John 6:63?

[cazayoux]

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–

What’s to wonder?
Jesus said it in John.
We have an account of the last supper.
There is no contradiction here.

The connection between the two was understood by Christians for at least 15 centuries (including Luther) the same as today’s Catholic understand it.

Since some today distance themselves as much as they can from the Catholic Church, they work to deny as many Catholic teachings as possible.
They’ve thrown the baby Jesus out with the bath water.

So today you ask “why wasn’t it made more clear?”
It was clear to those in the first century. (we know from their writings)
It was clear to those after the apostles in the second through 4th centuries. (we know from their writings)
It’s was clear to those all the way up to the 10th century. (we know from their writings)
It was clear to those all the way up to the 15th century. (we know from their writings)
It is clear to Catholics, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics even today.

You’re call for clarity is to ignore what has been understood and has been a constant teaching for 2000 years.

obstinate?

michel

 

[Valke2]

A random thought. When discussing why keeping kosher is no longer requried for christians, the verse regarding what is put into the mouth is not important (can’t remember the quote but I’m sure you know what I mean), is usually quoted.

How is that reasoning reconciled with the importance Jesus places on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, set forth in the OP?

 

[389670]

cazayoux;3970323]What’s to wonder?
Jesus said it in John.
We have an account of the last supper.
There is no contradiction here.

Where in any of the supper accounts is eternal life mentioned by Jesus? I have read through all of them and i don’t see any mention of such a thing. Maybe i missed it and if so perhaps you can show me the chapter and verse where it is.

The connection between the two was understood by Christians for at least 15 centuries (including Luther) the same as today’s Catholic understand it.

Since some today distance themselves as much as they can from the Catholic Church, they work to deny as many Catholic teachings as possible.
They’ve thrown the baby Jesus out with the bath water.

So today you ask “why wasn’t it made more clear?”
It was clear to those in the first century. (we know from their writings)
It was clear to those after the apostles in the second through 4th centuries. (we know from their writings)
It’s was clear to those all the way up to the 10th century. (we know from their writings)
It was clear to those all the way up to the 15th century. (we know from their writings)
It is clear to Catholics, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics even today.

You’re call for clarity is to ignore what has been understood and has been a constant teaching for 2000 years.

obstinate?
michel

 

[abenassi]

John 6:66 always struck me as the true mark of the beast. If that verse doesnt stick out to you, I dont think any would. They denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and believed no longer. That epitomizes the mark of the beast in my opinion.

The interesting thing I learned about the verse numberings is that they are a Protestant invention. Ironic?

 

[cazayoux]

Where in any of the supper accounts is eternal life mentioned by Jesus? I have read through all of them and i don’t see any mention of such a thing. Maybe i missed it and if so perhaps you can show me the chapter and verse where it is.

What we see in the supper accounts is Jesus saying ‘this is my body’ as he held the bread and ‘this is my blood’ as he held the chalice.

This makes no sense if the apostles do not know what he means by this.
But the apostles were there for John 6 and know what he is talking about.

Without John 6, the last supper references to His body and blood would not make sense to the apostles.

Why is it an issue to use John 6 to know what he means by ‘body’ and ‘blood’?

michel

 

[389670]

cazayoux;3972617]

Originally Posted by 389670
Where in any of the supper accounts is eternal life mentioned by Jesus? I have read through all of them and i don’t see any mention of such a thing. Maybe i missed it and if so perhaps you can show me the chapter and verse where it is.

cazayoux
What we see in the supper accounts is Jesus saying ‘this is my body’ as he held the bread and ‘this is my blood’ as he held the chalice.

This makes no sense if the apostles do not know what he means by this.
But the apostles were there for John 6 and know what he is talking about.

Without John 6, the last supper references to His body and blood would not make sense to the apostles.

It seems that if you take a “literal” view of John 6 and what He said at the supper you run into all kinds of problems. For one if the apostles thought that Jesus was literally speaking of His physical body before them they would had to believe He was advocating some kind of canabalism. We have no indication from the texts that they thought this. We also know that Jesus is already present in all true believers by His Spirit. Passages such as Romans 8:9-11 and Colossians 1:27 are a couple of passages that demonstrate this.

Why is it an issue to use John 6 to know what he means by ‘body’ and ‘blood’?

It isn’t. Catholics use this passage to show that its about the eurachrist when there is no biblical connection to it.

michel

 

[Coder]

Catholics use this passage to show that its about the eurachrist when there is no biblical connection to it.

The apostles knew what the Bible meant and they handed on correct understanding of the Scriptures, the same Scriptures understood by the Church when the Church decided which Scriptures are of divine inspiration. The knowledge of the Eucharist as it had already been practiced by the apostles and the Church was with the Church before the Scriptures were formally assembled. This communal knowledge admits of no other possibilities of interpreting these Scriptures. No one else has any authority to come along from the “outside” and claim they know what our own Scriptures mean.

