If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

[PRmerger]

If logic serves, what you have claimed is contrary to what Jesus says in v.63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” .

Enjoy the Lord today

I find it astonishing to have you say this.

If you really believe that Christ’s flesh profits nothing, then you cannot be saved.

And you cannot be a Christian.

For His flesh did not redeem you, since it “profits nothing”.

Is that really what you are professing?

 

[YADA]

Paul is speaking about the Eucharist, Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist in John 6. It wouldn’t make any sense if he was, since the Eucharist wouldn’t exist until about 2 years after John 6. Why would Jesus be telling them to do something that was impossible?

You are thinking in linear terms … first this happens - then this happens - then this happen …

God stands outside of time … as does The Son … John’s Gospel represents Salvation history …

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega - Thus Jesus - the God-Man steps into human history but His message is timeless and transcends …

John’s Eucharistic discourse in Chapter 6 is meant for all of us and it is clearly Eucharistic - Jesus states unequivocally that we must “eat my [Jesus’] flesh and drink my [Jesus’] blood” … not once, not twice, many times - each one more and more emphatic then the last … a hard saying it is called …

and while Jesus tells us what we must do to be saved - the Act of Salvation - is God’s and His alone … so Jesus instructs us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood for everlasting life - and in His Mercy save one who has never received Communion.

Why would you want to deny yourself the Heavenly Bread though?

 

[Telstar]

If logic serves, what you have claimed is contrary to what Jesus says in v.63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” .

Enjoy the Lord today

Out of context, it seems logical to interpret that line as you do. But, it’s impossible to ignore what Jesus says before that.
“[56]** For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me**.”
Jesus is very clear about the real spiritual benefits of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, which is to share in His life, in the same way that He shared in the life of His Father, even while He was living as one of us, on earth.
“[59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
This is where He explains the difference between Him being the Bread of Life that gives eternal life to our souls, and the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert, that only fed their bodies.
“[60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. [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? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”
Jesus knew that what He said would be misunderstood by all who heard it. But, at this point, He was also testing the faithfulness of His disciples. Those who truly believed in Him were the ones, like Peter, who knew that whatever He said must be the truth. They also knew that He would reveal more about what it meant when the time was right to do so, which He did at the Last Supper.
“[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.”
Then, He goes on to add a bit more explanation in the line that you mentioned. He says that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is intended to ‘quicken’ our spirit. It is not intended to ‘nourish’ our bodies, like the manna did for the Israelites. So, “the flesh profiteth nothing” refers to our flesh, not His. It is not meant to be food for our bodies, but real food for our souls. Through the Eucharist we are joined with Him, both physically and spiritually, but it is a means of attaining eternal life with Him, not for us to live forever on earth. That’s what I believe He meant by saying “the flesh profiteth nothing”.
“[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.”
Jesus knew that it wasn’t only those that heard Him speak that would not believe that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, but as we see in this thread, there are still many people that say, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”.

 

[rcwitness]

Here was another hard saying:
The Command to Sacrifice Isaac
22 After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori′ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ***, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the *; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son;[a] and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.
9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called the name of that place The Lord will provide; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”[c]

15 And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.[d]
The problem with those who left Jesus was their lack of belief. But they did follow and did see miracles. But just as God tested Abraham, so Jesus tested those who were demanding great things from Christ. The difference in those who stayed believed like Abraham “The Lord will provide.”**

 

[benhur]

Out of context, it seems logical to interpret that line as you do. But, it’s impossible to ignore what Jesus says before that.
“[56]** For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him**. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.”
Jesus is very clear about the real spiritual benefits of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, which is to share in His life, in the same way that He shared in the life of His Father, even while He was living as one of us, on earth.
“[59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
This is where He explains the difference between Him being the Bread of Life that gives eternal life to our souls, and the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert, that only fed their bodies.
“[60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. [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? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”
Jesus knew that what He said would be misunderstood by all who heard it. But, at this point, He was also testing the faithfulness of His disciples. Those who truly believed in Him were the ones, like Peter, who knew that whatever He said must be the truth. They also knew that He would reveal more about what it meant when the time was right to do so, which He did at the Last Supper.
“[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.”
Then, He goes on to add a bit more explanation in the line that you mentioned. He says that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is intended to ‘quicken’ our spirit. It is not intended to ‘nourish’ our bodies, like the manna did for the Israelites. So, “the flesh profiteth nothing” refers to our flesh, not His. It is not meant to be food for our bodies, but real food for our souls. Through the Eucharist we are joined with Him, both physically and spiritually, but it is a means of attaining eternal life with Him, not for us to live forever on earth. That’s what I believe He meant by saying “the flesh profiteth nothing”.
“[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.”
Jesus knew that it wasn’t only those that heard Him speak that would not believe that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, but as we see in this thread, there are still many people that say, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”.

