John 6:53

[AmateurPianist]

In another thread it was suggested that I break my silly questions to a new thread. So doing. Note I am doing so with reservations. It has been my experience in starting threads here that I just can’t keep up with all the responses.

The text

Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourself.

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…

 

[CopticChristian]

In another thread it was suggested that I break my silly questions to a new thread. So doing. Note I am doing so with reservations. It has been my experience in starting threads here that I just can’t keep up with all the responses.

The text

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…

I do not know. This is one of those questions that the computer guys, math guys or someone else has to figure out. It has to do with possibilities that I understand once someone puts them out there. I have no patience when the possibilities go further than 3 or 4.

I will say that this is a magnanimous posting for AOG and wanting to be educated whether you agree or not is sure the way to get answers. I kind of go with number 1.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I do not know. This is one of those questions that the computer guys, math guys or someone else has to figure out. It has to do with possibilities that I understand once someone puts them out there. I have no patience when the possibilities go further than 3 or 4.

I will say that this is a magnanimous posting for AOG and wanting to be educated whether you agree or not is sure the way to get answers. I kind of go with number 1.

Thank you.

BTW I am not what one would call “hard core” AOG.

 

[Samuel63]

Number 1 is the best option.

God is open to all people. But, you need to follow His instructions to receive the great prize - eternal life in heaven.

 

[Filioque]

I too go with most of number 1.

If you read the passage in the Greek, the word is not simply to eat, which has been taken as a symbolic sense by many Protestants, It was unsetteling to those who heard him because the word used in the orignal language of the text was to bite off, chew and swallow. Something that could not be misrepresented as just a symbol. It is interesting that unlike parables, where Jesus corrects the misunderstanding of the crowd, here He reaffirms that unless you do so you will not have life.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Number 1 is the best option.

God is open to all people. But, you need to follow His instructions to receive the great prize - eternal life in heaven.

So by going with #1 you are then saying that Protestants have no life in themselves, correct?

 

[TEPO]

I’m gonna go with 5…

Just kidding. It’s 1.

 

[jesuspsr]

#1:thumbsup:

 

[Heuchler]

So by going with #1 you are then saying that Protestants have no life in themselves, correct?

Well Christ said it, and who am I to go against the Lord

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well Christ said it, and who am I to go against the Lord

Well strictly speaking Christ said

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourself.

And you are interpreting this as

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood by participating in a valid eucharist with a valid priesthood, you have no life in yourself.

The two sentences do not have the same meaning.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I too go with most of number 1.

If you read the passage in the Greek, the word is not simply to eat, which has been taken as a symbolic sense by many Protestants, It was unsetteling to those who heard him because the word used in the orignal language of the text was to bite off, chew and swallow. Something that could not be misrepresented as just a symbol. It is interesting that unlike parables, where Jesus corrects the misunderstanding of the crowd, here He reaffirms that unless you do so you will not have life.

Curious, do you know Greek or are you relying on somebody else’s knowledge.

What do you perceive the audience was thinking when they heard these words? Do you think the audience was think eat/drink flesh and blood in a cannibalistic way?

 

[CopticChristian]

I too go with most of number 1.

If you read the passage in the Greek, the word is not simply to eat, which has been taken as a symbolic sense by many Protestants, It was unsetteling to those who heard him because the word used in the orignal language of the text was to bite off, chew and swallow. Something that could not be misrepresented as just a symbol. It is interesting that unlike parables, where Jesus corrects the misunderstanding of the crowd, here He reaffirms that unless you do so you will not have life.

It is worse than what you say…He used the word Phage/Greek 3 times. He first compares it to Phage/Manna, then Phage/may eat and again any man eat/Phage. Then the Jews murmured.

48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

This is the breakdown in the Greek.

eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does); used only in fut. and 2nd aor. tenses.

phago: I eat
Original Word: φάγω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: phago
Phonetic Spelling: (fag’-o)
Short Definition: I eat

Sounds like He meant EAT.

 

[Heuchler]

Yes, well Christ instituted the Eucharist at the last supper where he told his Apostles to do this in memory of me. Christ didn’t say, go out and let whoever prays over bread know that it is my body. If it were true that anyone could do it then I could change the bread in my kitchen at this moment into the Eucharist right now and it would be valid. Christ chose specific people to be the priests of His church, and those Apostles chose successors. It is evident that no one believed that you could simply pray over bread and it would become Christ’s flesh. Christ intended for there to be one Church with one set of priests that would be found around the world instead of all this division and heresey. If Christ instituted one church with Apostalic sucession, it would be implied that the sacraments and the Eucharist are meant to be from that line of priests.

