Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[NonCatholic]

The law is designed to reveal sin? Obviously you are reading Romans into this. You are concentrating on one line and totally disregarding the rest of the passage.

The rich man left sad because He knew he could not follow Jesus because his possessions mattered more to him than Jesus.

This passage is not about the law at all. This is a challenge to the man to free himself from materialism. It is only through selling what he owns that he can follow Christ.

Christ is saying that obsession with possesion is incompatible with being a Christian. Christ is supposed to be our riches. Christ is supposed to be our treasure. As He says in Luke 12:34 - For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

You are getting closer. I never said this was about the law…did I.
This man came with an emotional emptiness and knew he had something deficient, but he was not willing to admit that he had sin and thus was not repentant (which the law should have reveled to him, especially since he was a Jewish leader). Jesus threw a stumbling block at him that was too hard for him. So he went home rejected and saddened. The first step is to realize you are a sinner in need of a savior, this man apparently thought he could do something to get it. He may not have even thought Jesus was the Christ…the passage doesn’t say he knew or did not. As far as selling what he owns, so that he can follow Christ doesn’t make much sense here because then why wouldn’t we sell all we own? No need to answer that…just thinking out loud.

 

[ufamtobie]

Your knowledge and understanding of the Word of God is amazing…Not!
I will help you, it is a little long so hang in there.
Romans 6:1-23
**1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! **How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

 

[Callin]

SIA,

I would like to piggyback on this question and ask you to provide full reasoned and historical support for whatever answer you will give to Callin’s question.

Actually, it’s getting way off-topic. I think a new thread would be a good idea.

 

[benedictus2]

You are getting closer. I never said this was about the law…did I.
This man came with an emotional emptiness and knew he had something deficient, but he was not willing to admit that he had sin and thus was not repentant (which the law should have reveled to him, especially since he was a Jewish leader). Jesus threw a stumbling block at him that was too hard for him. So he went home rejected and saddened. The first step is to realize you are a sinner in need of a savior, this man apparently thought he could do something to get it. He may not have even thought Jesus was the Christ…the passage doesn’t say he knew or did not. As far as selling what he owns, so that he can follow Christ doesn’t make much sense here because then why wouldn’t we sell all we own? No need to answer that…just thinking out loud.

I am not getting closer. I am right on the mark. Your comment however is just a tad askew. This passage is not about realizing that one needs a saviour. Nowhere in this passage does it say that. Your exegesis is totally off whack here since there is no discussion of sin at all.

Jesus did not throw a stumbling block at him. Jesus never throws stumbling blocks. Those who throw stumbling blocks are mean spirited. Are you saying that Jesus is mean spirited and wants this man to stumble?

Quite the contrary. Seeing that he has kept the commandments Jesus is issuing a further invitation to greater perfection. He is saying to the man, go beyond mere observances. Christ is asking of him total commitment to Christ.

In a parallel passage in Mark 10:21, it says Jesus looked at him and loved him after the man replied that he has kept the commandments. So why would Jesus put stumbling blocks on his path?

Notice that his disciples have left everything for Him and Christ is issuing this same invitation to this man. But sadly, possesion has a strangle hold on him. His possessions posses him.

The same is asked of us. Only we are not able to do it. But some have done just that. I think of the likes of Mother Theresa and St Francis of Assisi and others as well. Still, us ordinary folks can do a bit more renunciation by living simple lives and having Christ paramount in our lives.

This is the kind of Gospel that Evangelicals don’t like because most evangelicals preach the prosperity Gospel which is actually totally contrary to Christianity.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, it’s getting way off-topic. I think a new thread would be a good idea.

I think there is already another current topic on the subject.

Will post link later.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, it’s getting way off-topic. I think a new thread would be a good idea.

Bill Pick has started this thread on the topic.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298892

SIA has already posted the same question there. And another has already asked a similar question to yours so I will piggyback on that one.

 

[NonCatholic]

I am not getting closer. I am right on the mark. Your comment however is just a tad askew. This passage is not about realizing that one needs a saviour. Nowhere in this passage does it say that. Your exegesis is totally off whack here since there is no discussion of sin at all.

Jesus did not throw a stumbling block at him. Jesus never throws stumbling blocks. Those who throw stumbling blocks are mean spirited. Are you saying that Jesus is mean spirited and wants this man to stumble?

