John 6:63, Christs explaination he was being symbolic?

[Mijoy2]

As Catholics we speak of Christ’s flesh being “real food”, His blood being “real drink”.

Chist says this himself:
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

We furthur believe He was speaking literally and use the fact that He let some of His diciples walk away because they found the teaching difficult:

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

I am failing to see where John 6:63 is not Christ’s explaining where He was in fact being symbolic:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Seems He is saying that He is refering to Spirit, not flesh when Hs is “symbolically” associating the two.

Where do I have this wrong?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Mijoy,

Read Peter’s confession of faith in Matthew 16. After Peter has spoken, Jesus says, in verse 17:

Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this revelation came to you, not from the flesh, but from my Father who is in heaven.

When we believe by faith, we do not do it through the “flesh” (human wisdom) but from God (or the Spirit). Only God can inspire an act of faith. Just as Peter needed God’s help to express his belief in the divinity of Jesus, so the disciples needed the Spirit’s help to profess belief in the Real Presence.

Does that answer your question?

Verbum

 

[NotWorthy]

In the NT, when Jesus and the other authors are speaking of our mortal inclinations, they refer to it as “the flesh”. Notice in the preceding verses Jesus specifically says, “MY FLESH”. Now, in 6:63, he reverts back to “the flesh”. He is not talking of His Body when he says “the flesh”.

Small detail. Big mis-conception, though.

 

[BRB]

I am failing to see where John 6:63 is not Christ’s explaining where He was in fact being symbolic:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Seems He is saying that He is refering to Spirit, not flesh when Hs is “symbolically” associating the two.

Where do I have this wrong?

I’d say Jesus is teaching that ‘ordinary flesh’ counts for nothing. But, is Jesus’s flesh and blood ordinary ?? We get supernatural body/blood of Jesus in Eucharist … plus the H.S.

Thus we get ALL of Jesus … body and soul.

 

[guanophore]

As Catholics we speak of Christ’s flesh being “real food”, His blood being “real drink”.

Chist says this himself:
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

We furthur believe He was speaking literally and use the fact that He let some of His diciples walk away because they found the teaching difficult:

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

I am failing to see where John 6:63 is not Christ’s explaining where He was in fact being symbolic:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Seems He is saying that He is refering to Spirit, not flesh when Hs is “symbolically” associating the two.

Where do I have this wrong?

Only if you think that the flesh and blood he gave on the cross was “symbolic” flesh and blood. When He says the flesh of of no avail, He means that there is no way that the fleshly or carnal mind can understand this deeply spiritual mystery.

 

[BRB]

He means that there is no way that the fleshly or carnal mind can understand this deeply spiritual mystery.

Not sure if this was the message on flesh. Afterall, even the disciples were troubled/confused by the teaching.

They surely should of had more insight into what Jesus was saying than the other Jews.

 

[Nita]

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Seems He is saying that He is refering to Spirit, not flesh when Hs is “symbolically” associating the two.

Where do I have this wrong?

The following Scripture passage can help one better grasp the meaning of Our Lord’s words in John 6:63:
1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Jesus is referring to His resurrected body in John 6 - the “spiritual body” of the “last Adam” (Jesus).

Jesus never intended us to eat His flesh ALONE, - that is, flesh without His Spirit present in it. For three days in the tomb, His human soul no longer present in His body. But once He rose from the dead, His soul was reunited with His flesh - never again to be separated from it.

His risen flesh is permeated by His Spirit in a way it had not been prior to His resurrection. It is now a “spiritual body”, a body totally subject to the spirit; a body that can pass through closed doors, assume a different appearance, etc.

Nita

 

[Charybdis]

All good answers, but I would like to add one simple common sense answer as well: Jesus says this in verse 63. Interesting that he lets his followers walk away from this “hard” teaching right after he says this in verse 66!!!

Why let them walk away from what he is saying if he was only intending it all along to be symbolic? He would have cleared it up immediately when the disciples were showing that they just didn’t get what he was saying. But, he lets them walk away AFTER he says what he does in verse 63…

 

[Mijoy2]

I gather from the responses that my error is in relating the two terms, “my flesh” in verse 55 and “the flesh” in verse 63 as being in the same context. Where in fact the context of the word “flesh” from the two verses have no relation?