 

[CopticChristian]

So by going with #1 you are then saying that Protestants have no life in themselves, correct?

No, Protestants are just weak, sick and sleep and I will add this applies to Catholics as well. Consuming the Sacrament unworthily is the same as not consuming it.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

#1 without a doubt! Jesus’ words are clear & were understood to mean just that, undisputed for around 1,500 years.

In another thread it was suggested that I break my silly questions to a new thread. So doing. Note I am doing so with reservations. It has been my experience in starting threads here that I just can’t keep up with all the responses.

The text

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…

 

[Filioque]

Curious, do you know Greek or are you relying on somebody else’s knowledge.

What do you perceive the audience was thinking when they heard these words? Do you think the audience was think eat/drink flesh and blood in a cannibalistic way?

I do know greek and hebrew, I learned Hebrew first, as I was raised a Jew, I learned biblical greek in college, and while it is a bit rusty as I don’t use it daily, there are sections of the NT that I do recall clearly as they made a lasting impression. Additionally, we need to pay attention to the greek of the times, and place, just as today English in England, the USA and Canada can use the same word and have a different meaning, the Greek of the NT is that as understood by Jews both in Israel and the Diaspora at that time.

There are two aspects of the aversion from the crowd that I see here, one is cannibalism, and the second are the Laws of Kashrut. In order to be Kosher, one has/had to avoid injesting blood. Here Jesus it telling them to drink His blood, and the Scriptures tell us that many left Him over this. People who had been His followers, and heard Him preach, got up and walked away. Did Jesus say, “Sorry, you got it wrong, I did not really mean eat my flesh and drink my blood.” I was just speaking symbolically?

As a Catholic who understands the Faith through the eyes of a Jew, I also know that this verse cannot be isolated from the rest of Scripture or history, but see is in the context of the whole teaching of Jesus, which He commanded that the Apostles and their successors teach. Jesus also instructed the Apostles to go out and baptize. He gave the Apostles the commission to forgive or retain sins, He did and said many things that can only be found fully in the Catholic Church.

 

[Filioque]

Yes, well Christ instituted the Eucharist at the last supper where he told his Apostles to do this in memory of me. Christ didn’t say, go out and let whoever prays over bread know that it is my body. If it were true that anyone could do it then I could change the bread in my kitchen at this moment into the Eucharist right now and it would be valid. Christ chose specific people to be the priests of His church, and those Apostles chose successors. It is evident that no one believed that you could simply pray over bread and it would become Christ’s flesh. Christ intended for there to be one Church with one set of priests that would be found around the world instead of all this division and heresey. If Christ instituted one church with Apostalic sucession, it would be implied that the sacraments and the Eucharist are meant to be from that line of priests.

I agree, but I also see that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Passover Seder. One thing that made it easier for me to accept the Eucharist for what and who it is was being raised observing the Seder. We are taught that when we observe those things needed in the Seder each year at Passover that we are not to consider that it was something God did for someone else at some other time and place, but that by participating in the Seder we ourselves are brought out of Egypt, and saved. It was not then, but it is now. In greek and in the narration of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper in the NT the word normally translated as Rememberance, or Memory is ANMENSIS, like at the Seder our ANMENSIS is not calling to mind what happened long ago, not just remembering a past event, but actually participating in that event. In the Mass it happens like at the Seder, by God’s direct intervention in our lives, and as we mystically stand before the Cross of Christ at each Mass, we make ANMENSIS, God who brought the Jews out of Egypt, and commanded that they celebrate the Seder so each generation could come out of Egypt not simply symbolically, as the Incarnate Word gave us the true means of Salvation in the Eucharist.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I do know greek and hebrew, I learned Hebrew first, as I was raised a Jew, I learned biblical greek in college, and while it is a bit rusty as I don’t use it daily, there are sections of the NT that I do recall clearly as they made a lasting impression. Additionally, we need to pay attention to the greek of the times, and place, just as today English in England, the USA and Canada can use the same word and have a different meaning, the Greek of the NT is that as understood by Jews both in Israel and the Diaspora at that time.