Maybe it is His Spirit that quickens our spirit. Do not think His flesh quickens my flesh or spirit. Yes He incarnated and died as flesh and spirit but the spirit quickeneth the whole matter of understanding.

As far as what they did not believe, there is no evidence that they did not believe the eating . They did not believe He was the Messiah and His mission. They believed in a Messiah of their own misunderstanding. They did not know Jesus.“Depart from me I, never knew you”. They departed.

 

[benhur]

Out of context, it seems logical to interpret that line as you do. But, it’s impossible to ignore what Jesus says before that.
“[56]** For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him**. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.”
Jesus is very clear about the real spiritual benefits of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, which is to share in His life, in the same way that He shared in the life of His Father, even while He was living as one of us, on earth.
“[59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
This is where He explains the difference between Him being the Bread of Life that gives eternal life to our souls, and the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert, that only fed their bodies.
“[60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. [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? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”
Jesus knew that what He said would be misunderstood by all who heard it. But, at this point, He was also testing the faithfulness of His disciples. Those who truly believed in Him were the ones, like Peter, who knew that whatever He said must be the truth. They also knew that He would reveal more about what it meant when the time was right to do so, which He did at the Last Supper.
“[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.”
Then, He goes on to add a bit more explanation in the line that you mentioned. He says that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is intended to ‘quicken’ our spirit. It is not intended to ‘nourish’ our bodies, like the manna did for the Israelites. So, “the flesh profiteth nothing” refers to our flesh, not His. It is not meant to be food for our bodies, but real food for our souls. Through the Eucharist we are joined with Him, both physically and spiritually, but it is a means of attaining eternal life with Him, not for us to live forever on earth. That’s what I believe He meant by saying “the flesh profiteth nothing”.
“[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.”
Jesus knew that it wasn’t only those that heard Him speak that would not believe that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, but as we see in this thread, there are still many people that say, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”.

Maybe it is His Spirit that quickens our spirit. Do not think His flesh quickens my flesh or spirit. Yes He incarnated and died as flesh and spirit but the spirit quickeneth the whole matter of understanding.

As far as what they did not believe, there is no evidence that they did not believe the eating . They did not believe He was the Messiah and His mission. They believed in a Messiah of their own misunderstanding. They did not know Jesus.“Depart from me I, never knew you”. They departed.

 

[benhur]

“[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.”
Jesus knew that it wasn’t only those that heard Him speak that would not believe that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, but as we see in this thread, there are still many people that say, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”.

Non transubstantiationalists are not in the same boat as the departing disciples. In hindsight and quickening , we do follow Jesus . We do believe He is the Messiah, that He is the sacrificial Lamb, and He died for our sins, and rose again, and Ascended. We believe in His eminent return as King. We do not follow Him for bread, or to remove an oppressive government, or for His miracles and superstar status teacher/prophet.

Actually the CC has more in common with them that departed for they were literalists also. The apostles may have taken it figuratively, or at least did not understand yet other than to continue following Life. Just because you did not depart does not mean you have it right with literal eating, for the unbelievers had similar understanding.

We both have not departed. We both do not find the eating a hard saying. We both at least eat His Words of life. We both even Eucharist, though with differing understanding.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Non transubstantiationalists are not in the same boat as the departing disciples. In hindsight and quickening , we do follow Jesus . We do believe He is the Messiah, that He is the sacrificial Lamb, and He died for our sins, and rose again, and Ascended. We believe in His eminent return as King. We do not follow Him for bread, or to remove an oppressive government, or for His miracles and superstar status teacher/prophet.

Do you have any evidence of a valid Christian Non-transubstantionalist community who broke bread together outside of communion with Rome? And before you say the Orthodox, we believe they do have a valid transubstantional Eucharist.

