Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

[caudy]

He did that. He said that his words were spiritual and that the “flesh profiteth nothing”. Didn’t you see the Augustine quote above about this? That is what he says.

You mistakenly misunderstand Augustine. Although he is expounding on the spiritual side of the eucharist he is not excluding the real presence.

This article may help in your quest to understand it better.

chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_7.htm

 

[caudy]

Hmmm. What if I told you he appeared and told me it was symbolic. Would you believe me? Why should I believe you? Do you believe in visions? What about Joseph Smith’s vision?

If the bible passages we are discussing used the word symbolic I would believe it but it doesn’t. It is clearly stating “my flesh is real food”.

If you told me you had a vision of Jesus telling you it is symbolic I would still believe what the Church states, 2000 years of saints, martyrs, popes, and priests, bleeding eucharists, diary of saint faustina, etc, etc, etc. over what you are tellling me.

No comment on Joseph Smith. :whacky:

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

This proves he was speaking “spiritually” because he plainly says the “flesh profiteth nothing”. What then is the advantage of eating his “flesh” if it "profiteth nothing?"

Are you sure this is the position you want to take? Did His flesh profit nothing while it hung on the cross dieing for our sins? I would say that His flesh profits us a great deal. So we are stuck with a dilemma. Either Jesus is saying what you have led us to believe He is saying, and then in which case His death on the cross profited us nothing since you stated that His flesh profits nothing, or you have not interpreted this verse correctly.

I betting option 2

By the way I am glad to see that Bill’s title read, “Most Protestants say…” and not just, “Protestants say…” Because of course there are a lot of Protestants that have a very deep belief in the real presence. Kudos to you Bill :clapping:

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

nbtb and believers

Why should I listen to your interpretations of John 6 over that of JonNC or any other Protestant who believes in the real presence? From my discussions on this forum JonNC seems like a rather squared away individual who seems to know what he believes and why. So why should I accept your interpretation and not his?

God bless

 

[Ronald_E]

.

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

This proves he was speaking “spiritually” because he plainly says the “flesh profiteth nothing”. What then is the advantage of eating his “flesh” if it “profiteth nothing?” This is especially significant because he is talking about those who misunderstood and left because they thought that he literally wanted them to eat his flesh. What is important is the spirit he is imparting, not the fact that we eat his flesh. It seems very plain to me.

Returning to my Catholic faith after being away for 40 years was not something I ever expected to do. The only reason for my return was God’s Grace and to receive Him in the Eucharist. I did not choose to believe His Presence just as I do not expect you to believe His Presence in the Eucharist as Truth.
I do know that when He stated that the words He speaks are “spirit” He actually means that we cannot see for a fact that what He is telling us is true and observable through human perception and understanding. Just as He is God but all they saw was a man. Just as He is the Creator all they saw was a creature.
The Creator made the Universe we observe from nothing and now He tells us that when His apostles do what He does in the last supper He will be with us in the flesh and spirit and we will be able to join with Him in a way that is beyond human perception and understanding. We limit His Presence in us by our belief or disbelief. He does not force anything on us. Love is what frees us from belief and when I love Him I know His Presence is real. How much I love Him is what limits His work in me.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I don’t think the Greek word used is the smoking gun for this passage. I think that the context proves that Jesus was being literal.

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.” John 6:52-55

If Jesus was being symbolic, he would have explained the symbolism rather than talk about His flesh being “true food”.

Other than the fact that it occurs in the same chapter, does anyone think that the bread of life discourse is connected with the miracle of the loaves and fishes? It’s funny how some people are thinking that both events were symbolic.

 

[Canto]

Jesus says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life, for his blood is drink indeed and his flesh is meat indeed. Jesus even uses the word Amen which correct me if I’m wrong is often used to highlight/strengthen a point.

Many found the saying hard and left.

QUESTION if Jesus was speaking symbolically why did he not stop them from leaving and explain it to them? Didn’t Jesus usually correct his disciples when the misunderstood him?

“It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:63

Surely no one is suggesting the flesh of Christ profits nothing.

