Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6?

[revelations]

Well, the OP’s original John 6 “diatribe” was to denigrate non-Catholics. He thought he’d discovered some profound, iron clad truth which proclaimed all non-transubstantiationists to be non-disciples of Christ. I would say that’s quite serious, indeed.

What i meant was how these threads always get hijacked and turn into a Real Presence debate. I would say there are about 3 or 4 of these kinds of threads a week, and they always end the same way after 700 posts: the same scripture passages, early church belief, Eucharistic miracles, and personal testimonies.

With respect to the OP: I think he brings up some interesting points. Throughout the NT there are continuously people doubting Christ’s identity in the face of some pretty big miracles (healing, multiplying loaves, casting out demons). John the Baptist, the very man who proclaimed the Son of God, later in Jail doubted Jesus was the one to come. Jewish high priests, faced with his miracles and wisdom, still could not believe him. In John 6, we see a multitude of followers protest and leave him, save for the 12. All but 12 deserted him! Even then, one of the 12 (Judas) was not a believer despite all he had seen Jesus do!

People protested then, and they continue to protest today. It is not meant as denigration, but merely illumination. If the people who followed Christ didn’t believe his teachings, I find it no more surprising that 2000 years later people also don’t believe his teachings. If one doesn’t agree with the Eucharist, they dont have a problem with Catholics, or the Pope, but with Jesus Christ himself.

Our Lord’s teachings reside in the magisterium of the Catholic church. They did for the first 1500 years, and they continue to do so today. The truth remains is that protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism and it has evolved into a life of it’s own. In that sense, protestants are more separated disciples of Christ, rather than “non disciples” of Christ. I pray that all will come home eventually.

-revelations

 

[ralphinal]

I have no problem with the word “Eucharist” not in the Bible. I don’t know how you extrapolated that from my posts.

I am not sure. I had never known you to use that as an argument in any previous post, so something about that post made me think you had. I may have just read it wrong. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if I offended you.

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal:
thanks for your post…

The thing is that Jesus said this in the context of Passover, if I’m not mistaken (Jn 6:4 refers to the festival of Passover approaching). So wouldn’t it make more sense to see this whole discussion later in John 6 as it relates to Passover (and Jesus being the Paschal Lamb)? And yes, the Passover and the L-rd’s Supper are most certainly connected. Wouldn’t it follow, though, that if the bread were to turn into anything at all, why not lamb?

I’m not sure just when Peter made the connection with the Last Supper and Passover. (I’m not understanding to your reference of Pentecost). But I suppose it’s not so important as to when the lightbulb went on, but that , in fact, it did.

I’m really not trying to be a problem-child, just trying to get some understanding on this.

shalom

You are so close it isn’t even funny. The bread DOES turn into Lamb…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World…the Lamb who was slain but Lives again…Jesus. In order for the passover meal to be completed, the lamb had to be eaten. This allows us to do so.

I do not think you are a problem child at all. Just keep asking any questions.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, the OP’s original John 6 “diatribe” was to denigrate non-Catholics. He thought he’d discovered some profound, iron clad truth which proclaimed all non-transubstantiationists to be non-disciples of Christ. I would say that’s quite serious, indeed.

I read the OP that way, too. I interpret those who walked away as anyone who does not remain faithful to CHrist because it is hard or it is not the way they want it to be. That can be anyone at all.

 

[moondweller]

I would have been called “exclusive” if I intended the question for Catholics only. As a devotee of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, I call all to a fuller relationship with our Blessed Lord. It’s that simple. I want you to question your faith, if you do not eat His Sacred Body and drink His Sacred Blood.

Christ’s peace be with you.

I don’t agree that eating His flesh and drinking His blood would ever cause “a fuller relationship with our Blessed Lord.” Relationships are developed with the living, not the sacrificed dead. Hence, my faith relationship is continuously being developed with the now glorified, bodily resurrected and ascended, living Lord, who sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High functioning there as my living Intercessor and living Advocate before the Father.

 

[moondweller]

What i meant was how these threads always get hijacked and turn into a Real Presence debate.

