John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wannano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I am not saying it is not real but that to me saying Jesus was literal with those words would mean He was offering cannabalism. Not harping, just thinking out loud.
 
I am not saying it is not real but that to me saying Jesus was literal with those words would mean He was offering cannabalism. Not harping, just thinking out loud.
But why would a symbol of cannibalism be better? 🤷
 
But why would a symbol of cannibalism be better? 🤷
Not what I am saying at all. I can see your interpretation when I read my own comment. So what am I saying…I am not referring to the content or truth of his teaching but seeing a literal statement having a spiritual meaning rather than an earthly meaning being “figurative” in a sense. I might not be making sense.

Kind of like when I show a photo of my grand kids to someone I say “this is my grand kids.”
 
Not what I am saying at all. I can see your interpretation when I read my own comment. So what am I saying…I am not referring to the content or truth of his teaching but seeing a literal statement having a spiritual meaning rather than an earthly meaning being “figurative” in a sense. I might not be making sense.
the figure is bread, the reality is His Spirit. His Spirit is not given to us apart from His life, death, resurrection in the flesh. Because the Spirit bound Himself to our lowly flesh

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily.

… This is why we Commune in His true body.
 
the figure is bread, the reality is His Spirit. His Spirit is not given to us apart from His life, death, resurrection in the flesh. Because the Spirit bound Himself to our lowly flesh

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily.

… This is why we Commune in His true body.
Did my edit help?
 
Did my edit help?
Yes. But I really do get the Symbolic Communion. I just truly believe it’s inferior and not accurately receiving what He offers.

It seems to encourage division and avoiding suffering. We can all choose a Communion which suits our interpretation and there is another body to go partake of. I talk to people who are so overwhelmed about which church to go to. They have such anxiety over it, and struggle for years to just Commune.

Also, it is more like veneration an image. We don’t venerate an image of God, but the images cease to be what they truly are, and Jesus’ body and blood are present.
 
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 .
Ok, I am going to respond to this again . I did once already but worded (unintentionally) in a way that I beleive got RC (:p) thinking I am talking about the content.

Jesus consciously talking about spiritual and supernatural applications of his teaching while those who left understood it as literal through the lense of human reason makes me …feel…like his teaching method had a figurative aspect. Not a big deal. :o
 
Yes. But I really do get the Symbolic Communion. I just truly believe it’s inferior and not accurately receiving what He offers.

It seems to encourage division and avoiding suffering. We can all choose a Communion which suits our interpretation and there is another body to go partake of. I talk to people who are so overwhelmed about which church to go to. They have such anxiety over it, and struggle for years to just Commune.

Also, it is more like veneration an image. We don’t venerate an image of God, but the images cease to be what they truly are, and Jesus’ body and blood are present.
The last paragraph is puzzling…typo?
 
Not what I am saying at all. I can see your interpretation when I read my own comment. So what am I saying…I am not referring to the content or truth of his teaching but seeing a literal statement having a spiritual meaning rather than an earthly meaning being “figurative” in a sense. I might not be making sense.

Kind of like when I show a photo of my grand kids to someone I say “this is my grand kids.”
Remember, the manna was real food, the food of the angels. Jesus says He will give them something greater than that: matt1618.freeyellow.com/newmanna.html

How is something figurative, greater than reality?

How is Jesus’ Flesh real food?

How is the picture of your grandkids, greater than them being physically present?
 
Remember, the manna was real food, the food of the angels. Jesus says He will give them something greater than that: matt1618.freeyellow.com/newmanna.html

How is something figurative, greater than reality?

How is Jesus’ Flesh real food?

How is the picture of your grandkids, greater than them being physically present?
Hi Duane, post 127 explains my thoughts that I should have maybe kept to myself since it makes others think I am trying to say that figurative is better than reality or that I deny Jesus’ flesh as real food or that having a pic of my grandkids is greater than having them physically present.

Your questions make me feel like I am being badgered and I am not taking the bait. Sorry, it’s Christmas and I am not in the mood, good try though. Peace. 🙂
 
Hi Duane, post 127 explains my thoughts that I should have maybe kept to myself since it makes others think I am trying to say that figurative is better than reality or that I deny Jesus’ flesh as real food or that having a pic of my grandkids is greater than having them physically present.

Your questions make me feel like I am being badgered and I am not taking the bait. Sorry, it’s Christmas and I am not in the mood, good try though. Peace. 🙂
There is no bait involved.

How is His Flesh real food?

If He is being figurative, then He lied by calling it real food.

