What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[adrift]

ElsewheretheLord, in theGospelaccording toJohn, brought this out bysymbols, when He said:Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;John6:34describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesoffaithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.- The Instructor ch. 1

Ananachronism, from theGreekανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is achronological*inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain.

I will say this only one more time. You misuse anachronism.
Now as for your quote. You are pulling it out of context. You have the ch wrong it is not 1 but 7

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I will say this only one more time. You misuse anachronism.
Now as for your quote. You are pulling it out of context. You have the ch wrong it is not 1 but 7

If you say.

And we’re both wrong. My apologies. According to new advent its ch 6. And ah…instead of saying that its out of context, how about you say what you believe the context is?

 

[adrift]

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Up until this point, it may be interpreted as only metaphoric. They ask how can He can give his flesh to eat? Jesus doesn’t give a metaphoric answer. He reinforces what they have just asked. His disciples walk away. He does not correct any misunderstanding as He did other times for instance in being born again. There was no correction because they had not misunderstood. :nope:

 

[SteveVH]

Jesus has already indicated in verse 35 that eating and drinking from the bread of life is equivalent to coming and believing in him.

Yes, if you will look back at my post that is where it begins. It ends, however, with verse 47 and the second part begins with verse 48. I was only trying to show you where the shift was from faith to Eucharist.

Chiefly here he is referring to that which faith has as an object; his flesh for the life of the world. The metaphor is not “flesh” but “bread.” Likewise, the metaphor for “come” and “believe” is “eat” and “drink.” In non-metaphorical terms in the entirety of the discourse, Jesus is saying come and believe in me/my flesh for the life of the world and you will have eternal life. If you don’t, you have no life in you.

If eating is believing in Jn 6:35-47 then believing leads to eating in Jn 6:48-58.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, John 6 is eucharistic.The problem is that, even if you grant the Catholic interpretation of Jn 6, you still have to connect that text to the communion elements. Even if Jesus is talking about the Eucharist in Jn 6, he is not, presumably saying, that every piece of bread or glass of wine is his true body and blood, is he?

I don’t think Jesus said that and neither have I. Not quite sure what you mean. Why would anyone think that every peice of bread or glass of wine has something to do with the Eucharist?

You see what’s missing in the appeal to Jn 6?

No.

What is it that makes his words refer to what happens in your church on Sunday morning?

You cannot separate the bread of life discourse from the last supper. What was foreshadowed in the discourse happened at the last supper and happens in our Church, actually every morning. The priest does what Jesus did, in persona Christi.

And once you ask that elementary and unavoidable question, the appeal to Jn 6 loses its transparency.

Who has claimed that John 6 is the end of the story as evidence for the Eucharist? That isn’t all that Jesus did. He also took “bread”, broke it and gave it to his disciples saying “Eat this, all of you, for this is my body which will be given for you.” Ya think there might be a connection? Now why in the world would he do such a thing? Don’t you think it would be a little strange for Jesus to use “eat my body and drink my blood” as a metaphore for “coming” and “believing”? Think about it. He couldn’t come up with something a little more pleasant to use as a metaphore for coming to believe in him? Running springs, sheep in a meadow… But “eat my body and drink my blood”. Why?

For there is absolutely nothing in Jn 6 to differentiate an ordinary piece of bread from “the Host.”

No, it hadn’t happened yet. So what does that prove?

And that’s why you’re forced to leapfrog from John to Matt, Luke or Paul in order to appeal to the institution passages.

Hey, I will leapfrog all the way back to the Passover if you wish. Why would you want to isolate the bread of life discourse in John from the rest of God’s word? Can you honestly tell me that you see no connection between “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you” and “Take this and eat, this is my body which will be given for you.” I mean he tells them what he is going to do in John and then he does it in the institution passages. I am having difficulty understanding why that is not clear to you.

This is an artificial way to exegete a passage. You end up with something not quite John, not quite Paul. Instead of keeping the focus on the words of Jesus in the passage.

Not at all. Each of the Gospels are written by a different author, from a different perspective, to different audiences. To ignore information about the life of Jesus because it is written down by a different author would be irresponsible exegesis.

Note that he beegins the discourse talking about faith and ends the discourse talking about faith.

He ends the discourse with: “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats of this bread will live forever.” The bread which came down from heaven has now an even deeper meaning than when he first said it. Something about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Because he changes to flesh and blood and eating and drinking in no way means the emphasis is removed from faith.

No emphasis should be removed from faith. It is necessary in order to believe in the Eucharist, the flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[itullian]

Up until this point, it may be interpreted as only metaphoric. They ask how can He can give his flesh to eat? Jesus doesn’t give a metaphoric answer. He reinforces what they have just asked. His disciples walk away. He does not correct any misunderstanding as He did other times for instance in being born again. There was no correction because they had not misunderstood. :nope:

adrift is so right here.

game, set, match

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

It would be nice to put this into the Hot Topics email blast for next week.
So stay on topic and keep it charitable.

