John Chp 6....communication breakdown

[RedDawgMCM]

It seems to me most modern Protestant sects tend to a very literal rendering of their bible. yet in perhaps Jesus’ most literal dialogue they encourage symbolic reading…So to all of our Non-Catholic brethren please explain to me how you can read John 6 and not come away with it intending its literal meaning.

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

I must shamelessly plug my recent blog post on one of the Protestant “escape verses” in John 6.

p.s. You might want to post this in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum for more Protestant responses.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It seems to me most modern Protestant sects tend to a very literal rendering of their bible. yet in perhaps Jesus’ most literal dialogue they encourage symbolic reading…So to all of our Non-Catholic brethren please explain to me how you can read John 6 and not come away with it intending its literal meaning.

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

I guess it depends on what you mean by a “literal” reading, but I don’t think you can you can say that this passage is in some way only metaphorical. After all, the entire gist of John’s Gospel is that God as eternal word comes to be present in the material world (Jn 1)–an idea that would have utterly shocked neo-platonists (like Philo, for example), and gnostics as well for that matter–but an idea that is very consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. So instead of the literal/symbolic dichotomy, I tend to think of these passages as having both “material” and “spiritual” dimensions.

Therefore, I do think that the passage also goes well beyond the simple “literal”/material mechanics of consuming the Eucharist. Also present in Jn 6 is the idea of trusting in and abiding with Jesus that somehow becomes part of the material act of eating and drinking. So maybe there is the “symbolic” reading that you’re referring to–if that’s what you mean? I think in John’s Gospel, there is always a sense of “more than” going on in the text. What I mean is, there is divine action in the material world, but there is also something spiritual happening that we as humans may or may not be aware of. Just as there is more to Jesus than meets the eye (Jn. 14:8-9); there is more to the Eucharist than simply consuming the bread and wine (Jn 6), and there is more going on at baptism than simply being washed with water (Jn 3, 4). So I think John holds those two ideas very closely–there always is BOTH the material and the spiritual dimension to God’s action–one ignores one of the dimensions only at their own peril.

So I tend to see John as a simultaneous corrective for two different possible problems in the early Christian community: those who think consuming the Eucharist (or being baptized) is somehow sort of “magic”–i.e., all that matters is the ritual or material act–as well as those who say, “well, this text and the act is only symbolic, so therefore the material act doesn’t matter.” It’s always both material and spiritual.

Just my opinion.

 

[Salvatore123]

As I tell Protestants all the time, it was at this time that Jesus lost 70+ disciples because of his LITERAL teaching.

If Christ did not mean that he was LITERALLY changing the bread and wine into his body and blood, Christ had the perfect opportunity to tell those who basically said, “this guy is crazy - eat his flesh and drink his blood???”, and thereby prevent them from leaving, that they were mistaken and he did not REALLY mean what he said literally.

But he didn’t . . . now why was that?

I have yet to hear a satisfactory (at least for me) answer to that question.

 

[Nita]

I must shamelessly plug my recent blog post on one of the Protestant “escape verses” in John 6.

p.s. You might want to post this in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum for more Protestant responses.

I agree with you that it is John 6:63 ( “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.”) that is often used to corroborate a symbolic interpretation. In addition to the interpretations given in your blog for that verse, I see another very probable meaning:

Jesus is speaking to the crowd that had been, miraculously,** physically fed *the day before.
In John 6:30-31, they say "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’ ". * Again, the miraculous manna, called “bread from heaven”, was **physical food **given to feed their physical flesh. Now they ask Jesus to verify Himself thru a similar sign. It’s very similar to the incident with the Samaritan woman at the well – to her mindset.
John 4:10-15 “If you knew…you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water. …but whoever drinks of the water that I give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.” ]
Throughout the discourse, Jesus notes that His words are about what is needed for eternal life. He continually speaks to them of “eating” and “drinking”. No doubt, in their way of thinking, they saw anything physically consumed as something that feeds the flesh.

Thus, for me, an additional understanding of Jesus’ words in verse 63 would be equivalent to His saying "Well fed flesh is of no avail for attaining eternal life. It is our spirit that needs to be filled/fed with life if we want to have eternal life. Eating Jesus’ flesh and blood (which are united to His spirit) feeds our spirit and gives it life,

 

[Church_Militant]

It seems to me most modern Protestant sects tend to a very literal rendering of their bible. yet in perhaps Jesus’ most literal dialogue they encourage symbolic reading…So to all of our Non-Catholic brethren please explain to me how you can read John 6 and not come away with it intending its literal meaning.

