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

[benhur]

If they had understood Him in a metaphorical, figurative or symbolic sense, there would have been no reason for them to quarrel. Just as Nicodemus thought of being born again in the purely physical sense (Jn. 3:4), and the woman at the well thought only of natural water (Jn. 4:11) so now the Jews understand the reference to His flesh literally.

Yes very good. I would add that they foremost lacked spiritual understanding.

Yes, the ones who walked definitely took Jesus literally, but their lack of faith prompted them to say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat”, and “This saying is hard, who can accept it?”

Yes, Jesus wanted them to believe, and on Him as the Messiah that would have to die. He mentions belief four times, and equates it with life eternal. But they did not believe from the beginning, and ask for signs. Christ begins with the figurative bread , that if you come to Him (no eating yet) you will live forever. He then mentions eating the bread for eternal life, not just “coming to Him”. Besides metaphorical it is spiritual for we still die but not spiritually. They still do not leave ,and only then does Jesus say the bread is His flesh and three times says to eat his flesh. They finally “walk away”. I still take the discourse and flesh eating as figurative and spiritual, and that one has to be drawn of the Father to “believe”. A bit like you must be born again, else you will not “get it”.

The disciples who stayed said, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. "What Peter and the others were really saying was, “We have no other choice, We know you have come from God. You speak the words of God (Jn. 3:34; 17:8). We don’t fully understand your message, but we have enough faith in You because of He who sent You, that we’ll stay with You.” The initial silence of the disciples who stayed, as opposed to the ones who grumbled and left, does not indicate that they understood Jesus symbolically or figuratively instead of literally, they just believed and didn’t openly question Him any further.

Notice that upon confession of faith Jesus stops the discourse. His goal has been met and does not need to go into “eating”. I propose Peter was not “silent” but “ate” by faith , as Augustine mentions. They definitely got it spiritually, and I would say figuratively (for there was no other way,yet).

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Yes very good. I would add that they foremost lacked spiritual understanding.
Yes, Jesus wanted them to believe, and on Him as the Messiah that would have to die. He mentions belief four times, and equates it with life eternal. But they did not believe from the beginning, and ask for signs. Christ begins with the figurative bread , that if you come to Him (no eating yet) you will live forever. he the mentions eating the bread for eternal life,not just “coming to Him”. Besides metaphorical it is spiritual for we still die but not spiritually. They still do not leave ,and only then does Jesus say the bread is His flesh and three times says to eat his flesh. They finally “walk away”. I still take the discourse and flesh eating as figurative ans spiritual and that one has to bedrawn of the Father to “believe” A bit like you must be born again,else you will not "get it"Notice that upon confession of faith Jesus stops the discourse. His goal has been met and does not need to go into “eating”. I propose Peter was not “silent” but “ate” by faith , as Augustine mentions. They definitely got it spiritually, and I would say figuratively (for there was no other way,yet).

Blessings

Sure there was a way. All one had to do was ask, and He would have given His flesh. Notice, no one asked, because they did not fully understand yet.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes very good. I would add that they foremost lacked spiritual understanding.
Yes, Jesus wanted them to believe, and on Him as the Messiah that would have to die. He mentions belief four times, and equates it with life eternal. But they did not believe from the beginning, and ask for signs. Christ begins with the figurative bread , that if you come to Him (no eating yet) you will live forever. He then mentions eating the bread for eternal life, not just “coming to Him”. Besides metaphorical it is spiritual for we still die but not spiritually. They still do not leave ,and only then does Jesus say the bread is His flesh and three times says to eat his flesh. They finally “walk away”. I still take the discourse and flesh eating as figurative and spiritual, and that one has to be drawn of the Father to “believe”. A bit like you must be born again, else you will not “get it”.Notice that upon confession of faith Jesus stops the discourse. His goal has been met and does not need to go into “eating”. I propose Peter was not “silent” but “ate” by faith , as Augustine mentions. They definitely got it spiritually, and I would say figuratively (for there was no other way,yet).

