John 6:63?

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Since John is the only one who mentions the bread of life discourse you would think that he would tie it in with his last supper account since it is such an important teaching.

John knew of the other Gospels–and felt no need to repeat what they said. And the Church had already been celebrating the Eucharist for 20-some years

His intent was a “spiritual” gospel (NOT symbolic)-and to fill in details of the Gallilee mission that the synoptics did not address.

 

[389670]

AlegreFe;3964528]I don’t get your comment. Are you saying that eating the flesh of Jesus Christ does not lead to eternal life?

The problem is that Jesus never makes any comment that later His words would refer to the last supper. In all the accounts of the last supper there is no mention by Jesus that by eating it you will have eternal life.

Then explain these passages to me:

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:53-58 “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 you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

If Jesus was speaking in a literal sense then what He would be advocating is some kind canabalism. Rather it makes best sense to understand these passages in a metaphorical sense.

Do you realize that the anti-Christ (mark of the beast, 666) is the one who denies God come in the flesh. And that’s not just the fact that Jesus was born into this world, not just that the Word was made flesh. But also the fact that Jesus remains with us in the flesh here in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the world.

If you look at the passage in I John you will that he is making a reference to Jesus having a real body of flesh and blood. He makes no reference at all about the eurachrist.

John 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

Don’t walk away from Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[389670]

John knew of the other Gospels–and felt no need to repeat what they said. And the Church had already been celebrating the Eucharist for 20-some years

His intent was a “spiritual” gospel (NOT symbolic)-and to fill in details of the Gallilee mission that the synoptics did not address.

Still the other gospel accounts of the supper make no mention of eating it will give a person eternal life. For such an important doctrine we should expect to see some connection somewhere.

 

[cfrancis]

Still the other gospel accounts of the supper make no mention of eating it will give a person eternal life. For such an important doctrine we should expect to see some connection somewhere.

Again, following the same reasoning, you would “For such an important doctrine” of the canon of Scripture “we should expect to see some” mention in Scripture, instead of being developed over the first 350 years of Christianity.

 

[cazayoux]

If Jesus was speaking in a literal sense then what He would be advocating is some kind canabalism.

Those following him understood him to mean exactly what you state above. This is completely reviling to the Jews that followed him.
This is EXACTLY why it was such a hard teaching and some walked away from him.

michel

 

[myredeemerlives]

And the truth shall set you free.

God’s word is a powerful sword mate, keep reading and trusting it.

 

[GJx86]

Since John is the only one who mentions the bread of life discourse you would think that he would tie it in with his last supper account since it is such an important teaching.

You would only expect this if St. John were providing a treatise on the finer points of Catholic theology. In that case, he would indeed want to underscore and emphasize the most important points of his theology, just as a book on the theory of calculus will underscore how everything in calculus relates to the definition of a mathematical limit.

But as so often happens in Scripture, this is not St. John’s goal. The terms he uses in the first chapter of his Gospel suggest that he is offering a general apologetic work that aims to show how Christ, as Lord of all, is both the fulfillment of God’s relationship with the Israelites and the ultimate answer to man’s questions about his existence. St. John’s aim is simply to provide testimony about Jesus’ life so that his readers can see the evidence for themselves (cf. John 21:24-25). His goal isn’t to emphasize important doctrines; it’s to show, by his testimony, that Jesus is the Son of God.

To develop a systematic theology based on what Jesus says in John 6, we have to look at the entirety of Apostolic teaching, both as it’s recorded in the Bible and as it was taught to the Apostles’ successors – and all this testimony combines to show that Jesus meant His words literally in the Bread of Life discourse.

 

[Coder]

Maybe there is somebody out there that can see where my confusion is coming from and help me understand it where both John 6:55 and 6:63 can be seen as compatible…

Look at John 3:6: ***What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. ***
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john3.htm

Now ask yourself this question? When Jesus said that He is the Bread from Heaven is He saying that His flesh is born of Spirit?

Isn’t that exactly why we profit from eating His flesh? Because His flesh is not born of flesh but born of Spirit?

The people were apparently thinking of flesh in earthly terms. In John 6 Jesus emphasizes that He is not referring to flesh like an earthly meal that only satisfies physical hunger temporarily. He emphasizes that He is referring to spiritual food. At mass the priest says “It will become our spiritual drink”. It is the Spirit that gives life. In the creed we refer to the Holy Spirit as the “giver of life”.

Best

 

[389670]

Again, following the same reasoning, you would “For such an important doctrine” of the canon of Scripture “we should expect to see some” mention in Scripture, instead of being developed over the first 350 years of Christianity.

This does not address the issue of why we don’t see any mention of taking the Lord’s supper and by doing so we gain eternal life. None of the supper accounts mention this.

 

[389670]

You would only expect this if St. John were providing a treatise on the finer points of Catholic theology. In that case, he would indeed want to underscore and emphasize the most important points of his theology, just as a book on the theory of calculus will underscore how everything in calculus relates to the definition of a mathematical limit.