Quite the contrary. Seeing that he has kept the commandments Jesus is issuing a further invitation to greater perfection. He is saying to the man, go beyond mere observances. Christ is asking of him total commitment to Christ.

In a parallel passage in Mark 10:21, it says Jesus looked at him and loved him after the man replied that he has kept the commandments. So why would Jesus put stumbling blocks on his path?

Notice that his disciples have left everything for Him and Christ is issuing this same invitation to this man. But sadly, possesion has a strangle hold on him. His possessions posses him.

The same is asked of us. Only we are not able to do it. But some have done just that. I think of the likes of Mother Theresa and St Francis of Assisi and others as well. Still, us ordinary folks can do a bit more renunciation by living simple lives and having Christ paramount in our lives.

This is the kind of Gospel that Evangelicals don’t like because most evangelicals preach the prosperity Gospel which is actually totally contrary to Christianity.

Will move to other thread.

 

[benedictus2]

As you can see the bible is written on two levels. One is the natural, physical, worldly level. Which we might call the literal level
The other is “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” or spiritual discernment. Now it’s quite clear from these texts that we should be seeking the things which the Spirit teaches, because they are from God.** When you seek the literal or natural things you will not receive the things of the Spirit because it will be foolishness to you.**

Your first error is equating literal with natural. Natural does not mean literal.

The second error is to say that a literal translation is not from God. In saying that, there is therefore nothing in the Bible that you can take literrally which is just as ridiculous as saying that we should take everything in the Bible literally.

So, how does this apply to Jn6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Well, I think first we must look at the spiritual meaning of the word “flesh” If we look at Jn1:1 we see 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And in Jn1:14 we see 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. So, what I beleive that Jesus is saying in Jn6:53 is that we must eat, digest, understand the word of God in order for us to have life within us.

It is good that you bring up John 1. Here the Word of God literally became flesh. He did not become a spiritual “flesh”, He became flesh, incarnate, so you cannot use that to debunk a literal reading of John 6. It actually supports our view that when he meant flesh, he meant physical flesh.

This appears to be born out both by Peter in 6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

No, it is not borne out by Peter’s statement at all. When Peter said Lord to whom shall we go…" he was saying that he did not quite understand either why Jesus would want them to eat His flesh but there is no one else to go to. Only Jesus has the Words of Eternal Life. His apostles in fact believed in Him enough to continue following Him even though they did not get it either.

and also by Jesus in Jn 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. You will notice that these words of Jesus pretty much reflect what is said in 1Cor2:12-14
In Christ Richard

Notice the words here. He says the flesh profits nothing. He is using the term flesh here in general as in contrast to spirit. But when he was talking about eating and drinking His Flesh and blood, He said **My flesh, My **blood. Any ordinary flesh and blood is to no avail. But His flesh and blood gives life.

You make Him sound rather non-sensical with your argument above because in effect you have Him saying : Eat my flesh and drink my blood, but you will find that that is all pointless and of no use.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hello, benedictus2 I was beginning to wonder if anyonehad even read my post. As for your reply

Your first error is equating literal with natural. Natural does not mean literal.

Here are two of many definitions for both natural and literal. As you can see the definitions are pretty close.
Natural:8 having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
Literal:3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
But my point was that Paul was saying that Scripture is written on two levels. Look at 1Cor2:12-14
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This clearly says that there is the spirit of the world which mans wisdom teaches and there is the Spirit which comes from God, that we might know the things that are freely given by God.

The second error is to say that a literal translation is not from God. In saying that, there is therefore nothing in the Bible that you can take literrally which is just as ridiculous as saying that we should take everything in the Bible literally.

If you will read my post. I don’t think that I said that the literal translation is not from God. Of coarse the whole Bible is from God and I beleive that all of it may not even be given with spiritual discernment, but a lot of it is and this is the trick, to constantly be running scripture through our knowledge of spiritual discernment to find out the things given by God

It is good that you bring up John 1. Here the Word of God literally became flesh. He did not become a spiritual “flesh”, He became flesh, incarnate, so you cannot use that to debunk a literal reading of John 6. It actually supports our view that when he meant flesh, he meant physical flesh.

