Protestant Explanation of John 6

[Church_Militant]

The problem Kazige is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught ). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life

." Jesus was speaking about salvation.

To teach that Jesus meant for us to literally digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. otherwise he is a door and a gate

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

Matthew 10:38 reads, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”
Does God mean that we should literally carry crosses around over our shoulder?
See how ridiculous this all seems?I’m sorry Simon, but that’s the most illogical and ill supported interpretation that I’ve seen in a while. In the Greek the word for “eat” used means to literally gnaw and chew on.

Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

Simon, to me this is one of the most scripturally strong teachings of the Catholic Church and the one that I have the hardest time comprehending the denial of. The Word of God is all there and the n-C interpretations (in spite of all the assertions to the contrary) just do not hold up under the topical context. Sorry …

 

[DJim]

To teach that Jesus meant for us to literally digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. otherwise he is a door and a gate

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

Matthew 10:38 reads, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”
Does God mean that we should literally carry crosses around over our shoulder?
See how ridiculous this all seems?

I am SO glad you use this line of reasoning–you are correct that it’s absurd to think that Jesus is a piece of bread, or a door, a gate, a light, etc.

John 6 is absolutely a metaphor, which Catholics can and should agree with, because Jesus isn’t literally bread, and Jesus doesn’t become bread.

RATHER, the Last Supper clearly teaches us that the bread becomes JESUS. As does the wine.

That’s the Catholic teaching. When Jesus says “I am” this or that thing, that is metaphor.

BUT, when Jesus says “this” is “ME”–it’s real.

The same God who spoke light into existence is speaking the Eucharist into existence at the Last Supper.

And, try as you will to find them, there are NO places in the Gospels in which Jesus metaphorically says “This is…” . Nowhere.

DJim

 

[Church_Militant]

I am SO glad you use this line of reasoning–you are correct that it’s absurd to think that Jesus is a piece of bread, or a door, a gate, a light, etc.

John 6 is absolutely a metaphor, which Catholics can and should agree with, because Jesus isn’t literally bread, and Jesus doesn’t become bread.

RATHER, the Last Supper clearly teaches us that the bread becomes JESUS. As does the wine.

That’s the Catholic teaching. When Jesus says “I am” this or that thing, that is metaphor.

BUT, when Jesus says “this” is “ME”–it’s real.

The same God who spoke light into existence is speaking the Eucharist into existence at the Last Supper.

And, try as you will to find them, there are NO places in the Gospels in which Jesus metaphorically says “This is…” . Nowhere.

DJim

 

[Church_Militant]

Spiritually and not literally - for during this time, we are reminded of His death and look forward to his return…we give thanks for the gift that He has given in His body and His blood…I would say I receive just as much spiritual benefit in our Lord’s Supper as you would.

Not according to the Word of God and the writings of the earliest church fathers. “I would say” is not a solid grounds for a doctrinal belief. Even by n-C standards of Sola Scriptura. Sorry about that…

 

[kaycee]

Well…let’s be careful here–the Mass is not a repeated Sacrifice of any kind–which is exactly why it’s united to and one with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. There is only one Sacrifice that “is” the Mass. On earth, every Mass is a participation in that one Sacrifice*–the Heavenly Banquet. In Heaven it simply remains the Heavenly Banquet…this is presumably the deepest expression of the joy of Heaven–communion with God…

DJim

So Jesus will be drinking His own blood in Heaven as expression of Joy and communion with God?

 

[Church_Militant]

Well…let’s be careful here–the Mass is not a repeated Sacrifice of any kind–which is exactly why it’s united to and one with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. There is only one Sacrifice that “is” the Mass. On earth, every Mass is a participation in that one Sacrifice*–the Heavenly Banquet. In Heaven it simply remains the Heavenly Banquet…this is presumably the deepest expression of the joy of Heaven–communion with God…

DJim

So Jesus will be drinking His own blood in Heaven as expression of Joy and communion with God?

Jim,
Can you clarify what you are saying with scripture? N-Cs have trouble seeing such things unless one can point to scripture in support of it.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I am SO glad you use this line of reasoning–you are correct that it’s absurd to think that Jesus is a piece of bread, or a door, a gate, a light, etc.

John 6 is absolutely a metaphor, which Catholics can and should agree with, because Jesus isn’t literally bread, and Jesus doesn’t become bread.

DJim

Hey Djim how bout addressing the key point of my post…

The problem Kazige is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught ). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life." Jesus was speaking about salvation.

??