But as so often happens in Scripture, this is not St. John’s goal. The terms he uses in the first chapter of his Gospel suggest that he is offering a general apologetic work that aims to show how Christ, as Lord of all, is both the fulfillment of God’s relationship with the Israelites and the ultimate answer to man’s questions about his existence. St. John’s aim is simply to provide testimony about Jesus’ life so that his readers can see the evidence for themselves (cf. John 21:24-25). His goal isn’t to emphasize important doctrines; it’s to show, by his testimony, that Jesus is the Son of God.

To develop a systematic theology based on what Jesus says in John 6, we have to look at the entirety of Apostolic teaching, both as it’s recorded in the Bible and as it was taught to the Apostles’ successors – and all this testimony combines to show that Jesus meant His words literally in the Bread of Life discourse.

The problem is that none of the apostles in their letters make any mention of this. Paul is the only one that mentions the last supper that i’m aware of and he makes no mention or inference that eating it leads to eternal life…It makes me wonder–

 

[cfrancis]

This does not address the issue of why we don’t see any mention of taking the Lord’s supper and by doing so we gain eternal life. None of the supper accounts mention this.

You’re right: what my question does do is shed light on the flaw in your logic.

 

[AlegreFe]

The problem is that none of the apostles in their letters make any mention of this. Paul is the only one that mentions the last supper that i’m aware of and he makes no mention or inference that eating it leads to eternal life…It makes me wonder–

You only seem to want to take Paul’s words of the last supper. What about what JESUS said in John’s Gospel. I notice many protestants make the mistake of ONLY taking Paul’s letters as important but then they seem to want to disregard the Gospels where Jesus speaks. Why is that? Or they take Paul’s letters as more important than the Gospels. Take the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said that His flesh gives eternal life. Jesus said that if anyone eats His flesh & drinks His blood they will have eternal life. Why do you ignore the words of Jesus Christ?!

Have you seen the movie The Passion Of The Christ? If you haven’t, get the DVD and watch the movie. There are several different DVDs out there for that movie. In the meantime, please watch my video Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[packermann]

Many times the “flesh” means human ability and power, in contrast with God’s power.

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:25

*For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, *

Rom 8:3

St Paul is not saying that sin resides in our fleshly bodies. That would be a Gnostic heresy. Instead, “flesh” means our human natures. Protestants and Catholic commentators agree with this definition of flesh.

But then in John 6:63, some Protestants define “flesh” as the physicalness of Christ’s body. But if we interpret this verse that way, then we would have to deny that the physical sufferings of Christ on the Cross purchased our redemption. For if “the flesh profits for nothing” then how could Christ’s fleshly body being hung on the Cross profit for our salvation?

So it makes better sense to see that the “flesh profits for nothing” as meaning that man’s own power apart from God profits for nothing.

With that in mind, this verse actually reinforces the Catholic interpretration. Jesus was saying that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that bread can become His body. No mere man in his own ability can do this (“the flesh profits for nothing”).

 

[peary]

I do believe as Jesus said in John 6:55 - “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” But a little bit further down is where I am having trouble. In John 6:63, He says, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” It seems that our Lord is saying that His flesh and blood should be thought of spiritually. Maybe there is somebody out there that can see where my confusion is coming from and help me understand it where both John 6:55 and 6:63 can be seen as compatible because, at the moment, it really doesn’t. Thanks in advance and God bless you all.

Curtis

So, why do you think they all walked away in John 6:66?

 

[389670]

AlegreFe;3968377]You only seem to want to take Paul’s words of the last supper. What about what JESUS said in John’s Gospel. I notice many protestants make the mistake of ONLY taking Paul’s letters as important but then they seem to want to disregard the Gospels where Jesus speaks. Why is that? Or they take Paul’s letters as more important than the Gospels. Take the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said that His flesh gives eternal life. Jesus said that if anyone eats His flesh & drinks His blood they will have eternal life. Why do you ignore the words of Jesus Christ?!

I am not ignoring the words of Christ. i ask you. Where in the supper accounts does Jesus specifically promise that when a person eats the bread etc that they will have eternal life?

Have you seen the movie The Passion Of The Christ? If you haven’t, get the DVD and watch the movie. There are several different DVDs out there for that movie.

i have seen it. It has some good points but its not entirely scriptural.

In the meantime, please watch my video Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

i’ll check it out

 

[curtishouse29]

So, why do you think they all walked away in John 6:66?

They stopped believing when they heard this…Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

 

[Coder]

John 6:51: the bread
Luke 22:19: he took the bread

John 6:51: that I will give
Luke 22:19: gave it to them

John 6:51: is my flesh
Luke 22:19: is my body

John 6:51: for the life of the world
Luke 22:19: for you

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john6.htm
usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm

 

[peary]

They stopped believing when they heard this…Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

See? Then you’re not confused after all.

 

[curtishouse29]

I guess I’m not confused. I could have just been trying to make it too confusing deep in my mind or something…It seems very easy to understand now. If I didnt believe in the Real Presence though, I would be about as confused as one possibly could be lol Praise God that I believe Him when He says that For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 

[peary]

I guess I’m not confused. I could have just been trying to make it too confusing deep in my mind or something…It seems very easy to understand now. If I didnt believe in the Real Presence though, I would be about as confused as one possibly could be lol Praise God that I believe Him when He says that For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.