It is understandable that this one would eventually go that direction since the accusation made was based on belief or unbelief in the connection of John six with the doctrine of transubstantiation. But what the OP didn’t realize was that though he pointed his index finger at non-catholics, based on his own logic, three of his fingers were pointing right back at him.

 

[Peitho]

You are so close it isn’t even funny. The bread DOES turn into Lamb…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World…the Lamb who was slain but Lives again…Jesus. In order for the passover meal to be completed, the lamb had to be eaten. This allows us to do so.

I do not think you are a problem child at all. Just keep asking any questions.

Yes, I agree we are all getting closer to agreeing. Paidion isn’t a problem child, Paidion is putting forth legitimate claims because of his strong relationship and training in the W-RD. He has a sibling he is trying to relate with and understand, that converted to RC, so please be patient.

In Ex.12:1-13 the Torah stipulates how a Passover meal is prepared and celebrated; which, includes the sacrifice and eating of the paschal lamb. Part of the remembrance of the Exodus is putting the blood of the lamb over the doorposts of where you live to remember the passing over of the angel of death.

The issue isn’t what is or isn’t done at a Seder, but if the Messiah had meant for the wine and unleavened bread to be literally himself and the Passover Meal really meant for the Paschal Lamb to be eaten then whey didn’t the Disciples do exactly that with the Messiah?

Once again, I’m not trying to be absurd; but, this is exactly how this sounds to me when you say “In order for the passover meal to be completed, the lamb had to be eaten.”

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. Matt. 18:20

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, I agree we are all getting closer to agreeing. Paidion isn’t a problem child, Paidion is putting forth legitimate claims because of his strong relationship and training in the W-RD. He has a sibling he is trying to relate with and understand, that converted to RC, so please be patient.

In Ex.12:1-13 the Torah stipulates how a Passover meal is prepared and celebrated; which, includes the sacrifice and eating of the paschal lamb. Part of the remembrance of the Exodus is putting the blood of the lamb over the doorposts of where you live to remember the passing over of the angel of death.

The issue isn’t what is or isn’t done at a Seder, but if the Messiah had meant for the wine and unleavened bread to be literally himself and the Passover Meal really meant for the Paschal Lamb to be eaten then whey didn’t the Disciples do exactly that with the Messiah?

Once again, I’m not trying to be absurd; but, this is exactly how this sounds to me when you say “In order for the passover meal to be completed, the lamb had to be eaten.”

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. Matt. 18:20

This is where the phrase “This is My Body” and “This is My blood” come into play.

Think of it as a mountain. Jesus started with the base: calling his apostles and beginning the ministry. Then, as he progressed, he climbed higher and higher, showing that he was more than a teacher, but God. He taught the new relationship between God and Man and how we are to live. Then, he fed the multitude. Following that, he proclaimed that unless you “eat my flesh and drink my blood” you will not have eternal life within you. He called himself the manna come down from heaven. Some left: this part of the mountain was too hard for them to climb. When he got within site of the summit, he had his last supper. “This is my body” and “this is my blood” are not part of the passover meal. This is the connection, but only those who climbed to the top with him saw the whole mountain from above. The peak was his death and resurection. Suddenly, the John 6 made sense. Jesus being the lamb made sense. The old and new connect. Here is the part that we must understand: you cannot always see the top of the mountain from the bottom, but you know that it is there.

The phrase “do this in rememberance of me” when broken into parts, reveals more information. “Do this” is used at other times in the origional languages. It always mean “perform.” “In rememberance of me” is also used in other places. It always means “as a sacrifice in my memory.” In other words, we are to perform this sacrifice as a memorial to Jesus.

Jesus was established as the Lamb of God and he showed the apostles how the Lamb was to be eaten.

 

[moondweller]

“In rememberance of me” is also used in other places. It always means “as a sacrifice in my memory.” In other words, we are to perform this sacrifice as a memorial to Jesus.

Can you show us where the original Greek: "eis tên emên anamnêsin," translated “in remembrance of me” is elsewhere translated “as a sacrifice in my memory?” I would like to know from where they’re getting the English word “sacrifice.”

