Protestants and John chapter 6

[JonNC]

Dhc8_Type:

When I go to church with my wife about 90% of them skip the wine.

You mean the Blood. And, Our Blessed Lord’s resurrected Body contains His Blood.

You are correct, though I’ve heard Catholics speak this way, too

 

[AugustTherese]

Exactly. The common vernacular that even St Paul used, “the bread we break…”, etc.

And Our Lord referred to Himself as the Bread from Heaven. But we both know He is not a loaf of bread.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Exactly. The common vernacular that even St Paul used, “the bread we break…”, etc.

And Our Lord referred to Himself as the Bread from Heaven. But we both know He is not a loaf of bread.

Correct. And we both also know that we don’t eat His fingers and toes. We see, taste, smell and touch bread and wine, yet we know it is His body and blood. An inexplicable mystery, made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit and the speaking of the verbs by the priest

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

Exactly. The common vernacular that even St Paul used, “the bread we break…”, etc.

And Our Lord referred to Himself as the Bread from Heaven. But we both know He is not a loaf of bread.

Correct. And we both also know that we don’t eat His fingers and toes. We see, taste, smell and touch bread and wine, yet we know it is His body and blood. An inexplicable mystery, made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit and the speaking of the verbs by the priest

Well said, brother!!

 

[MT1926]

Since I visit multiple forums, and interact with many persons, I saw a protestant response in another forum, here if interested in it (warning it isn’t short) - Link

Would be interested in thoughts on the things therein.

Wow that was long. Didn’t really read the whole thing because it was easy to see from the beginning that he is just going down the exact same (incorrect) path that many go down.

For instance, his entire argument is based on his quote here…

Herein is the central issue , for this same thing continues to happen throughout the Gospel of John, wherein they have misunderstanding of the prophecies and of the words of the prophets, and of the words of Jesus, and so have incorrect conclusions and actions.

He goes on to point out over and over again where Jesus words are misunderstood. And based on all of these misunderstandings he comes to the conclusion that…

And still [6] again in John 6:50-52 , etc [throughout], we find that the Jews again misunderstand Jesus, in that they think He is speaking of physical, even fleshly “flesh” and “blood” [which is exactly what Roman Catholicism does today!], yet He was speaking of Spiritual, not Physical:

If you read carefully you will notice that in all of the examples Mr. Dignified gives either the Sacred Writer or Jesus Himself points out the misunderstanding and tells us what Jesus was teaching with His metaphorical words. However, no where in John 6 does Jesus nor the Sacred writer point out that everyone present was misunderstanding Jesus’ words when He was speaking of His “flesh and blood”. No where does it tells us that John 6 is a metaphor for “believing” in Jesus.

Mr. Dignified’s long drawn out explanation might look impressive but when you tear it apart it’s just his opinion based on his misunderstandings.

Just to point out one more of his misunderstandings, Mr. Dignified’s theology makes a grave error in an attempt to justify his interpretation of John 6…

Jesus was speaking of Himself as the Messiah and Saviour, thus speaking Himself as the Messiah, the very Son of God, to believe upon and the example to follow:

“ This is the bread which cometh down from heaven , that a man may eat thereof , and not die.” John 6:50

Jesus human “Flesh” and “Blood” did not come down from heaven, but He and His doctrine, His Way have.

This sounds to me to be a denial of the incarnation, that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Mr. Dignified refuses to accept the Truth that Jesus was literally talking about His flesh and blood and this denial has led him to teaching a heresy that Jesus, in His human body, was not the Messiah He is just speaking of Himself AS the Messiah.

That’s the problem when you try to interpret the Bible to fit your theology. Like Jesus said the path is narrow and when you try to go it on your own it is way to easy to step off the path. That’s why He left us a guide in the Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

You do not have an account there, do you? Perhaps you could engage there?

Not enough time in the day. I barely have enough time for this forum.

Could you be more specific in what you mean by citing the verses?

Mr. Dignified made the claim that the central issue (which is commonly defined as main issue or most important issue that what he believes is based upon) is throughout the Gospel of John people misunderstand Jesus’ words.

Go through his talk again he points out the verses right there in his talk for you…

His first example was John 2…
Jesus says….
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews misunderstood…
20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
The Sacred writer shows us the misunderstanding…
21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.