Jesus did indeed become literal flesh, that is without question, but is Jesus literally a word. I beleive when you look at these texts through spiritual discernment, You find that Jesus is not telling them to make a graven image of his body out of bread and bow down before it, which would be a violation of the second commandment and therefore sin, something that Jesus just would not do. What He was saying was that the Word of God is what we should be feeding on and this is what contains eternal life.

No, it is not borne out by Peter’s statement at all. When Peter said Lord to whom shall we go…" he was saying that he did not quite understand either why Jesus would want them to eat His flesh but there is no one else to go to. Only Jesus has the Words of Eternal Life. His apostles in fact believed in Him enough to continue following Him even though they did not get it either.

Well, how you get this interpretation from this text is beyond me, What Peter goes on to say and what I have underlined in your post is what he said and I certianly do maintain that Peter knew exactly what Jesus meant because he says so.

Notice the words here. He says the flesh profits nothing. He is using the term flesh here in general as in contrast to spirit. But when he was talking about eating and drinking His Flesh and blood, He said **My flesh, My **blood. Any ordinary flesh and blood is to no avail. But His flesh and blood gives life.

Here’s where spiritual discernment comes in, when He says flesh profits nothing. He is indeed talking of worldly flesh or the spirit of the world as Paul says in 1Cor2:12. James 4:4 says 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. He says if you are freinds with the world you are Gods enemy. This is contrasted with the (Word) made flesh Jn1:14 of Jesus which gives life.

You make Him sound rather non-sensical with your argument above because in effect you have Him saying : Eat my flesh and drink my blood, but you will find that that is all pointless and of no use.

This is only true if you do not use spiritual discernment.

In Christ Richard

 

[maryrev12]

Why do non-Catholics take almost the whole Bible literally, but when it comes to John chapter 6, they insist it is figurative, when it does not say that it is?

Non Catholics do not take the Bible more literally. Period. I’ve read through this thread - and do not know why no one has stated this. Its obvious! Once saved always saved is no where in the Bible. PERIOD. God faithfulness is stated literaly, mans free will to turn away is stated literally. WHAT PROT DOCTRINE IS STATED LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE? Honoring the Saints is stated literally in the Bible. The Bible states LITERALLY that the Church is the guardian of truth and the pillar of our faith. It states literally that we are to submit to its authority and respect our leaders. It states literally that we should be united in our beliefs and not follow strange new teachings. It ( the bible) never states that it is the AUTHORITY. Jesus’s words in the NT amount to 2 hours of speaking, and we know for a fact he lived to be 33 years old and MUST have talked for more than 2 hours. The bible states literally that the apostles are foundation of our CHURCH and that the Church is the kingdom of God come to earth.

So- the very topic of this thread is miss leading- Catholics believe the scriptures litterally, it is the NON CATHOLICS who twist the scriptures, for they must, to justify their teachings.

There- its SAID.

love y’all!
Praise Jesus!
MaryRev12

 

[benedictus2]

Here are two of many definitions for both natural and literal. As you can see the definitions are pretty close.
Natural:8 having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
Literal:3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.

I like your definition of literal – “true to fact”. So therefore our interpretation is TRUE TO FACT

But my point was that Paul was saying that Scripture is written on two levels. Look at 1Cor2:12-14
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit …spirit of the world which mans wisdom teaches and there is the Spirit which comes from God, that we might know the things that are freely given by God.

A literal reading of John 6 does not in anyway mean that it has not been inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is precisely because it is such a hard concept to accept that it requires the spiritual enlightenment from the Holy Spirit before you can accept the literal translation.

If you will read my post. I don’t think that I said that the literal translation is not from God. Of coarse the whole Bible is from God and I beleive that all of it may not even be given with spiritual discernment, but a lot of it is and this is the trick, to constantly be running scripture through our knowledge of spiritual discernment to find out the things given by God

But you said that there are two levels of reading, literal and spiritual. You also said that only the spiritual reading is from God. So it follows that in your opinion the literal level is not from God.

Jesus did indeed become literal flesh, that is without question, but is Jesus literally a word. I beleive when you look at these texts through spiritual discernment, You find that Jesus is not telling them to make a graven image of his body out of bread and bow down before it, which would be a violation of the second commandment and therefore sin, something that Jesus just would not do. What He was saying was that the Word of God is what we should be feeding on and this is what contains eternal life.

