Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill_Pick

Guest
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.
 
BILL PICK said:
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.
Click to expand...
Scripture is clear that Christ meant to eat his flesh, I found it interesting when reading Zechariah 9 in Catholic bibles it reads they will drink blood like wine, now this whole passage is talking of the coming of Christ, yet in no protestant bible is this verse repeated but all have corrupted the text and it’s meaning.
This is taken of course from the Septuagint in which there is no doubt that this is what Christ and the Apostles read from.
a few other’s that show Christ’s intent…
Exodus 12:8, 46, Leviticus 6:17-19 - Under the Old Covenant the sacrificial lamb was eaten
1 Corinthians 5:7 - Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the New Covenant
John 6:53 - Under the New Covenant the sacrificial lamb must also be eaten
John 6:35-71 - The Eucharist is promised
John 6:35, 48, 51 - Jesus says, “I am the Bread of Life”
John 6:51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 - Jesus says, “The bread which I give is my flesh”
John 6:66 - Jesus disciples took him literally and He didn’t correct them
Isaiah 9:20 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Isaiah 49:26 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Micah 3:3 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Matthew 26:26-28 - The Eucharist is instituted, “This is my body this is my blood”
1 Corinthians 10:16 - The bread and wine are a participation in the body and blood of Christ
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - This is my body this is my blood
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - Receiving unworthily is profaning the body and blood of the Lord
God bless.
 
BILL PICK said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.

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.
 
Korban said:
Scripture is clear that Christ meant to eat his flesh, I found it interesting when reading Zechariah 9 in Catholic bibles it reads they will drink blood like wine, now this whole passage is talking of the coming of Christ, yet in no protestant bible is this verse repeated but all have corrupted the text and it’s meaning.
This is taken of course from the Septuagint in which there is no doubt that this is what Christ and the Apostles read from.
a few other’s that show Christ’s intent…
Exodus 12:8, 46, Leviticus 6:17-19 - Under the Old Covenant the sacrificial lamb was eaten
1 Corinthians 5:7 - Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the New Covenant
John 6:53 - Under the New Covenant the sacrificial lamb must also be eaten
John 6:35-71 - The Eucharist is promised
John 6:35, 48, 51 - Jesus says, “I am the Bread of Life”
John 6:51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 - Jesus says, “The bread which I give is my flesh”
John 6:66 - Jesus disciples took him literally and He didn’t correct them
Isaiah 9:20 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Isaiah 49:26 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Micah 3:3 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm
Matthew 26:26-28 - The Eucharist is instituted, “This is my body this is my blood”
1 Corinthians 10:16 - The bread and wine are a participation in the body and blood of Christ
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - This is my body this is my blood
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - Receiving unworthily is profaning the body and blood of the Lord
God bless.
Click to expand...
None of these scriptures prove your point. Bread is not flesh. If I were to tell you I was eating a steak while muching on bread and butter you would think I was delusional.

Obviously there must be some spiritual meaning to these scriptures. We don’t actually eat human flesh. That is called cannibalism and I know that Catholics are not cannibals. One can believe in a “spiritual real presence” because Jesus said that he is with us if he we are “gathered in his name”. I believe he IS with us and that we symbolically eat his flesh.

A bannana is not a pear. Bread is not steak. Candy is not wheat. Lead is not gold. Things are what they are, but we may speak metaphorically or spiritually about them. There is no such thing as “substance” under different “appearances”. Were it so, I could be 6’4 and weigh 200 pounds of solid muscle and appear to be 18 years old. Or perhaps I could be a lion. No I think a cheetah would be fun-- I would love to be able to run 60 miles an hour. Unfortunately, it is not so! Catholics typically pride themselves on being rational about their beliefs, but this is where all that rationality breaks down.
 
mfbukowski said:
This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. The precise word used by Jesus actually quite important. Many of His disciples who realized that Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically actually left Him over this teaching, which was deemed too difficult to accept.

This process continues today with Protestants and others rejecting the Apostolic understanding of Jesus’ words and declaring they know better what He meant.
 
BILL PICK said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I still don’t understand is that in taking John 6 literally why didn’t some of the disciples literally try to grab his hand and trogo/gnaw on his fleshy forearm.
 
John7 said:
What I still don’t understand is that in taking John 6 literally why didn’t some of the disciples literally try to grab his hand and trogo/gnaw on his fleshy forearm.
Click to expand...
REMEMBER THEY GOT UP AND LEFT
 
mfbukowski said:
None of these scriptures prove your point. Bread is not flesh. If I were to tell you I was eating a steak while muching on bread and butter you would think I was delusional.

