John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

[angeltime]

I am with both you and rc then if this is how you see it. My unanswered question (so far) is did the disciples who left Jesus understand only through the lenses of flesh or carnality? Or did they understand it spiritually and still left?

Pax et Bonum! I’m sure there were apostles at that time who left because they simply did not understand, but also some who would not go against the Law as they felt they were doing. They didn’t know where all this was going without concrete visual proof. Jesus did tell them, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” angeltime

 

[Wannano]

No, they certainly did not understand through the Spirit! Peter did. Did Peter know how Jesus would give His flesh and blood to eat? No. Peter did not understand that Jesus would suffer death as the Lamb of God. Peter had to walk in faith and receive Jesus’ life as Jesus delivered.

So then is this not backing up my premise that Jesus and the crowd who left him had a different “literal” understanding?

 

[rcwitness]

So then is this not backing up my premise that Jesus and the crowd who left him had a different “literal” understanding?

Yes and no. They understood what He said, that they were to eat His literal flesh and blood. But they did not know how, nor did they believe He descended to the Virgin, from heaven.

That’s why I asked, why didn’t Jesus tell them He was born of the Virgin? Did the Apostles know this? Did that give them an unfair advantage of undertanding?

 

[angeltime]

Wannano. You asked . . . .

QUOTE:
Earlier in John 6 Jesus explains He is the Bread of Life which comes down from heaven and in verse 47 explains that anyone who BELIEVES ON him has everlasting life. Is there a difference in believing in Him and believing on Him?

I think I heard the late Bart Brewer try to use this argument once too.

Please explain to me the significance of “believing on” Jesus as opposed to believing Jesus.

biblehub.com/john/6-47.htm

I am not denying it.

I just want to know why some of the anti-Catholics that I have heard in the past emphasize the belief “ON” Jesus (incidentally. I do NOT mean YOU are anti-Catholic Wannano. I do mean I have heard Brewer and other anti-Catholics use this argument before but they never really expounded on it. So I am left thinking “what was THAT supposed to prove here?”).

I want to have a better understanding of your objection that’s all.

Thanks in advance.

You also said:

QUOTE:
Interesting in John 4 his disciples told him to eat something.

Yes it was interesting.

You went on saying:

QUOTE:
In John 4 : 34 Jesus explains " My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

That is true.

But He also told the Disciples what THEIR eating should be in John 6.

That’s the tough part for you here.

We are not talking about Jesus’ “meat” here. We are talking about US and how we participate of the Lamb of God.

We are talking about Christ our Passover Lamb.

Pax et Bonum! I am thinking that Jesus meant something different when He used the word “Meat” of the new covenant…you may have heard the term yourself used in various situations - “Meat” meaning the root, source, crux of the matter.

As for believes ON Me…My Bible does not say this word - only IN Me - is it a misprint? angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[rcwitness]

What role did Peter play in this? Did he strengthen the others to stay? Would the others have continued if Peter did not speak?

 

[Peter_J]

I know you didn’t mean Scripture, I’m just messin’.

He, yeah. When I posted that I thought about saying “besides Scripture”.

But seriously, have there been any church documents cited in support of one interpretation of that passage over another? (Assuming you’ve been following this thread from the beginning.)

 

[rcwitness]

He, yeah. When I posted that I thought about saying “besides Scripture”.

But seriously, have there been any church documents cited in support of one interpretation of that passage over another? (Assuming you’ve been following this thread from the beginning.)

Not that I have seen. But I’m not sure wananno has a different interpretation than the Catholic. What do you see?

 

[angeltime]

Yes and no. They understood what He said, that they were to eat His literal flesh and blood. But they did not know how, nor did they believe He descended to the Virgin, from heaven.

That’s why I asked, why didn’t Jesus tell them He was born of the Virgin? Did the Apostles know this? Did that give them an unfair advantage of undertanding?

Pax et Bonum! If the Blessed Mother was with/near Jesus and the Apostles, I am sure they would have known the history of her and Jesus…they were afraid of what was being told to them because it was outside of Jewish Law, and wanted more concrete visible proof. In some cases I think they would have remained clannish to keep the Law not being open enough to accept the miracles and mysticism taking place. (this is a trust and faith journey) Jesus told the apostles, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” - so we can see He was having a difficult time explaining Himself. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Wannano]

Yes and no. They understood what He said, that they were to eat His literal flesh and blood. But they did not know how, nor did they believe He descended to the Virgin, from heaven.

That’s why I asked, why didn’t Jesus tell them He was born of the Virgin? Did the Apostles know this? Did that give them an unfair advantage of undertanding?

One would think the Apostles knew more than the average Joe but then again maybe not…

 

[angeltime]

Wannano. You said you liked this quote . . .

You also said:

I pointed out (earlier) that the quote you liked (emphasis mine) . . .

Do YOU think “the bread” that He gave on Calvary is merely only His "human nature”?

Or do you think (as I do) that Christ gave ALL of HIMSELF on Calvary?

Remember Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus has a Human nature AND a Divine nature.

And ever since He took flesh of the Virgin Mary upon Himself, ever since He took a Human Nature upon Himself . . . . His two natures (Human AND Divine) are united (the Hypostatic union).

Jesus didn’t give just His “human nature” to the Father (as the quote seems to suggest).

Jesus gave ALL of Himself (which includes a Human nature AND Divine nature that are inseparable).

