Real Presence and John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All Christians today would say that they left because they misunderstood.
I should have said something about this when I originally answered this post, but I was in a hurry.

Only Christians who’s churches were born out of the Reformation and after, would say His followers left because they misunderstood Jesus. All the ancient Churches know they left because they finally understood that Jesus was being literal. When they walked away, they knew why they were walking away. Their only misunderstanding was they did not know how Jesus could literally give them His flesh. At that point, they were so disgusted with what they finally realized what He was actually saying, they didn’t care about the how.
 
Truth_Faith13, did you see the link I posted earlier on cannabalism?

Something else to consider in your original question is this. Before His followers walk away when Jesus said eat His flesh, the Greek word for eat here is phago, a word which has been used both literally and metaphorically in history. This is the point where his followers mumble among themselves.

Then John ramps it up and for eat switches to the Greek word trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically. Historians have not been able to find an instance where trogo has been used metaphorically. At this point His followers walk away.

So when John uses a word, phago, that can be used in more than one way, his followers aren’t happy at what Jesus is saying, but they don’t walk away. It is not until John uses a word, trogo, that make it clear what He is saying, that His followers walk away.

If John did not mean to be literal, there is no reason to switch from a word that can be viewed in more than one way, to one that has never been viewed in more than one way.
Thank-you that’s very interesting and helpful 🙂
 
So to the original question in the thread - the “hard saying” that caused them to leave was the idea of cannibalism.
All Christians today would say that they left because they misunderstood. Whether Jesus actually meant transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence or symbolic understanding, it wouldn’t have changed the misunderstanding and disgust that caused those who did not have faith and trust in Jesus to walk away.
But if it was just a misunderstanding, why didn’t Jesus correct them?
 
But if it was just a misunderstanding, why didn’t Jesus correct them?
Not only that, but He actually gave us His flesh and blood at the Last Supper:

Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If this is not what He meant, then He sure made it confusing to me.
 
I don’t think Peter completely understood, but followed Jesus anyway out of faith. 67*“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)

The ones that left did not believe. Perhaps after Pentecost some came back and became Christians. We don’t know for sure:
64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66*From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.(John 6:64-65)

It seems like their belief in Jesus and not their understanding of exactly what Jesus meant made all of the difference.
It seems like you are suggesting that Peter was actually eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood with his reply. I would say he displayed a faith that would accept Jesus’ Eucharist as transubstantiation.

But here, he displays a different reaction:

But he turned and said to Peter, “Getbehindme,Satan! You are a hindrance tome; for you are not on the side of God, but ofmen.”
susanlo, I’m sorry if my response here was… “jumpy”. I actually do agree with what you said; that belief made all the difference with the two camps (those who remained and those who did not). This is very fundamental.

Maybe I just don’t like when the “belief” aspect of the passage is presumed to exclude the belief in the Lord’s Supper as being distinct from some sort of “general belief” in Him, as the Son of God. His Holy Communion does not give us this kind of exemption. Nor should any Christian desire such an exemption from this table.

The context of this passage gives a good idea of how firm and “in their face” Jesus got. Imagine what had transpired! He filled their bellies with a miraculous feast. Then they come looking for Him and asking big questions. They are demanding that He shows them a sign so that they might “believe”, but they really would just try to make Him their king, instead of honoring Him as King. They had wordy ambitions and we’re looking for their fill of “magic bread”.

Now Jesus was telling them that God gives to man from above, and through the Son of Man, Whom the Father has set His seal. Now here is where we agree, but also where we have division, susan! Jesus is talking about His Spirit and Life! But man cannot receive His Spirit and life without Jesus dying and rising! This is why His body was necessary to be the sacrifice; the Lamb of God; the Pascal Sacrifice which must be slain for the forgiveness of sins! So believing and receiving the Spirit and Life of God is bound up with believing and receiving His Eucharistic offering! His body is one and the same with the Spirit, because the Father set His seal of the Son of Man!
 
But if it was just a misunderstanding, why didn’t Jesus correct them?
They thought that Jesus was speaking of cannibalism. This IS a misunderstanding. I would say that the question shouldn’t be about ‘IF it was just a misunderstanding,’ but ‘why didn’t Jesus correct their misunderstanding?’

The Apostles who had faith in Jesus did not understand, but trusted in Jesus and stayed. Those that left did not have faith. (I suppose Judas was in a different category).

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
 
I should have said something about this when I originally answered this post, but I was in a hurry.

Only Christians who’s churches were born out of the Reformation and after, would say His followers left because they misunderstood Jesus. All the ancient Churches know they left because they finally understood that Jesus was being literal. When they walked away, they knew why they were walking away. Their only misunderstanding was they did not know how Jesus could literally give them His flesh. At that point, they were so disgusted with what they finally realized what He was actually saying, they didn’t care about the how.
This is what the early church believed about the understanding of those who left. I am sure there is more written about this, but this is all I am aware of. Aren’t these writings showing that these early Christians believed that those who left misunderstood?