Obviously there must be some spiritual meaning to these scriptures. We don’t actually eat human flesh. That is called cannibalism and I know that Catholics are not cannibals. One can believe in a “spiritual real presence” because Jesus said that he is with us if he we are “gathered in his name”. I believe he IS with us and that we symbolically eat his flesh.

A bannana is not a pear. Bread is not steak. Candy is not wheat. Lead is not gold. Things are what they are, but we may speak metaphorically or spiritually about them. There is no such thing as “substance” under different “appearances”. Were it so, I could be 6’4 and weigh 200 pounds of solid muscle and appear to be 18 years old. Or perhaps I could be a lion. No I think a cheetah would be fun-- I would love to be able to run 60 miles an hour. Unfortunately, it is not so! Catholics typically pride themselves on being rational about their beliefs, but this is where all that rationality breaks down.
Click to expand...
I could give you a list of quotes and early teaching on the Eucharist from the first Christians that all held that the eucharist is the Body blood soul and divinity of Christ, But will it do any good? Zwingli was the one who headed the revolt on the Eucharist and the reason was that although this is not impossible that God could manifest in the form of bread yet it is impossible for him to be in two places at once, therefore the Eucharist can not be Jesus, that is Heretical as God has no boundries he does what he will.
I will leave you with one verse John 6;66 Many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more.
of course they are not with him, as he is not with them because they had not got God’s grace to understand.
God Light your path.
 
Just The None Belivers. Why Do You Think Jesus Did Not Say Guys I.m Just Playing Around
 
John7 said:
What I still don’t understand is that in taking John 6 literally why didn’t some of the disciples literally try to grab his hand and trogo/gnaw on his fleshy forearm.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question?

If it is, then perhaps they were simply content to wait for further explanation. After all, Christ probably revealed something new to them every day, so they would have understood that they did not yet understand.
 
mfbukowski said:
This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why using John 6 to defend the truth of the real presence is difficult. “I am the door”, etc. are clearly figurative.
OTOH, in the Last Supper account, His language changes. He puts His hand on the bread and says, “This is my Body”. “This is me”, as opposed to “I am this”, as above.

The Last Supper accounts and Paul’s writngs about it are undeniably literal. John 6 may point to the real presence, but the Last Supper accounts are crystal clear: “This is my body”.
Is is is.

Jon
 
mfbukowski said:
This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.

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.
Click to expand...
Right after He finishes telling them this, almost all of His followers abandon Him. They clearly understood Him as meaning this literally. And if He meant it only spiritually/symbolically/metaphorically He would be morally obligated as a teacher to set them straight. But, He doesn’t yell after them “Hey guys, I was just using a metaphor” – no, He turns to the only ones left and asks “are you going to leave me, too?”. This teaching also appears to be the turning/breaking point for Judas Iscariot.
 
I must agree with JonNC that John 6 is not the strongest support for the Real Presence. Since the thread is whether John 6 is literal or not when it speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, what I am quoting from Augustine is not to show what Augustine thinks about the Eucharist but what he thinks about John 6.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, “and drink His blood, you 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.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm
“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
 
SyCarl said:
I must agree with JonNC that John 6 is not the strongest support for the Real Presence. Since the thread is whether John 6 is literal or not when it speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, what I am quoting from Augustine is not to show what Augustine thinks about the Eucharist but what he thinks about John 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, SyCarl. And as you said, none of this disproves the real presence, nor does it hint that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence.

The best proof of the real and substantial presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist is Christ’s own institution of the sacrament on the night He was betrayed.

Jon
 
What I don’t understand is how some Protestants say the Bible is the literal Word of God, but John 6 is symbolic.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Right after He finishes telling them this, almost all of His followers abandon Him. They clearly understood Him as meaning this literally. And if He meant it only spiritually/symbolically/metaphorically He would be morally obligated as a teacher to set them straight. But, He doesn’t yell after them “Hey guys, I was just using a metaphor” – no, He turns to the only ones left and asks “are you going to leave me, too?”. This teaching also appears to be the turning/breaking point for Judas Iscariot.
Click to expand...
No, he was separating the sheep from the goats. Read my whole post- it seems no one has. He wanted to find those who knew that his words were SPIRIT, and that the flesh profiteth nothing.
 
SyCarl said:
I must agree with JonNC that John 6 is not the strongest support for the Real Presence. Since the thread is whether John 6 is literal or not when it speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, what I am quoting from Augustine is not to show what Augustine thinks about the Eucharist but what he thinks about John 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top