 

[po18guy]

What i meant was how these threads always get hijacked and turn into a Real Presence debate. I would say there are about 3 or 4 of these kinds of threads a week, and they always end the same way after 700 posts: the same scripture passages, early church belief, Eucharistic miracles, and personal testimonies.

With respect to the OP: I think he brings up some interesting points. Throughout the NT there are continuously people doubting Christ’s identity in the face of some pretty big miracles (healing, multiplying loaves, casting out demons). John the Baptist, the very man who proclaimed the Son of God, later in Jail doubted Jesus was the one to come. Jewish high priests, faced with his miracles and wisdom, still could not believe him. In John 6, we see a multitude of followers protest and leave him, save for the 12. All but 12 deserted him! Even then, one of the 12 (Judas) was not a believer despite all he had seen Jesus do!

People protested then, and they continue to protest today. It is not meant as denigration, but merely illumination. If the people who followed Christ didn’t believe his teachings, I find it no more surprising that 2000 years later people also don’t believe his teachings. If one doesn’t agree with the Eucharist, they dont have a problem with Catholics, or the Pope, but with Jesus Christ himself.

Our Lord’s teachings reside in the magisterium of the Catholic church. They did for the first 1500 years, and they continue to do so today. The truth remains is that protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism and it has evolved into a life of it’s own. In that sense, protestants are more separated disciples of Christ, rather than “non disciples” of Christ. I pray that all will come home eventually.

-revelations

Amen! Well said.

 

[po18guy]

Are we seriously getting into **ANOTHER **John 6 diatribe. What is the going rate on these things, two IDENTICAL threads per day? Sometimes I just wish the Lord would peak his head out of the tabernacle and go “look, it’s me, i’m here! see!” to clear all the bad mojo out of the air. In Prayer,

-revelations

The extremely sad fact is that many Christians will not follow Christ if it means they end up in the Catholic Church. Saint Paul preached “that you may be one” Saint Paul, pray for us.

Christ’s peace.

 

[inchrist101]

There is no “mis-interpretation” of John 6 because by the time John 6 was written there was already about 150 years of actual liturgical practice in place regarding the real presence. Early texts indicate this. Inform yourselves.

Revelations this doesn’t make sense. No disrespect honestly. Your implication here is that 150 years prior to John writing his Gospel, or should I say John 6, was the liturgical practice of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Is this your stance??

Given that Jesus died around 33AD and John’s Gospel was written no later than about 90AD give or take some years. Although some date it closer to 70AD. This would mean that the practice could only have been in place maybe for 50-60 years at most and perhaps for as little as 35-40 years. Did you perhaps make a mistake and type a 1 in front of the 50?

Given that many early Christians observed the passover meal in their houses, it is only a theory that the Apostles performed the liturgy of the Eucharist in those same houses. Actually in reading Dr. Kevin Orlin’s book, “A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church”, he himself mentions that the belief stemmed from the cross-reference of John Chapter 6 and the statements made by Jesus at the last supper, “This is my body”. He does footnote that Roman Catholics believe early Christians understood Christ’s presence to be in the bread and wine.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in Jesus presence but the question that remains is this. Why do Roman Catholics believe that only a Priest can call Jesus physical presence into the bread and wine. Going back to the original Christian churches the Apostles were not present at every single one. This is absolutely impossible. The Apostles didn’t even appoint leaders in all the early churches. The church in Rome was believed to have been established by Roman Jews who after converting at Penetecost returned to worship Jesus. As we see in Acts, they devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings, their prayers, AND… the breaking of bread. Notice breaking and not consecrating. So Ok let’s not split hairs over this issue. If Jesus real presence was in the bread at that very time when they started repeating the practice taught to them by the Apostles, then surely it was not because the Apostles were present. They simply as stated above couldn’t be in all the churches that came into existence at that time to perform this Liturgy. There were just too many.

