John 6:66

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatistruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whatistruth

Guest
Protestants, please read carefully. I send this with love. The reformers left the Council of Trent over the important doctrine of “Transubstantiation”, Why? Jesus said “You must eat his Flesh and drink his Blood or you do not have life in you”. You state he was speaking symbolically and metaphorically? Do you understand this is where Judas and the other disciples no longer followed Jesus over a symbol? I think not! This is in John 6:66 do you think this is by chance it is in this chapter and verse? I think not! Do you want to be known as a “Judas Priest”! I think not! The Catholic Church is correct on all doctrine, please come home the doors are always open. We do not lock our doors so, Come visit Jesus in the tabernacles throughout the world, he is waiting on all of you. Jesus prayed to the Father for “Perfectly One” ( John 17 ). Are we perfectly one protestants? I think not! His will be done with or without you.

Peace be with you all and come home soon!

WhatisTruth
 
Sorry, I forgot the “S” in Jesus from my last post.

WhatisTruth
 
In the middle east (then and now (I think now)) to ‘eat ones flesh and drink their blood’ means to insult them, or attack them unjustly. So any argument that it is symbolic is nonsensical because he would be saying that anyone who attacks him will enter into heaven… That’s silly.
 
Protestants, please read carefully. I send this with love. The reformers left the Council of Trent over the important doctrine of “Transubstantiation”, Why? Jesus said “You must eat his Flesh and drink his Blood or you do not have life in you”. You state he was speaking symbolically and metaphorically? Do you understand this is where Judas and the other disciples no longer followed Jesus over a symbol? I think not! This is in John 6:66 do you think this is by chance it is in this chapter and verse? I think not! Do you want to be known as a “Judas Priest”! I think not! The Catholic Church is correct on all doctrine, please come home the doors are always open. We do not lock our doors so, Come visit Jesus in the tabernacles throughout the world, he is waiting on all of you. Jesus prayed to the Father for “Perfectly One” ( John 17 ). Are we perfectly one protestants? I think not! His will be done with or without you.

Peace be with you all and come home soon!

WhatisTruth
Jesus here explains what he’s talking about in the earlier versus, not literal body and blood, but spiritual.

63(F) It is the Spirit who gives life;(G) the flesh is no help at all.(H) The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
 
Jesus here explains what he’s talking about in the earlier versus, not literal body and blood, but spiritual.

63(F) It is the Spirit who gives life;(G) the flesh is no help at all.(H) The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
That is not an explanation that he wasn’t speaking literally. I’m not even sure how it can be interpretted as such, unless you start from that possition.

And why would so many turn his back on him if that was the simple meaning? No, he was asking them to believe something which violated deeply held Jewish taboos.

However the verse numbering is just a coincidence.
 
In the middle east (then and now (I think now)) to ‘eat ones flesh and drink their blood’ means to insult them, or attack them unjustly. So any argument that it is symbolic is nonsensical because he would be saying that anyone who attacks him will enter into heaven… That’s silly.
Itseems to me that you are being grossly inconsistent. You say:
  1. to ‘eat ones flesh and drink their blood’ means to insult them, or attack them unjustly; and
  2. So any argument that it is symbolic is nonsensical…
#2 only follows from #1 if we add: 3) that the God of the universe must only say words and phrases by using their established meaning.

#3 is also silly…and if, the established meaning is what Jesus used, then as you say, “he would be saying that anyone who attacks him will enter into heaven” …and that would mean that he wasn’t speaking about the consumption of a real (bodily and hematic) presence. If you allow an irregular meaning to Jesus’s words (to enable Catholic doctrine), then on what basis can you say that another irregular meaning (that would enable a symbolic understanding) is prohibited?
 
And why would so many turn his back on him if that was the simple meaning?
B/c they didn’t understand his meaning…which still goes on today. Please note that few in his audience could have been expected to understand his words symbolically and even fewer, if any, could have been expected to understand his words as referring to some consumption of a “real bodily presence”…because such a concept was absolutely unknown. In either case, the audience did not understand his meaning.
No, he was asking them to believe something which violated deeply held Jewish taboos.
He was asking them to gnaw on his actual flesh? Do you gnaw on his actual flesh at the Eucharist? If yes, how is that not cannibalism? If no, then he wasn’t actually requiring them to eat his flesh.
However the verse numbering is just a coincidence.
Are you sure? Perhaps the pope has infallibly declared that the chapter and verse designations in the Bible were infallibly set by the protestant scholars who produced the Geneva Bible.
 
Protestants, please read carefully. …

Peace be with you all and come home soon!