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m sorry Simon, but that’s the most illogical and ill supported interpretation that I’ve seen in a while.

Transubstantiation is one of the most ill supported interpretations i’ve ever seen and I use to believe as you do, then my eyes were opened to HIS truth.

 

[kaycee]

I’m sorry Simon, but that’s the most illogical and ill supported interpretation that I’ve seen in a while. In the Greek the word for “eat” used means to literally gnaw and chew on.Simon, to me this is one of the most scripturally strong teachings of the Catholic Church and the one that I have the hardest time comprehending the denial of. The Word of God is all there and the n-C interpretations (in spite of all the assertions to the contrary) just do not hold up under the topical context. Sorry …

I guess Ratramnus using Augustine to support Spiritual presence only, in the 9th century should’nt appear then.

Strange, something so clear, took till 1215 to nail it down.

 

[DJim]

So Jesus will be drinking His own blood in Heaven as expression of Joy and communion with God?

Well, kaycee, in Mt 26:29, it is Jesus who says, “I tell you, I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now on until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s reign.”

It would appear Jesus wants to drink again the same “fruit of the vine” at some future point with his Twelve. Might have done so post-resurrection and pre-Ascension, but I see no reason to conclude that He will not do what says He wants to do (in Mt 26) in Heaven as well.

I guess we’ll all have to wait and see–remind me that we had this conversation when I see you in Heaven, will you?

DJim

 

[Church_Militant]

Transubstantiation is one of the most ill supported interpretations i’ve ever seen and I use to believe as you do, then my eyes were opened to HIS truth.

Yeah, well I can’t tell that from the Word of God. Moreover…I have yet to see the first opposing viewpoint that didn’t require me to do mental and theological gymnastics to even begin to buy into it.

Simon, you can say all that…but I don’t see you answering the facts that I have set before you.

St. Paul…and St. Ignatius both make it VERY plain that they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Paul especially so when he tells us outright that to receive unworthily is to become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “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? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 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. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

 

[Church_Militant]

I guess Ratramnus using Augustine to support Spiritual presence only, in the 9th century should’nt appear then.

Strange, something so clear, took till 1215 to nail it down

.They could both be wrong then couldn’t they? And as usual…who is closer to source?

Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the evangelist.
Augustine, at bes,t was disciple of St Ambrose.

And what did Augustine say about whose authority he took as final?
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

1215? not quite…St. Ignatius wrote that in about 107. :knight2:

 

[DJim]

Hey Djim how bout addressing the key point of my post…
??

Okay–you said:

The problem Kazige is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught ). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life.” Jesus was speaking about salvation.

{Total sidebar here, but good to note: Jesus says in John 6:29: “This is the work of God: have faith in the One whom he sent.” (ironic that Jesus describes “faith” as a “work”, no?)}

Back to main point: He is not describing “salvation” as “bread of life”–He’s describing Himself–He says He is the living bread–which I agree with. He says that “food that remains for life eternal” is the “food which the Son of Man will give you.” He says that we must eat this food to have life within us.

He does NOT say the food is “salvation”.

He says that it is His flesh, for the life of the world.

And obviously, some disciples leave because they can’t handle the literal truth about eating His Flesh. Did Jesus use a “false metaphor” that results in people falling away from him?

Or is the metaphor true–we don’t just eat bread, we consume Him?

DJim

 

[Kazige2007]

From a Catholic standpoint…you really need to do some fancy footwork. A lot of good dancers in here. I do not pretend at all that you will ever see the light, so-to-speak, because you will not. It does not matter what I say or what anyone else says…you believe what you believe. So, it does not surprise me that I am seeing what I am seeing in this thread.

OneForTruth,
It would be helpful to me if you had stated what you believe to be proof of the true explanation of Jn 6. Here I breifly re-present my points:
1, The Promise. Jn 6:51 “…This is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world”.
2, The Fulfilment of the Promise: Mk 14:22 “…Take it. This is my body”
3, The Testimony of the Early Church: 1Cor 10:16. “…Is not the bread we break a fellowship in the body of Christ?”

Take courage and tackle these three points.
As your name suggests, you need not worry to - plus, at least you have got something to live up to!!

God Bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matt 26:29"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom."

Will Jesus be drinking His own Blood in Heaven?

Kaycee-

The kingdom of God was inaugurated on the cross when he atoned for our sins. This must be true otherwise Jesus was a liar because he said he wouldn’t drink of the fruit of the vine UNTIL, etc, etc, but then he went ahead and drank while nailed to the cross. Why?