We both have not departed. We both do not find the eating a hard saying. We both at least eat His Words of life. We both even Eucharist, though with differing understanding.

When you say, “we” do you mean all protestants? Because there is a lot of fundamental difference in that “we”.

I think you are right that you may have a saving communion in Jesus, as the Church calls “sanctification” through Baptism and belief. And you are able to remain in Him through Scriptural devotion and it’s fruitfull charity.

And without calling it the Church’s grace, I believe it’s Christ’s grace through the Church who was given His Sacrament. And this is because this Church, whom He gave His Sacrament to, was the vessel which delivered Baptism and the Scriptures to you.

And the genuine Catholic is pleased that there is a common faith and communion that enjoys true hope from our common Father!

Yet we see real danger in abandoning His Eucharist. Even to the point that leaving a conviction of the Catholic Eucharist is a betrayal of our Lord.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yet we see real danger in abandoning His Eucharist. Even to the point that leaving a conviction of the Catholic Eucharist is a betrayal of our Lord.

Personally I believe the more worldly and secular one thinks, the chances of abandoning the Eucharist can become a reality. What makes Jesus much more compelling is not that he was talking only Symbolic, but Spiritually and being one with him, and a pure sacrifice with him and His Church. Thus being a unique character in his existence.

To avoid the world thinking that he was this wonderful holy person, the Eucharist is a great reminder that he is really and truly substantially present in us. We can actually change the world, and offer ourselves as a sweet offering to our Almighty Father.

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

Personally I believe the more worldly and secular one thinks, the chances of abandoning the Eucharist can become a reality. What makes Jesus much more compelling is not that he was talking only Symbolic, but Spiritually and being one with him, and a pure sacrifice with him and His Church. Thus being a unique character in his existence.

One important Scripture with Jesus revealing the significance of His Eucharistic meal, for me, is the Road to Emmaus encounter. It is clear that Jesus “opened” the believers eyes to who He was with the Communion. This was done with a long expounding on the Scriptures. What I get from it is not so much a lack on the part of Scripture that the two did not know Him until they received Holy Communion, but the importance of the two (Scripture devotion with divine interpretation AND Holy Communion) making Him truly known to us. It also confirms my faith that where His Eucharist is offered, so is His divine Word.

To avoid the world thinking that he was this wonderful holy person, the Eucharist is a great reminder that he is really and truly substantially present in us. We can actually change the world, and offer ourselves as a sweet offering to our Almighty Father.

Right, but we have to stay with the OP’s main question too. How is it Jesus seems so cut and dry in John’s discourse that unless those hearing Him directly do not receive His true Eucharist, then they have no life in them?

It becomes a matter of invincible ignorance or true conviction. But we still need to admit that the Word reaches and converts some who do not receive His Eucharist and do in fact have His life giving Spirit in them (at least to some degree).

This is why I say the real problem is when separate communions were initiated. Who are these, who without authority from the Church offer another communion? Yet, it’s not the fault of the children who are raised in this communion or even brought into knowing the gospel message through them.

It, of course then, becomes a matter up to Jesus to judge individuals. But at some point, the conviction of the Father’s call to His Eucharistic meal would force one to receive the Lord’s Sacrament, or follow false Spirits who convince him they are listening to God’s Holy Spirit telling them to reject the Catholic Eucharist.

I think we lack conviction in the Church, and the ability to test one another’s spirit. It takes holiness and a confrontation that is willing to seem judgemental.

 

[Telstar]

Non transubstantiationalists are not in the same boat as the departing disciples. In hindsight and quickening , we do follow Jesus . We do believe He is the Messiah, that He is the sacrificial Lamb, and He died for our sins, and rose again, and Ascended. We believe in His eminent return as King. We do not follow Him for bread, or to remove an oppressive government, or for His miracles and superstar status teacher/prophet.

That may all be true, but you don’t fully believe everything that Jesus said in John 6, or what He further commanded us to do at the Last Supper. You only see it as mere symbolism, and not reality. I certainly do understand that it’s what you’ve always been taught, so that’s what you believe.