Blessings

Yes, of course, the only ones that were left with Jesus were the ones who believed in Him, the others left and quit following Jesus. Peter and the other believing disciples were “silent” (no murmuring, quarreling) until verse 68, “Master, to whom else should we go? You have the words of eternal life.” I will reiterate once again, Peter and the other believing disciples could not have possibly known about the institution of the Eucharistic meal because it hadn’t happened yet (at the Last Supper), but their faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the fact that they had witnessed many miraculous events already, and the authority with which Jesus spoke, convinced them that Jesus was the Holy One of God. They submitted themselves to Jesus and His Word. So, taking all this into consideration, just because the believing disciples did not question Jesus (after the others left) about “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” does not mean that they understood it figuratively or symbolically. Jesus had already repeated himself time and time again, there was no more to say about it. The disciples would have to wait until the Last Supper to finally make the connection between this discourse and the Eucharistic meal.

 

[rcwitness]

yes it may be one in the same following and Eucharisting. I would just be careful
not to confuse the elements with the reality they represent. That is the Jews did not idolize the elements of their saving Passover that was instituted by God .That is "eucharist " is not a thing but an action we do thru elements representing spiritual realities.

Eucharist is a thanksgiving for sure, and it is a receiving for sure. We are giving thanks for Jesus as our Lord, our bread from God, and our sacrificial Lamb.

Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.15I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participationein the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participationin the body of Christ?17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.18Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.]21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.22Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

I believe Paul very clearly expresses we actually are eating and drinking the holy sacrifice of Jesus. It is not our sacrifice that we are giving thanks for. Our sacrifice is only bound to what it takes for remaining with Him.

 

[rcwitness]

Jews did not idolize the elements of their saving Passover that was instituted by God .That is "eucharist " is not a thing but an action we do thru elements representing spiritual realities.

I know you don’t believe the sacrifice of Jesus was equal to an animal. Those lambs did not rise from the dead and become an everlasting sacrifice to God.

And His Eucharist is Him. Receiving Him is an action done with with thanksgiving as a rememberence.

 

[JMM1957]

Jesus thus indicates that the manna that fed the Israelites
in the wilderness for forty years was a figure of the
spiritual nourishment He would give the world through
the sacrament of His Body and Blood. Furthermore, He
clearly states that the type falls immeasurably short of the
Antitype, which is the Eucharist. Only the Eucharist is
the “true bread from heaven.” The type was a great sign,
for it was literally bread that came physically down from
heaven like dew to nourish the Israelites physically in
their pilgrimage in the desert. Christ’s Body and Blood in
the Eucharist is a spiritual bread—being Christ, true God
and true man—that nourishes the faithful not physically,
but in sanctifying grace and charity, by which we gain
access to eternal life. Christ’s Body continues to come to
us “from heaven” through transubstantiation, by which He
who sits now in heaven at the right hand of the Father is
truly and substantially present in the Eucharist under the
appearances of bread and wine.

Taken from: Typology, How the Old Testament Prefigures the New Testament
by Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD
Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri

 

[zz912]

Did they eat lamb at last supper and I do not mean Jesus.

Yes.

The Passover also has bread, unleavened and wine to consume. They did not drink blood.

Yes, four cups of wine with bread as well. They had all this. And Jesus transformed the Passover when He changed the bread to His Body and the wine to His Blood.

We do not eat lamb anymore, because of the once for all sacrifice at Calvary. Jesus chose the remaining elements of the Passover, bread and wine, to signify that.

We DO eat lamb, it is THE Lamb that we eat. We truly and really eat the Lamb.

The unleavened bread represents “purity”, even sinlessness ? The wine (4 cups) represents deliverance and finally "thanksgiving " for that. The fourth reminds me of “it is finished” thank you.

Jesus actually abruptly ends the Passover before it is finished. He ends it at the Eucharist with the third cup of wine, which became His Blood. They don’t drink the 4th cup, and immediately go out singing the Psalm that is sung at the end of Passover. When He says “it is finished”, He has just drunk the 4th cup on the cross (the vinegar/wine given to Him when He thirst) and the Last Supper was completed then.

Scott Hahn goes into much more detail about this. It is well worth you time to listen.
youtube.com/watch?v=v1yAvrVoYzo

In essence we are thankful that we do not have to eat lamb anymore. We are also thankful that we eat “purity” ,signified by the bread,which of course Jesus was also.

