The Symbolism of John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
In John 6:51, Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

In light of this verse, I would like to ask a question or two. The bread that Jesus is talking about giving us to eat is the flesh that He gives for the life of the world, correct?

When did Jesus give his flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right?

So, if Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 when He said, “this bread is my flesh which I will give for the live of the world” as you have asserted, then it seems He must have given us only this same symbolic flesh on the cross for the life of the world, and only His symbolic blood was shed for out sins, right?

After all, if He was telling us to eat symbolic flesh and drink symbolic blood, then it must have been only symbolic flesh hanging on the cross and not the real thing!

This might also explain why he said in John 6:63: “the flesh counts for nothing.” The scourging and the crown of thorns and the nails…it was all symbolic!

What are your thoughts?
 
The Lords supper in the upper room answers your question. For us to be united with the Lord is to attend a Catholic Mass and receive the Holy Eucharists. This is the center piece of the Catholic Teaching - Real Presence Of Christ.
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, if Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 when He said, “this bread is my flesh which I will give for the live of the world” as you have asserted, then it seems He must have given us only this same symbolic flesh on the cross for the life of the world, and only His symbolic blood was shed for out sins, right?
Click to expand...
As who has asserted? Who are you addressing?
 
When Christ spoke of His flesh and blood in John 6, He was speaking prophetically not of what He was to do on the cross… but what people would do figuratively when they accepted the blood atonement.

You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?

He wasn’t speaking in John 6 literally it was figuratively.

I have written an article that proves that here.

BA
 
Randy_Carson said:
Those who deny transubstantiation and view John 6 as symbolic language.
Click to expand...
As Haydock says at the end of his “concluding reflections” of John 6:Not one of all the ancient Fathers has ever denied the real presence; not one of them all has ever said, that the body of Jesus Christ is received in figure only.
 
bibleapologist said:
You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?
Click to expand...
What a strange comment. He had shown the apostles the manner in which His flesh and blood would be made available to them at the Last Supper. And as for “people”, they all ran away with very few exceptions. They weren’t exactly in a Eucharistic celebration mood at that point, were they. And of course, if any of those who remained had mistakenly tried to literally drink His blood and eat His flesh at the crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would have hacked them to bits right on the spot. Duh!

You might as well ask why disciples didn’t attack the Roman guards that night in a bid to free Jesus. After all, Christ said that whoever loses their life for His sake will gain it. So I guess by your logic that invalidates the literal meaning of those words of Christ as well. So much for the Christian martyrs - it was all just symbolic, ladies and gentlemen!
He wasn’t speaking in John 6 literally it was figuratively.
Click to expand...
And every single Christian got it wrong for 1500 years. What meatheads they all were. :rolleyes:
 
bibleapologist said:
When Christ spoke of His flesh and blood in John 6, He was speaking prophetically not of what He was to do on the cross… but what people would do figuratively when they accepted the blood atonement.

You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?

He wasn’t speaking in John 6 literally it was figuratively.

I have written an article that proves that here.
BA
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read *THE FOURTH CUP
The Sacrament of the Eucharist * by Professor Scott Hahn. He is a former Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at The Fransiscan University of Steubenville. Here’s a quote:
The early Church was accused of cannibalism; the world saw and understood_partially. It’s not cannibalism, he’s alive in glory, with power - for us who need it most - if we love and believe that much.
Click to expand...
St. Cyril of Alexandria said about the early Church - this is a belief that goes way back to the beginning - “Neither Christ is altered nor his body changed, but the force and power and vivifying grace always remain with it - the Eucharist.” St. Augustine said: “No one eats the Flesh without first adoring it. Not only do we not commit a sin by adoring it, but that we do sin by not adoring it.” St. Augustine taught as a Doctor of the Church that we do sin by not adoring the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html

Bibleapologist; I don’t expect this will convince you, but it is my hope that people who are genuinely searching will look at the evidence of the writings of Early Church Fathers, who all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
bibleapologist said:
When Christ spoke of His flesh and blood in John 6, He was speaking prophetically not of what He was to do on the cross… but what people would do figuratively when they accepted the blood atonement.
Click to expand...
Unless of course Our Lord was speaking literally of His Real Presence in the Eucharist. Still prophetic, yet there is nothing whatever in that entire passage that even implies that it applies to “accepting the blood atonement” in the context that you are using it.
You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but this has to be one of the most convoluted and botched up interpretations I have ever seen.

Do you even see the gross illogic and irrationality of your own supposition and assertion here?

Speaking literally of the crucifixion? This is no defense of your position nor even a valid opposition to the Real Presence of the Eucharist. This is just poor preaching and teaching.
He wasn’t speaking in John 6 literally it was figuratively.
Click to expand...
According to you…It’s too bad that St. Paul disagrees with you in 1st Corinthians 11:21-30 and the early church does too.