Is that a real picture of your grandkids, or just a photo paper, with nothing on it? 🙂 Merry Christmas.
 
The last paragraph is puzzling…typo?
Kinda, yes. What I am trying to say, is that in the Symbolism tradition, the bread and wine after the blessing are still only symbols and thus are images used in worship to represent Christ. So they are venerated. Do you think Jesus is worshiped “through” the bread and wine?
Hi Duane, post 127 explains my thoughts that I should have maybe kept to myself since it makes others think I am trying to say that figurative is better than reality or that I deny Jesus’ flesh as real food or that having a pic of my grandkids is greater than having them physically present.

Your questions make me feel like I am being badgered and I am not taking the bait. Sorry, it’s Christmas and I am not in the mood, good try though. Peace. 🙂
Just to clarify my own use of saying that Transubstantiation is “superior” and “greater” than Symbolism, I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but that it’s the natural position of accepting/choosing/practicing one over the other. Neither is it implying a Christian individual, in himself, is superior/greater than the other. It is the Tradition we each choose, which is greater or lesser.

Peace,
Merry Christmas
Michael
 
I am not saying it is not real but that to me saying Jesus was literal with those words would mean He was offering cannabalism. Not harping, just thinking out loud.
Do you believe that a demonic spirit can enter into a human body ?
 
I am not saying it is not real but that to me saying Jesus was literal with those words would mean He was offering cannabalism. Not harping, just thinking out loud.
Nope, cannot be cannibalism because of His words prior. Cannibalism involves an actual diminishing of the body being eaten. But Jesus said several things, to make His audience realize that while He is being literal, it will not entail cannibalism.

1.) He came down from Heaven. For it to be cannibalism, you must eat someone of the same species as yourself. Right here, He tells them He is not just a man, but in a way different from them.

2.) How could He feed everyone, if everyone chose to feed on Him, if He were some how diminished by the act of eating? Yet He says everyone who comes to Him, meaning He can feed the whole world. Again, an impossibility if He were talking about cannibalism.

3.) He says He will ascend, which means He will not die from the eating of Him.
 
Kinda, yes. What I am trying to say, is that in the Symbolism tradition, the bread and wine after the blessing are still only symbols and thus are images used in worship to represent Christ. So they are venerated. Do you think Jesus is worshiped “through” the bread and wine?

Just to clarify my own use of saying that Transubstantiation is “superior” and “greater” than Symbolism, I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but that it’s the natural position of accepting/choosing/practicing one over the other. Neither is it implying a Christian individual, in himself, is superior/greater than the other. It is the Tradition we each choose, which is greater or lesser.

Peace,
Merry Christmas

Michael
Is Jesus worshipped “through” the bread and wine? I hope I answer this right but I would say not in a Sacremental sense probably. In the sense that we as individuals are many kernels of wheat ground together into one common flour/bread losing our individual distinctiveness
within the Body of Christ and also the same with grapes forming a common wine, we worship Jesus in the partaking of the bread and wine in a recognition that He sacrificed his whole being for our salvation. In Thanksgiving it is a time to reflect on our relationship with Him and our fellowman and to once again commit to His Body , the Church ,in love.

I appreciate your kind comments. I get the feeling from some if we don’t see it the Catholic way we are headed for hell. Whether we experience God’s presence constantly in our lives thru our belief in Him and acceptance of the Holy Spirit and pause periodically to remember His sacrifice or whether we believe we need to eat the Eucharist to receive Jesus and receive forgiveness for our sins is not something I think He is pleased we fight about.
 
Nope, cannot be cannibalism because of His words prior. Cannibalism involves an actual diminishing of the body being eaten. But Jesus said several things, to make His audience realize that while He is being literal, it will not entail cannibalism.

1.) He came down from Heaven. For it to be cannibalism, you must eat someone of the same species as yourself. Right here, He tells them He is not just a man, but in a way different from them.

2.) How could He feed everyone, if everyone chose to feed on Him, if He were some how diminished by the act of eating? Yet He says everyone who comes to Him, meaning He can feed the whole world. Again, an impossibility if He were talking about cannibalism.

3.) He says He will ascend, which means He will not die from the eating of Him.
We, I believe, are talking past each other as your very points here back up my own thoughts. Somehow the semantics we are experiencing over the word literal is in my mind literally not worth it.
 
So why is it so far-fetched for Jesus to do something similar ?
Are you under the impression I do not believe Jesus can enter a human body? Maybe you can point out where I have said that so I can look at what I have said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top