So here’s what I believe could be a real possibility. If Jesus is present physically in the bread and wine then it’s not by something the priest does. It’s because of our Faith that he reveals himself in the bread and wine. So when I take the bread and wine and ask for GOD’s blessing, I don’t just eat bread and drink wine for the sake of doing it. I do it because it is the ultimate act of our Faith. Or some would say obedience to Faith. But you have to have the Faith first before you can exercise obedience. So I propose the following:

1. We stop arguing over whether Jesus is physically present or not and realize that just maybe he is.
2. No church denomination has the corner on Jesus body and blood being ONLY in their bread and wine. So Roman Catholics should stop saying non-Roman Catholic churches have ONLY a 50% relationship with Jesus as is suggested I believe on this board.

This may be the greatest mystery of our Faith and all I know is I would never deny that GOD couldn’t do anything. I also believe GOD is at work in all churches committed to Christ and when I take the bread and wine the last thing I’m going to worry about is “GEE is he really in there?” I take it very serious and with the strongest of Faith always praying for the Lord to have the bread and wine bless me physically, but most importantly spiritually.

Hope this helps.

PEACE and GOD Bless!!!

 

[paidion]

ralphinal:

(continuing to think things through…)

The ones who left Jesus in John 6 did so because they took His words too literally - and could not fathom how He could ask them to do such a thing as to really eat flesh and drink blood. They must have seen Him as a madman - which He would have been if He had really asked them to go against Torah in such a way. (Lev. 3:17 - “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”) note: it specifically says perpetual statute.

Messiah fulfilled Torah. He didn’t obliterate it. Even when He was still a tiny babe Jesus’ parents brought Him to the Temple to fulfill the obligation of pidyon-ha-ben (redemption of the firstborn). Did Jesus need this ritual in order to be Savior of the world? Of course not. He (G-d) was the One Who instituted it. However, this was done in order to follow Torah.

Sometimes Jesus followed Torah in ways differently than expected by the people of His day. For example, He healed people on Shabbat - choosing to fulfill the purpose of Shabbat rather than the dictates of some of the legalists of the time. He even ate with sinners. When questioned about this practice, He replied to the grumblers, “who needs a doctor - the well or the sick?” Again, He raised the bar by obeying the intent of Torah rather than follow the legalists’ version of it.

When He talked about eating His flesh and blood in John 6, He was identifying Himself with the Pesach (Passover) sacrifice. The ones who stayed with Him caught a glimpse of His meaning. They knew He wasn’t really talking about eating/drinking flesh and blood as evidenced in Peter’s statement: “…and we have learned to trust You and know that You are the Holy One of G-d.” They knew He wouldn’t ask them to go against Torah.

Try as I might, I still see no reason for the bread and wine to be changed into anything at all. Just as the OT sacrifices had no special power in and of themselves for atonement/redemption, neither does bread and wine. The sacrifices pointed to Messiah (a “visual aid” to show the ugliness of sin and humanity’s need for redemption through G-d).

Jesus brought the fulness of meaning to the Jewish customs and traditions. He didn’t have to create new rituals/practices to provide redemption for His people. Everything in Torah already pointed to Him. Atonement was made once and for all (who receive it) when He was nailed to the cross. Those who trust in Him are called to remember His sacrifice when we drink the wine and eat the bread.

shalom

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal:

(continuing to think things through…)

The ones who left Jesus in John 6 did so because they took His words too literally - and could not fathom how He could ask them to do such a thing as to really eat flesh and drink blood. They must have seen Him as a madman - which He would have been if He had really asked them to go against Torah in such a way. (Lev. 3:17 - “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”) note: it specifically says perpetual statute.

Messiah fulfilled Torah. He didn’t obliterate it. Even when He was still a tiny babe Jesus’ parents brought Him to the Temple to fulfill the obligation of pidyon-ha-ben (redemption of the firstborn). Did Jesus need this ritual in order to be Savior of the world? Of course not. He (G-d) was the One Who instituted it. However, this was done in order to follow Torah.

Sometimes Jesus followed Torah in ways differently than expected by the people of His day. For example, He healed people on Shabbat - choosing to fulfill the purpose of Shabbat rather than the dictates of some of the legalists of the time. He even ate with sinners. When questioned about this practice, He replied to the grumblers, “who needs a doctor - the well or the sick?” Again, He raised the bar by obeying the intent of Torah rather than follow the legalists’ version of it.