Notice Christ says THE flesh and not MY flesh. He condemns the flesh throughout the Bible but not in the Eucharistic sense

Life is gained through the Spirit not the flesh and as one site noted “Jesus’ Flesh and Blood are of Divine Nature (Spirit) and not of this world (flesh)”

In the last supper narratives Jesus takes the bread and says THIS is my body. This being the operative word i.e. this bread actually is his body.

QUESTION 1 Corinthians 10:16 “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

Why would Paul ask this question, wouldn’t he know the answer?

John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

QUESTION 1 Corinthinas 11:27 “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.”

If it’s just a symbol, how can you be GUILTY of the body and blood of the Lord?

 

[Bill_Pick]

The word “Amen” is a Greek word (amen) of Hebrew origin, which, at the beginning of a discourse means, “certainly”, “surely”, “truly”, “of a truth”, “so be it”? When used as a prefix by Jesus Christ , it is to emphasize that it is a solemn statement, and is of utmost importance. Now, what do you suppose He meant when He emphasized twice, by using a double “Amen”, a “Truly, truly”?
Do you “truly, truly” believe what He said in this verse? Is there any room for symbolism in these verses whatsoever?

 

[NDfan]

(emphasis added)

So I am confused. Is the eucharist symbolic or actually the body and blood of Christ? What are you saying?

Purely symbolic. For a normal passover the elements of bread and red wine mixed with warm water were symbolic of the body and blood of the lambs that were slain prior to the exodus. Until 70AD the Jews would eat the meat of the passover lamb that was sacrificed at the Temple. After the destruction of the Temple the meat of the lamb on the seder plate was replaced by a shank bone called the zeroah. They no longer ate meat but instead ate unleavened bread to symbolically represent the body of the lambs.

Given Christ knew the Temple would be destroyed HE did not say the meat of the lamb was HIM. Otherwise he would have held up the lambs meat and said this is my body. HE instead used unleavened bread. The red wine is mixed with warm water to give a sense of blood but the jews do not see it as literal blood. Just a symbol. They were told to remember the exodus as if it were happening today. To make the past the present. That’s why the Gospel writers used the word anamnesis which is Greek for remembrance. To do something in anamnesis means literally to meditate deeply on something. It’s believed Ignatius would meditate for 3 hours in tears after taking communion.

What’s most interesting is the red wine with warm water was taken after the seder meal and was called the cup of redemption. If we read scripture we see that Christ took the cup after supper had ended and pronounced that the cup in HIS blood was the new covenant. That our redemption was now through HIM as the final sacrificial lamb. But Christ refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine, even after the so called consecration is to have taken place. This is just a complete misunderstanding of jewish culture.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

":

Canto, post:47, topic:139653"]
Jesus says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life, for his blood is drink indeed and his flesh is meat indeed. Jesus even uses the word Amen which correct me if I’m wrong is often used to highlight/strengthen a point.

Many found the saying hard and left.

Canto we can’t cherry pick John 6. Please pay attention to these verses:

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever **believes **in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and **believes **in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

These verses demonstrate that this whole discourse is about believing in Christ. Not literally eating HIS flesh. Why does Jesus give this discourse? Because HE just got done feeding the 5 thousand and they returned seeking more bread. HE’s trying to make the point that eating literal bread does not sustain the type of life Christ has to offer, which is eternal life. HE compares the manna their ancestors ate but confirms they still died. Christ offers HIS flesh to us as the final sacrifice so that all who believe will receive eternal life. Hence verse 40 which Christ states is the will of GOD.

Jesus contrasts believing in HIM with eating HIS flesh and blood. Hence the purpose of the Lord’s supper in which Christ states the bread and wine are now HIS body and blood instead of the body and blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. The red wine as noted in another post was the 3rd cup of redemption taken by the jews to symbolically represent the lambs blood. Now it represents Christ’s blood given for our sins.

QUESTION if Jesus was speaking symbolically why did he not stop them from leaving and explain it to them? Didn’t Jesus usually correct his disciples when the misunderstood him?

He did try to correct them. HE asked what if they saw HIM return from whence HE came. Meaning what if you saw me physically return to Heaven? Would you then believe I am who I say that I am. The jews simply would not believe Jesus was the Messiah and would not believe HIS command to believe in HIM as it is the Father’s will. They got stuck on the notion of cannibalism which is forbidden by GOD. That’s why Jesus could never be speaking literally in this context of eating flesh and blood.

