John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter philipmarus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

philipmarus

Guest
When discussing Johm 6 with Protestant family members where Jesus commanded us to “Eat his flesh and Drink his blood”, the answer I’m been given lately is:

“Jesus is not commanding us to take part in a ‘mere meal’ but rather Jesus means for us to take up his cross and partake in his sufferings”

What would be a good response to this denial of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

Philipmarus
 
Protestants who say this do not understand that the phrases eat my flesh and drink my blood has a very definite meaning for the ancient Jews. Eating flesh and drinking blood means to revile or slander, and not to believe, as Protestants say**. **Hence, if they would say that Jesus’ words are figurative, not literal, then in a figurative sense, it would mean Jesus is asking His disciples to revile and slander Him in order to gain eternal life, which is absurd, since that is not what Christ was trying to impart to His listeners, who are mostly Jews.

Besides, in the ancient Jewish tradition, the eater of flesh is none other than the devil himself.

Gerry 🙂
 
i get this question alot. there is, obviously, very little in scripture that will say ‘when John 6 and the ‘last supper’ talk about eating Jesus body actually for real in the eucharist, it means just that. you really eat His body and blood, which has been transubstantiated from bread and wine.’ if it did, protestants would believe it. but since it doesn’t say exactly that, they don’t.

however, there ARE several questions that arise from the protestant view -

one - the scripture does admonish us to partake of ‘communion’ worthily, by examining ourselves first. it says that if we eat unworthily, we eat and drink damnation unto ourselves. now, this doesn’t make alot of sense if it’s only a symbol. it’s kind of a bum deal. if you do it RIGHT, all you get is a symbol. if you do it WRONG - damnation. ?

two - if Jesus only meant it metaphorically, then why didn’t He explain that when all of His disciples left Him (except for the twelve). ‘this is a hard saying, who can accept it?’ would have been a good time for Jesus to say ‘i mean this metaphorically.’

three - why did the church, from the LATEST 70 AD, teach that it was truly the body and blood of Christ, all the way to the reformation, if it wasn’t? wouldn’t someone have spoken up, who lived when Jesus did, and said ‘hey - it’s just a symbol’?

it’s basically a matter of faith. if you have faith that Jesus established the church, and that the ‘deposit of faith’ and the ‘keys to the kingdom’ are inextricably entwined in the Tradition and magesterium of the church, then you accept its teaching about the eucharist.

if you don’t accept this Tradition, and only believe what the Bible says, then you will probably (though not necessarily) reject the concept of transubstantiation.
 
Hello Jeff,
40.png
jeffreedy789:
…obviously, very little in scripture that will say ‘when John 6 and the ‘last supper’ talk about eating Jesus’ body actually for real in the Eucharist, it means just that.
Click to expand...
I must amicably disagree here. Please refer to the thread I posted above. I’d like to hear your thoughts on Scriptural support after reading that.

Greg
 
ok, i read your thread. i still see little definite, explicit support for the position (just like i didn’t see it LAST time i looked in the Bible for this support, or every time i debate the issue of transubstantiation with all of my protestant friends.)

sure, there are tons of verses that support the position, if you interpret them that way. just like there are tons of verses that support marian devotion, if you interpret them that way. my point is that there are no verses that come right out and say it definitively (except, i would say, john 6). if there were, then sola scriptura would include the doctrine.
 
Thanks everyone for their replies. I am a relative novice on this subject but one things strikes me on this. It seems to me that some protestants seem to not really be focusing on the text of John 6 so much as they are reinterpreting it in light of what they believe to the central message of the Gospel - Faith Alone. That is, they seem to be interpeting John 6 in light of Romans. I may be way wrong about this but its my observation. In other contexts. like the sacrament of Penance, when Jesus breathes on the Apostles in John 20 and gives them the authority to forgive sins, the usual protestant explanation I’ve encountered is “well, Jesus is just giving them priviledge to be first to proclaim the gospel which promises the forgivness of sins, not to actually forgive sins in his name”.

philipmarus
 
Hi Jeff,
40.png
jeffreedy789:
if there were, then sola scriptura would include the doctrine.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that even based solely on Scripture, the Protestant interpretation is an unreasonable stretch to the point of being illogical.

Scriptural Basis
  • If not referring to real eating, then would make no sense to compare with manna.
  • John 3:6 indicates that since Jesus is born of spirit that His flesh is spiritual.
  • Using “the flesh profits nothing” as an argument that Jesus was not referring to the real act of eating His flesh is illogical by a Protestant. Firstly, they are saying that their own communion (which by their own assertion remains earthly bread [flesh born of flesh]) profits nothing! Secondly, it is clear that Jesus’ incarnation (the Word became flesh) profits our salvation. In the context we see that Jesus is contrasting the Spirit and the flesh and since we know His flesh profits our salvation, the contrast must not be between the Spirit and His flesh but between the Spirit and earthly flesh. So therefore, “the flesh profits nothing” does not refer to Jesus’ flesh and cannot be used by Protestants to say that Jesus is saying not to eat His flesh.
Think about it. 🙂

Greg
 
40.png
philipmarus:
In other contexts. like the sacrament of Penance, when Jesus breathes on the Apostles in John 20 and gives them the authority to forgive sins, the usual protestant explanation I’ve encountered is “well, Jesus is just giving them priviledge to be first to proclaim the gospel which promises the forgivness of sins, not to actually forgive sins in his name”.

philipmarus
Click to expand...
While this may be slightly off topic, yet it is relevant to mention that this is reminiscent of their usual manner of interpretating Matthew 16:17-19 where Jesus says that “thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church…” where they say the Rock referred to is not Peter himself but Peter’s “profession of faith”, without even explaining to us why Jesus even bothered renaming Simon as Peter [which means rock], if Peter wasn’t really the rock referred to.