Second example was John 3
Jesus says…
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus misunderstands thinking he means birth waters…
4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus clarifies that He mean the waters of Baptism (water and Spirit)…
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mr. Dignified points out the example and misunderstanding shown directly in the Gospel of John. Then he gets to John 6 and points out what HE BELIEVES is the misunderstanding, but then jumps all over OTHER books of scripture to prove His BELIEF. In all of his other examples, the misunderstanding was written by the Sacred Author John and cleared up by the same author. If this is another misunderstanding how come John doesn’t clear it up within his own writings?

It was not so much the length (though that was quite something to see), but the way in which “Dignified Response” approached the subject over such a broad area, and yet dig into each in some detail.

I have found that sometimes people tend to approach a subject over the broad area, so that it is too much to take in and concentrate on, this way it keeps people from seeing the true detail of what they are saying.

Sometimes it is best to take our Lord’s words at face value, everyone present on the day of John 6 did. Men who followed Jesus from the very beginning did and He let them walk away. The bigger question is if it truly where a misunderstanding why would Jesus let them walk away? Why didn’t He clear it up right then and there? I mean at the very least He would have cleared it up to the 12, right? I mean as Mr. Dignified points out Jesus cleared it up in all of the other examples when no one was threatening to leave?

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

From what I read, “Dignified Response” was not denying the incarnation, as I took the time to read all of it, (a few times now), but only attempting to make a point in regards to what was “bread”, as it came “down from heaven”. “Dignified Response” stated that while Jesus came down from heaven, his human flesh nature did not, but comes of the earth, earthly.

This is the problem I was trying to get at. Mr. Dignified has a preconceived point that he is trying to make. He needs to find a way to prove his point and finds that the only way he can do it is to divide Jesus in two. He reads John 6 and in order to make Jesus’ words fit his theology he has to place Jesus’ divinity on his right and Jesus’ humanity on his left.

What I am trying to get you to see is Mr. Dignified’s argument doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t matter if Jesus body was an “earthly flesh”. We believe in the Incarnation which shows us Jesus’ Hypostatic union. That in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

There is only ONE person of Christ, therefor when He says in verse 48 I am the bread of life. He is not speaking of just His divine nature, He is speaking of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Also, in verse 51 He says… I am the living bread which came down from heaven. When He says “I” here why would we think He is just speaking about one part of Himself?

You can’t divide up Jesus in verses 48 or 51 so why is Mr. Dignified cutting Him in half in verse 50?

I agree with you that he is not trying to deny the incarnation but he is right on the edge with his theology.

Here’s the problem, that I see, if Mr. Dignified wants to minimize the importance of Jesus “meaningless earthly flesh and blood” in John 6 what’s to keep people from minimizing the importance of His flesh and blood at the crucifixion? I mean after all it is just meaningless earthly flesh it’s not like His flesh and blood came down from heaven to die for us, right?

I am not trying to tear Mr. Dignified down I’m just trying to point out how we need to be careful when we come to our own personal theological conclusions. People can easily take our conclusions one step further into heresy.

The Catholic Church has been teaching a literal John 6 for 2000 years. Why someone would come along 2000 years later and claim they got it wrong from the beginning is beyond me.

The path is narrow and without a guide it is pretty easy to step off that path.

Hope you can see where I am going with this. If something doesn’t seem clear just ask.

God Bless

 

[jlhargus]

I think verse 57 sums things up nicely.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

I see this saying that those who "feed on Christ" or in other words learn of Christ and sincerely attempt to emulate His life will one day receive Eternal Life. I hope this helps…

JL: If that were so why would disciples stop following him and why would Christ asked the apostles if they would leave too? Christ also said;

[Jn6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood is drink indeed .]

 

[Telstar]

It doesn’t matter if Jesus body was an “earthly flesh”. We believe in the Incarnation which shows us Jesus’ Hypostatic union. That in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

There is only ONE person of Christ, therefor when He says in verse 48 I am the bread of life . He is not speaking of just His divine nature, He is speaking of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Also, in verse 51 He says… I am the living bread which came down from heaven . When He says “I” here why would we think He is just speaking about one part of Himself?

You can’t divide up Jesus in verses 48 or 51 so why is Mr. Dignified cutting Him in half in verse 50?