QUESTION 1 Corinthians 10:16 “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

Why would Paul ask this question, wouldn’t he know the answer?

Yes but you have to understand what was happening in the church at Corinth during the time Paul wrote his letter. Notice Paul states communion of the blood of Christ. The church at Corinth was terribly divided over who they followed. We read this right in Paul’s letter as he basically yells at them for their divisiveness stating they are not united in one mind and judgement. He states “Some follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” So when they took communion they were not really in communion with one another and united to Christ. Some took the bread and wine as followers of Peter/Cephas or others, not Christ. Paul is not reinforcing the notion that the bread and wine are literally flesh and blood. He’s emphasizing their divided nature when partaking in the Lord’s supper. Notice Paul refers to the bread as the loaf even after the supposed consecration takes place. Why doesn’t he say the NOW literal flesh of Christ? Because it’s still bread.

QUESTION 1 Corinthinas 11:27 “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.”
If it’s just a symbol, how can you be GUILTY of the body and blood of the Lord?

Quite simple my brother. Again you need to understand what was happening in Corinth at this time. In the early church it was common for Christians to gather in someone’s house for worship. They would normally first eat dinner together which fondly became known as the meal of love or the agape meal. Christians would share food with one another to make sure those who were in need or who were poor had food to eat during this meal. They then proceeded with their worship and partaking in the Lord’s supper together.

In Corinth the rich folks started to dominate the church and they treated the agape meal as an exclusive event literally keeping out their fellow Christians. It was quite common for them to get drunk as if they were at a party. Then worship and take communion in a drunken state. Again we see this being addressed in Paul’s letter and I quote:

1 Cor 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

As you can see Paul condemns their practices which leads him to state verses 27-34. The unworthy manner in which they participate in the Lord’s supper. It’s not because they denounce it is the real flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[Canto]

He did try to correct them. HE asked what if they saw HIM return from whence HE came.

THANKS for taking the time to answer

If they still took him literally why didn’t he simply say “look guys I’m talking symbolically.”

My understanding is that Christ is saying that if they are scandalised by what they can’t perceive (bread as body) how scandalised will they be when they physically see him actually ascend into heaven.

As you can see Paul condemns their practices which leads him to state verses 27-34. The unworthy manner in which they participate in the Lord’s supper. It’s not because they denounce it is the real flesh and blood of Christ.

If you unworthily participate in the supper, how are you guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, esepcially if it’s just a symbol.

 

[wmscott]

I’ll go with what Jesus said above the ECF’s anytime. And they were 150 years later or more. Can you imagine how much time 150 years is among illiterate people who are passing doctrine down to eachother verbally? 1859 was 150 years ago. The Civil war had not yet started. What if someone had taught doctrine in 1859 and it was passed verbally from person to person until YOU wrote about it today. What are the chances you would get the exact quote that was passed on 150 years ago?

Good luck.

Yet you take the words of J. Smith and incorporate them into your theology 1800 plus years later.

 

[NDfan]

THANKS for taking the time to answer

If they still took him literally why didn’t he simply say “look guys I’m talking symbolically.”

Canto always a pleasure to chat with you

Christ did as we read from verse 60 forward. This gets debated alot as to exactly what Jesus meant when HE stated that the flesh profited nothing. But in looking at the Greek we see the word Pneuma used for spirit which is a reference to the Holy Spirit. Christ says it is the Pneuma (Holy Spirit) that zoopoieo (quickeneth). Zoopoieo means to cause to live or to restore life. The word for flesh is sarx which means literally the flesh. So Jesus says the sarx opheleo oudeis. Opheleo means to be advantageous and oudeis means no one or nothing.

So the interpretation is just as it is written. That the flesh profits nothing or is not advantageous to anyone. In other words literally eating Jesus flesh profits no one. The words HE just spoke are Pneuma (Holy Spirit) and zoe (alive or full of vitality). Meaning that someone who believes in Christ is alive. Again this is the whole purpose of John 6. To preach to the jews they need to believe in Christ and that it is in fact the will of GOD. For them to believe and inherit eternal life. But the jews are so stuck on this cannibalistic-sounding teaching that they can’t get past it.