Here is where you are wrong again. Since Jesus is indeed the bread, as He himself said repeatedly, then we are not bowing before graven images but before God, himself. The only way it is a graven image is if it is NOT GOD. But because the Host IS INDEED Jesus Himself, then it is fitting and only right that we should bow before Him who is God so no violation of the 1st or (in your book 2nd) commandment

Well, how you get this interpretation from this text is beyond me, What Peter goes on to say and what I have underlined in your post is what he said and I certianly do maintain that Peter knew exactly what Jesus meant because he says so.

To say “to whom shall we go” is like saying else is there to go to. If there was someone else, they would have followed that one instead, but as Peter said, Christ had the words of eternal life. Peter was a Jew. He would have understood it the same way all Jesus’s other disciples did.
The figurative reading of “to eat someone’s flesh” in Hebrew meant to inflict calumny on someone. So to read this figuratively would have Jesus saying” If you do all sorts of calumny on me, you will have eternal life.” Does that even make sense to you?

Here’s where spiritual discernment comes in, when He says flesh profits nothing. He is indeed talking of worldly flesh or the spirit of the world as Paul says in 1Cor2:12. James 4:4 says 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. He says if you are freinds with the world you are Gods enemy. This is contrasted with the (Word) made flesh Jn1:14 of Jesus which gives life.

Sorry but that is wrong. “Flesh” here is not contrasted with the “Word made flesh in Jn 1:14” but rather with “spirit”. It is very evident in the text there is no need to go to another passage in John. In John 1, the “spirit” did not become “flesh” but rather the Word. Word here does not mean just your ordinary word but rather the Logos.

This is only true if you do not use spiritual discernment.

Well, then YOU have failed to use spiritual discernment because that is indeed what it looks like by your interpretation, He goes through several verses telling us to eat his body and drink his blood repeatedly and then goes, but really that is all to no avail. No amount of spiritual discernment will make you wiggle out of that one.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Everyone believes they read John 6 with spiritual discernment, yet there are several “spiritually discerned” interpretations.

I’ll go with the interpretation that has stood for 2000+ years, which was and is discerned with the Spirit through God’s Holy Church.

Any other discernment can be called spiritual, but which what spirit is it being discerned?

Not accusing. Just asking. I’ve had to ask myself this question many times over the past few years… and have finally concluded that I must go with what the Church teaches and has taught consistently since the beginning.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

A literal reading of John 6 does not in anyway mean that it has not been inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is precisely because it is such a hard concept to accept that it requires the spiritual enlightenment from the Holy Spirit before you can accept the literal translation.

Of coarse Jn 6 is inspired by God. It’s your interpritation that I have a problem with.

But you said that there are two levels of reading, literal and spiritual. You also said that only the spiritual reading is from God. So it follows that in your opinion the literal level is not from God.

Well let’s look at 1Cor2:12-14 again. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This clearly says that there is the spirit of the world which mans wisdom teaches and there is the Spirit which comes from God, that we might know the things that are freely given by God.
This also says that the natural or worldly man " receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness" So it’s not me that says this but Paul.

Here is where you are wrong again. Since Jesus is indeed the bread, as He himself said repeatedly, then we are not bowing before graven images but before God, himself. The only way it is a graven image is if it is NOT GOD. But because the Host IS INDEED Jesus Himself, then it is fitting and only right that we should bow before Him who is God so no violation of the 1st or (in your book 2nd) commandment

Ok, here’s the 2nd commandment
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
A graven image is an image made by the hand of man, such as the host used in the mass. It really doesn’t matter if as you say this is the body of Christ or not, this commandment tells us not to bow down before any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above. Jesus simply would not have told us to do something that is clearly a violation of one of the commandments that He Himself gave to us.

To say “to whom shall we go” is like saying else is there to go to. If there was someone else, they would have followed that one instead, but as Peter said, Christ had the words of eternal life. Peter was a Jew. He would have understood it the same way all Jesus’s other disciples did.

Again I underline words of eternal life in your post. This is what Peter understands Jesus as saying, and again we know this because as you point out he says so.

The figurative reading of “to eat someone’s flesh” in Hebrew meant to inflict calumny on someone. So to read this figuratively would have Jesus saying” If you do all sorts of calumny on me, you will have eternal life.” Does that even make sense to you?

