John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

[rcwitness]

Please explain the Gospel institution of His Supper.

Oh, I meant the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke). They tie together John’s record of the Bread of Life discourse. Without those, Jesus’ message in John 6 would seem to only mean symbolic. But since He actually used real food and drink at the last supper, those are definitely His flesh and blood.

Now! Just because we receive His actual flesh and blood, that certainly doesn’t mean we are not receiving His Spirit! On the contrary, we are accepting them both, together, as our salvation.

But I believe one can receive His flesh and blood while denying His Spirit. This is betrayal, hypocrisy, treachery, profaining, and abusive. I’m not sure to what extent Judas believed. Nevertheless, he didn’t seem to prevail in belief.

 

[Cathoholic]

Wannano.

You apparently think when Jesus commands us to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” that Jesus is using mere metaphor as you suggested (“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”).

You also said:

QUOTE:
I liked the commentary from the link you provided :
"The advantage of the Manna was small, it only referred to this life; the Living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ’s human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

But I wasn’t attempting to provide you with the Matthew Henry Commentary (which I think is faulty) or any other commentary here.

I was citing the verse translations you were discussing.

Earlier . . . You seemed to be making an issue out of believing “ON” Jesus (as opposed to believing IN Jesus).

I am not affirming or denying this “on” versus “in” Jesus translation (yet at least).

I asked about the significance of you highlighting it.

I showed you the link for the translation that included the translation you were using (as I was and still am wondering WHY you would emphasize it and WHAT it has to do with the discussion at hand).

All that I intended to do with my link is to provide you with various translations that use “ON” and “IN” interchangeably and ask you to clarify the significance of this distinction you appeared to be highlighting.

(Excerpt of some of the Bible translations on the page I linked to below with emphasis mine)

New International Version
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

New Living Translation
"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life.

. . . .

King James Bible
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

. . . .

American Standard Version
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
. . . .

Then you said you liked the commentary that happened to also be on the page that I linked to the Bible verses from.

I didn’t care for the commentary myself.

It not only subtly denied what Jesus said, and added other things, the comment said “This bread is Christ’s human nature”.

Do YOU think Christ ONLY gave merely His human nature “for the Life of the world” or do you, like me, think Christ . . . . gave "ALL of Himself"?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano.

You apparently think when Jesus commands us to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” that Jesus is using mere metaphor as you suggested (“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”).

You also said:

QUOTE:
I liked the commentary from the link you provided :
"The advantage of the Manna was small, it only referred to this life; the Living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ’s human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

But I wasn’t attempting to provide you with the Matthew Henry Commentary (which I think is faulty) or any other commentary here.

I was citing the verse translations you were discussing.

Earlier . . . You seemed to be making an issue out of believing “ON” Jesus (as opposed to believing IN Jesus).

I am not affirming or denying this “on” versus “in” Jesus translation (yet at least).

I asked about the significance of you highlighting it.

I showed you the link for the translation that included the translation you were using (as I was and still am wondering WHY you would emphasize it and WHAT it has to do with the discussion at hand).

All that I intended to do with my link is to provide you with various translations that use “ON” and “IN” interchangeably and ask you to clarify the significance of this distinction you appeared to be highlighting.

(Excerpt of some of the Bible translations on the page I linked to below with emphasis mine)

Then you said you liked the commentary that happened to also be on the page that I linked to the Bible verses from.

I didn’t care for the commentary myself.

It not only subtly denied what Jesus said, and added other things, the comment said “This bread is Christ’s human nature”.

Do YOU think Christ ONLY gave merely His human nature “for the Life of the world” or do you, like me, think Christ . . . . gave "ALL of Himself"?

In all honesty I have trouble following your format. The Gethsemane experience would indicate to me that He did not “merely” give anything.

 

[Cathoholic]

Wannano. You said you liked this quote . . .

I liked the commentary from the link you provided :
"The advantage of the Manna was small, it only referred to this life; the Living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ’s human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

You also said:

The Gethsemane experience would indicate to me that He did not “merely” give anything.

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

I liked the commentary from the link you provided :
"The advantage of the Manna was small, it only referred to this life; the Living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ’s human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

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.

 

[Duane1966]

Or is it just as John 6 states that Jesus told them there are some of them who believe not. It also says he knew from the beginning who they were that believed not. Verse 65 Jesus explains that no one can come to him except it were given unto him from his Father…FROM that time many left him. When Jesus asked the twelve if they were going to leave as well Peter said “…we believe, and are SURE you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Of course they left because they didn’t believe. And the text specifically says Jesus knew from the beginning those who*** would*** not believe, meaning they were undecided, until His discourse. That is evident from verse 30, where they ask for a sign so that they can believe. And we know from verse 15, that they are fervent followers, because they wanted to carry Him off and make Him king. All in all, I think it is safe to say, they wanted to believe.