When He talked about eating His flesh and blood in John 6, He was identifying Himself with the Pesach (Passover) sacrifice. The ones who stayed with Him caught a glimpse of His meaning. They knew He wasn’t really talking about eating/drinking flesh and blood as evidenced in Peter’s statement: “…and we have learned to trust You and know that You are the Holy One of G-d.” They knew He wouldn’t ask them to go against Torah.

Try as I might, I still see no reason for the bread and wine to be changed into anything at all. Just as the OT sacrifices had no special power in and of themselves for atonement/redemption, neither does bread and wine. The sacrifices pointed to Messiah (a “visual aid” to show the ugliness of sin and humanity’s need for redemption through G-d).

Jesus brought the fulness of meaning to the Jewish customs and traditions. He didn’t have to create new rituals/practices to provide redemption for His people. Everything in Torah already pointed to Him. Atonement was made once and for all (who receive it) when He was nailed to the cross. Those who trust in Him are called to remember His sacrifice when we drink the wine and eat the bread.

shalom

Then why did he say “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood?” He could have said, “from now on, there shall be no need for a lamb, for with my death, any further sacrifice is not needed. Hence forth, this meal shall be as done by Malchezidek with Abraham, bread and wine alone in the manor that I now do with you. As you do this, do it for me.” It simply does not belong if he did not mean something by it.

 

[ralphinal]

Moondweller,
I will find that information for you. I have moved twice since I learned it, and I have no idea where it is in the basement. Please give me a few days. If I am wrong, I will gladly correct myself. If my source is wrong, please take it up with them.

 

[paidion]

Then why did he say “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood?” He could have said, “from now on, there shall be no need for a lamb, for with my death, any further sacrifice is not needed. Hence forth, this meal shall be as done by Malchezidek with Abraham, bread and wine alone in the manor that I now do with you. As you do this, do it for me.” It simply does not belong if he did not mean something by it.

ralphinal:

thanks for you patience in this whole “journey”; still chewing on all this (pun intended) …

Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His flesh and blood because just as the lamb had to be consumed at Passover in order for the Israelites (first-borns) to be “passed over” by G-d, so too does humanity need to consume Him (in order to be redeemed). The bread (matza) and the 3rd cup of the seder (the cup of redemption) was what Jesus was talking about in John. (Remember these things were said around the time of Passover.)

That some of the Jews were scandalized (because they took Him literally), is recorded in vs. 61 of John’s gospel. They believed He was condoning cannibalism. But then in verse 63, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit Who gives life; the flesh conveys no benefit whatsoever. The words I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.”

Why did Jesus have to turn the bread and wine into anything (let alone His flesh and blood)? If Jesus was referring to actually eating Him, then why did He say what He did in vs. 63?

shalom

 

[moondweller]

The ones who left Jesus in John 6 did so because they took His words too literally - and could not fathom how He could ask them to do such a thing as to really eat flesh and drink blood. They must have seen Him as a madman - which He would have been if He had really asked them to go against Torah in such a way…Messiah fulfilled Torah. He didn’t obliterate it.

This is an excellent point and must be taken into consideration when interpreting Christ’s words in John chapter six. When interpreting John six Gentile Christendom often forgets the fact that Jesus was a Jew, born under the Law (Gal. 4:4). It’s similar to JWs who interpret Jn. 1:1 as “…and the word was a god.” John, an orthodox, monotheistic Jew could never perceive of such a thing, so it’s an impossible interpretation. In the same vain, Jesus would never command His Jewish disciples to violate the Law.

When He talked about eating His flesh and blood in John 6, He was identifying Himself with the Pesach (Passover) sacrifice.

However, here I must disagree since Jesus never once makes reference to the Pesach (even though He does refer to His bodily sacrifice in Jn. 6:51). The issue in chapter six is not the Passover but the contrast between Himself (the true bread of life) and the manna the ancients ate in the wilderness.