Not really so literal.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Nita, I like the point you make it is very interesting…

CM…Are you splitting hairs with the noob ?

Dave what I was getting at is most Protestant denominations that celebrate communion tend to view at as more of a symbolic representation of Jesus’ Last Supper…whereas Catholics…well the ones who paid attention in religious ed class anyway…say no it is truly Jesus’ flesh and blood.

 

[runningdude]

Nita, I like the point you make it is very interesting…

CM…Are you splitting hairs with the noob ?

Dave what I was getting at is most Protestant denominations that celebrate communion tend to view at as more of a symbolic representation of Jesus’ Last Supper…whereas Catholics…well the ones who paid attention in religious ed class anyway…say no it is truly Jesus’ flesh and blood.

I think most Protestants do believe in a True Presence of some sort in their Communion. Only Baptists and similar branches believe it to be strictly symbolic. From a Catholic perspective, we would agree that their communion is strictly symbolic!

However, from the Catholic perspective, all Protestant Communion is, in actuality, invalid.

I speculate that many Protestants may, at the sub-conscience spiritual, feel the lack of Christ’s actual presence in the Host or Cup, even if they believe in the True Present.

The aggregate result of subtle perception while receiving mere bread and wine during what they honestly believe to be a valid Communion celebration is that they conclude Christ must have been speaking symbolically in John 6.

At least that is what I speculate as a Catholic outsider looking in.

 

[PJM]

=RedDawgMCM;7352207]It seems to me most modern Protestant sects tend to a very literal rendering of their bible. yet in perhaps Jesus’ most literal dialogue they encourage symbolic reading…So to all of our Non-Catholic brethren please explain to me how you can read John 6 and not come away with it intending its literal meaning.

The foundation for this unbelive stem from a LACK of True Faith. True Faith a pure GIFT from God is given to those whom it please HIM to grant it too; and then it can be denined.

**Rom.9: 18 **“So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”

Mt. 11: 25-26 “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

The evidence for JUST One Church, One Faith and ONLY One New Covenant is over-whelming! [Eph. 2 and 4 are examples of it].

The ONLY God Founded religion; faith; Church is of course the CC, now some 2,000 years old. EVERY OTHER CHURCH HAS A MAN AS I’S FOUNDER!

So God it Divine Justice with holds Wisdom, Knowledge and Proper Understanding as a PENALTY for in a sense following a “false God.” By this I mean Thee TRUE God, But incorrectly and incompletely!

I hve puzeled over these apparent contridictions countless times. Not ONLy the Eucharist, but One Church [the NT has over 100 references for this fact], the primacy of Peter Mt 16:15-19, and this **Matt.10:2 **“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;” and then of course thre is the issue of frogiveness of sin: 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 5:16-18 and JOHN 20: 19-23.

Even God could not possibly more clear

Let us continue to pray for faith and Understanding for all Brethern!

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I speculate that many Protestants may, at the sub-conscience spiritual, feel the lack of Christ’s actual presence in the Host or Cup, even if they believe in the True Present.

Interesting thought and I kind of wonder that myself. Not to mention most don’t even use wine but sub grape juice…

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with you that it is John 6:63 ( “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.”) that is often used to corroborate a symbolic interpretation. In addition to the interpretations given in your blog for that verse, I see another very probable meaning:

Jesus is speaking to the crowd that had been, miraculously,** physically fed *the day before.
In John 6:30-31, they say "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’ ". * Again, the miraculous manna, called “bread from heaven”, was **physical food **given to feed their physical flesh. Now they ask Jesus to verify Himself thru a similar sign. It’s very similar to the incident with the Samaritan woman at the well – to her mindset.
John 4:10-15 “If you knew…you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water. …but whoever drinks of the water that I give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.” ]
Throughout the discourse, Jesus notes that His words are about what is needed for eternal life. He continually speaks to them of “eating” and “drinking”. No doubt, in their way of thinking, they saw anything physically consumed as something that feeds the flesh.

Thus, for me, an additional understanding of Jesus’ words in verse 63 would be equivalent to His saying "Well fed flesh is of no avail for attaining eternal life. It is our spirit that needs to be filled/fed with life if we want to have eternal life. Eating Jesus’ flesh and blood (which are united to His spirit) feeds our spirit and gives it life,

Good!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Nita, I like the point you make it is very interesting…

CM…Are you splitting hairs with the noob ?