Now think of it this way. If we take Jesus’ words that literal than we would be led to believe that if in fact the bread and wine become HIS literal body and blood we would live eternally. Just as we read in John 6:51 and 53. But if we read the preceding verses we see Jesus telling us that GOD’s will is for us to believe in Christ and receive eternal life. Verses 40 and 47. That if we come to HIM we will never be hungry and if we believe we never thirst..

So which is it? First we are told to come to Jesus and believe which results in never being hungry and never being thirsty, then we are told to eat flesh and drink blood which are true food and drink. The simple answer is Christ was equating eating flesh and blood with believing. Just like when we say feed on GOD’s word. We don’t eat 3 pages of the Gospel of John. We read and meditate on scripture. Same thing here.

My understanding is that Christ is saying that if they are scandalised by what they can’t perceive (bread as body) how scandalised will they be when they physically see him actually ascend into heaven.

That’s not entirely accurate. Christ is asking if they take offense at this teaching. Knowing of course they do because they are thinking of cannibalism. HE wants them to get away from that. But then says what if you see me ascend to that place from whence I came. Meaning what if you saw me ascend to Heaven? Would you believe then? Christ is basically saying what’s it going to take for you to believe in me? Eating me literally profits nothing, the Holy Spirit is what produces life. You are so stuck on this offensive teaching that you are missing the entire point I am trying to make which is believe in ME.

It’s not until after this that many left and stopped following Jesus. They were the same ones that ended up later crucifying HIM. They thought Jesus was out of HIS mind saying HE came from Heaven and that you had to eat HIM to live forever. That was considered both blasphemous and cannibalistic. 2 things they knew scripture taught against.

If you unworthily participate in the supper, how are you guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, esepcially if it’s just a symbol.

Because what Paul is saying is that if you do not partake in the supper seeing the bread as Jesus body and the wine as Jesus blood then you are just as guilty as the folks who crucified HIM. Symbolism doesn’t have any effect on what Paul is saying. Remember he’s addressing the church in Corinth and their divisive nature. If you take communion as a follower of someone other than Christ than you’re just as guilty of crucifying HIM as those that did. That’s what was happening in Corinth. Folks would take communion saying they follow Peter while others would say, no I follow Christ, and still others would say, no I follow Apollos.

Paul’s point is that taking communion meant a unified belief in Christ as our savior. No one else died for our sins, not Peter, Paul, nor Apollos. So Paul is implying that taking communion following someone other than Christ means you don’t accept Christ as your savior. Therefore you’re just as guilty of HIS crucifixion. Remember Jesus was crucified because HE claimed HE was the messiah. So not taking communion seeing HIM as the bread and wine is a denial of HIS sacrifice. Hope that makes sense.

 

[mfbukowski]

TO THE UNBELIEVERS OF JOHN 6; a monastic priest in lanciano, italy during the 700 a.d. doubted whether the Body of Our Lord was truly present in the consecrated Host. he celebrated Mass and when he said the words of consecration, he saw the host turn into Flesh and the wine turn into Blood. everything was visible to those in attendance. the Flesh is still intact and the Blood is divided into five unequal parts which together have the exact same weight as each one does separately. the miracle was the object of several official acknowledgements on the part of ecclesiastical authorities between 1574 and 1886, not to mention most recently in 1971, when it was subjected to a scientific examination carried out by doctors linoli and bertelli in sienna,italy w/c concluded: "The Flesh is true human flesh (formed by muscular tissue from the heart); the Blood is true blood(belonging to the same blood type, AB, as the flesh) the component substances are those of human tissues, normal and fresh. the conservation of the Flesh and the Blood, left in their natural state for 12th centuries, and exposed to the influence of atmospheric and biological elements, remains an extraordinary phenomenon (the Linoli Report). visitors can still witness the Body and Blood at st. francis church after more than 1200 years of existence. there are many more miracles of hosts turning into his Body and Blood, but for the unbelievers, no proof is enough, as their eyes are permanently veiled.
God bless.