WhatisTruth
Well, given a choice between your understanding of that verse and Augustine’s understanding of that verse as figurative…I’ll go with Augustine. He wrote:

** “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.**
 
B/c they didn’t understand his meaning…which still goes on today. Please note that few in his audience could have been expected to understand his words symbolically and even fewer, if any, could have been expected to understand his words as referring to some consumption of a “real bodily presence”…because such a concept was absolutely unknown. In either case, the audience did not understand his meaning.
And no one ever understood the meaning until it magically came to whichever heresiarch 1500 years later because Christ never bothered to correct his apostles, Makes great sense.
He was asking them to gnaw on his actual flesh? Do you gnaw on his actual flesh at the Eucharist? If yes, how is that not cannibalism? If no, then he wasn’t actually requiring them to eat his flesh.
What? That made no sense.
Are you sure? Perhaps the pope has infallibly declared that the chapter and verse designations in the Bible were infallibly set by the protestant scholars who produced the Geneva Bible.
That also makes no sense. What do verse/chapter designations have to do with the pope or with protestants? They are a device to make reading easier. They have nothing to do with doctrine, and minimal to do with practice.
 
And no one ever understood the meaning until it magically came to whichever heresiarch 1500 years later because Christ never bothered to correct his apostles, Makes great sense.
You need to brush up on your history…as I have pointed out already on this thread, Augustine plainly stated that the command to"eat his flesh" is a figure…and Augustine wouldn’t have been alone.
What? That made no sense.
hmmm…such simple wording is lost on you? …are you from eastern Canada perhaps? . It is very simple Nine_Two. You claim that Jesus was requiring “them to believe something which violated deeply held Jewish taboos.”

What taboo would that be? Cannibalism? …If so, and if you do not particpate in cannibalism (at your Eucharist), and if you think your church is following Jesus’s requirement, then Jesus wasn’t requiring a violation of a taboo. If cannibalism wasn’t the taboo in question, then show me the Jewish law that prohibits eating a body that is “really present” w/o a physical presence (when such a concept didn’t exist until it was invented after Jesus and the apostles departed this globe).
That also makes no sense. What do verse/chapter designations have to do with the pope or with protestants? They are a device to make reading easier. They have nothing to do with doctrine, and minimal to do with practice.
Sarcasm is something that you haven’t seen before? Now I am thinking that you must be from Ottawa. 😉
 
You need to brush up on your history…as I have pointed out already on this thread, Augustine plainly stated that the command to"eat his flesh" is a figure…and Augustine wouldn’t have been alone.
Do you have more readings from the Church Fathers? Because none of them are infallible, and one saying something does not set a precedent.
hmmm…such simple wording is lost on you? …are you from eastern Canada perhaps? . It is very simple Nine_Two. You claim that Jesus was requiring “them to believe something which violated deeply held Jewish taboos.”
No, it was the bad grammar to be perfectly honest. And nope, not Eastern Canada. Sadly you’re attitude toward the East gives me this horrible feeling that we may be in the same city. And yes, Jesus asked them to break taboos.
What taboo would that be? Cannibalism? …If so, and if you do not particpate in cannibalism (at your Eucharist), and if you think your church is following Jesus’s requirement, then Jesus wasn’t requiring a violation of a taboo. If cannibalism wasn’t the taboo in question, then show me the Jewish law that prohibits eating a body that is “really present” w/o a physical presence (when such a concept didn’t exist until it was invented after Jesus and the apostles departed this globe).
Yes, it would have been a taboo towards drinking blood and eating human flesh. Not completely cannibalism, since the blood taboo in Jewish culture wasn’t limited to human blood. If you wish to call what we do cannibalism, I suppose that is your perogitive, but there is no sin, or taboo in it, since it is sanctified by the Lord.
Sarcasm is something that you haven’t seen before? Now I am thinking that you must be from Ottawa. 😉
Please tell me you’re from Vancouver. I beg you.
 
Samaritan woman
John 4:13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst.

John 4:31 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” 33Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” 34"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. d, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The first two cases are obvious that they are not of physical substance. In John 4:34, we find out what substance feeds Jesus. We two are fed this in John 6. Jesus’ concern has always been for the spiritual body for it is in that which we should spend eternity, not a physical body.
 