There are two aspects of the aversion from the crowd that I see here, one is cannibalism, and the second are the Laws of Kashrut. In order to be Kosher, one has/had to avoid injesting blood. Here Jesus it telling them to drink His blood, and the Scriptures tell us that many left Him over this. People who had been His followers, and heard Him preach, got up and walked away. Did Jesus say, “Sorry, you got it wrong, I did not really mean eat my flesh and drink my blood.” I was just speaking symbolically?

As a Catholic who understands the Faith through the eyes of a Jew, I also know that this verse cannot be isolated from the rest of Scripture or history, but see is in the context of the whole teaching of Jesus, which He commanded that the Apostles and their successors teach. Jesus also instructed the Apostles to go out and baptize. He gave the Apostles the commission to forgive or retain sins, He did and said many things that can only be found fully in the Catholic Church.

good I respect you then for quoting the greek, In my experience many folks will quote Greek or Hebrew when in reality they are relying on the claims of another source.

Now if the crowd was picturing cannibalism when they heard the words of Christ here (which seems believable), didn’t the crowd get it wrong per anybody’s understanding of the Eucharist including the Catholic church.

If have read where some here accuse the Catholics of cannibalism here and of course that is denied, and correctly denied I think. For there is a big difference between eating and drinking what to the 5 senses is bread and wine but somehow is Christ’s flesh and blood and eating and drinking human flesh and blood.

I guess I am observing that given the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist he also could have corrected the crowd who was leaving Him but He did not. But I dunno how big of a point this “Jesus not correcting the crowd” is in this passage either way to be honest.

Oh if there are nonCatholics reading this thread please chime in.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi AmateurPianist—

Okay, I’ll briefly chime in, since I’m not a Catholic. I’m glad you started this thread, since I have had similar questions about John 6:53. At least, I think they are similar.

At the same time, in my “real” life, I have recently been deeply affected by a tragedy involving a neighbor’s son which is weighing greatly on the hearts of many people in my real life neighborhood. S I had decided to not get into posting on a forum because my heart and attention aren’t able to focus on any issue going on here.

I’m mostly going to be quiet and check in periodically. To state where I am, briefly, here are a few thoughts:

–First and overall, I don’t have an ounce of qualms regarding believing in the Eucharist as Christ’s body, soul, and divinity. But I do not presently believe that. If I did come to believe that, I’d become a member of a Lutheran church. So my questioning is not related to my concerns about Catholicism.

–Next,I found Filioque’s post about the Passover Seder to be good, and learning and experiencing the meaning of remembrance in a Seder was a very influential turning point for me as a Christian.

However, at this point I don’t see how the reality of bringing remembrance of God’s “mighty hand and outstretched arm” active in our liberation and redemption to this very day, necessarily means He intended us to believe the bread and wine are turned into flesh and blood.

As I said, I’m open, but I don’t think there’s an firm and necessary correlation.

—And finally for now, it seems to me, in humility, honesty and openness to seeing things otherwise, that John 6:53 cannot be a reference to partaking of a Catholic or Orthodox Eucharist…unless Catholics want to say that the VII interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is wrong.

It has to noted that St. Augustine clearly stated he didn’t take the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” spoken of in John 6 as something to be interpreted literally. He used it as an example of how to distinguish times when the words cannot be taken literally.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Curious, do you know Greek or are you relying on somebody else’s knowledge.

What do you perceive the audience was thinking when they heard these words? Do you think the audience was think eat/drink flesh and blood in a cannibalistic way?

It seems rather obvious that was what the audience was thinking.
*
“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”* (John 6:50-53)

Then if you read further it says that many disciples left and walked no more with him. The disciples that remained seemed confused, but had enough faith to remain.

If it was simply a metaphor, or some kind of symbolic language, why didn’t Jesus just say so? He didn’t even turn to correct his disciples on the matter. In other instances where he used symbolic language, Jesus turned and explained what he meant to his disciples, or the author himself does it. Case in point: when he talks about him being the temple that would be destroyed and rebuilt in three days, there is an author’s note that clarifies: “but the temple he was referring to was his body.”

There is no such clarification here. So clearly Jesus was actually talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If it was obviously symbolic, no disciple would have left confused. But many did, and Jesus didn’t even bother stopping or correcting them. You’d think for something as important as this, for the one sacrament/ordinance that binds all Christians together, there would be some form of explanation, no?