Jesus gave/gives (as His Sacrifice transcends time) His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

And we receive Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity when we receive Him in the Holy Eucharist. We receive ALL of Christ really and substantially.

Pax et Bonum! We must remember too that in Eternity, all is one, holy and in proper order. It is our life here on earth that is in part and disordered. So, the spiritual banquet is just that - Jesus giving His all to us - bodily and spiritually - heals our soul and body. We become One with Him. He was in a state of perfection while on earth and also of course in Heaven/Eternity. angeltime:angel1:

 

[rcwitness]

One would think the Apostles knew more than the average Joe but then again maybe not…

I think Jesus needed more time. He did not want these disciples who wanted to make Him their bread king. If He engaged them about the Virgin, it would have quickened His death. And exploited His mother. He needed to do more work still, and this crowd was demanding signs. He gave them the “hard Teaching”, knowing they would not remain, because they did not believe He was from heaven.

 

[Wannano]

:

I think Jesus needed more time. He did not want these disciples who wanted to make Him their bread king. If He engaged them about the Virgin, it would have quickened His death. And exploited His mother. He needed to do more work still, and this crowd was demanding signs. He gave them the “hard Teaching”, knowing they would not remain, because they did not believe He was from heaven.

 

[angeltime]

Thank you angeltime, I know a priest that I have a lot of admiration for. I think I will ask him to lunch sometime soon. Trouble is he lives 60 miles away.

I have been told by another poster here that I do not accept God Himself because I have trouble understanding some things and I have experienced that to be very hurtful as I do have a relationship with Christ that is very meaningful. Sometimes people like you who do not pretend to have all the answers are more effective in communicating small truths that resonate with the seeker than those who “know it all” and castigate you for asking what may be seemingly dumb questions. To see that it is or may be a spiritual consumption shines more light on the subject for me. So, thank you.

Do you think that the disciples who left Jesus understood the spiritual meaning? Just wondering how you perceive that.

Pax et Bonum! I say (because I have Jewish relatives who have shared with me) that some of the Apostles/early followers believed, and some didn’t. The main thing for them would have been someone coming declaring He was King of another Kingdom (a poor King I might add), and seeming to brush aside the Jewish Covenant to bring in a New Covenant. Jesus told them, “I have not come to abolish the Jewish Law/Law of Moses; I have come to fulfill it.” Some were afraid of the powers Jesus had - such as healing, casting out evils, miracles. Those who did not accept or were in fear of openly accepting what was happening, could have been afraid of being shunned by their brethren/community. God bless, angeltime [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Techno2000]

I am with both you and rc then if this is how you see it. My unanswered question (so far) is did the disciples who left Jesus understand only through the lenses of flesh or carnality? Or did they understand it spiritually and still left?

Right, you got the point I was try to make, those who left only understood what Jesus was speaking about was through the lense of the flesh (human reason) but he was talking about something spiritual and supernatural .

 

[angeltime]

Pax et Bonum! I would continue to add that even if they understood spiritually, they could have left because of fears of being shunned by their communities/families. Also, while some believed Jesus was a great prophet, they did not accept that He was the Son of God, and they left. Of course there were those who didn’t understand and there could be a variety of reasons (known to God) why. angeltime

 

[rcwitness]

Right, you got the point I was try to make, those who left only understood what Jesus was speaking about was through the lense of the flesh (human reason) but he was talking about something spiritual and supernatural .

Yes. And His very life, in the flesh, IS supernatural. Hence, “I am the bread which comes from heaven.” He wasn’t just a normal conception, but born of the Virgin.

 

[Techno2000]

Pax et Bonum! I would continue to add that even if they understood spiritually, they could have left because of fears of being shunned by their communities/families. Also, while some believed Jesus was a great prophet, they did not accept that He was the Son of God, and they left. Of course there were those who didn’t understand and there could be a variety of reasons (known to God) why. angeltime

There are many Catholics also with little faith who don’t understand the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[Techno2000]

Yes. And His very life, in the flesh, IS supernatural. Hence, “I am the bread which comes from heaven.” He wasn’t just a normal conception, but born of the Virgin.

Right, the carnal mind of man can never understand the supernatural.

The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8

 

[Wannano]

Right, you got the point I was try to make, those who left only understood what Jesus was speaking about was through the lense of the flesh (human reason) but he was talking about something spiritual and supernatural .

I think him talking about something spiritual and supernatural is what I always have understood to be the figurative aspect of his speaking.

 

[rcwitness]

I think him talking about something spiritual and supernatural is what I always have understood to be the figurative aspect of his speaking.

Bread is food. Food nurishes. Bread nurishes the body. But the body is flesh and flesh dies, eventually. The Spirit does not die, but our soul is captive to the flesh, because we do not walk according to the Spirit. Jesus walks according to the Spirit, because He was conceived of the Spirit. If we believe in Him (That He is one with God the Father) and we keep His commandments, He gives us life.

We don’t accept His Spirit apart from the flesh and blood that brought the Spirit. He chose to give us all in the Sacrament of Communion. This means God and man are friends because of the sacrificial Lamb of God. Therefore, the meal which signifies and strengthens our relationship and faith in Him, is actually the sacrifice Himself.

His flesh is Spirit, because God set His seal on Him, and He was not conceived of man, but descended from God. He was conceived in Mary, and so, is the Son of Man too.