 

[PRmerger]

Stay on target PR. It’s all I’m asking. If you can refute the interpretation of John 6 that I provided, please do. I’m not interested in another sola scriptura debate with you.

No matter, Gaelic. I think that conversation is, indeed, finis, as it’s quite clear that a fallible pastor’s exegesis is not going to solve a Scriptural dispute between 2 Christians who have differing understandings of a Bible verse.

Point was made. Point was understood.

 

[PRmerger]

If eating is believing in Jn 6:35-47 then believing leads to eating in Jn 6:48-58.

'zactly!

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes it is possible, PR, hence why church fathers did exactly that.

The “church fathers” who God let wander aimlessly for 1,500 years according to Protestant thought? Were they Catholic?

 

[johnnyjones]

ElsewheretheLord, in theGospelaccording toJohn, brought this out bysymbols, when He said:Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;John6:34describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesoffaithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.- The Instructor ch. 1

Ananachronism, from theGreekανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is achronological*inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain.

Although shocked and surprised at his sayings, the people of His time understood that Jesus was saying He was God. Throughout scripture it is pointed out that that is the reason people wanted to kill him. They were able to understand the hardest thing, that a man was saying He was God. And yes He did repeat Himself to make the point clear. Yet you hold to the view that no realizations had come to the people of His time.

 

[PRmerger]

What was foreshadowed in the discourse happened at the last supper and happens in our Church, actually every morning. The priest does what Jesus did, in persona Christi.

In fact, I believe that at every hour of the day, throughout the planet, a Mass is being offered, fulfilling Malachi 1:11.

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

How awesome is that!

 

[adrift]

I remembered in previous threads it was brought up that the word Jesus used was gnaw. I did a search and found they were using scripturecatholic.com. Here is just a small portion of what they wrote.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6 covers a lot having faith is one. Jesus also speaks to His Crucifixion and His Resurrection.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In fact, I believe that at every hour of the day, throughout the planet, a Mass is being offered, fulfilling Malachi 1:11.

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

How awesome is that!

Wow I don’t think I knew about this passage. Thanks!

 

[Denise1957]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Here it comes.
According to wiki, the term “cephas” in Syriac or Aramaic means, “stone, ball, clump, chew,” and “rock” is a connotation. However, the Greek word “Petra” means, “grown rock, rocky range, or cliff.”

Our Lord changed Simon’s name. Simon was previously known as Simon Barjona (Barjona meaning son of John). I recall a priest explaining in a catechism class that when God changed a name in the OT, it signified an important event, but I can’t now recall the two or three examples he mentioned.

So Our Lord changed Simon’s name from Simon Barjona to Simon Peter, or rather, Simon the Rock. It was upon the Rock of Peter that Our Lord would build His Church. I think that this is a proper Catholic teaching. Though John was first in love, Simon Peter was almost always given precedence by Our Lord for leadership among the twelve. He singled Peter out as the leader in many instances. I can give examples from my catechism class notes for this. This may not be sufficient proof for non-Catholics, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Denise1957]

Here’s a youtube video that explains the Simon Peter issue. It’s a six-minute clip from a lecture given by Alex Jones, a convert who is a former Pentacostal pastor. He’s now a deacon in the Catholic Church. He explains the issue better than I can, and with great humor.

youtube.com/watch?v=q6rqC10gI0k

 

[adrift]

If you say.

And we’re both wrong. My apologies. According to new advent its ch 6. And ah…instead of saying that its out of context, how about you say what you believe the context is?

brought this out

What is the this that is brought out?
He is speaking of 1 Cor 3:2. He had earlier exponded on what it meant to be a child and adult in faith. This passage did not adhere to the rule he had established so he was trying to show what it meant to be milk and meat.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Scholars have found it **no easy task to sum up **the chief points of Clement’s teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him…He was careful to go to Holy Scripture for his doctrine; but he misused the text by his faulty exegesis.

I agree that his exegesis was indeed faulty, just read the beginning of 6.

 

[adrift]

but I can’t now recall the two or three examples he mentioned.

.

There were only three other that had their name canged by God.
Abram-Abraham
Sarai-Sarah
Jacob-Israel

 

[SteveVH]

In fact, I believe that at every hour of the day, throughout the planet, a Mass is being offered, fulfilling Malachi 1:11.

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

How awesome is that!

Yes, when you consider the entire world, there is no doubt.

 

[pablope]

Our Lord changed Simon’s name. Simon was previously known as Simon Barjona (Barjona meaning son of John). I recall a priest explaining in a catechism class that when God changed a name in the OT, it signified an important event, but I can’t now recall the two or three examples he mentioned.

me.

Look at the commands that follow the change of name:

Gen.17:5… No longer will you be called Abram[a]; your name will be Abraham,** for I have made you a father of many nations.

Gen. 32:28…Jacob to Israel…10 God said to him, “Your name is Jacob,[d] but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel.[e]” So he named him Israel.

11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty[f]; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.

And of course…Simon to Peter…18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.****

 

[Denise1957]

Thanks, Adrift and Pablope.