Do you have more readings from the Church Fathers?
yep
Because none of them are infallible, …
we’re agreed on that…but it shows that Zwingli wasn’t the first to see that command figuratively
…and one saying something does not set a precedent.
and we agree on this
No, it was the bad grammar to be perfectly honest. And nope, not Eastern Canada. Sadly you’re attitude toward the East gives me this horrible feeling that we may be in the same city.
still a bit of a long shot…there are a number of cities west of Thunder bay that have little use for the east
And yes, Jesus asked them to break taboos.
Yes, it would have been a taboo towards drinking blood and eating human flesh. Not completely cannibalism, since the blood taboo in Jewish culture wasn’t limited to human blood. If you wish to call what we do cannibalism,…
No I wouldn’t, b/c your teeth never touch human flesh nor do your lips actually touch human blood…no chewing and eating of flesh actually occurs nor does blood actually get swallowed. To use Catholic terminology no accidents of body or blood are involved. I think it ironic that some gnostics argued that Christ only appeared to come in the flesh (but didn’t actually do so) and shortly thereafter some overly pious started to argue that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist though he only appears as bread…go figure, seems like the opposite sides of the same coin
Please tell me you’re from Vancouver. I beg you.
Nope…please tell me that you are from Edmonchuck …home to many of Ukrainian (and therefore EO) heritage…cheers 😉
 
yep

we’re agreed on that…but it shows that Zwingli wasn’t the first to see that command figuratively
Do you have any more of the ECF’s quotes to share then?
still a bit of a long shot…there are a number of cities west of Thunder bay that have little use for the east
Only one of note where the inhabitants think accusing people of being from the East is a valid argument.
No I wouldn’t, b/c your teeth never touch human flesh nor do your lips actually touch human blood…no chewing and eating of flesh actually occurs nor does blood actually get swallowed. To use Catholic terminology no accidents of body or blood are involved. I think it ironic that some gnostics argued that Christ only appeared to come in the flesh (but didn’t actually do so) and shortly thereafter some overly pious started to argue that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist though he only appears as bread…go figure, seems like the opposite sides of the same coin
If you wouldn’t use the accusation, what’s the point of bringing it up? And yes, the gnostics in many ways taught the polar opposite from what the orthodox taught. This is not coincidence, but it isn’t the Orthodox whose doctrine came second.
Nope…please tell me that you are from Edmonchuck …home to many of Ukrainian (and therefore EO) heritage…cheers 😉
I’m a convert, and no. 😉
 
Jesus here explains what he’s talking about in the earlier versus, not literal body and blood, but spiritual.

63(F) It is the Spirit who gives life;(G) the flesh is no help at all.(H) The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life." (John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
 
You need to brush up on your history…as I have pointed out already on this thread, Augustine plainly stated that the command to"eat his flesh" is a figure…
Augustine on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

The following statements made by St. Augustine strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. (Sermons 227)

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.”* (Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}*

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.* {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}*

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary…and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation…we do sin by not adoring.* {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}*

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. (Sermons, 234, 2; on p. 31)

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. (Sermons, 272; on p. 32)

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. (City of God, 10, 20; on p. 99)

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. (Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p. 134)

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. (Sermo iii. 1-2; on p. 62)

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. (Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p. 64)

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. (Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p. 65)

Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . (Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p. 65)

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort Bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. (Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p. 65)

The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” (Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p. 66)

Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. (Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p. 66)

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. (Denis, 3, 3; on p. 66)

The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered. (Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p. 69)

We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ. (Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p. 69)

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. (Ep. 54, 8; on p. 71)

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY. (Sermons 234:2)
 
He was asking them to gnaw on his actual flesh? Do you gnaw on his actual flesh at the Eucharist? If yes, how is that not cannibalism? If no, then he wasn’t actually requiring them to eat his flesh.
Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.
 
WATER = TRUTH
FLESH = WAY
BLOOD = SPIRIT

When Jesus says whoever drinks of this water will never thirst, He meant those who are set free by the truth will never be thirsty but forever satisfied.

When Jesus said to eat of His flesh, He meant to follow Him in the Way He has demonstrated while on earth and carry our cross daily.

When Jesus says to drink of His blood, He meant to live by the Spirit. (‘the life is in the blood’, the spirit gives life’).

**
“I AM THE TRUTH, THE WAY AND THE LIFE. NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME” - JESUS CHRIST.**

Does partaking of the Holy Communion alone save you? Surely not. Many evil people partake of the Holy Communion. Does getting baptized in the name of God alone save you? Surely not. Even the brood of vipers wanted to be baptized at the Jordan river by John the Baptist. What/Who saves? Jesus Christ.
.
 
WATER = TRUTH
FLESH = WAY
BLOOD = SPIRIT

When Jesus says whoever drinks of this water will never thirst, He meant those who is set free by the truth will never be thirsty but forever satisfied.

When Jesus said to eat of His flesh, He meant to follow Him in the Way and carry the cross daily.

When Jesus says to drink of His blood, He meant to live by the Spirit. (‘the life is in the blood’, the spirit gives life’).

**
“I AM THE TRUTH, THE WAY AND THE LIFE. NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME” - JESUS CHRIST.**

.
How did we come to this conclusion? (The first three parts).

1Cor 11:23-30; 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

commentary :
27 “Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.

from Douay-Rheims Bible with commentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top