Saints like Ignatius of Antioch refute you across the centuries when he writes to the church in Smryna just after the death of St. John the apostle.
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
Click to expand...
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. Right at 1900 years later, you come along with another gospel. Who do you suppose I’m likely to think knows what he’s talking about? (Hint: It won’t be you…)
I have written an article that proves that here.
Click to expand...
BANo thanks, I think I’ve had enough of your errant teaching on this topic.

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes and heart.
 
VociMike said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleapologist
You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?

What a strange comment. He had shown the apostles the manner in which His flesh and blood would be made available to them at the Last Supper. And as for “people”, they all ran away with very few exceptions. They weren’t exactly in a Eucharistic celebration mood at that point, were they. And of course, if any of those who remained had mistakenly tried to literally drink His blood and eat His flesh at the crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would have hacked them to bits right on the spot. Duh!

You might as well ask why disciples didn’t attack the Roman guards that night in a bid to free Jesus. After all, Christ said that whoever loses their life for His sake will gain it. So I guess by your logic that invalidates the literal meaning of those words of Christ as well. So much for the Christian martyrs - it was all just symbolic, ladies and gentlemen!

Quote:
He wasn’t speaking in John 6 literally it was figuratively.

And every single Christian got it wrong for 1500 years. What meatheads they all were. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with Mr. Sarcastic here (just kidding about the Mr. Sarcastic thing there VociMike, but not about agreeing with you 😃 ). Another thing to point out is how the old testament translates into the new. Christ being the LAMB of GOD he takes the place of the lamb of passover. God ordered the israelites to LITERALLY, not SYMBOLICALLY eat the sacrificed lamb.

So, as far as people going to Christ while he was being scourged and being crucified to gather his flesh and blood to eat and drink, it does not go, because the LAMB was NOT to be eaten WHILE it was being sacrificied, but AFTER the sacrifice was complete. Now, obviously, because Christ was to ascend into heaven, he left us, in the Eucharist ,a way for us to follow God command on LITERALLY eating the Lamb of God.

Blessings,

E.C.
 
BTW, let’s not ignore the fact that if the “symbolic-only” view of John 6 is true, then at the Last Supper Christ would not have held up bread and wine and said it was His flesh and blood. If anything, He would have held up scriptures, which represented His teachings and faith in Him. But He didn’t do that.
 
The Old Is revealed in the New…

First and Formost… Christ did NOT come to abolish the Law, but to Fullfill the law…

In otherwords, the Law still exists…

How then are we allowed to not Follow the old Jewish Law and still be saved…

Through our High Priest… Jesus…

Hebrews Explains in detail how Jesus takes the law upon himself in such a way so that though the law still applies, He is the one fullfilling the law…

So… that being said…

In the OT…

In Exodus and Leviticus, sacrifice is NOT symbolic, but real. Real Flesh is used to attone for our sins. Obviously, this equates to Jesus… Jesus is the Real flesh that was sacrificed for OUR sins…

Now, there is a second part…

What happens to the REAL flesh that was used as a burnt Offering.
It HAD to be eaten by the priests… If it wasnt eaten it must be destroyed in fire.

Note though, the Sacrifice had to be physically and literally eaten by the priests for the process to be complete.

No Symbolism was used unless you also want to say that this eating was only a symbolic act as well. If thats the case, you have to argue not just with Catholics, but ~4000 years of Judaism as well. I can assure you, Jewish people do NOT see it as a symbolic act, but a literal act.

If the Old is revealed in the New…
What does that mean…

Christ is the Sacrifice…
Part one…

Where is Part two, the literal eating of his flesh…

John 6 is a reiteration of the Levitical law… A sacrifice must be made, and it must be eaten…

Christ then says THIS IS MY BODY at the last supper…

So, Christ is sacrificed, his body must be eaten by those partaking in the sacrifice. Because of Transubstantiation, The priest literally turns the Bread/Wine into Body and Blood… We then Eat that flesh to fulfill the second part of the requirement for sacrifice.

Now… i know you may want to say… "but i thought only ordained priests could eat in the OT, and therefore, only NT Catholic Priests could… There is a difference… Yes, the Catholic Priest is needed to convey the Miracle. But WE have also been ordained as ‘priests’ as well… Just not the same type of priest that the Catholic priest is…

Christ is NOT resacrificed, he is Re-Presented.

The Old Law still exists… The only different now is that Christ preforms ALL the requirements FOR us.

Hope that Helps

In Christ
 
John 6:55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Greek:h gar sarx mou alhqhV estin brwsiV, kai to aima mou alhqhV estin posiV.

alhqhV,a {al-ay-thace’}
  1. true 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful
 
heisenburg said:
The Old Is revealed in the New…

First and Formost… Christ did NOT come to abolish the Law, but to Fullfill the law…

In otherwords, the Law still exists…

How then are we allowed to not Follow the old Jewish Law and still be saved…

Through our High Priest… Jesus…

Hebrews Explains in detail how Jesus takes the law upon himself in such a way so that though the law still applies, He is the one fullfilling the law…

So… that being said…

In the OT…

In Exodus and Leviticus, sacrifice is NOT symbolic, but real. Real Flesh is used to attone for our sins. Obviously, this equates to Jesus… Jesus is the Real flesh that was sacrificed for OUR sins…

Now, there is a second part…

What happens to the REAL flesh that was used as a burnt Offering.
It HAD to be eaten by the priests… If it wasnt eaten it must be destroyed in fire.