Augustine:
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm
  1. Many therefore, not of His enemies, but of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? If His disciples accounted this saying hard, what must His enemies have thought? And yet so it behooved that to be said which should not be understood by all. The secret of God ought to make men eagerly attentive, not hostile. But these men quickly departed from Him, while the Lord said such things: they did not believe Him to be saying something great, and covering some grace by these words; they understood just according to their wishes, and in the manner of men, that Jesus was able, or was determined upon this, namely, to distribute the flesh with which the Word was clothed, piecemeal, as it were, to those that believe in Him. This, say they, is a hard saying; who can hear it?
    newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
Tertullian:
He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John*6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life.
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

John Chrysostom:
“John 6:63
It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.
His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat? All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the ‘eating flesh’ might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.
That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?”
 
susanlo, I’m sorry if my response here was… “jumpy”. I actually do agree with what you said; that belief made all the difference with the two camps (those who remained and those who did not). This is very fundamental.

Maybe I just don’t like when the “belief” aspect of the passage is presumed to exclude the belief in the Lord’s Supper as being distinct from some sort of “general belief” in Him, as the Son of God. His Holy Communion does not give us this kind of exemption. Nor should any Christian desire such an exemption from this table.

The context of this passage gives a good idea of how firm and “in their face” Jesus got. Imagine what had transpired! He filled their bellies with a miraculous feast. Then they come looking for Him and asking big questions. They are demanding that He shows them a sign so that they might “believe”, but they really would just try to make Him their king, instead of honoring Him as King. They had wordy ambitions and we’re looking for their fill of “magic bread”.

Now Jesus was telling them that God gives to man from above, and through the Son of Man, Whom the Father has set His seal. Now here is where we agree, but also where we have division, susan! Jesus is talking about His Spirit and Life! But man cannot receive His Spirit and life without Jesus dying and rising! This is why His body was necessary to be the sacrifice; the Lamb of God; the Pascal Sacrifice which must be slain for the forgiveness of sins! So believing and receiving the Spirit and Life of God is bound up with believing and receiving His Eucharistic offering! His body is one and the same with the Spirit, because the Father set His seal of the Son of Man!

I am not certain if I understand what you are saying. I don’t know of any Christian who does not believe in the Lord’s Supper or seeks an exemption from communion. Although I believe Quakers do not have communion, all other Christians celebrate this in some way. They just have a different belief - not a lack of belief - of what occurs.
 
I am not certain if I understand what you are saying. I don’t know of any Christian who does not believe in the Lord’s Supper or seeks an exemption from communion. Although I believe Quakers do not have communion, all other Christians celebrate this in some way. They just have a different belief - not a lack of belief - of what occurs.
a lack of belief does not mean no belief at all. Celebrating His Supper should not be described as “in some way”. There is His table or there is not.

Christians with imperfect Communion have degrees of what they accept. The table contains His Eucharist and His Word. They take from His Word, but not from His Eucharist. Some are to blame, while others are not. The ones who are not, would gladly take His Eucharist if they could.

There is only one Lamb. He is made present through the consecration of the Ordained. The Laying on of hands is the principal means of Ordination.
 
This is what the early church believed about the understanding of those who left. I am sure there is more written about this, but this is all I am aware of. Aren’t these writings showing that these early Christians believed that those who left misunderstood?

Augustine:
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm
  1. Many therefore, not of His enemies, but of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? If His disciples accounted this saying hard, what must His enemies have thought? And yet so it behooved that to be said which should not be understood by all. The secret of God ought to make men eagerly attentive, not hostile. But these men quickly departed from Him, while the Lord said such things: they did not believe Him to be saying something great, and covering some grace by these words; they understood just according to their wishes, and in the manner of men, that Jesus was able, or was determined upon this, namely, to distribute the flesh with which the Word was clothed, piecemeal, as it were, to those that believe in Him. This, say they, is a hard saying; who can hear it?
    newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
Tertullian:
He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John*6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life.
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

John Chrysostom:
“John 6:63
It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.
His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat? All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the ‘eating flesh’ might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.
That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?”
Hi Susan,

Not one of these writers is saying Jesus’ followers misunderstood WHAT Jesus was teaching. In fact they go out of their way to stress that the Apostles understood. And the followers that left understood also. After all, they walked away in disgust. Then the writers go on to tell you that the Apostles accepted the teaching, the hard part for them was at this point they still thought, as Augustine puts it:
and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying
So we know the Apostles and the followers that left knew exactly what Jesus was teaching, the misunderstanding, by the ones that left, and the ones that stayed (Apostles), was the MANNER Jesus would give His flesh to eat.

At The Last Supper, the Apostles finally understood the MANNER.

So when I wrote this:
Only Christians who’s churches were born out of the Reformation and after, would say His followers left because they misunderstood Jesus. All the ancient Churches know they left because they finally understood that Jesus was being literal.
the writings of the fathers you posted in no ways contradict it.
 