Follow this all the way through…

He refused the wine mixed with myrrh offered to him before the crucifixion which would have dulled his pain. Then, the scriptures say:

“28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”

It was on the cross (and not up in Heaven) that he drank the “fourth cup” of the Passover. Only then did he say, “It is finished.” What was finished? The Passover meal begun the night before when he abruptly concluded the meal without drinking the fourth and final cup of the seder.

The Passover? A hyssop branch? What is all this about? The Eucharist!

Dean, Atemi, Kaycee, et al, all of this imagery ties back into the instructions given to the Israelites at the Passover in Exodus. Why? Because Jesus is the Lamb of God prefigured by the sacrificing of the lambs in Egypt and the blood put on the doorposts.

BUT

What else did God command the Israelites?

THEY HAD TO EAT THE LAMB!

The Old Testament prefigures the New which finds its perfect fulfillment in Jesus, who is both priest and victim.

We must eat the Lamb just as the Israelites did.

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

UNLESS!

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, the sacrafice of the mass will be repeated in Heaven, but it won’t be a sacrafice?

What are the other purposes for the sacrafice of the mass in Heaven?

The mass is always a sacrifice, but Jesus is not re-sacrificed. The one sacrifice of Christ is re-presented or made present again.

I do not know if the mass will be offered forever…after everyone who is going to be admitted is safely home, why would masses continue? That’s up to God…I don’t know what He has planned.

However, I do that Jesus is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Additionally, I know that Revelation says this:

“5Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” 6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders.”

John turned to see the Lion and saw a Lamb instead. And not just any Lamb but a Lamb looking as if it had been slain. Jesus appears not as a lion but as a sacrificial Lamb in heaven.

It’s ALL about the Eucharist, Kaycee.

 

[mtr01]

So Jesus will be drinking His own blood in Heaven as expression of Joy and communion with God?

First answer this question: Luke and Matthew record this event differently:

27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. 16 For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Notice the difference? Who’s correct? What is the significance of the difference?

I suggest before you continue your line of questioning, you first answer these questions. To be honest, I challenge you to answer them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From a Catholic standpoint…you really need to do some fancy footwork. A lot of good dancers in here. I do not pretend at all that you will ever see the light, so-to-speak, because you will not. It does not matter what I say or what anyone else says…you believe what you believe. So, it does not surprise me that I am seeing what I am seeing in this thread.

“This is my body…this is my blood.” --Jesus Christ. (33 AD)

“No, it isn’t.” --OneForTruth. (This morning)

Who’s tap dancing around the plain words of scripture now?

 

[Randy_Carson]

To teach that Jesus meant for us to literally digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. otherwise he is a door and a gate.

Did any of the Jews stop to see if Jesus was really made of wood or have hinges?

Did they pluck leaves off his branches?

No one abandoned Jesus when he gave those teachings because the metaphors were plain to all.

People did abandon Jesus when he gave his teaching concerning his flesh and blood because a) they understood he was NOT speaking metaphorically (they asked how it could be possible - not what his words could mean) and b) HE LET THEM GO RATHER THAN CORRECT HIMSELF OR THEIR UNDERSTANDING.

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

The Twelve already believed on him. Peter had walked on water…they “knew he had the words of eternal life.” Why did Jesus have to drill the Apostles on this? Because he was talking about something far more than just believing his words as you suggest.

Matthew 10:38 reads, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” Does God mean that we should literally carry crosses around over our shoulder?
See how ridiculous this all seems?

It seems ridiculous that you refuse (and I use this because I think there is an act of your will here) to distinguish between obvious metaphor and literal speech.

Either that or you really are blinded to the truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

brother randy,

peace and all-good!

I am happy to know that you are a convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

Several converts to the Roman Catholic Church are good apologists. Among them are Dr. Scott Hahn, David Currie and Patrick Madrid.

The whole chapter of John 6 can be understood in the context of the Last Supper (Mt. 26: 26-28).

The disciples undertoods our Lord Jesus Christ speaking literally, and that is why they remarked, “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?” (John 6:60).

It is not metaphorical. The statements of our Lord Jesus Christ is very, very clear, “For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” (John 6:55).

To the un-believers, our Lord Jesus Christ asked, “Does it shake your faith?” (John 6: 61).

To the Twelve (faithful), our Lord Jesus Christ asked, “Do you want to leave me too?” (John 6: 67).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

Amen! That is what we are trying to get the author of what I posted in the OP (Myfavoritmartin) to see.

Thanks for your thoughts!