Note though, the Sacrifice had to be physically and literally eaten by the priests for the process to be complete.

No Symbolism was used unless you also want to say that this eating was only a symbolic act as well. If thats the case, you have to argue not just with Catholics, but ~4000 years of Judaism as well. I can assure you, Jewish people do NOT see it as a symbolic act, but a literal act.

If the Old is revealed in the New…
What does that mean…

Christ is the Sacrifice…
Part one…

Where is Part two, the literal eating of his flesh…

John 6 is a reiteration of the Levitical law… A sacrifice must be made, and it must be eaten…

Christ then says THIS IS MY BODY at the last supper…

So, Christ is sacrificed, his body must be eaten by those partaking in the sacrifice. Because of Transubstantiation, The priest literally turns the Bread/Wine into Body and Blood… We then Eat that flesh to fulfill the second part of the requirement for sacrifice.

Now… i know you may want to say… "but i thought only ordained priests could eat in the OT, and therefore, only NT Catholic Priests could… There is a difference… Yes, the Catholic Priest is needed to convey the Miracle. But WE have also been ordained as ‘priests’ as well… Just not the same type of priest that the Catholic priest is…

Christ is NOT resacrificed, he is Re-Presented.

The Old Law still exists… The only different now is that Christ preforms ALL the requirements FOR us.

Hope that Helps

In Christ
Click to expand...
:amen:

I couldn’t say it better myself!

I was just reading the Bible this past week in the Old Testament regarding the sacrifice of the lamb, etc. I knew they had to either eat the sacrificial lamb or desrtoy it in the fire. But with reading your response above, it made everything fit together between OT sacrifice & the Eucharist. You caught me in an AHA! moment:getholy:

God bless you:heart:
 
bibleapologist said:
You are right about one thing. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 concerning His flesh and blood, then He had to be referring to his crucifiction… if so, then why weren’t people under the cross gathering the blood and drinking it… or eating his flesh as it came off His back while He was being scourged?
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be cannibalism?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp said:
5. If we took Jesus’ words literally, wouldn’t that imply cannibalism?

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.
Click to expand...
 
Just as the Jews in John 6 couldn’t understand the symbolism in Jesus’ statements… the recent posts by Catholics here identify their authors as unbelievers and unregenerates.

You cannot bring yourself to believe that Christ Himself is the sign that the Jews were seeking, and to believe and accept that sign is what Christ was alluding to concerning His flesh and His blood.

The teaching of John 6 is a parallel with the Old Testament sacrifice that was to be eaten by the priest… but that “law” was an illustration of Christ and His crucifiction, and the ensuing regeneration of a believer.

More appropriately though, John 6 was a parallel with the symbolism of the Manna in the wilderness (the request for a miracle like Manna from heaven is what Jesus responded to). The miracle of Manna in the wilderness was God’s provision for His people… which is the “Word of God” for a New Testament Christian.

You all are no different than the Jews. Faith is not enough for you… sensationalism and mysticism has filled the hole that Jesus was sent to fill in you.

The sad thing is, I fear that some of you will never come to the knowledge of truth, and this mystical Eucharist will continue to pacify your desires until you die without Christ, and go to hell for eternity.

BA
 
In John 6:63…

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

Isn’t Christ saying…you need to look at this from a spiritual perspective and not a physical or carnal perspective? He was responding to their questioning and murmuring for they were repulsed at the idea of actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood…literally…

John 6:60-61 KJV 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

So, then he said…

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

Certainly, he was not speaking of the giving of his body on the cross when he spoke of “the flesh” in John 6:63 (as Mr. Carson seems to insinuate at the beginning of this thread)…the giving of his flesh was necessary for our salvation - the flesh in that sense profits us greatly, but again, he was correcting them that they might not take these statements in from a physical or carnal standpoint (which would cause one to think of eating his literal flesh and drink his literal blood). Note, again, he was referring to the words that he was speaking…He is speaking of a spiritual intake of Christ.

The Bible many times over speaks of “eating the word of God” but we are not really eating the words…it is our spiritual food and all by faith (believing). And Jesus was called the Word of God…John 1:1. In this same context, Jesus says…

John 6:47 KJV 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

It seems to me, when we come to faith and continue in faith, and we are constantly entering in the most Holy Place through the veil, which is His flesh and by His blood for continual confession and repentance…

Hebrews 10:19-20 KJV 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

…and also, remembering His great sacrifice at the Lord’s Supper. What a great thing - to remember and meditate on His great sacrifice on the cross…this is a spiritual feast!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top