But, there is something that seems to be missed in that understanding, which is significant to the meaning of the Holy Eucharist. The Last Supper and Crucifixion are the fulfillment of the Jewish feast of Passover. That’s why that Holy time was chosen by God. At the Passover meal, the lamb that was sacrificed on the Temple altar for each family’s celebration, had to be completely consumed by them at the Passover meal. They could not throw anything away, because it was a holy sacrifice that was blessed for that purpose. If they could not eat it all by themselves, they would invite the poor, or their neighbors, or anyone else they could find to share it with them, until it was all gone.

Jesus was the True Lamb of God that was offered to the Father as a Pure Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. This is what gives the Holy Eucharist it’s significance to Christianity. It is the Body and Blood of the True Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, that must also be consumed by all the faithful as a Holy Sacrifice. But, it’s not His earthly flesh and blood that we consume, but it’s His Glorified Flesh and Blood, which is completely different from normal human flesh.

Actually the CC has more in common with them that departed for they were literalists also. The apostles may have taken it figuratively, or at least did not understand yet other than to continue following Life. Just because you did not depart does not mean you have it right with literal eating, for the unbelievers had similar understanding.

No, the unbelievers thought He meant they had to eat His human body and blood that they saw standing in front of them. That’s not what Jesus was talking about. He was referring to “the bread that I will give”, which He would mystically change into His Body at the Last Supper. Do you really doubt that Jesus could actually do what He said He would do? Do you not believe that He could change bread and wine into His Body and Blood, just like He changed water into wine at the wedding feast? He performs the miracle of changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood at every Mass. Why is that so hard to fathom if you believe He changed water into wine? Isn’t this an even greater miracle? Do you think there’s a limit to His power? Personally, I believe that if He can create the entire universe out of nothing, then He can easily change bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

We both have not departed. We both do not find the eating a hard saying. We both at least eat His Words of life. We both even Eucharist, though with differing understanding.

Blessings

Catholics have never departed from following Jesus. Just as Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”, and we know that what He says is the absolute truth, even when we can’t really understand it. We follow Him by faith, like little children follow their parents.

 

[MartinJordan]

One important Scripture with Jesus revealing the significance of His Eucharistic meal, for me, is the Road to Emmaus encounter. It is clear that Jesus “opened” the believers eyes to who He was with the Communion. This was done with a long expounding on the Scriptures. What I get from it is not so much a lack on the part of Scripture that the two did not know Him until they received Holy Communion, but the importance of the two (Scripture devotion with divine interpretation AND Holy Communion) making Him truly known to us. It also confirms my faith that where His Eucharist is offered, so is His divine Word.

Beautiful and awesome at the same time. Eyes were open, when he broke bread. Again doing it as example to follow before he was taken up.

Right, but we have to stay with the OP’s main question too. How is it Jesus seems so cut and dry in John’s discourse that unless those hearing Him directly do not receive His true Eucharist, then they have no life in them?

I think because if we keep him in thought alone and what he did for us, we still lack nourishment,** through him, with and in him.** thus when we have the threefold substance (for lack a better word), that is the Will of the Father. Not our Will but His. Then this is the PERFECT and HOLY sacrifice to the Father, during the Eucharistic Feast.

MJ

 

[JustaServant]

If logic serves, what you have claimed is contrary to what Jesus says in v.63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” .

Enjoy the Lord today

And this is the problem. Like the Gnostics of old you mis-interpret Jesus’ words. He is not driving a wedge between body and spirit.

 

[JMM1957]

No, the unbelievers thought He meant they had to eat His human body and blood that they saw standing in front of them. That’s not what Jesus was talking about. He was referring to “the bread that I will give”, which He would mystically change into His Body at the Last Supper. Do you really doubt that Jesus could actually do what He said He would do? Do you not believe that He could change bread and wine into His Body and Blood, just like He changed water into wine at the wedding feast? He performs the miracle of changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood at every Mass. Why is that so hard to fathom if you believe He changed water into wine? Isn’t this an even greater miracle? Do you think there’s a limit to His power? Personally, I believe that if He can create the entire universe out of nothing, then He can easily change bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Catholics have never departed from following Jesus. Just as Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”, and we know that what He says is the absolute truth, even when we can’t really understand it. We follow Him by faith, like little children follow their parents.