At The Last Supper, the Apostles finally understood the MANNER.
I think this should be clarified some, no? I agree that Jesus provided the manner of feeding His body and blood at the Last Supper. And they did hear and take. But their understanding, in the sense of “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” was most likely not complete still. It may not have been until after He ascended. The disciples on the road to Emmaus returned to the 11 and told how He was made known to them in the “breaking bread”. Something about their story was not believed.
So when I wrote this: the writings of the fathers you posted in no ways contradict it.
I agree. These Fathers focused on the Sacramental and Spiritual realities of His Eucharist, NOT Jesus cutting pieces of Himself in some sort of carnal and crude manner. They rightly addressed that Jesus’ body and blood are wholly offered AND that His Spirit is bound into and through His body and blood.

Leviticus 17
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
 
I think that His Supper is a most profound mystery, in that it is an endless treasure of wisdom and knowledge.

Colossians 2
… all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
… For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
 
The real flesh and blood of Jesus, which was formed in the womb, lived, breathed, ate, slept, hungered, felt pain, suffered death and torture, was buried and rose to life again, is our profound mystery! How does flesh and blood overcome flesh and blood? Only by the will of the Spirit, God the Father, and through obedience to His cross.

We do not regard His flesh and blood as ordinary flesh and blood, but descended and ascended in the Spirit. He moved here and there and down to the underworld. He appeared and vanished. He passed through locked doors, and He ascended while they watched Him.

I receive His body and blood as real flesh and blood, but also as real Spirit and Life. They are one and the same!
 
How do you think the disciples who left Jesus in John 6 would react to the Lord’s Supper? Would they understand it to be His flesh and blood? Would they think it is literal or symbolic?

I imagine they would be unimpressed and think it to be symbolic only.
 
How do you think the disciples who left Jesus in John 6 would react to the Lord’s Supper? Would they understand it to be His flesh and blood? Would they think it is literal or symbolic?

I imagine they would be unimpressed and think it to be symbolic only.
Rc, my friend, in post 111 you just got done saying that those who remained with Him did not understand it at the Last Supper either. Or did I misread you? If Jesus had shown them all the “manner” before the walked away, would have that changed their minds? I think Susanlo has the answer…“believe in Him.”
 
Rc, my friend, in post 111 you just got done saying that those who remained with Him did not understand it at the Last Supper either. Or did I misread you? If Jesus had shown them all the “manner” before the walked away, would have that changed their minds? I think Susanlo has the answer…“believe in Him.”
Good point. I did say that. Though I don’t know. There is a difference to be sure, and I did agree with susanlo, in what you say. I reposted to confirm my agreement with that statement, that belief makes all the difference.

Here is what I meant: that the belief of the Apostles was not complete even unto the resurrection. We are told that the Apostles doubted and were “upbraided” by the Lord for their unbelief.

As for at the Last Supper, there was belief and unbelief. I think the Apostles were somewhere in between at that time. They revered what Jesus was doing as Holy and important. But it was all new and hard to understand. There was a difference between what the ones who left would accept. I’m saying those who left would not think His body and blood is from the Spirit. The Apostles had a belief that He was anointed of God, and set apart, even bodily.

Those who left Him would say, “Oh, He just meant symbolically. That’s not going to convince us.”
 
I think Susanlo has the answer…“believe in Him.”
The Catholic Church recognizes the importance of belief. What has happened, is a rift in Christ’s unity (body). The question then becomes, what is the accurate belief in His Communion? Is it many different bodies offering different Teachings regarding what constitutes the Lord’s Supper? Or is there one common, universal Teaching and observance?

Does His Communion lead to rifts and divided bodies?
 
If the bread and wine are ordinary food that does not become the Lord’s body and blood, are they carnal? That would be a carnal meal representing the Spiritual Lord! :eek:

But if the gifts of carnal bread and wine are consecrated, meaning a change of substance into the body and blood of Jesus, then we correctly venerate by eating the Spiritual and true flesh and blood of our Lord and Lamb.
 
what is the accurate belief in His Communion? /QUOTE]

Rc I enjoy you but you ask such hard questions and I think on them until my head hurts so I have taken the liberty of narrowing it down for my sake to one basic question. That is the one above from your quote.

My answer: I wish I without a shadow of a doubt i knew for 100% sure.
 
rcwitness;14333244:
what is the accurate belief in His Communion? /QUOTE]

Rc I enjoy you but you ask such hard questions and I think on them until my head hurts so I have taken the liberty of narrowing it down for my sake to one basic question. That is the one above from your quote.

My answer: I wish I without a shadow of a doubt i knew for 100% sure.
I enjoy your “fellowship” here too! Ya know, some people like to focus on Eucharistic miracles. I dont. I’d rather trust that Jesus is there, and try to receive with as much thanks as I can. And that means living faithfully. It doesn’t mean earning His fellowship, but honoring His fellowship.

That’s the true struggle for me. Not knowing what He Teaches and what Teaching is accurate. But honoring Him in all things and in Love that overcomes temptation. He is our mighty Lord. But He is our Lord, if we serve Him and obey Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top