Dave what I was getting at is most Protestant denominations that celebrate communion tend to view at as more of a symbolic representation of Jesus’ Last Supper…whereas Catholics…well the ones who paid attention in religious ed class anyway…say no it is truly Jesus’ flesh and blood.

Yes, that’s probably true of the numerical majority of Protestants, although people are sort of all over the board on this. My point is that some from both groups are missing the boat, imo.

 

[Church_Militant]

Nita, I like the point you make it is very interesting…

CM…Are you splitting hairs with the noob ?

Dave what I was getting at is most Protestant denominations that celebrate communion tend to view at as more of a symbolic representation of Jesus’ Last Supper…whereas Catholics…well the ones who paid attention in religious ed class anyway…say no it is truly Jesus’ flesh and blood.

Not me…read the link. It’s a very valid point and a lot of people don’t know the difference.

 

[PJM]

=RedDawgMCM;7355445]Interesting thought and I kind of wonder that myself. Not to mention most don’t even use wine but sub grape juice…

I suspect that it’s even deeper than that?

That what they receive IS just a resemblece, a reminder a sign of?

What LITTLE I know about Protestant communion practices seems to give little or no REVERENCE to the B & W they use.

Let us pray!

 

[runningdude]

What LITTLE I know about Protestant communion practices seems to give little or no REVERENCE to the B & W they use.
!

I’ve seen Baptist services. I was actually impressed with how reverently the pastor recited the institution narrative to remind the congregation that they celebrate communion “in remembrance of [Him]”. Importantly, as I said before, Baptists specifically reject any notion of the True Presence, so to them, showing any reverence to the B & W might be bread worship :bigyikes:!

By Catholic standards, the actual distribution would be kind of irreverent were the bread truly consecrated, but Baptists consider it simply a meal commemorating the death and resurrection of Christ. To distribute the B & W, they pass the bread and wine/juice (I didn’t consume, so not sure ) among each other as they would at a Thanksgiving feast!

I have only experience with observing a handful of Baptist/Independent services, so I can’t comment on all of Protestantism. But if seen within Baptist theology as a commemorative meal, their celebration of Communion is quite reverent!

 

[inkaneer]

In denying th eliteral interpretation of John 6 protestants hang their hat on the words of Jesus that his words were spirit. This despite the fact that Jesus said his body was real food and anyone who consumed it had eternal life. But protestants claim that by saying that His words were spirit that Jesus was using a metaphor and therefore should not be taken literally.

Jesus compared His body to the OT manna that the Jews were well familiar with as it fed their forefathers in the wilderness. This manna was material food and they knew it. But Jesus says they stilled died. But he who ate the new manna would not die. The Jews took Jesus to be speaking literally and materially. Many of them left to include many of Jesus disciples. As a teacher Jesus owed a duty to explain His teaching, if not to the Jews then to his own disciples as He had done before. He offers no such explanation other than to say His words were spirit. He is speaking literally but spiritually not materially as the Jews and some of His disciples thought. He does not owe them any correction on their literal understanding of his words. He only owes them correction in thinking He is speaking of the material . He gives them that.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

In denying the literal interpretation of John 6 protestants hang their hat on the words of Jesus that his words were spirit. This despite the fact that Jesus said his body was real food and anyone who consumed it had eternal life. But protestants claim that by saying that His words were spirit that Jesus was using a metaphor and therefore should not be taken literally.

Yeah and that is the thing…according to Scripture a lot of people were disgusted by this because they understood him to be saying come eat my flesh i.e. cannibalism so they turned away… as you said Jesus didn’t correct them so clearly it is how he meant it… yet Protestants deny that some almost vehemently.

I gotta say I am a little surprised to have no Protestant responses in this thread.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yeah and that is the thing…according to Scripture a lot of people were disgusted by this because they understood him to be saying come eat my flesh i.e. cannibalism so they turned away… as you said Jesus didn’t correct them so clearly it is how he meant it… yet Protestants deny that some almost vehemently.

I gotta say I am a little surprised to have no Protestant responses in this thread.

I guess my response doesn’t count???

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I guess my response doesn’t count???

Sorry Dave forgot about your response…perhaps I should amend that to more protestant responses…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Sorry Dave forgot about your response…perhaps I should amend that to more protestant responses…

Just remember, there’s all kinds of Protestants–to the extent that it’s not even a very useful term.