I don’t beleive this is what Jesus is saying nor do I think as I pointed out did the apostles understand it this way. Even the ones that turned and walked no more with Him did not understand it this way. They thought He was talking about cannibalism.

Sorry but that is wrong. “Flesh” here is not contrasted with the “Word made flesh in Jn 1:14” but rather with “spirit”. It is very evident in the text there is no need to go to another passage in John. In John 1, the “spirit” did not become “flesh” but rather the Word. Word here does not mean just your ordinary word but rather the Logos.

I’m not quite sure I understand your post but I will try to reply.
What I am saying is that there obviously are two meanings for the word flesh. Consider these two verses 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
2John1:7tells us that Christ came in actual flesh, not a make beleive body. In Rom 8:12-13 Flesh is used to talk of the spirit of the world or sin.

In Christ Richard
(cont.)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Quote]Well, then YOU have failed to use spiritual discernment because that is indeed what it looks like by your interpretation, He goes through several verses telling us to eat his body and drink his blood repeatedly and then goes, but really that is all to no avail. No amount of spiritual discernment will make you wiggle out of that one.

As I have pointed out there are two uses for flesh. When Jesus says in vs. 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. He is saying the flesh,or the spirit of the world or sin profiteth nothing. The flesh that He is telling us to eat is the Word made flesh from the Spirit of God

In Christ Richard

 

[LutheranDK]

Why do non-Catholics take almost the whole Bible literally, but when it comes to John chapter 6, they insist it is figurative, when it does not say that it is?

Well, I do not say that John 6 is figurative, so I can’t help you with that.

 

[benedictus2]

Of coarse Jn 6 is inspired by God. It’s your interpritation that I have a problem with.

Okay you missed the point. What I am saying is that to read “John6” literally does not mean that that interpretation is not inspired by God. It actually requires spiritual enlightenment from the Holy spirit before you can accept the literal interpretation. In this case, your interpretation is the one that is of man because natural understanding simply cannot comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist.

Well let’s look at 1Cor2:12-14 again. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This clearly says that there is the spirit of the world which mans wisdom teaches and there is the Spirit which comes from God, that we might know the things that are freely given by God.
This also says that the natural or worldly man " receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness" So it’s not me that says this but Paul.

But 1 Cor2:12-14 HAS NO BEARING ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EUCHARIST so quoting it here is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
You seem to think that if you dump enough Bible passages it will make your case. The passage has to be relevant first.

Ok, here’s the 2nd commandment Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
A graven image is an image made by the hand of man, such as the host used in the mass. It really doesn’t matter if as you say this is the body of Christ or not, this commandment tells us not to bow down before any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above. Jesus simply would not have told us to do something that is clearly a violation of one of the commandments that He Himself gave to us.

Yes it does matter if it is the Body of Christ because then we are not bowing before a graven image but BEFORE GOD HIMSELF.
THE EUCHARIST IS GOD. WE BOW BEFORE GOD.
HE SAID THE BREAD IS HIM. HE IS GOD. WE BELIEVE HIM. You on the other hand would rather do violence to the word of God to suit your own interpretation.

The only way you can prove that it is idolatry is if you can prove that Christ is not in the Eucharist. But it is Christ because HE SAID SO. What is so hard to understand about that. HE SAID SO.

For example, I am sure that you believe that when two of you are gathered in His name, he is there in your midst. Now how do you know that for a fact? BECAUSE HE SAID SO.
In the same manner, we know He is the bread because HE SAID SO.

Again I underline words of eternal life in your post. This is what Peter understands Jesus as saying, and again we know this because as you point out he says so.

Yes, Peter knew Christ had the words of eternal life even though at that stage what Jesus was saying was hard to accept. It requires faith. Those who walked away did not believe in Him enough that is why they were not able to accept the hard teaching because they did not believe He had the words of eternal life.

And what are the words of eternal life? Eat my flesh, drink my blood.

I don’t beleive this is what Jesus is saying nor do I think as I pointed out did the apostles understand it this way. Even the ones that turned and walked no more with Him did not understand it this way. They thought He was talking about cannibalism.