We DO eat the Lamb. We truly, and really do eat the Lamb.

This is the new “passover” for the new covenant. We do not literally eat lamb anymore.

Yes, we do. That is the true immensity of the Eucharist and the Last Supper. We fully and literally DO participate in the GREATER Passover of Jesus, the Pascal Lamb. The New Covenant is greater than the Old, and it is the TRUE covenant that the Old foreshadows. A symbolic participation in the New Covenant is insufficient.

Just my thoughts that you have prodded.Thank you.

Blessings

I appreciate your thoughts as well!

 

[benhur]

Sure there was a way. All one had to do was ask, and He would have given His flesh. Notice, no one asked, because they did not fully understand yet.

Or they understood it spiritually, that is, figuratively.

 

[KathleenGee]

Ben Hur…

By the way, thanks for your past post addressed to me…

About words alone…Jesus said more than that…we must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood…words alone…subjective relativism…depends on how the individual sees something…

Whereas when the Word is Made Flesh…the reality is completed and we can consume Him…the fruit of the Tree of Life.

The Eucharist is the only true means we have to return to something, something of The Garden…

 

[Porknpie]

Or they understood it spiritually, that is, figuratively.

Ben,

You can read the writings of the early Church…all the way back to St. Ignatius of Antioch, from Africa, to Spain, the Middle East and to India.

They ALL believed Christ literally, not figuratively.

Christianity was of One Faith.

That’s because those who Christ commissioned, went and preached the gospel. And the gospel they preached, is remarkably consistent on this point of the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr is very explicit on this One apostolic faith.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[JMM1957]

There are many occasions when we speak figuratively and do not have to qualify it as “figurative”. It is understood.
Because we eat bread and drink wine does not do away with what they signify. We are not Gnostic.
Yes, Jesus definitely ramped up the bar, almost hyperbole, to separate the sheep from goats. Trogo can still be figurative in my opinion.

Blessings

Trogo is never used metaphorically in Koine Greek or Classical Greek, whereas Phago can be used either figuratively or metaphorically. Trogo is used six times in verb form in the NT:

Matt. 24:38
John 6: 54, 56, 57, 58
John 13:18

Notice that “phago” in John 6:58 is understood in the physical sense, which would also point to its being used physically in John 6:53. This is so because “phago,” used in both John 6:49 and 6:58 when Jesus is speaking of the Jews eating manna in the desert, is sandwiching John 6:53 between the other two which uses “phago” in reference to eating Jesus. It would be grammatically incongruous for Jesus to switch from a physical meaning in verse 49, to a spiritual meaning in verse 53, and back to a physical meaning in verse 58.

John 6:54-58, and the
Meaning of the Verb “to Eat” Flesh
By Robert Sungenis

 

[JMM1957]

There are many occasions when we speak figuratively and do not have to qualify it as “figurative”. It is understood.
Because we eat bread and drink wine does not do away with what they signify. We are not Gnostic.
Yes, Jesus definitely ramped up the bar, almost hyperbole, to separate the sheep from goats. Trogo can still be figurative in my opinion.

Blessings

Reading what you wrote again, I couldn’t help but wonder why you think Jesus would ramp it up (strong emphasis on eating his flesh and blood) just to weed out the unbelievers. Do you think all this talk about eating human flesh and drinking human blood was aimed at just the unbelievers? They were most likely all Jews listening to Jesus talk, and Jews had prohibitions about eating flesh with the life blood in it or drinking animal blood, so how much more repugnant was the thought of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? Interesting, verse 60 says, Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard, who can accept it?” I do not think that only the unbelieving disciples were the ones saying this, certainly some of the believers were also questioning these statements of Jesus right along with them.

Jesus did not back off and tone it down, he emphasized it even more. What he did say, which is very important to consider is, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” This statement ties in perfectly with the fact that we must trust in Jesus, not just in the easy times, but the “hard times” also.