And then He says He is going to give them something greater than manna, and from that point on, His followers start to do an 180° turn. So we can know those followers specifically left because He said eat My Flesh, and that’s when they said ‘this saying is hard, who can accept it?’.

Now, while they were undecided, and He was teaching about eating His Flesh, if He gave them the impression that He was being literal (and we know He used literal language), but He was actually being metaphorical, then there was nothing wrong with their walking away. The Teacher taught poorly, using language He knew would be taken as literal. They were not rejecting His teaching, for they did not understand His teaching. He Himself said, if you are blind…in John 9.

Of course if they walked away because they thought He was being literal, and He was being literal, then their walking away is rejecting His teaching, based on a clear understanding. In this scenario, the Teacher taught well. Followers understood. And knew exactly what they were walking away from.

 

[rcwitness]

Hey, maybe I can change the topic, slightly, for a moment?

In verse 42, the Jews say this:

They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

I’m kinda curious why Jesus dint tell them He was born of the Virgin? In fact, Scripture doesn’t mention that He, or the Apostles, told anyone publicly, right? I wonder why.

Though, this passage does say that the Jews were “murmuring” at Him. This also happened with the Jews in the Wilderness. They murmured against Moses, Aaron and God.

Exodus 16

 

[Duane1966]

Hey, maybe I can change the topic, slightly, for a moment?

In verse 42, the Jews say this:

They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

I’m kinda curious why Jesus dint tell them He was born of the Virgin? In fact, Scripture doesn’t mention that He, or the Apostles, told anyone publicly, right? I wonder why.

Though, this passage does say that the Jews were “murmuring” at Him. This also happened with the Jews in the Wilderness. They murmured against Moses, Aaron and God.

Exodus 16

This does not address your question, but you might like this article on the comparisons between the Eucharist and the manna that came down from Heaven. matt1618.freeyellow.com/newmanna.html

 

[Wannano]

Hey, maybe I can change the topic, slightly, for a moment?

In verse 42, the Jews say this:

They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

I’m kinda curious why Jesus dint tell them He was born of the Virgin? In fact, Scripture doesn’t mention that He, or the Apostles, told anyone publicly, right? I wonder why.

Though, this passage does say that the Jews were “murmuring” at Him. This also happened with the Jews in the Wilderness. They murmured against Moses, Aaron and God.

Exodus 16

Well I for one am not willing to say it is because He was a bad or ineffective teacher or that they were all deceivers.

 

[Techno2000]

---

I am interested in knowing what others interpret these verses to mean…

New International Version
The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing**. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.

New Living Translation
The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The** Eucharist** is something Supernatural it cannot be understood by Human Reason the flesh carnal mind cannot understand these spiritual things.Jesus is trying to tell the people that what he is saying can only be understood in a Supernatural Spiritual way.

Those who are** unspiritual[e] **do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are discerned spiritually. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Wannano]

---

New International Version
The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing**. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.

New Living Translation
The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The** Eucharist** is something Supernatural it cannot be understood by Human Reason the flesh carnal mind cannot understand these spiritual things.Jesus is trying to tell the people that what he is saying can only be understood in a Supernatural Spiritual way.

Those who are** unspiritual[e] **do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are discerned spiritually. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

1 Corinthians 2:14

No one else’s scrutiny…unless perhaps the scrutiny of someone who considers themselves to be spiritual enough to judge you as unspiritual.

 

[Techno2000]

No one else’s scrutiny…unless perhaps the scrutiny of someone who considers themselves to be spiritual enough to judge you as unspiritual.

So you can’t see any Supernatural aspects of the Eucharist as we define it in the Catholic faith ?

 

[rcwitness]

Well I for one am not willing to say it is because He was a bad or ineffective teacher or that they were all deceivers.

Me either. I think it’s cuz they were murmuring these things, and not genuinely curious.

 

[Duane1966]

Well I for one am not willing to say it is because He was a bad or ineffective teacher or that they were all deceivers.

I want you to reaize, I do not consider Jesus a bad, or ineffective teacher. He is the ultimate teacher. I am trying to show the preposterousness of some, who would claim that His followers left because they thought He was being literal, but in reality He was being metaphorical. There was no deception. They knew exactly what He was saying, and that is why they left.

