, then it does. You do not take Christ’s words to its full conclusion. It is true that is belief in Christ, but so much more … it is belief that Christ is physically present.

I hope you are not saying it is not true or it cannot be because Christ cannot do it. Because nothing is impossible to God, you have to admit it is possible but you do not believe it.

Eating the “bread” of the Pharisees does not bring life because it is not “true food” or “true drink”. Only Jesus is “true food” and “true drink”.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Gerry Hunter:

We seem to be drifting again, though the strong winds blowing in the thread make that almost inevitable.

In spite of all the prooftexting, we have yet to see any statement from the denier of real presence SNIP

I believe the real presence of Christ, more so than Catholics.

Whereas you only eat and drink the accidents of Christ and DO NOT experience His substance, we who ingest Christ in truth and symbolize that true belief via the Eucharist do actually experience Christ’s presence in our assembly.

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks *one *like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

While Christ’s substance to you is as though it is “in another dimension not of sight or touch,” to us He dwells in us and among us inexorably giving us the repentance necessary for eternal life.

Acts 5:32 32 And we are witnesses of these things: and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

Unfortunately, in the GREATER context of Scripture (taking ALL of it into context, not just the convenient parts) your uninfallible interpretation falls apart.

You see, Christ was celebrating the Passover at the Last Supper. Communion is supposed to be Christ fulfilling the passover requirements. If Jews back in Egypt practiced the first passover by saying “OK, this piece of bread symbolizes the lamb, so I don’t have to eat the lamb” their first born child would be dead.

If Jews back in Egypt practiced the first passover by saying “my belief in God will replace the lamb” their first born child would be dead.

Now, if Christ said “eat my flesh, drink my blood, you’ll have eternal life” how does a symbol fulfill this? If a symbol didn’t cut it in the old testament, how would it cut it in the new?

You really need to study up on Old Testament Typology. You got a lot of work to do

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

These disciples knew Christ was speaking figuratively:

John 6:33-35 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.

Hm, now you are saying that the disciples “whose god is their belly” (to quote you from a previous post) understood him figuratively? He hadn’t said yet that HE was the bread of life. The discourse up to that verse had ONLY to do with real bread. They had just spoken about manna from heaven. Manna is real, actual, physical bread which came down from heaven. He WAS speaking symbolically at that point, but his hearers certainly didn’t give evidence that they understood him symbolically!!! He was drawing the typology as himself as the new bread from heaven that must be eaten!

Symbolic, yet actual. He didn’t symbolically come down from heaven, he **really **did! Do you see?
John 6:31-34:

Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’" So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

 

[BobCatholic]

jpusateri:

Yes and in parables with eating metaphors, he explains that he is not to be taken literally. He does NOT in John 6, so that in itself, while not iron-clad proof, is another piece of evidence that he is not speaking in a parable. He always explained his real meaning to the close disciples. But he doesn’t in John 6.

Good point! Christ didn’t run after them and said “hey, I was being symoblic here! Pay attention people!”

LOC’s interpretation is not in scripture anywhere.

 

[metal1633]

I conclusion. Jesus says this…

John 6 53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

It is clear that the Metaphor here is “Bread from Heaven” and the explaination of the metaphor is “My Flesh”.

What “LetsObeyChrist” whats us to believe Jesus meant is this…

John 6 53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, if you think you are eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood, you are an idolater, and you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever recognizes that I’m speaking figuratively here, even though I could not possibly have chosen a more misleading way to phrase it, is a true disciple, and he has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 “For the bread is not my flesh and the wine is not my blood.
56 “Whoever avoids this heresy remains in me, and I in him.
57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the father, so the one who believes in me will live because of me.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who believes in me will live forever.”

I will believe Jesus and take him at His word. Hermeneutics and exegisis is beyond my humble skills.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

JimG:

Jesus was quite capable of using the word “believe” when he meant “believe.” He was capable of clarifying things whenever necessary.

But in John 6:53-55 he says

"Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food. And my blood is real drink."His disciples were Jews, and familiar with Jewish ways of expression. They knew enough to know when he was using hyperbole for effect, and when he wasn’t . In this case, he wasn’t.

That’s why his hearers were scandalized, and apparently still are.

It never fails to amaze me the extent to which people will go to avoid hearing these clear words of Jesus. Their exegetical dances rival anything that modernist skeptics have come up with.

Many in his audience back then rejected this teaching. So do many now reject this teaching. The reaction is exactly the same, then and now: unbelief. But his apostles said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

He goes on to institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul in 1-Corinthians 11. And Paul takes care to warn that anyone who eats and drinks without “recognizing the body” brings judgment on himself. The real presence was important enough to Paul to warrant this special warning. Nobody gets that excited about a symbol.

Following Paul, the real presence was the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church, and of the entire Church up to the present day.

The words that Jesus spoke to the apostles after so many left him because of this teaching can be asked again today: “Do you want to leave me too?” (John 6:67)

JimG

You failed to address Christ’s statements:

While He said eating flesh profits, gives life He then directly contradicts that, saying:

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

Moreover Christ expressly says His words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” are “spirit and life.”

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is where “flesh and blood” are symbols referring to different things.

That cannot be if they are to be literally interpreted, then they are flesh and blood and do not profit or quicken.

So Christ directly refutes your insistence these unbelievers were right when misinterpreting Christ’s words in a fleshly manner, they are “spirit and life.”

.

 

[ncgolf]

LetsObeyChrist:

I believe the real presence of Christ, more so than Catholics.

Whereas you only eat and drink the accidents of Christ and DO NOT experience His substance, we who ingest Christ in truth and symbolize that true belief via the Eucharist do actually experience Christ’s presence in our assembly.
Acts 5:32 32 And we are witnesses of these things: and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.

How can you say “only eat and drink”. I do not think you understand what you are saying. To be able to eat and drink our Lord in Holy Communion should be the absolute highlight of any Christian. That He humbles himself to be eaten and drunk in such ordinary substances is truly humbling for most Catholics. We realize what a gift He has given us.

I also find it disingenous that you say we do not experience His substance. Give some reasons why say Catholics do not experience substance. What does that mean?

Until the Second Coming the only physical presence of Jesus on Earth is in the Eucharist. The only place that can be found is in the Catholic Chuch.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

You failed to address Christ’s statements:

While He said eating flesh profits, gives life He then directly contradicts that, saying:

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

Moreover Christ expressly says His words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” are “spirit and life.”
.

Again you but words in His mouth. YOUR words. He did NOT say “eating My Flesh profits nothing” That is YOUR interpretation.