 

[KathleenGee]

Without the laying of the hands by the bishop, this transmission of faith cannot be actualized as authentic communion…

 

[benhur]

Jesus did not back off and tone it down, he emphasized it even more. What he did say, which is very important to consider is, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” This statement ties in perfectly with the fact that we must trust in Jesus, not just in the easy times, but the “hard times” also

Yes. I liken it further like just because you hang out in a garage does not make you a car. These unbelievers had to be "led’’ out of the garage, by their own desire (which was after all, carnal) .They were not born of the spirit. We must trust Jesus in truth and spirit which is only possible with a new spiritual birth.

I would also not rule out that it may have been more beyond a cannibalistic understanding but that it would mean His death, somehow. Why else would He then add, “what if I told I would ascend from whence I came”?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Trogo is never used metaphorically in Koine Greek or Classical Greek, whereas Phago can be used either figuratively or metaphorically. Trogo is used six times in verb form in the NT:

Matt. 24:38
John 6: 54, 56, 57, 58
John 13:18

Notice that “phago” in John 6:58 is understood in the physical sense, which would also point to its being used physically in John 6:53. This is so because “phago,” used in both John 6:49 and 6:58 when Jesus is speaking of the Jews eating manna in the desert, is sandwiching John 6:53 between the other two which uses “phago” in reference to eating Jesus. It would be grammatically incongruous for Jesus to switch from a physical meaning in verse 49, to a spiritual meaning in verse 53, and back to a physical meaning in verse 58.

John 6:54-58, and the
Meaning of the Verb “to Eat” Flesh
By Robert Sungenis

Just thought of something. Do you trogo the communion host? Do you gnaw at the host, the body, the meat of Christ? Is it not figurative for I understood Catholics to solemnly eat, phago, the communion host.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Trogo is never used metaphorically in Koine Greek or Classical Greek, whereas Phago can be used either figuratively or metaphorically. Trogo is used six times in verb form in the NT:

Matt. 24:38
John 6: 54, 56, 57, 58
John 13:18

Notice that “phago” in John 6:58 is understood in the physical sense, which would also point to its being used physically in John 6:53. This is so because “phago,” used in both John 6:49 and 6:58 when Jesus is speaking of the Jews eating manna in the desert, is sandwiching John 6:53 between the other two which uses “phago” in reference to eating Jesus. It would be grammatically incongruous for Jesus to switch from a physical meaning in verse 49, to a spiritual meaning in verse 53, and back to a physical meaning in verse 58.

John 6:54-58, and the
Meaning of the Verb “to Eat” Flesh
By Robert Sungenis

Just thought of something. Do you trogo the communion host? Do you gnaw at the host, the body, the meat of Christ? Is it not figurative for I understood Catholics to solemnly eat, phago, the communion host.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Just thought of something. Do you trogo the communion host? Do you gnaw at the host, the body, the meat of Christ? Is it not figurative for I understood Catholics to solemnly eat, phago, the communion host.

Blessings

I trogo it. Make slurping sounds also, then lick my fingers.

 

[benhur]

I trogo it. Make slurping sounds also, then lick my fingers.

Oh stop that . You must be too giddy ,i mean the pope’s visit and all.Quite an event.Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Just thought of something. Do you trogo the communion host? Do you gnaw at the host, the body, the meat of Christ? Is it not figurative for I understood Catholics to solemnly eat, phago, the communion host.

Blessings

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. This is what he had to say:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D

He heard St. John preach, and yet in your mind, he clearly misunderstood what St. John was writing. St. John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407 AD), who grew up in Antioch, taught that St. Ignatius had been ordained at the hands of Apostles, including St. Peter. According to ancient tradition, St. Ignatius was the child whom Christ had held, as described in Matthew 18:4.

Yet he did not have a clue what he was talking about, right?

 

[JMM1957]

Yes. I liken it further like just because you hang out in a garage does not make you a car. These unbelievers had to be "led’’ out of the garage, by their own desire (which was after all, carnal) .They were not born of the spirit. We must trust Jesus in truth and spirit which is only possible with a new spiritual birth.

I would also not rule out that it may have been more beyond a cannibalistic understanding but that it would mean His death, somehow. Why else would He then add, “what if I told I would ascend from whence I came”?

Blessings

Tell me ben, were the believing disciples “born of the Spirit or not?”