John 6:63

[NotWorthy]

Can someone believe on Christ with all their heart - following Him as a disciple and giving themselves to sharing the gospel and reading His word…BUT…not eat that wafer - is that one damned because they did not partake?

Catholics teach that you, my friend, are Catholic. You can get to heaven, even without the Eucharist, for anything is possible with God.

But the best way I know of to put it is this.

Think of yourself on a football team in the Super Bowl. If you want to win the game, you want your best players on the team. But you are planning on playing without your star Quarterback (the Eucharist), your famous tailback (Sacrament of Penance) and your star Linebacker (the Communion of Saints).

You can still win the game, mind you, but the road is a little bit harder when you are rejecting the many wonderful graces that these gifts of Christ bestow on us.

Did that analogy make sense of have I been watching too much football, recently?

P.S. Please, out of respect for our beliefs, don’t refer to what Catholics teach is “The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ” simply as a wafer. You can call it “What Catholics call the Eucharist” or something like that, maybe? It will at least give us the impression that your questions are open and honest.

 

[Linkowski]

Catholics teach that you, my friend, are Catholic. You can get to heaven, even without the Eucharist, for anything is possible with God.

But the best way I know of to put it is this.

Think of yourself on a football team in the Super Bowl. If you want to win the game, you want your best players on the team. But you are planning on playing without your star Quarterback (the Eucharist), your famous tailback (Sacrament of Penance) and your star Linebacker (the Communion of Saints).

You can still win the game, mind you, but the road is a little bit harder when you are rejecting the many wonderful graces that these gifts of Christ bestow on us.

Did that analogy make sense of have I been watching too much football, recently?

P.S. Please, out of respect for our beliefs, don’t refer to what Catholics teach is “The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ” simply as a wafer. You can call it “What Catholics call the Eucharist” or something like that, maybe? It will at least give us the impression that your questions are open and honest.

I apologize for doing that…I actually heard this on the Marcus Grodi show…someone had said something to the effect of…“How amazing…that we have salvation all wrapped up in a wafer!!”

Anyway…

Is this an improper question to ask…

A lady called the Catholic radio station here in Detroit and asked if any grace could “make it” to the baby in her womb. She was answered as if this was a legitimate question…as if grace were something physical. This troubled me as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

I apologize for doing that…I actually heard this on the Marcus Grodi show…someone had said something to the effect of…“How amazing…that we have salvation all wrapped up in a wafer!!”

Anyway…

Is this an improper question to ask…

A lady called the Catholic radio station here in Detroit and asked if any grace could “make it” to the baby in her womb. She was answered as if this was a legitimate question…as if grace were something physical. This troubled me as well.

Grace entered into John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb, so yes, that is a legitimate question. I can’t imagine how, through normal means, that Grace can enter her baby until he/she is baptized, though. But again, all things are possible with God!!!

Catholics teach that Grace is simply the infusion of the Holy Spirit into the individual’s soul. Link, I know you probably understand that, but others following this thread may not.

BTW, sorry Link, if I mis-interpreted your intention on the “wafer” comment. I’ve heard the word used derisively from non-catholics.

BTW, did my last response answer your question adequately?

 

[Genesis315]

When He says the flesh profits nothing, He means the flesh which wars against the spirit, that is our carnal appetite. To say His flesh profits nothing would be the height of blasphemy. He became flesh, suffered and died in flesh, and rose again in flesh to profit our whole salvation.

 

[john_doran]

I looked at some of the other thread. I am not sure that you can assume that eat is being used here to actually EAT flesh (gnaw, etc.). This word does not necessarily mean that. I am certain that you could not apply it this way here in Rev 10:10

Re 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand , and ate it up ; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey : and as soon as I had eaten it , my belly was bitter .

This is the only word that could possibly be used in John 6…it can be either literal or figurative.

phago - a primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively):–eat, meat.

i’m not sure what you’re getting at here, since the greek word for eat actually used in john 6:54 is τρώγων, or “trogo”, which means to gnaw, crunch, or chew.

Linkowski:

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Flesh has many meanings here - Gr.** sarx**…

4561 σάρξ [sarx /sarx/] n f. Probably from the base of 4563; TDNT 7:98; TDNTA 1000; GK 4922; 151 occurrences; AV translates as “flesh” 147 times, “carnal” twice, **“carnally minded + 5427” **once, and “fleshly” once. 1 flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts. 2 the body. 2a the body of a man. 2b used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship. 2b1 born of natural generation. 2c the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”. 2c1 without any suggestion of depravity. 2c2 the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin. 2c3 the physical nature of man as subject to suffering. 3 a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast. 4 the flesh, denotes **mere human nature, the earthly nature **of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.

It is used in this way here…

Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace .

To think of this in literal terms is not proper - Jesus was trying to correct that very attitude in John 6:63 from what can see.

i don’t understand what you’re getting at here, either…

what jesus is saying in john 6:63, when he uses “sarx” for flesh, is that human nature or carnality profits us nothing. what do you think that have you presented here that makes the catholic understanding any less likely?

 

[Linkowski]

When He says the flesh profits nothing, He means the flesh which wars against the spirit, that is our carnal appetite. To say His flesh profits nothing would be the height of blasphemy. He became flesh, suffered and died in flesh, and rose again in flesh to profit our whole salvation.

This is not the context…although it is in Galatians 5.