Proponents of the view of His being metaphorical, must face the fact that if His followers did leave, because they thought He was being literal, then Jesus must have wanted them to leave. We know they left because of “eat My Flesh,” as they had just shortly prior wanted to make Him king. But the Jesus wanting them to leave scenario is untenable, as Jesus came to save, not repel.

That leaves one option. He taught clearly. They understood clearly, and are shocked at what He is saying. They reject what He says, and leave.

Wannano, if you were a teacher, would you let students walk away, knowing they completely misunderstood what you just taught, without trying even harder to make them understand?

 

[Duane1966]

Me either. I think it’s cuz they were murmuring these things, and not genuinely curious.

Did you read the manna link I posted? His followers wanted to believe, they were just so shocked at what He taught.

 

[rcwitness]

Did you read the manna link I posted? His followers wanted to believe, they were just so shocked at what He taught.

I didn’t yet, but I will, thanks. My question, however, was more about why dint Jesus tell the Jews that Mary was a Virgin, and Joseph was not His biological father?

I thing the fact that their statement in vs 42 was just murmuring and not a genuine question to Him. Plus, it would probably exploit Mary and Joseph.

 

[Wannano]

I want you to reaize, I do not consider Jesus a bad, or ineffective teacher. He is the ultimate teacher. I am trying to show the preposterousness of some, who would claim that His followers left because they thought He was being literal, but in reality He was being metaphorical. There was no deception. They knew exactly what He was saying, and that is why they left.

I am backing you up to here for now. You say here they knew exactly what he was saying…is it your opinion that he was offering his arm or leg to literally eat? Is that where I am mixed up, Jesus was actually offering body parts like they understood he was proposing in verse 52? It seems like they left with that literal notion or am I wrong?

 

[rcwitness]

I am backing you up to here for now. You say here they knew exactly what he was saying…is it your opinion that he was offering his arm or leg to literally eat? Is that where I am mixed up, Jesus was actually offering body parts like they understood he was proposing in verse 52? It seems like they left with that literal notion or am I wrong?

I think the Jews understood Him literally, but they did not understand how He could do this. I think the 12 understood Him literally, but they did not understand how He could do it.

In those points, there was no difference between the two partys.

The difference comes with belief. Is belief the eating Jesus was referring to??? Yes and no. Yes, because the Spirit of Christ and the Father must be believed and accepted. No, because Jesus also was to redeem mankind through dying in the flesh. This was the Pascal sacrifice that we partake in Communion.

An important message here was, belief is necessary to accepting salvation, and obeying the Command of Jesus is abiding in Him, and Him in us.

Holy Communion is tangible, visible and real. It has substance which hold one accountable.

 

[Wannano]

I think the Jews understood Him literally, but they did not understand how He could do this. I think the 12 understood Him literally, but they did not understand how He could do it.

---

Thank you for responding. I agree completely with you, John 6 : 52 says exactly that the Jews asked of themselves HOW can this man give us his flesh to eat. They envisioned nothing other than cannabalism. But Jesus knew all the time that no one was going to eat his literal flesh that was contained beneath his actual skin and that is my point. He knew HOW those that believe in him would eat his flesh and that is why I say He was talking “metamorphically”.
He knew they had a different concept of eating Him than He did but He did not spell it out and correct them right there as in “wait a minute folks, you are not going to bite chunks out of this arm you see here, it will be done in a different format.” Those that believed in Him as the Christ along with the twelve probably had concerns about this “eating” him but had faith that whatever the Christ presented they would abide by because even if it was not all clear in their minds they BELIEVED they were in the actual presence of the Christ so come what may.

In those points, there was no difference between the two partys.

The difference comes with belief. Is belief the eating Jesus was referring to??? Yes and no. Yes, because the Spirit of Christ and the Father must be believed and accepted. No, because Jesus also was to redeem mankind through dying in the flesh. This was the Pascal sacrifice that we partake in Communion.

---

I think I see your point.

An important message here was, belief is necessary to accepting salvation, and obeying the Command of Jesus is abiding in Him, and Him in us.

---

And this is the essence of John 6 : 56.

Holy Communion is tangible, visible and real. It has substance which hold one accountable.

SORRY for messing up the format above! My answers are below the asterisks.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. I just joined this thread and have only read a small fraction of the 78 posts at this point. Can someone fill me in on what church document have been cited thus far?

 

[rcwitness]

Hi all. I just joined this thread and have only read a small fraction of the 78 posts at this point. Can someone fill me in on what church document have been cited thus far?

John 6…