2 Timothy 3:14:
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy3.htm

We know who we learned our teaching from. You are disagreeing with the apostles of Jesus Christ Himself when you deny the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I invite you to join the Catholic Church, receive the Body of Jesus and have the life in you that Jesus spoke of.

 

[NotWorthy]

It seems that if you take a “literal” view of John 6 and what He said at the supper you run into all kinds of problems. For one if the apostles thought that Jesus was literally speaking of His physical body before them they would had to believe He was advocating some kind of canabalism.

And yet this is exactly what the early Church was called. So evidently, from the outset, the Church has taught this.

We have no indication from the texts that they thought this. We also know that Jesus is already present in all true believers by His Spirit. Passages such as Romans 8:9-11 and Colossians 1:27 are a couple of passages that demonstrate this.

We have the words of Peter. “To whom else would we turn to. You have the words of everlasting life”. Translation: I haven’t a clue what you are talking about, Lord. But I trust you.

It isn’t. Catholics use this passage to show that its about the eurachrist when there is no biblical connection to it.

It’s odd that you mention this, for this is a false statement for those with eyes to see.

John 6:56 - **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. I think the better translation is “abides” in me. But in any event, the verb Jesus uses here will return at a later event. When is that event?

John 15:4 - **Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.

 

[cazayoux]

It seems that if you take a “literal” view of John 6 and what He said at the supper you run into all kinds of problems. For one if the apostles thought that Jesus was literally speaking of His physical body before them they would had to believe He was advocating some kind of canabalism.
We have no indication from the texts that they thought this.

You are right!
This is EXACTLY why it was a hard teaching and so many of his disciples left.
This idea of eating (gnawing) flesh was absolutely grotesque to them.
The fact that those disciples left is the very indication from the texts that they thought this.
They didn’t understand the ‘how’.
It’s the ‘how’ that the apostles learn at the last supper.

michel

 

[packermann]

For one if the apostles thought that Jesus was literally speaking of His physical body before them they would had to believe He was advocating some kind of canabalism.|

This is also what the early Christians were accused of - cannabalism. This is they were fed to the lions by the Romans. Id it was only symbolic, it would have been an easy thing for the Christians to set them straight. All they had to do was to explain to their persecuters that it was only symbolic. But they couldn’t, because they were literally eating the body and blood of Christ. And it was hard to explain to an outsider how this was not cannabalism.

 

[Coder]

It seems that our Lord is saying that His flesh and blood should be thought of spiritually.

Actually, that’s absolutely right. When Jesus says “the flesh is of no avail”, by “the flesh” He is not referring to the Word made flesh, he is referring to earthly flesh. This confirms that humans cannot save ourselves - our flesh without God’s Spirit cannot take us to Heaven. Romans 8:20: “…for creation was made subject to futility,”. See how that agrees with “…the flesh is of no avail.”

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

 

[389670]

NotWorthy;3973808]And yet this is exactly what the early Church was called. So evidently, from the outset, the Church has taught this.

We have the words of Peter. “To whom else would we turn to. You have the words of everlasting life”. Translation: I haven’t a clue what you are talking about, Lord. But I trust you.

It’s odd that you mention this, for this is a false statement for those with eyes to see.

John 6:56 - ***Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains ***in me and I in him. I think the better translation is “abides” in me. But in any event, the verb Jesus uses here will return at a later event. When is that event?

This is how the word “eat” is used in John 6–Spiritually to feed by faith and be sustained in a spiritual and eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 53). To drink is meant figuratively not literally.
Jesus does not allude in this passage to the last supper nor is it ever mentioned that by eating the supper you will have eternal life.

John 15:4 - ***Remain ***in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.

 

[cazayoux]

This is how the word “eat” is used in John 6–Spiritually to feed by faith and be sustained in a **spiritual **and eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 53). To drink is meant **figuratively **not literally.
Jesus does not allude in this passage to the last supper nor is it ever mentioned that by eating the supper you will have eternal life.

You make the mistake of equating ‘spiritual’ with ‘figurative’.
Were you baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Figurative?
The spirit is REAL!!! … not figurative or symbolic.
It’s more real that our flesh.

michel

 

[NotWorthy]

This is how the word “eat” is used in John 6–Spiritually to feed by faith and be sustained in a spiritual and eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 53). To drink is meant figuratively not literally.
Jesus does not allude in this passage to the last supper nor is it ever mentioned that by eating the supper you will have eternal life.

So, first you say there is no connection between John 6 and the Last Supper.