 

[Linkowski]

i’m not sure what you’re getting at here, since the greek word for eat actually used in john 6:54 is τρώγων, or “trogo”, which means to gnaw, crunch, or chew.

i don’t understand what you’re getting at here, either…

what jesus is saying in john 6:63, when he uses “sarx” for flesh, is that human nature or carnality profits us nothing. what do you think that have you presented here that makes the catholic understanding any less likely?

Sorry…I was looking at other scriptures…

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them , Verily , verily , I say unto you , Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you .

It seems there are two different greek words used here…I did not see the other (trago). The word for drink (pino) is the same throughout…it can be taken literally or figuratively.

What I am saying in the second part of the post is that we should not be looking at this from the letter or literally (carnally) but from a spirtual standpoint. That is the thrust of what He is saying.

 

[john_doran]

Sorry…I was looking at other scriptures…

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them , Verily , verily , I say unto you , Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you .

It seems there are two different greek words used here…I did not see the other (trago). The word for drink (pino) is the same throughout…it can be taken literally or figuratively.

What I am saying in the second part of the post is that we should not be looking at this from the letter or literally (carnally) but from a spirtual standpoint. That is the thrust of what He is saying.

well, i understand that’s what you are saying, but i don’t understand how you support what you’re saying and avoid the significance of the non-figurative language used by christ to refer to the consumption of his flesh, as well as his unwillingness to correct what you’re saying was the misapprehension of the jews who obviously*** did*** understand him to mean the literal eating of his flesh.

 

[NotWorthy]

well, i understand that’s what you are saying, but i don’t understand how you support what you’re saying and avoid the significance of the non-figurative language used by christ to refer to the consumption of his flesh, as well as his unwillingness to correct what you’re saying was the misapprehension of the jews who obviously*** did*** understand him to mean the literal eating of his flesh.

The problem, Link, is:

a) Either Jesus was speaking literally, as Catholic teach.

or

b) He was speaking figuratively, and demanding that one must revile and loath Him in order to have Eternal Life. (As pointed out, the figurative meaning of “Trago” is to loathe and revile someone).

 

[jemfinch]

I am not sure that you can assume that eat is being used here to actually EAT flesh (gnaw, etc.). This word does not necessarily mean that. I am certain that you could not apply it this way here in Rev 10:10

…

This [phago] is the only word that could possibly be used in John 6…it can be either literal or figurative.

The only word that could possibly be used in John 6, eh? Don’t tell that to John the Evangelist! "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat (phagete, from phago) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds (trogon, from trogo) on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

phago - a primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively):–eat, meat.

Please provide a reference to a use of the word trogo in a figurative sense. I’ve not seen one myself, since it’s such a physical word (it means to chew, to masticate).

And please don’t post such long copies from Greek sources, if we want to look it up, we all have the internet

So, then how does this verse fit in with the CC doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist??? This is the main question that I have.

When Jesus said, “My words are life,” He was hearkening back to Deuteronomy, where Moses told the people, “Take to heart all the words by which I am warning you today, that you may command them to your children, that they may be careful to do all the words of this law. For it is no empty word for you, but your very life, and by this word you shall live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess.”

Another common problem I’ve yet to see any Protestants wrestle with is the transition from “I’m giving my flesh to the world,” to “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” Where does this drinking of Jesus’ blood come from if He’s not talking about the Eucharist? Though they may argue about what He meant by “eat my flesh,” this “drink my blood” simply comes out of the blue. For Catholics, this isn’t a problem. There’s only one place in Scripture that I recall Jesus giving us His blood to drink, and so John 6 makes sense.

Jeremy

 

[Techno2000]

First off, please do not tackle me for asking this question…I am simply trying to understand.

Leading up to John 6:63 we have Christ saying:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, **He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.**48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
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.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Then He says this to try to explain…

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I know that you are saying that you are eating his flesh and drinking his blood when you take the Eucharist…but, in this verse, He is bascially telling them that the discourse that He is giving them (including words/phrases that say “eating flesh”, “drinking blood”, etc.) needs to be looked at from a spirtual aspect (these words are spirit)…not from a carnal/fleshly aspect (literal). Remember, the object of verse 63 are “His words”.

So, then how does this verse fit in with the CC doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist??? This is the main question that I have.

AFTERTHOUGHT

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Christ is called the Word of God…

Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Is there a parallel here? I am not sure. This was just an afterthought.

May God Lead Us All…

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus is saying that this can not be understood by Human Reasoning, it must be understood in the Supernatural Spirit World.

 

[Gray]

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

 

[MariaG]

It seems there are two different greek words used here…I did not see the other (trago). The word for drink (pino) is the same throughout…it can be taken literally or figuratively.

The problem, Link, is:

a) Either Jesus was speaking literally, as Catholic teach.

or

b) He was speaking figuratively, and demanding that one must revile and loath Him in order to have Eternal Life. (As pointed out, the figurative meaning of “Trago” is to loathe and revile someone).

"The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.

God Bless,
Maria

Your contention is that since the word trago can be used literally or figuratively, the figurative use must be in play here. However, the figurative translation of those words mean to cause harm to a person. This usage was used then as well as even today.

So either Christ was speaking literally, eat my flesh, drink my blood and you will have eternal life

Or

Figuratively - revile me and you will have eternal life.

What say you now?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

I see you’ve been back, but still no response?

John 6:67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”