Peace

Gerry 🙂
 
The fact that Jesus mentioned that He is the bread, and that His flesh and blood are food and drink not just once but several times in the sixth chapter of John indicates emphasis, that Jesus indeed meant what He said, that His flesh is food indeed and His blood, is drink indeed.

Gerry 🙂
 
One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention yet, is the actual original Greek wording. The Greek used says “eat” the first time Jesus says this, however, the 2nd and 3rd time, the Greek isn’t “eat”, but gnaw or chew. Jesus tells them that they must gnaw on His flesh. That’s quite a bit more descriptive than just plain eat.
 
For those not accepting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church there are other Scriptures to use which supports our viewpoint on what the words of Jesus actually meant. John 6:48-66 will bring out what Jesus meant at the Last Supper. I will give you a quick synopsis of these verses. This passage starts out with Jesus telling His disciples that He is the bread of life and that if people eat His flesh that, unlike their ancestors who ate manna and died, they would live for ever. This statement upsets many of His disciples because of the words used by Jesus in John’s Gospel. For the word “eat” Jesus used “phago” which means to literally eat, chew or consume. For the word “flesh” Jesus used “sarx” which can only be translated or mean literal flesh. Many began questioning each other saying; "How can this be possible? “Who could accept such a teaching?” To end any confusion they might have, Jesus becomes more emphatic as he continues to preach. Now when He makes any statements pertaining to eating His flesh (starting with verse 54) He uses the word “trogo” which means to “gnaw or crunch with your teeth.” As he finishes He asks, “Does this upset you?” Many of His disciples began to leave but Jesus didn’t call them back and say, Wait, you are misunderstanding me. He didn’t grab anyone and say, Please stop. He didn’t say, I meant that statement only figuratively not literally. He doesn’t do that because the words he used made it perfectly clear what he meant. Someday His disciples would literally eat His flesh.

Hope this helps from members.cox.net/sfobro/RP.html
 
How about this as a response question, Why in the first place would Jesus tell them to eat his flesh if He only meant it as a symbol?, why go through all of that to only than say it was a symbol, his disciples left him over it, and never once did he try to explain to them it was a symbol.

If it was just to be a symbol, why bring his flesh into it, Jesus could have gone about the whole “bread of life” deal a bunch of different ways that didnt need to involve his flesh if this “communion” was for us to partake in his sufferings, to remember him, etc etc… IF it was just to be a symbol.

Anyone have any decent comments on my thoughts above?
 
Obviously, in John 6, Jesus hearers took him literally, and many left him because of this doctrine. The ones who stayed believed him even though they didn’t fully understand his words.

The early Church took him literally, and celebrated the Eucharist with this literal meaning, meeting in Christian homes, and later in churches.

St. Paul took it literally, and warned his readers not to receive the body and blood of the Lord unworthily.

The Church continued to believe that Jesus meant was he said in John 6, as well as in the Eucharistic institution narratives in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in 1 Corinthians, throughout its history.
The Church, as is its function, preserved and passed on this teaching that it had received from Jesus.

No one called the doctrine into question from the time of Christ for 1500 years.
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
i get this question alot. there is, obviously, very little in scripture that will say ‘when John 6 and the ‘last supper’ talk about eating Jesus body actually for real in the eucharist, it means just that. you really eat His body and blood, which has been transubstantiated from bread and wine.’ if it did, protestants would believe it. but since it doesn’t say exactly that, they don’t.

however, there ARE several questions that arise from the protestant view -

one - the scripture does admonish us to partake of ‘communion’ worthily, by examining ourselves first. it says that if we eat unworthily, we eat and drink damnation unto ourselves. now, this doesn’t make alot of sense if it’s only a symbol. it’s kind of a bum deal. if you do it RIGHT, all you get is a symbol. if you do it WRONG - damnation. ?

two - if Jesus only meant it metaphorically, then why didn’t He explain that when all of His disciples left Him (except for the twelve). ‘this is a hard saying, who can accept it?’ would have been a good time for Jesus to say ‘i mean this metaphorically.’

three - why did the church, from the LATEST 70 AD, teach that it was truly the body and blood of Christ, all the way to the reformation, if it wasn’t? wouldn’t someone have spoken up, who lived when Jesus did, and said ‘hey - it’s just a symbol’?

it’s basically a matter of faith. if you have faith that Jesus established the church, and that the ‘deposit of faith’ and the ‘keys to the kingdom’ are inextricably entwined in the Tradition and magesterium of the church, then you accept its teaching about the eucharist.

if you don’t accept this Tradition, and only believe what the Bible says, then you will probably (though not necessarily) reject the concept of transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
True. Protestants make it seem like they need it explicity pointed out in scripture, in one verse, in order to believe it.

Yet, they accept the Dogma of the Trinity, even though the Bible does not say explicitly that the definition of the Godhead is Triune yet still One God.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a Myrstery and they believe it, yet they choose not to believe in the Eucharist because they choose to look at it through fleshly eyes that need factual, physical proof.

Maybe they need to read about the Eucharistic Miracles that have occurred over the centuries.

peace,papist
 
40.png
JimG:
Obviously, in John 6, Jesus hearers took him literally, and many left him because of this doctrine. The ones who stayed believed him even though they didn’t fully understand his words.
Click to expand...
Those Jews who left him did so because they understood the words “eat” and “drink” my flesh and blood literally [and correctly], and this is proven by the fact that one of His listeners asked “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”, which is what Christ really meant, that we must take it to be literal, not merely as symbolic or figurative. This is why Jesus did not bother calling them back to “correct” their interpretation of His words.

Gerry 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top