Good for you. Hang on to your faith. It will sustain you well, and God bless you. Thank you for your testimony. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest gift we have been given.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well the Church disagrees with you. I think I’ll go with them.

Somehow I knew you were going to say that. I must be a prophet

 

[mfbukowski]

You mistakenly misunderstand Augustine. Although he is expounding on the spiritual side of the eucharist he is not excluding the real presence.

This article may help in your quest to understand it better.

chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_7.htm

I think the line is actually very fine. I belive that Jesus is really present. Just spiritually. I take kind of a scientific view that bread is bread. That seems pretty clear and I don’t know that God would countervene the laws of physics for each mass. He could, but doesn’t have to. When God starts breaking his own laws, he ceases to be God. I mean what if the cops decided to deal drugs?

I think it is clear that greek philosophy, which invented the idea of “substance” got taken into the early church. Pretty clear that Aquinas who was an Aristotilian with a dose of neoplatonism thrown in, invented “trans SUBSTANtiation”

But I think Jesus’ presence is as real as it can be spiritually. After all, the WORD is God. (John 1) And the WORD is “this IS my body”. But that does not make bread become flesh. It just isn’t. Things are what they are. God is not a shape shifter.

 

[mfbukowski]

You mistakenly misunderstand Augustine. Although he is expounding on the spiritual side of the eucharist he is not excluding the real presence.

This article may help in your quest to understand it better.

chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_7.htm

Thanks for the article.

When in the Fathers’ writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence. pp.377-8: (Emphasis Added)

Yeah, see I think Augustine was ambiguous for whatever reason and frankly I think what Augustine believed, whatever that really was, was pretty dang close and perhaps identical to what I believe.

If you say that bread is flesh, that’s not accurate. If you say it’s totally symbolic, I think that’s not accurate either. There is something real going on with Jesus presence, but it’s not physical presence to me. The language just cannot express the right nuance to me. So we get messed up discussing it. It’s more than symbol, less than physical. That’s what I honestly think. The ritual invites his spirit in a real, palpable sense.

And it is my belief that that is the Mormon position as well. Brigham Young said things that seem to indicate that this is what he believed.

And I think this is what John 6 in those later verses talking about the word being spirit-- what was that- verse 66 sticks in my head-

 

[mfbukowski]

Well I appreciate your help in helping me formulate what I believe about this, and what I think is that the eucharist and sacrament are “signs” of Christ’s presence. And that article helped me clarify it, so thanks again for that.

A sign is more than a symbol - it participates it an action or a thing. When an animal is present, it leaves tracks. Later someone comes by and says “there are signs that a bear was here”. The sign is not the thing, nor is it symbolic of the thing, but it is evidence of the thing.

A stop sign is a cause for you to stop. So is a red light. These things participate in the action of you stopping. Were it not for the sign, you would not stop.

So I would say that the sacrament or eucharist becomes a sign of the presence of the savior. More particularly, I think the ritual itself brings his presence, or causes his presence similarly to how a stop sign causes you to stop. It is a call to the savior if you will, to bless us with his spirit in a special way so that we can participate in the body of Christ in a more palpable way than usual.

Thanks all for helping me figure out what I believe.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature it is used in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.

and when was protestants put in charge of the Word of God? when were they put in charge of the deposit of faith? can they understand SS?

 

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure this is the position you want to take? Did His flesh profit nothing while it hung on the cross dieing for our sins? I would say that His flesh profits us a great deal. So we are stuck with a dilemma. Either Jesus is saying what you have led us to believe He is saying, and then in which case His death on the cross profited us nothing since you stated that His flesh profits nothing, or you have not interpreted this verse correctly.

I betting option 2

By the way I am glad to see that Bill’s title read, “Most Protestants say…” and not just, “Protestants say…” Because of course there are a lot of Protestants that have a very deep belief in the real presence. Kudos to you Bill :clapping:

God bless

I’m not saying that – I am quoting John 6. What does it mean there? Tell me, I want to know your pov.

He says this to show that those who left were wrong in believing that he wanted them to literally eat his flesh. What do you think it says?