This is exactly how I see it also. The unbelievers simply could not comprehend how Jesus was going to give them his flesh and blood to eat, there is not any more to it than that, you have to try to put yourself in their position if you can in order to clearly understand what was going through their mind. The disciples of Jesus who stayed with him didn’t understand Jesus words either to be honest, but they knew Jesus was trustworthy. Jesus knew how he was going to provide his body and blood, but the time hadn’t come yet to reveal it fully. Again, Jesus did not call back the unbelieving disciples to explain further, he let them walk.

 

[JMM1957]

As far as what they did not believe, there is no evidence that they did not believe the eating . They did not believe He was the Messiah and His mission. They believed in a Messiah of their own misunderstanding. They did not know Jesus.“Depart from me I, never knew you”. They departed.

I completely disagree with you ben, the evidence is clearly there in John 6:52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is not about whether they thought he was the Messiah or not at this point, it is about the eating of his literal flesh and blood.

 

[Kliska]

Non transubstantiationalists are not in the same boat as the departing disciples. In hindsight and quickening , we do follow Jesus . We do believe He is the Messiah, that He is the sacrificial Lamb, and He died for our sins, and rose again, and Ascended. We believe in His eminent return as King. We do not follow Him for bread, or to remove an oppressive government, or for His miracles and superstar status teacher/prophet.

Actually the CC has more in common with them that departed for they were literalists also. The apostles may have taken it figuratively, or at least did not understand yet other than to continue following Life. Just because you did not depart does not mean you have it right with literal eating, for the unbelievers had similar understanding.

We both have not departed. We both do not find the eating a hard saying. We both at least eat His Words of life. We both even Eucharist, though with differing understanding.

Blessings

The context must be emphasized; the ones that left were mad because Jesus had previously fed them physical food. This time, knowing that is what they were following Him for, Jesus told them they didn’t get physical food by following Him, and no, He was not going to physically feed them like their ancestors in the wilderness. The disciples who stayed were not interested in physical food, but in Jesus and His words of eternal life. Even if they stayed with Jesus and starved to death it would be no big deal, as eternal life awaited.

 

[zz912]

Well, generally whatever you do to the symbol you representatively do to the reality. So reject, as the Gnostics, or profane with unworthy participation etc…

What specifically does Paul note is unworthy participation? What are they doing that makes their participation unworthy?

 

[zz912]

He is also the Door, the gate, the Good Shepherd, the Rock, etc.

Jesus never points to a door, gate, shepherd or rock and say one of those things IS Him though.

Fundamental difference.

 

[JMM1957]

The context must be emphasized; the ones that left were mad because Jesus had previously fed them physical food. This time, knowing that is what they were following Him for, Jesus told them they didn’t get physical food by following Him, and no, He was not going to physically feed them like their ancestors in the wilderness. The disciples who stayed were not interested in physical food, but in Jesus and His words of eternal life. Even if they stayed with Jesus and starved to death it would be no big deal, as eternal life awaited.

Yes, initially at John 6:26 Jesus said they came looking for him because he gave them physical food at the multiplication of loaves and fishes at the beginning of Chapter 6. Then, in verse 27, Jesus says “do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life which the Son of Man will give you.” Clearly, Jesus diverts their focus from physical food for nutrition to a deeper meaning, connecting himself to the “bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world.” At the point where the disciples left Jesus, it was not strictly because he wouldn’t fill their stomach with food, but that they could not comprehend a deeper meaning of how he was to feed them with his flesh and blood, it was a “hard saying, who can accept it?” If the disciples who left, went away because he wouldn’t give food for their stomach only, then why does Scripture say that they returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him? Does that not seem like an overreaction to not getting food because you are hungry. This clearly shows that those disciples were trying to understand something deeper than just nutrition.

 

[Wesrock]

In regard to Jn6, I agree with Peter who at the end of the discourse said “Lord, you have the WORDS of eternal life” . We are to believe or “eat” the words. This is an idiomatic saying from the OT that a Jew would understand.

Peter isn’t expressing understanding, he’s professing a profound trust to follow Jesus even though he doesn’t understand what Jesus meant. Neither did the many disciples who abandoned Jesus after he insisted four times they must chew and gnaw and eat his flesh, despite having witnessed the multiplication of the loaves just the day before and many other miracles.