In other words, in verse 55 Christ is speaking of the word “Flesh” as meaning His literal bodily flesh. In verse 63 He is refering to “flesh” as being our selves, i.e our spiritless bodies as oppose to our selves inclusive with Spirit. Our Flesh (we without the guidence os the Spirit) cannot believe.

 

[Nita]

I gather from the responses that my error is in relating the two terms, “my flesh” in verse 55 and “the flesh” in verse 63 as being in the same context. Where in fact the context of the word “flesh” from the two verses have no relation?

In other words, in verse 55 Christ is speaking of the word “Flesh” as meaning His literal bodily flesh. In verse 63 He is refering to “flesh” as being our selves, i.e our spiritless bodies as oppose to our selves inclusive with Spirit. Our Flesh (we without the guidence os the Spirit) cannot believe.

I think there can be more than one way to interpret “the flesh is of no avail”.

1. “the flesh” as distinguished from “my flesh”
2. The most obvious meaning (for me) is that Jesus is telling them that eating His body and drinking His blood is not for the purpose of providing physical nourishment for our flesh.
3. The health of the body (flesh) has no bearing on attaining eternal life.
4. Perhaps that eating Our Lord’s dead flesh (without His Spirit present in it) would be of “no avail” in giving us eternal life.

Nita

 

[guanophore]

In the NT, when Jesus and the other authors are speaking of our mortal inclinations, they refer to it as “the flesh”. Notice in the preceding verses Jesus specifically says, “MY FLESH”. Now, in 6:63, he reverts back to “the flesh”. He is not talking of His Body when he says “the flesh”.
Small detail. Big mis-conception, though.

If He were talking about His own flesh, then that would mean HIs sacrifice was of no avail!

 

[guanophore]

Not sure if this was the message on flesh. Afterall, even the disciples were troubled/confused by the teaching.

They surely should of had more insight into what Jesus was saying than the other Jews.

I think they did, they knew that, even if they did not understand Him, He still had the Words of Eternal Life.

 

[NotWorthy]

Not sure if this was the message on flesh. Afterall, even the disciples were troubled/confused by the teaching.

They surely should of had more insight into what Jesus was saying than the other Jews.

As much as this chapter is misunderstood by all the “learned” people today, why would you think that?

I think the Apostles didn’t have a clue what Jesus was talking about, because it was so radical. This is evidenced by Peter’s words, “Master, to whom else would we turn?” Translation: “I have no clue what you are saying, but I know that you are speaking the truth”.

To understand what Jesus was saying, the average Jew could make seemingly only two assumptions.

1. He’s talking literally and… Gross…
   or
2. He’s talking figuratively and asking us to hate and revile Him in order to gain Eternal Life.

Now, to the Jewish faithful, which one of these options makes sense?

 

[teachccd]

If He were talking about His own flesh, then that would mean HIs sacrifice was of no avail!

That is really the best explanation. His flesh was crucified and if it was of no avail then all of Christianity as we know it falls apart…teachccd

 

[BRB]

That is really the best explanation. His flesh was crucified and if it was of no avail then all of Christianity as we know it falls apart…teachccd

I’d guess Christ’s flesh was no different than what we have … probably identical. He grew, aged … and could be killed. Did it see corruption (decay) during 3 days in grave ? Who knows ? If it did … its was restored by resurrection.

But, His resurrected body is supernatural … and not subject to laws of science. Probably never changes / ages … and can’t be killed. Its incorruptible.

What body do we get in the Eucharist ? The Supernatural one.

Which body suffered for us on Cross ? The human one … that felt pain, sweated blood, and was cruelly marked by whip, spear, and thorns.

 

[Static]

Hey Mi,

There is a thread on page 2 that was right under your thread by BillTBC called John 6, Belief, and the Eucharist. I tried to deal with the whole of John 6 including the verse that troubles you also. Please if you get a chance glance through it & hopefully it will make things clearer to you on why we believe what we believe. I don’t believe it to be too lengthy, don’t think you will either.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[guanophore]

I’d guess Christ’s flesh was no different than what we have … probably identical. He grew, aged … and could be killed. Did it see corruption (decay) during 3 days in grave ? Who knows ? If it did … its was restored by resurrection.

