Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

[mfbukowski]

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

Don’t listen to anybody’s interpretation. What do you think? God gave you a brain for a reason.

 

[mfbukowski]

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?

Those who didn’t understand his true meaning were not worthy to be followers. They did not know he was the savior. He was not an “ambulance chaser” chasing after those who didn’t want to believe.

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?

He did. It is a sign of his body and blood. It “is” his body and blood as an outward sign of his presence.

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?

One must be worthy to partake, or we are not part of the body of Christ. We are saying we are part of his body but we are not. We are guilty of denying his body and blood, because we are saying we are part of his body while we are not.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[mfbukowski]

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

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.

Great post thanks

 

[mfbukowski]

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

??? Joseph Smith lived in the 1800’s

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

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.

Another good post. Thanks. Part of this was what I was trying to say but you explained it much better. Your interpretation is born out by the Catholic tradition that this is the point at which Judas turned to the “dark side”.

If it’s ok with you I may pm you from time to time when I have questions about ev theology. I am finding hard to get a straight answer on a few things, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

 

[NDfan]

Do you have a reference for this?

Yes years of study and an awesome Rabbi instructor. If you want to read an excellent book that’s a relative quick read, “Christ in the Passover” provides an overview of the passover and how the elements of the Lord’s supper are contained in the seder meal. It then explains how Christ re-purposed if you will the elements of the bread and wine.

 

[NDfan]

Another good post. Thanks. Part of this was what I was trying to say but you explained it much better. Your interpretation is born out by the Catholic tradition that this is the point at which Judas turned to the “dark side”.

If it’s ok with you I may pm you from time to time when I have questions about ev theology. I am finding hard to get a straight answer on a few things, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

Mfb anytime. I’m always willing to chat

PEACE

 

[JonNC]

Don’t listen to anybody’s interpretation. What do you think? God gave you a brain for a reason.

One of the ways we use our brains is to listen to others, particularly those more knowledgable, or closer to the historic events, in this case, the ECF’s.

Luther had every reason to side with Zwingli - political, personal - and stick his finger in the eye of Rome on this issue. He didn’t.
He couldn’t. The words of Christ, and the ECF’s were, to him, too clear.

Luther

Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Jon

 

[jim1130]

This offers a good explanation. You will agree if Catholic and disagree is non-Catholic.

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

An excerpt: **"In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

“And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).”**

It probably matters that the word “spirit” is spelled with a lowercase “s.” If it was an uppercase “S” then it would have referred to Jesus. That seems to be a clarifying point.

 

[jim1130]

Don’t listen to anybody’s interpretation. What do you think? God gave you a brain for a reason.

This probably explains why there are so many different non-Catholic churches. People decide what the Bible says and then identify a church that aligns with their beliefs.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Those who didn’t understand his true meaning were not worthy to be followers. They did not know he was the savior. He was not an “ambulance chaser” chasing after those who didn’t want to believe.

He did. It is a sign of his body and blood. It “is” his body and blood as an outward sign of his presence.

One must be worthy to partake, or we are not part of the body of Christ. We are saying we are part of his body but we are not. We are guilty of denying his body and blood, because we are saying we are part of his body while we are not.

'Those who didn’t understand his true meaning were not worthy to be followers." PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU KNOW THIS

 

[nbtb1348]

This probably explains why there are so many different non-Catholic churches. People decide what the Bible says and then identify a church that aligns with their beliefs.

But what you fail to understand is that they have the Holy Spirit inside them and great teachers around them which God gave to equip the saints. The evangelical world has been led by the Holy Spirit to marvelous unity on the essential issues of the Christian faith. To deny this is to hide from what is happening in glorious fashion in all corners of the planet.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Another good post. Thanks. Part of this was what I was trying to say but you explained it much better. Your interpretation is born out by the Catholic tradition that this is the point at which Judas turned to the “dark side”.

If it’s ok with you I may pm you from time to time when I have questions about ev theology. I am finding hard to get a straight answer on a few things, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

have you ever read this verse? blind leading the blind. won’t both fall into the pit?

Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth."

 

[wisdomseeker]

But what you fail to understand is that they have the Holy Spirit inside them and great teachers around them which God gave to equip the saints. The evangelical world has been led by the Holy Spirit to marvelous unity on the essential issues of the Christian faith. To deny this is to hide from what is happening in glorious fashion in all corners of the planet.

you must be kidding, right? and you can quote from SS all day long because no one can stop you from doing it. but you are not following the teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth."

 

[caudy]

But what you fail to understand is that they have the Holy Spirit inside them and great teachers around them which God gave to equip the saints. The evangelical world has been led by the Holy Spirit to marvelous unity on the essential issues of the Christian faith. To deny this is to hide from what is happening in glorious fashion in all corners of the planet.

Please reference this statement, or is this your opinion? The evangelical world continues to splinter because noone can agree on issues. Which essential issues do they all agree on?

Some believe there is some presence in the eucharist others believe it is completely symbolic. This would seem to be an essential issue.

Some believe in predestination, others do not. This would seem to be essential.

Some believe you must speak in tongues as a demonstration of being filled with the holy spirit, others do not. Should there not be agreement here?

Others believe in OSOS, and some do not.

The list can go on.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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?

So what you are saying is that His flesh does not profit anything, but then later at the Cross does

You can not have it both ways. Either His flesh profits nothing, therefore the whole blood bought belief goes out the window, or you have interpreted this verse incorrectly. Which is it?

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Don’t listen to anybody’s interpretation. What do you think? God gave you a brain for a reason.

When Philip met the Ethiopian who had a question about the Scriptures in the Book of Acts; how did Philip respond? Did he ask what the Ethiopian thought and then tell him he had a brain and to use it or did he sit down and explain the verse?

And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32* Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” 35 **Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. ** Acts 8:27-35

So please, if you would, answer my question.

God bless

 

[emarc]

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.

you’re welcome and i’ll pray for you too. i’m a cradle catholic but not a good one; missed a lot of Sunday mass, cheated on my wife until the Holy Spirit convicted me 7 yrs ago and showed me the light. it’s a long story but God is truly good and saved a lost soul. i used to believe that the bread and wine were only symbolic until i had a friendly discussion w/ a former lutheran converted catholic who believed in the true body and blood of Jesus. that night i could not sleep. i did a lot of research and w/ the Holy Spirit’s leading he opened my eyes to believe in Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity when receiving communion.
God bless.

 

[ufamtobie]

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

Do you eat a live cow if you want a piece of steak?

What a cow does whether it knows it or not he is sacrificing itself for us to Eat.

As with Jesus Christ, he knew exactly that he was sacrificing for us, in order for us to EAT and DRINK and be SAVED.

What does food do to our body’s when we EAT it?.. It nourishes us, keeps us alive.

What does DRINK do for our body’s it refreshes us, and keep us alive.

The above eat and drink is to maintains PHYSICAL LIFE in us.

BUT!!! we also need Nourishment for the Life of our SOULS and thats where the EUCHARIST the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity gives us. Jesus gives us Lifefor our souls.

That is why Jesus tells us if we Do Not EAT or Drink His Body and Blood we have NO LIFE in us.

John7 Please don’t go around eating and drinking a live cow if you want meat lol:thumbsup: Let it be sacrificed first Like Jesus Christ, sacrificed hiself for us only then can we begin to Eat and Drink.

Your Brother in Christ

Ufam Tobie