Firstly, the greek text does not have the word “(dead)” in it. If it did, I might give this idea more serious consideration.
The Greek text does not have the word “dead.” But I was not quoting the Scriptures; I was explaining what the biblical text means. That is why I added the word “dead” in parenthesis to make the meaning clear. What Christ was saying is this: It is the spirit that quickens (or that gives life); the flesh (without spirit and without life, - in other words, dead flesh) is not profitable. Clearly, He was not talking about His living flesh not being profitable. How can that be, when He just finished saying that He was the Bread of Life, and that anyone who eats His flesh would have everlasting life? Would He contradict Himself so quickly?
Secondly, the next sentence: “The words I have spoken to you are spirit, and they are life”. What is he saying here, if not that his words are supposed to be interpreted in a spiritual sense?
Christ never said that His words were to be interpreted in a spiritual sense only and not literally. On the contrary, what Christ said was something like this: “My words are spirit and life; (so, you better pay attention and listen!)” And what were those life-giving words? It is this: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.”
Also, read Samuel 23 up to verse 17 to find out what the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood meant when said in a non-literal manner. If you use this sense to interpret John 6, it gives you a really good explanation of why his disciples left him, saying it was a hard saying.
I read 2 Samuel 23:1-17 (or 2 Kings 23:1-17 in the Douay version). Here David did not refuse to drink his soldiers’ blood. He refused to drink the water from the well that stands by the Gate of Bethlehem. Why? Because the well was guarded by the Philistines, and his brave soldiers risked their lives to get that water for him. He figured that to drink that water is (figuratively) like drinking the blood of his champions, for he is quenching his thirst at the expense of their lives. So he decided to offer the water to Yahweh.
But how is this relevant to our present discussion? Did Christ’s listeners know that Christ would one day be crucified to save them from sin? Did they already know that Christ was going to be their champion or redeemer? If not, then why would “eating” His body or “drinking” His blood be so difficult, assuming that it was merely figurative? There is only one reason. It is because they understood Christ literally, rather than figuratively. This is why the listeners asked: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They asked, because they understood Him literally.
Another plausible explanation for why they left him was because they realised they weren’t getting a second free lunch. Christ told them at the beginning of the passage that all they wanted was another free lunch, giving this idea more credence.
That might be your interpretation, but Christ did not actually say that. He did not tell the people that they were seeking Him only to get another free lunch. That would be rather insulting to His listeners. Here is the actual text: “Amen, amen, I say to you: you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled” (John 6:26). Which should be interpreted like this: “Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not just because you have seen miracles, but because you are confident that I will not let you go hungry.”
Finally, I am curious as to what you think of the Augustine quote that I quoted, where he said, and I paraphrase from memory: “to what purpose dost thou ready thy teeth and my stomach? Believe and you have eaten already.”
I would not comment on what St. Augustine said without reading the text that comes before it, and the text that comes after it. Please give me the source of your quotation, so I can read it at the right context. Was he talking about the Eucharist? I don’t know where you got the idea that St. Augustine supports the protestant interpretation. St. Augustine was thoroughly Catholic. In fact, during his time there were heretics, but no protestants. Protestantism was born during the Reformation, and Martin Luther – unlike many Protestants today – also believed in the Real Presence.
Anyway, if you want to know the real thought of St. Augustine regarding the Eucharist, then I offer this quotation instead:
“… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received. “ - St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430
Is it not the Roman catholic position that we can’t read the bible and use our brains, we must go by what the church fathers said it said instead? Given that Augustine is regarded as one of the greatest theologians of all time, will you not conceed that his comments make the protestant interpretation at the very least plausible?
It is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that we catholics can’t read the bible and use our brains. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible with their brains, but in harmony with the Magisterium.
.