Oh maaan. Will you please read my posts properly? Exactly the point I am making. They thought he was talking about cannibalism because one cannot read this figuratively without making Jesus sound stupid. That is why everyone knew he was speaking literally because a figurative interpretation does not make sense.
Even the earliest Christians were accused of cannibalism. Now that would not have happened if they had not said that they were feeding on the body of the Lord.

 

[benedictus2]

Quote]

As I have pointed out there are two uses for flesh. When Jesus says in vs. 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. He is saying the flesh,or the spirit of the world or sin profiteth nothing. The flesh that He is telling us to eat is the Word made flesh from the Spirit of God

In Christ Richard

And as I have pointed out, other passages may have a different use for the word flesh but what other passages mean by flesh has no bearing on this discussion unless those passages are about the Eucharist.

Verse 63 says “the flesh” which is a general term and is here contrasted with spirit. When Jesus was talking about eating and drinking He says "My flesh, My blood. Flesh in general is of no avail. But His flesh is not flesh in general. It is God’s flesh and therefore gives Eternal life.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

May I interject? John 6 was one of the reasons I left the CC.

I too understood the disciples and Apostles to be taking Jesus’ saying as literal (cannibalism). But the difference was that the Apostles stayed with Jesus despite His “hard saying”. The point is that the Apostles proved their faith by remaining with Jesus even though they did not yet understand why He was telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

I think both sides of this argument would agree on that much.

The disagreement arises from what Jesus REALLY meant when He said to eat/drink flesh/blood. Did He mean we would literally eat His literal flesh, etc…? Or did He mean we would symbolically eat His flesh/blood by spiritually “digesting” His Word? Did He mean we would literally eat His symbolic flesh/blood (communion)? A combination of all of the above?

Truthfully, I don’t think any of the above can be proven solely from Scripture. I think a good case can be made for any of them using Scripture. In fact, I also believe you can make a case for any of them from the writings of the ECF.

That is why I believe in the authority of the CC to define these things for us.

 

[benedictus2]

The disagreement arises from what Jesus REALLY meant when He said to eat/drink flesh/blood. Did He mean we would literally eat His literal flesh, etc…? Or did He mean we would symbolically eat His flesh/blood by spiritually “digesting” His Word? Did He mean we would literally eat His symbolic flesh/blood (communion)? A combination of all of the above?

The communion aspect is evident in John 6 and as expounded by Paul. But one cannot make a case for a symbolic eating of his flesh/blood by spiritually “digesting” His Word. There is no reference at all to Scripture here. There is not even a HINT that Scripture is the one that needs to be digested here.

Scripture is not “flesh” nor "blood’. That is why the language became more explicit from “bread” to “flesh” and “blood”.

The most that can be linked is John 1, the inCARNATion of the Word but then the Word is VERBUM DEI not SCRIPTURA.

As an attempt at exegesis of thIs chapter, this is simply TOTALLY WAY OFF THE MARK.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

The communion aspect is evident in John 6 and as expounded by Paul. But one cannot make a case for a symbolic eating of his flesh/blood by spiritually “digesting” His Word. There is no reference at all to Scripture here. There is not even a HINT that Scripture is the one that needs to be digested here.

Scripture is not “flesh” nor "blood’. That is why the language became more explicit from “bread” to “flesh” and “blood”.

The most that can be linked is John 1, the inCARNATion of the Word but then the Word is VERBUM DEI not SCRIPTURA.

As an attempt at exegesis of thIs chapter, this is simply TOTALLY WAY OFF THE MARK.

If Scripture is God’s Word (which the CC says it is) then “digesting” it is not such a far-out concept (at least not in my mind). But regardless, my point was only that I can see the other p.o.v. - But I do not rest my faith on these interpretations. It is pretty inconsistent to accept the Scriptures the CC gave me but not the Church’s interpretation of them.

Anyway, it is important to me to set the recorrd straight, since I spent a great deal of time here defending my own interpretation of John 6…

The main thing that threw me in John 6 was vs. 35

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

comes to me = never hungry
believes in me = never thirsty

It looks like Jesus is defining eating and drinking here.

But what I now realize is that coming to Jesus does not necessarily exclude coming to Him in the Eucharist. Believing in Jesus does not exclude believing in Him in the Eucharist. The rest of the chapter (about eating and drinking) explains what we should do as a result of that faith; that coming to Jesus and believing in Him: to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.