Amen! You just said exactly what I was thinking while reading about what this other forum’s poster said. (I didn’t read all of it because it was way too long). In order to believe what he claims, you absolutely have to divide Jesus in two. I’ve said the same thing about Protestant’s view of John 6 and other beliefs. You have to separate the person of Jesus into His physical and spiritual natures, and completely ignore the Hypostatic Union. You can’t just pull Jesus apart like that. It doesn’t make any sense to look at His words that way, either. St. Peter said,
“2 Peter [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

When we choose to interpret the scriptures on our own, without the guidance of people that have had much more experience and knowledge about the circumstances, culture, and various religious beliefs common to the people at that point in time, then we leave ourselves open to all kinds of errors about what they really mean. It’s as if we’re trying to reinvent the wheel, because we don’t think “they” did it right the first time.

It can certainly make a world of difference between us obtaining salvation and losing our souls. Not to mention the fact that, in the process, we could also be causing the loss of any other souls, like family members and friends, that might believe in our interpretation of those words and follow our bad example. That’s an awesome responsibility to take upon yourself, when you really think about it. If you’re right, you could save a lot of souls, but if your wrong, you could end up sending yourself and many people around you to hell.

That’s exactly why Jesus gave us the Church, which He established on the Apostles, to spread the teachings of His Gospel. They were given full responsibility and authority to interpret and teach the true meaning of the Gospel, which they passed on to others who have followed them down through the centuries. I’m very happy to let them tell me what that true meaning is, because I can never be certain that I could ever interpret it, correctly. I can’t afford to take the chance that I would be right, when I could be very, very wrong.

 

[Theo520]

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?

It records Jesus’ miracles of feeding the five thousand and walking on water, the Bread of Life Discourse, popular rejection of his teaching and Peter’s confession of faith, and anticipates his betrayal by Judas Iscariot.

Protestants believe scripture was symbolic about " eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood"

 

[JonNC]

7_Sorrows:

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?

It records Jesus’ miracles of feeding the five thousand and walking on water, the Bread of Life Discourse, popular rejection of his teaching and Peter’s confession of faith, and anticipates his betrayal by Judas Iscariot.

Protestants believe scripture was symbolic about " eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood"

Not all Protestants, hence I repeat here that, in discussion of doctrine and practice, the use of the term “protestant “ is folly.

 

[Geographer]

I think many, when saying “I believe” mean a feeling/emotion. Really, if someone truly “believes” is reflected in their actions…a real physical manifestation of their “feeling” of belief. The institution of the Eucharist and Christ’s command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” was meant as a physical act; thus, if it weren’t, why did so many walk away? And when they did, Christ “doubled down” rather than explain away his words as “just an act of faith.”

 

[Dorothy]

The Catholic Church teaches that whether we have a drop of the Precious Blood, or just a crumb of the Sacred Host, we receive our Risen Lord.

As long as the priest consecrates both species, it is not mandated that the participants receive both species.

 

[Benadam]

I think both MT1926 and Dignified Response are correct. Jesus’ body had not come down from heaven but Jesus is not part this and part that.

Dignified defeats his own argument though when using that against Jesus’ flesh because it denies the only thing he could have meant about bread coming down from heaven and it being His Body.

What is it about the Word of God as the bread that is eaten that is contingent on Jesus’ resurrection? His words are life when He was here living an earthly life. The concepts that Dignified attaches to the Bread that comes down from heaven don’t require that Jesus go up there again body and soul. The resurrection is necessary so the Bread as His body could come down from heaven. Jesus didn’t have to die for Him to be the Word that came down from heaven that we can chew on and eat. But Jesus did break the bread and say it is '“given for you”. He did say it comes down from heaven which means His resurrected body.

The only Bread that could come down from heaven is His Resurrected Body and the thing necessary for that to happen in order to be Bread that comes down from heaven and be the Bread we Break that becomes the Body and soul and divinity of Jesus is Jesus’ Resurrection. Jesus is the Word without the Resurrection.

 

[MT1926]

The concepts that Dignified attaches to the Bread that comes down from heaven don’t require that Jesus go up there again body and soul.

This is a very interesting approach. I had to read it a few times before I was able to hone in on this statement. Once I did I was able to understand the point you are making. I never thought about it that way, will have to study it deeper, but I will say that it does make sense, thanks for the reply.

God Bless