But, His resurrected body is supernatural … and not subject to laws of science. Probably never changes / ages … and can’t be killed. Its incorruptible.

Jesus did take on the same flesh that we have, yet without the taint of sin. His physical body was pure, just as that of Adam before the fall. however, He was never “subject to the laws of science” ( by which I think you mean laws of nature). One subject to such does not work miracles, walk on water, become transfigured, etc. He has always been beyond the laws of nature.

What body do we get in the Eucharist ? The Supernatural one.

How do you figure that, when He gave it prior to His resurrection?

Which body suffered for us on Cross ? The human one … that felt pain, sweated blood, and was cruelly marked by whip, spear, and thorns.

Yes, and that is the Body that He gave at the Last supper. His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, all inclusive.

It is a mystery, the flesh is of no avail (trying to understand it with the carnal mind).

 

[BRB]

Jesus did take on the same flesh that we have, yet without the taint of sin. His physical body was pure, just as that of Adam before the fall. however, He was never “subject to the laws of science” ( by which I think you mean laws of nature). One subject to such does not work miracles, walk on water, become transfigured, etc. He has always been beyond the laws of nature.

).

Yes, His body did respond to Laws of Nature. Gravity, biologic growth, blood, sweat, tears, etc. Christ exibited human emotions just as we. Yet, He had the power to overcome His own Laws of Nature … whenever He chose.

Look at Peter … his faith enabled him to walk on water. Actually Jesus supported him … until Peter lost faith.

Why did satan tempt Jesus with jumping off temple … if gravity would not of pulled him downward ? Otherwise … that would of been a meaningless temptation.

 

[FCEGM]

I’d guess Christ’s flesh was no different than what we have … probably identical. He grew, aged … and could be killed. Did it see corruption (decay) during 3 days in grave ? Who knows ? If it did … its was restored by resurrection.

But, His resurrected body is supernatural … and not subject to laws of science. Probably never changes / ages … and can’t be killed. Its incorruptible.

What body do we get in the Eucharist ? The Supernatural one.

Which body suffered for us on Cross ? The human one … that felt pain, sweated blood, and was cruelly marked by whip, spear, and thorns.

Good points, BRB, but needs just a little “tweaking” because your terminology is a little off.

The Body of Christ that we receive in the Eucharist is not “supernatural” per se, but Christ’s Glorified Body. IOW, while, yes, it is His resurrected and ascended Body that we receive, this resurrected and ascended Body is not something more than human or beyond human, but the very natural, human Body that was born of the Virgin and which worked as a Carpenter in Nazareth, albeit it is now in a glorified state. This is an important clarification to make; and it is very important to realize that the Body in glory right now (i.e., the Body we receive in the Eucharist) is the same Body that suffered on the Cross, not a different one in any way; the only difference is that it is now in a glorified state. (“Supernatural” body could lead one to the error that Christ received an entirely new body upon His Resurrection, not His true physical body become glorified.)

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in A.D. 107, makes this very clear, when he says:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us …They abstain from the Eucharist and from the Prayer (i.e., the Mass) because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans, 6, A.D. 107).

Also, one can say that Christ’s Body, while dead, did experience some sense of “corruption” during the three days in the tomb. It was bruised and pierced, and lost blood, which naturally and physiologically results in some “corruption” (i.e., the death of cells, etc.), and it would have experienced some rigor mortis, which would be only natural to death (i.e., if the Shroud of Turin is real, it shows the buttox in a state of rigor mortis). Rather, what the prophecy recounted by St. Peter in Acts 2:27 refers to is the idea that Christ’s Body would not completely decay or remain in a state of decay, but would rise again, and be restored and glorified.

And, yes, Christ’s resurrected the glorified Body can never change or age, but is perfect and immutable. Thanks be to God!! :extrahappy:

 

[Static]

I wonder why the hits ( views ) are far & few when it comes to the Eucharist. ( mainly John chapter 6 ) What are people afraid of ? The Truth will set us free, but no one ever said it wouldn’t hurt.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )