Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

[St.Eric]

JSmitty2005:

Hey! You stole that from Scott Hahn!

You guys are sharp! I would say BORROWED rather than Stole! It is a great quote, I use it all the time.

 

[JoeyWarren]

 

[JoshuaJ]

Proverbs 1:31 “Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.”

Isaiah 3:10 “Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”

Jeremiah 15:16 “**Thy words ** were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:…”

John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: **the words I speak ** unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

2Cor. 3:6 “who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

Isa. 55:12 “For ye shall go out with joy, and be led… and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” Has anyone seen a tree that has hands?

Psalms 98:8 “Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together”

The spiritual language of God cannot be understood by the natural man.

 

[ruzz]

St.Eric:

Exactly, and what were his words. His words commanded us to DO something, that is “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” After he says this, in Jn 6:66, the disciples walk away because they cannot accept this teaching. The 12 remain. And at the last supper he institutes the Eucharist for those who believe, i.e., the 12 and then commands them to do this always. Through apostolic succession, we continue to keep this command.

Keep in mind that only a very small amount of the things Jesus did and said were recorded in scripture. Also, if the author of this gospel thought that this was a self-evident teaching, in no further need of explaination, then he would not have elaborated on it. Much the same way Christ didn’t tell the disciples who turned away to come back so he could explain the parable. Why? Because there was no parable, he spoke literally at that point. They couldn’t believe the teaching so they walked. And he let them do so. He doesn’t even clarify himself with the 12. In every other parable in the entire bible, when the 12 don’t understand, he breaks down the parable for them. He does not do this in John 6, because there is no parable.

Alright, I see where this is going. You take Jesus’ words literally when they support your beliefs but ignore or gloss over His words when he clarifies it to support the title of this thread. That’s ok and I respect your opinion, but understand that the title of this thread has an answer.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life

And my original question has been answered. Jesus DOESN’T explain the Eucharist or demonstrate it. He doesn’t hand out bread or wine (turned into flesh). That is totally absent from the narrative. What He does do is explain the spirit and talk about believing. Why then does Jesus immediately continue to talk about belief (Jn 6:64) and that some will betray him for lack of it? Is He saying Judas won’t eat His flesh?

Dismissing the Eucharist as “assumed” and therefore not discussed is silly. Nothing should be assumed, otherwise John wouldn’t need to write the gospels at all. One of the single most important aspects of Christianity, the Eucharist, and John doesn’t write about it when the perfect opportunity to arises. Just makes no sense.

Let’s just assume that it was assumed. Why doesn’t Jesus then offer these people what He just explained? Some form of His flesh to eat. Think about it. God says you must literally eat my flesh and you believe that so. Isn’t your next reaction, “Fantastic, I can’t wait. Where can I get some?”

Because Jesus explains what He means in 6:63. Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. They got it and didn’t ask for some Flesh to eat, nor does He offer it. Instead He offers BELIEF which is the point of it all.

Linking the last supper to John 6 is like gluing different cars pieces together to build a car. Different events and circumstances. Sure you can make it fit and work, but it’s not the way it was intended.

So John 6 never explains the Eucharist, Jesus never offers His flesh to the followers. Some followers that don’t get it walk away. Perfectly understandable. The remainder don’t ask Jesus for something to eat. They understand what He means.

Isn’t it possible that the people who walked away thought Jesus actually meant to literally eat His flesh and when He didn’t offer any they left? Those that remained GOT IT.

 

[Mickey]

ruzz:

Because Jesus explains what He means in 6:63. Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. They got it and didn’t ask for some Flesh to eat, nor does He offer it. Instead He offers BELIEF which is the point of it all.

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

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).
Catholic Answers

 

[Mickey]

ruzz:

Let’s just assume that it was assumed.

I 'm sure you’ve seen this before, but I’ll post it again. This should help you. Since you are not convinced by John’s Gospel, his disciple St Ignatius of Antioch has more to say:

IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS

From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.

 

[Shiann]

ruzz:

Alright, I see where this is going. You take Jesus’ words literally when they support your beliefs but ignore or gloss over His words when he clarifies it to support the title of this thread. That’s ok and I respect your opinion, but understand that the title of this thread has an answer.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life

And my original question has been answered. Jesus DOESN’T explain the Eucharist or demonstrate it. He doesn’t hand out bread or wine (turned into flesh). That is totally absent from the narrative. What He does do is explain the spirit and talk about believing. Why then does Jesus immediately continue to talk about belief (Jn 6:64) and that some will betray him for lack of it? Is He saying Judas won’t eat His flesh?

He does explain what is to happen. There is the whole structure of Jewish law/life/religion that so many protestants do not consider when examining the Holy Eucharist. Everything that was said and done that evening, was in the context of current Jewish laws. The words Jesus spoke were earth shattering to the Jews/to-be-Christians in the room.

By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ** not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood**.

This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by “bread of heaven” Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith.

Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede.

First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”.

For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna** of the past** (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52).

Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own-Flesh and Blood.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

Dismissing the Eucharist as “assumed” and therefore not discussed is silly. Nothing should be assumed, otherwise John wouldn’t need to write the gospels at all. One of the single most important aspects of Christianity, the Eucharist, and John doesn’t write about it when the perfect opportunity to arises. Just makes no sense.

As stated before, that was because the meaning of what Jesus was doing and saying was so explicit when performed in the context of the Passover Meal. There was no reason for St. John to go into detail for those he was writing to, would know the precise meaning.

Let’s just assume that it was assumed. Why doesn’t Jesus then offer these people what He just explained? Some form of His flesh to eat. Think about it. God says you must literally eat my flesh and you believe that so. Isn’t your next reaction, “Fantastic, I can’t wait. Where can I get some?”

He couldn’t as he hadn’t been sacrificed yet. The Jews didn’t eat the Passover Lamb while it was still living…

Because Jesus explains what He means in 6:63. Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. They got it and didn’t ask for some Flesh to eat, nor does He offer it. Instead He offers BELIEF which is the point of it all.

Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith.

If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion.

This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John 6:51, 53: phagein).
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

When taking into consideration the Jewish culture/religion in this meal these questions you ask become crystal clear.

Linking the last supper to John 6 is like gluing different cars pieces together to build a car. Different events and circumstances. Sure you can make it fit and work, but it’s not the way it was intended.

This is not the case. John 6 is so glaringly clear on this when taking the Jewish religion into consideration. Remember Christianity is merely a continuation… a fulfilment, rather, of the Jewish religion. You cannot seperate the two the minute Christ is born, or claims His role in Salvation.

So John 6 never explains the Eucharist, Jesus never offers His flesh to the followers. Some followers that don’t get it walk away. Perfectly understandable. The remainder don’t ask Jesus for something to eat. They understand what He means.

This is exactly why one should understand the Jewish culture and religion. If you did, you would not make such statements.

Isn’t it possible that the people who walked away thought Jesus actually meant to literally eat His flesh and when He didn’t offer any they left? Those that remained GOT IT.

You’re right that those that remained ‘got it’ but only because they truly believed that Jesus had come to be the Pascal Lamb… to be sacrificed for all. And part of the sacrifice is the literal consumption of the sacrifice. Not just the belief. Those who walked away couldn’t believe that Jesus could offer that kind of Sacrifice in the ways he promised. Literally.

 

[St.Eric]

ruzz:

Let’s just assume that it was assumed. Why doesn’t Jesus then offer these people what He just explained? Some form of His flesh to eat. Think about it. God says you must literally eat my flesh and you believe that so. Isn’t your next reaction, “Fantastic, I can’t wait. Where can I get some?”

Isn’t it possible that the people who walked away thought Jesus actually meant to literally eat His flesh and when He didn’t offer any they left? Those that remained GOT IT.

He couldn’t offer it because the disciples walked away. The faithful 12 who believed and remained, DID receive it at the last supper. And YOU and anyone else can get this at any RCC Mass. Yes, it IS fantastic, that is one of the reasons I am a convert to the RCC. That is exactly where I can get his flesh and blood to eat.

The reason the people walked away wasn’t because he wasn’t offering his flesh and blood. They walked because he WAS offering his flesh and blood to eat and drink and they were DISGUSTED by this teaching. they couldn’t handle it.

 

[St.Eric]

Thanks Shiann for the above posts. I often forget to pull in the passover and the fulfillment of the OT prophesies and the culture of the time. The OT and NT cannot be read and understodd with the filters of the 21st Century Western culture.

 

[ruzz]

Mickey:

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.

According to 1900 year old traditions this could be one possible interpretation. But it also means NOT taking Jesus’ words in 6:63 literally, but his words before it literally.

Obviously there are 2 ways to view this. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I don’t agree with it. I’m taking Jesus’ words as clarification. He doesn’t say, “Later you will eat bread that is really my body”. He just doesn’t. Now clear logic would dictate that such a new concept of god eating for eternal life would be met with a lot of questions. Like, “Great, tell how to get some”. Where Jesus would naturally reply with something like “When the lamb is sacrificed” or something like that. Instead He goes on to talk about belief in Him.
Ok, let’s say those believed it to mean actually eating Jesus’ flesh. Wouldn’t someone (who believed it so) say “How?”. I guess no ancestors to Missourians (show me state) were present.

The thread title asks why don’t we follow His commandments. We do. Eating God/bread isn’t one of them. If it were to mean literal body/blood, then where does Jesus offer this up in James 6? He doesn’t. He never offers bread/body. He does, HOWEVER, offer belief in Him.

If I only read starting at John 6:53, I could EASILY conclude that Jesus wants us to eat His body.

However, in context, it makes perfect sense.

Jn 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

Are we to take this literally as well. Is Jesus literally bread? If we come to him will we never hunger or thirst?

So, John 6 doesn’t demonstrate the Eucharist.

 

[ruzz]

Shiann:

As stated before, that was because the meaning of what Jesus was doing and saying was so explicit when performed in the context of the Passover Meal. There was no reason for St. John to go into detail for those he was writing to, would know the precise meaning.

Perhaps I AM ignorant about Jewish laws and customs.

I know the last supper was during passover. I didn’t realize John 6 was during passover as well.

When taking into consideration the Jewish culture/religion in this meal these questions you ask become crystal clear.

Again, perhaps I’m ignorant. I always thought the Eucharist went totally against prevailing Jewish wisdom of the time. Cannibalism was strictly forbidden and this would have gone totally against the Jewish law that Jesus claimed He didn’t come to change.

What part of Jewish culture/religion performed God-eating? Again, I didn’t realize the events in John 6 were during Passover. If I toss in that context, it might change some perspectives.

This is not the case. John 6 is so glaringly clear on this when taking the Jewish religion into consideration. Remember Christianity is merely a continuation… a fulfilment, rather, of the Jewish religion. You cannot seperate the two the minute Christ is born, or claims His role in Salvation.

Exactly! So introducing God-Eating would be changing it. Jesus didn’t come to change it, but to fullfill it.
Anything other would imply Jesus ADDED commandments. Why didn’t he reply “Eat Eucharist” when asked about what commandments are most important?

 

[Shiann]

ruzz:

Perhaps I AM ignorant about Jewish laws and customs.

I know the last supper was during passover. I didn’t realize John 6 was during passover as well.

Again, perhaps I’m ignorant. I always thought the Eucharist went totally against prevailing Jewish wisdom of the time. Cannibalism was strictly forbidden and this would have gone totally against the Jewish law that Jesus claimed He didn’t come to change.

But eating of the Pascal Lamb during Passover was not against Jewish wisdom. Jesus is the fulfilment, and the Pascal Lamb.

What part of Jewish culture/religion performed God-eating? Again, I didn’t realize the events in John 6 were during Passover. If I toss in that context, it might change some perspectives.

None. God became human so we could have salvation. It was the Sacrifice which saves us. We eat the divine humanity of God when we consume the Eucharist. It is not cannibalistic.

Exactly! So introducing God-Eating would be changing it. Jesus didn’t come to change it, but to fullfill it.
Anything other would imply Jesus ADDED commandments. Why didn’t he reply “Eat Eucharist” when asked about what commandments are most important?

To fulfill it he had to CHANGE it.

He took the place of the Pascal Lamb. He gave Divine Power to the Salvific Sacrifice.

 

[Coder]

ruzz:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life

And my original question has been answered. Jesus DOESN’T explain the Eucharist or demonstrate it. He doesn’t hand out bread or wine (turned into flesh). That is totally absent from the narrative. What He does do is explain the spirit and talk about believing. Why then does Jesus immediately continue to talk about belief (Jn 6:64) and that some will betray him for lack of it? Is He saying Judas won’t eat His flesh?

Jesus was correcting the people’s misunderstanding of what He was saying. The people were thinking in earthly terms as we foolish humans do. Jesus was explaining that His flesh is not like the earthly flesh that profits nothing. Look at the whole theme of the first part of John.

The word became flesh.

That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Jesus is explaining the difference between Himself and earthly flesh. Further to say Jesus flesh profits nothing is truly nonsensical for a Christian to say since Jesus death and resurrection in incarnate flesh is what purchased our salvation!

Also since “the flesh profits nothing”. Therefore what profit has Protestant communion which is nothing more than a piece of earthly bread (i.e. flesh/matter) that profits nothing as you say?

 

[Mickey]

ruzz:

I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I don’t agree with it.

Don’t take my word for it. Meditate on Scripture and read what the early Church Fathers had to say. All will be revealed to you.

 

[ruzz]

Shiann:

But eating of the Pascal Lamb during Passover was not against Jewish wisdom. Jesus is the fulfilment, and the Pascal Lamb.

Yes, you are correct. But this is out of context with John 6. It might apply during the last supper (another discussion) but not John 6.
Eating human Flesh (which Jesus was still human) was TOTALLY against Jewish law. Eucharist is to my understanding, Jesus’ human flesh. (the miracle of transubstantiation)

My original question, where do we see in John 6, the Eucharist?
It’s totally absent. Jesus doesn’t offer anything, the apostles don’t partake of anything.

Because Jesus offers something MUCH MORE in John 6. The bread of LIFE. He even explains the importance of belief.

• 35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.*

Is this literal also?
If the Eucharist is TRULY Jesus, we should only need to eat it once and never go hungry again. Or, put down that cheeseburger, the Eucharist is the only food we need. That is, if we take His words literally.
Or is this verse dealing with something more important than food? The whole point of this chapter is how food is temporary. Jesus is explaining the differences between temporary nurishment and permanent salvation.

Sure, those walked away took him literally. Those who may have taken Him literally and stayed never got Eucharist nor did they ask where to get some. If any of us heard that this is what we need for eternal life, most of us would be asking for some if not clawing our way toward Jesus to obtain it. This doesn’t happen in John 6.

None. God became human so we could have salvation. It was the Sacrifice which saves us. We eat the divine humanity of God when we consume the Eucharist.

What benefit does eating Jesus have?
What benefit does BELIEVING in Jesus have?
What logic can you use to show benefit of consuming Jesus’ flesh which is temporary and becomes digested?

To fulfill it he had to CHANGE it.

To fullfull it He needed to die for us. But He NEVER said He was here to change it. Am I missing His words somewhere?

 

[ruzz]

Mickey:

Don’t take my word for it. Meditate on Scripture and read what the early Church Fathers had to say. All will be revealed to you.

None of us should take the word of another person. I agree 100%. My opinion shouldn’t make anyone change their view. God’s word should.

I have read John 6 over and over meditating on it. What is revealed to me is that Jesus is making an important point. It’s perfectly clear in the context of the FULL chapter what He’s trying to teach. And that IS the point of John 6. Jesus is teaching, not adding a ritual.

However, you have read this, meditated and ALSO read the Early Church Fathers and see something else. So we will just disagree. I use God’s word, you use God’s word plus the words of men.

The difference is I have no use for the early Church Fathers writings. They are removed by one or more generations from Jesus and the Apostles. They never met Jesus and are not an original source. If they got it totally wrong, I’d be following flawed theology. If the 2nd photocopy is flawed, every copy of this copy will include this flaw. If you want accuracy, you need to get as close to the source as possible.
This is really another topic altogether (perhaps another thread).

To address the title of this thread. We don’t see Jesus adding new commandments. In fact, He claims not to do so. John 6 instead teaches a very important message.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The difference is I have no use for the early Church Fathers writings. They are removed by one or more generations from Jesus and the Apostles.

That is not entirely true. Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of John. What they wrote was based on what they learned from John directly and from the writings of the other writers of the Inspired Canon. We also know that the Disciples had disciples while Jesus walked the earth. Furthermore, the Early church fathers knew the Greek as it was then, they knew the context of what was written. They would have no problem understanding scripture as we do now. If you discount the Early Church Fathers, then you might as well discount any other Historical Document that supports the existance, crucifixion, and resurrection as proof. Furthermore if you discount the Early Church Fathers, then you might as well discount the major Protestant Semianarys that teach from the writings of the early church fathers. Any Protestant person you know that has knowledge that all of the apostles except for John died as Martyrs, then that Protestant got his information from the Early Church Fathers including Peter being crucified upside down because he claimed that he was not worthy to die in the same mannner as his Lord.

God bless and peace.

 

[Mickey]

ruzz:

The difference is I have no use for the early Church Fathers writings. They are removed by one or more generations from Jesus and the Apostles. They never met Jesus and are not an original source. If they got it totally wrong, I’d be following flawed theology.

And the reformers got it right? Their theology is not flawed?

These Church Fathers you so easily dismiss must be bothersome to you because they corroborate Catholic and Orthodox teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures. And as I quoted to you earlier, St Ignatius was a disciple of St John the Apostle. Do you really believe that St John taught this incorrectly to Ignatius? The teaching of the Real Presence is clear and continuous from the beginning.

Oh well, you’ll believe what you must.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[St.Eric]

ruzz:

The difference is I have no use for the early Church Fathers writings. They are removed by one or more generations from Jesus and the Apostles. They never met Jesus and are not an original source. If they got it totally wrong, I’d be following flawed theology. If the 2nd photocopy is flawed, every copy of this copy will include this flaw. If you want accuracy, you need to get as close to the source as possible.
This is really another topic altogether (perhaps another thread).

.

To go with your logic here, I hope you accept no translations of the bible and read only from the original Greek. The original books of the bible were canonized as inspired from God in their original language only. Thereafter, no translation is inspired translation and therefore subject to flawed copying.