So, then, I show you that Jesus says in John 6, “You will abide if you eat my flesh” (paraphrase), which of course is future tense, and then in the Last Supper Jesus says, “Abide in me”, meaning you are already in me, now remain there.

I showed you the link you asked for.

So now, in a change of tactics you own up, "Well, he was just speaking spiritually… yada, yada.

The problem is, Jesus changes the tone of “to eat”. The last three times, he uses, what’s the word, “Trago”. This literally means to knaw and grind on His bones. In the psalms, though, if this is to be taken spiritually, then that means to hate and revile someone. So, if Jesus is speaking spiritually, then He is asking the Jews to hate and revile Him.

You see why they are confused? Either Jesus is speaking spiritually and He is asking to be hated and reviled, or Jesus is speaking figuratively, in which Jesus means… oooooohhhhh, yuck!

 

[Coder]

To drink is meant figuratively not literally.

John 6:55 “…my blood is true drink.”

I already told you that the apostles handed on the correct understanding - there’s no question to even debate. This is just a new made up idea from recent centuries.

2 Timothy 4:3-4:
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

I would say one example of this prophecy being fulfilled was in about the 1500s. Someone probably handed on this false doctrine to you.

I invite you to meet Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[AlegreFe]

curtishouse29:

It seems that our Lord is saying that His flesh and blood should be thought of spiritually.

Actually, that’s absolutely right. When Jesus says “the flesh is of no avail”, by “the flesh” He is not referring to the Word made flesh, he is referring to earthly flesh. This confirms that humans cannot save ourselves - our flesh without God’s Spirit cannot take us to Heaven. Romans 8:20: “…for creation was made subject to futility,”. See how that agrees with “…the flesh is of no avail.”

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

That’s right.

When Jesus said, (paraphrasing) “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascend?” That was the first time He let them know about the Spirit. He was telling them that it was His spiritual flesh. But His Spiritual flesh is REAL not symbolic.

Curtis, Spiritual does NOT mean symbolic.

In the Old Testament after offering up a sacrifice such as a lamb, they ate of that lamb. They all had to eat of it if they wanted to be in the covenant with God and also in union with one another. They had to eat the lamb, they did not eat a symbol of the lamb. To them, that lamb was the real food that brought them together (communion) and also in covenant with God. We do the same thing, only this time we eat of the True Lamb of God who shed His REAL blood for us. There is nothing symbolic about the Flesh & Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Todd_Easton]

It isn’t. Catholics use this passage to show that its about the eurachrist when there is no biblical connection to it.

The probability that John 6 is about the Eucharist is very high since two of the three occurrences of that word in John’s Gospel are in John 6, specifically John 6:11 (eucharistesas) and John 6:23 (eucharistesantos)

 

[Philthy]

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

I apologize if this has already been covered, but I wanted to point out your logical error.

You make the conclusion that “our Lord is saying that His flesh and blood should be thought of spiritually”. This is a true conclusion, however it does not mean that his flesh and blood should necessarily be regarded symbolically, or that if they are, that they should only be regarded symbolically. This is the unstated conclusion that you have in subsequently asking for others to help you understand. Obviously we cannot use our “rational” fleshly minds to grasp many of the realities of Christianity - this requires faith, which requires a “renewal of the mind” by the Holy Spirit. The Trinity would be another example of a concept that requires faith and a spiritual understanding.
In short, you seem to have confused spiritual with symbolic, and you have unecessarily imposed that if, in fact, his words are spiritual then they cannot also be literal.

Again, sorry if I’m repeating…

 

[389670]

AlegreFe;3975819]That’s right.

When Jesus said, (paraphrasing) “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascend?” That was the first time He let them know about the Spirit. He was telling them that it was His spiritual flesh. But His Spiritual flesh is REAL not symbolic.

Curtis, Spiritual does NOT mean symbolic.
What does spiritual mean?

In the Old Testament after offering up a sacrifice such as a lamb, they ate of that lamb. They all had to eat of it if they wanted to be in the covenant with God and also in union with one another. They had to eat the lamb, they did not eat a symbol of the lamb. To them, that lamb was the real food that brought them together (communion) and also in covenant with God. We do the same thing, only this time we eat of the True Lamb of God who shed His REAL blood for us. There is nothing symbolic about the Flesh & Blood of Jesus Christ

.

I’d like to hear more about your comment about eating the lamb to be in covenant with God. Do you have some references for this?

 

[NotWorthy]

What does spiritual mean?

I’d like to hear more about your comment about eating the lamb to be in covenant with God. Do you have some references for this?

I think he means the Israelite must eat the Lamb at the first Passover or else their first-born son would die.

In other words, they could perform everything else God commanded, but if they didn’t partake of the lamb, they had no life in them (temporal life, that is).