Eucharist-is it flesh?

[First_Love]

I have a question about the Eucharist. I read John 6:63 and the words “flesh profits nothing” tells me that THIS is the point where Jesus explains that actually eating his “FLESH” of his physical body would not be profitable but that He is speaking of a spiritual situation. Jews thought it profitable to read the Torah and refered to that as “eating bread.” Here, Jesus’ audience was Jewish and He is saying that HE is the bread from heaven and will sustain them as where the words from the Torah will not.

Is my explaination above impossible to believe or might this be an acceptable response?

I only see two possible interpretations of John 6:53 "So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.” He is either speaking figuratively or not. If Jesus is speaking figuratively as I have described above, if you come to him and accept his sacrifice on the cross, you can have eternal life. If he is not speaking figuratively, I must take the Eucharist (believing it is true flesh) or I am not eligible for salvation. Is this correct? I don’t see a third interpretation.

I have heard many Catholics say that Protestants can have salvation though we are not a part of what you call “the one true church”. However, I do not partake of the Eucharist in this manner. I take communion but not as physical body and blood. If the second interpretation above (Jesus not speaking figuratively) I would not be considered eligible for salvation, correct?

 

[Adam41]

Is my explaination above impossible to believe or might this be an acceptable response?

I don’t think so… if you look at the verse in context it says to me that Jesus was teaching the disciples that they need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

If he is not speaking figuratively, I must take the Eucharist (believing it is true flesh) or I am not eligible for salvation. Is this correct? I don’t see a third interpretation.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is present in your life but:
“he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.”(1373)… and if you choose to deny Him (out of simple ignorance of the truth), them we trust in the Mercy of God that because the Eucharist is not “intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too,”(1374) and so you may still be saved.

 

[luv_pis]

read the website in my signature

 

[po18guy]

I have a question about the Eucharist. Jews thought it profitable to read the Torah and refered to that as “eating bread.” Here, Jesus’ audience was Jewish and He is saying that HE is the bread from heaven and will sustain them as where the words from the Torah will not.

Ah, but Christ is the new Covenant. When the perfect comes, the imperfect passes away (Saint Paul).

Is my explaination above impossible to believe or might this be an acceptable response?

Not impossible at all. But still, a private interpretation of scripture. This is to be avoided, since it can lead to error, as witnessed by all of the various denominations which do not agree. Private interpretation has lead to declarations that baptism is not needed. THAT is 100% wrong, as Christ Himself required it for His followers in Matthew.

I only see two possible interpretations of John 6:53 "So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.”

If reading the Torah is ‘eating bread’, what was drinking His Blood? That is the first time in history that the phrase is used.

I have heard many Catholics say that Protestants can have salvation though we are not a part of what you call “the one true church”.

You are separated brothers and sisters. Still part of Christ’s Body through a valid Baptism.

However, I do not partake of the Eucharist in this manner. I take communion but not as physical body and blood. If the second interpretation above (Jesus not speaking figuratively) I would not be considered eligible for salvation, correct?

The Lord, being much bigger than any human construct, always provides the necessary grace to accomplish His Divine will. Not to worry, but we will always call you to full communion. For obedient Catholics, Christ meant what He said, as He repeated Himself several times (recorded in John 6) to drive the point home. He also said “I will be with you, even to the end of the age”. This occurs not only when two or three are gathered, but in the Eucharist.

Think about this: at the last supper, Christ took bread and wine, as is written. After saying the blessing, he gave it to His disciples. He then proceeded to tell them that it was now something other than what their eyes told them it was. Since even wind and waves obeyed Christ, did not the bread and wine also obey Him? What did Paul mean when he warned of unworthy consumption of communion “without discerning the Body”? That is both spiritual and physical.

Also consider that the Twelve (now with Matthias), Paul, all of the early Church Fathers and Bishops, and 1,974 years of Catholics ever since have faithfully celebrated the Eucharist. Its truth has been attacked only relatively recently. Were all of them wrong to believe in the Real Presence?

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[Deconi]

The important clue in that passage is that all the people and the disciples walked away and left Him, except the Apostles. Jesus, turns and asks them, "Will you also walk away?"

Clearly, those who walked away DID NOT take it as a figurative teaching. If Jesus had stopped them and corrected their thinking, you would have a case. Because He did NOT, leaves no room for another interpretation except literal.

Remember that the sacrifice on the Cross replaced the ‘normal sacrificial ritual’ that God gave Moses to offer. In that mode, a lamb is used. Guess what was to be done to that lamb AFTER the sacrifice and ritual? (It’s in the OT for your perusal and examination)

Since God’s words are eternal, that question is asked repeatedly of us. Many Catholics have answered with their feet, succumbing to the ‘ridicule’ of external views, without examination of the doctrine and the facts of its basis. Being “a disciple” means squat without ‘faith.’

 

[ncgolf]

I have a question about the Eucharist. I read John 6:63 and the words “flesh profits nothing” tells me that THIS is the point where Jesus explains that actually eating his “FLESH” of his physical body would not be profitable but that He is speaking of a spiritual situation. Jews thought it profitable to read the Torah and refered to that as “eating bread.” Here, Jesus’ audience was Jewish and He is saying that HE is the bread from heaven and will sustain them as where the words from the Torah will not.

There is a lot to your question … it cannot be answered without some dialogue so here goes. The question in the first part of your post deals with “flesh”. Jesus does not say “my flesh profits nothing” but “the flesh profits nothing”.

Following your explanation leads me to this: Jesus had just said "eat my body, drink my blood 3 times and now in your explanation He would be backtracking saying “I really didn’t mean it … it was symbolic, you really don’t have to eat me.” The question then would be … why would so many leave? Jesus just let them off the literal hook but they still walked away … that explanation leaves many unanswerd questions mainly … why? What else did Jesus say in John 6 that was so blatently offensive that nearly all would leave … even the apostles had they somewhere better to go. This is a key question if the words are merely symbolic. In reading John 6 it is obvious the “eating flesh and drinking blood” is offensive and if Jesus really didnt mean it … there had to be something else at least as awful sounding as “eating flesh and drinking blood” … what else would qualify?

What if the reference to the word “flesh” meant depending on a purely human reasoning to understand what Jesus had just said. In John 8:15 there is a reference to “judging according to the flesh”. This would be consistent with the reference to “flesh” in John 6. Flesh representing the limits of human reasoning. The act of understanding Jesus’s words would not come from purely human reasoning but required the Spirit to lead to its full understanding.

 

[bpbasilphx]

THIS is the point where Jesus explains that actually eating his “FLESH” of his physical body would not be profitable but that He is speaking of a spiritual situation.

B] W * R * O * N * G * !!!*

Jesus said not “This is My flesh” but “This is My body.”

Do a Bible study and see the difference between the two.