The context of Christ’s words is stated succinctly in chapter five:"For just as the Father has LIFE in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have LIFE in Himself."LIFE is the underlying principle of Christ’s words in chapters five and six (both chapters must be read for the full context). “BELIEVE” being the operative word. In those chapters Jesus discloses Himself to His Jewish brethren as the source of eternal life for all who would BELIEVE in Him:Jn. 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”

Jn. 5:38 “And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not BELIEVE Him whom He has sent.”

Jn. 5:40 "…and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have LIFE."In chapter six we read that He feeds five thousand with two fish and five loaves of bread. Impressed with the free meal they seek Him out again (Jn. 6:26). But He tells them not to work for the food which perishes (physical), but for the food which endures to eternal life (spiritual). And in their state of unbelief they question Him as to what they must do to work the works of God. And again stresses belief in Him: "This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He has sent" (Jn. 6:29).

Disregarding the miracle they just experienced the day prior they arrogantly commanded a sign so that they would believe Him. Challenging Him with the miracle experienced by their ancestors of having been provided manna (bread from heaven) to sustain their lives in the wilderness. Could He do that? But Jesus revealed Himself as the “bread of LIFE,” the true bread out of heaven, and that he who comes to Him (by faith) will not hunger, and he who BELIEVES in Him will never thirst (Jn. 6:35).John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and BELIEVES in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47-48 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES has eternal life. I am the bread of LIFE."He contrasts Himself with the bread (manna) their fathers physically ate in the wilderness - and died.John 6:49-51 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."Here He expresses, metaphorically, that as the life of the manna was transferred to the eater (but died), in like manner, His life is transferred to the believer (and will not die). That is, His resurrected life (see Jn. 11:25-26).

As you rightly pointed out, the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood was not to be taken literally, since it would be unlawful for a Jew. But to be understood metaphorically as BELIEVING in Him for the imparting of His LIFE to them. Upon belief His resurrected LIFE is transferred to the believer - which is life everlasting (eternal). Hence, He is the true bread of life for all who BELIEVE.John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES has eternal life. I am the bread of life."The whole purpose of His dialogue with them was to take them from the physical to the spiritual. From their carnal minds to the spiritual (eternal) realities connected to His coming into this world and His imminent sacrificial death and bodily resurrection on their behalf - through faith in Him. And for this reason he explained to the twelve:John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing (i.e., physically eating and drinking); the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

 

[revelations]

All this has me curious then,

1. Where did the idea of Christ as true flesh and true blood in the last supper come from?Which members of the early church are guilty of mis-interpreting the scriptures?
2. Why did God, who continues to be in the lives of all men and guide all in religious things, allow this heresy to go on for 1500 years, even up until today?

Where I am hungup in seeing your argument moondweller is when I consider the history as well. I just don’t see how any new theological interpretations today trump the beliefs of earlier Christians? Especially the ones who assembled the canon of scripture, but it has been shown here that belief in the real presence was before their time. So, who’s fault is this big misunderstanding?

Sincerely,

-revelations

 

[paidion]

However, here I must disagree since Jesus never once makes reference to the Pesach (even though He does refer to His bodily sacrifice in Jn. 6:51). The issue in chapter six is not the Passover but the contrast between Himself (the true bread of life) and the manna the ancients ate in the wilderness.

MD:

thanks for your response

Messiah’s reference to Passover is implied. Jn.6:4 refers to the approach of the Passover. It would have certainly been in the minds of everyone around, and makes sense that Jesus would reference it in regard to the topic.

The other thing is, last I checked, manna had no blood. So why would He say anything about blood if He were only referring to manna?

However, I’ll not split hairs with you on this.

shalom

 

[moondweller]

MD:

thanks for your response

Messiah’s reference to Passover is implied. Jn.6:4 refers to the approach of the Passover. It would have certainly been in the minds of everyone around, and makes sense that Jesus would reference it in regard to the topic.

Yet Jesus Himself never does make direct reference to it in chapters five or six.

The other thing is, last I checked, manna had no blood. So why would He say anything about blood if He were only referring to manna?

Because the resurrection LIFE that is transferred to the believer is through faith in the truth concerning the sacrifice of His body and the shedding of His blood for our redemption (the cross, 6:51). Salvation faith internalizes this truth.

Shalom brother,
MD