-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John 6:53 (King James Version)
- Thread starter Sister Cyber
- Start date
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The son of man means that Jesus was perfectly human, the verses explain that we are body and soul,
the soul is what gives life and the flesh is useless without its soul.
Of course he said these things. Who could possibly doubt it? I have it on good authority that the unknown author of the forth gospel got these quotes from authentic, half-century old YouTube clips, along with recipes for soup du jour and the ever popular theophagy of the week.
kepha31
Active Member
The Early Church Fathers were a deception? Care to provide any evidence? Or do you you mean the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a deception? If it is then so is the Incarnation.
I provided a link countering 143 so called contradictions which obviously you ignored. Here it is again: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/bible.htm
I could dismantle your "contradictions" one at a time but you would ignore it again anyway. Since when does having parables a criteria for a gospel?
The Feeding of the Multitude foreshadows Jesus' power to multiply Himself as the Bread of Life. It is the only miracle that appears in all 4 gospels. Is that a deception too?
Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.Then back to your topic, and why this is a purposefully made up lie, as anyone drinking blood or eating flesh of man, shall be kicked out by God.
Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Ok,, what is "spirit" to you? I really think we are not on the same page here......
Methinks that someone(s) posting here haven't a clue what symbolism is.
Therefor they jump on any opportunity to defame the faith and beliefs of other.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the people that take a sentence out of context and build an
entire pseudo science out of it.
(in case a few ignorant that don't know what pseudo is)
pseu·do1
/ˈso͞odō/
adjective
(yeesh. That last even made me sick.)
Therefor they jump on any opportunity to defame the faith and beliefs of other.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the people that take a sentence out of context and build an
entire pseudo science out of it.
(in case a few ignorant that don't know what pseudo is)
pseu·do1
/ˈso͞odō/
adjective
- not genuine; sham:
(yeesh. That last even made me sick.)
Well, first of all there are some who teach they eat Jesus because the ' bread and wine ' become Jesus.( sounds like repulsive cannibalism )
Please keep in mind that John chapter 6 is about Jesus addressing Jewish crowds.
According to Matthew 13:34 Jesus would Not address the crowds without an illustration. ( Not literal but a parable )
The crowds were already getting disappointed with Jesus - John 6:15 - because Jesus turned down their opportunity to make him a king ( ruler ) on Earth.
Also, please keep in mind the setting. John chapter 6 is Not the last supper setting or time frame, but one year earlier before that supper.
Those crowds would have known nothing about the last supper at that time, nor would they know about the new covenant Jesus would install.
So, John 6:35 where Jesus likens himself to the bread of life is like the manna. But Jesus would be Superior Manna, so to speak, because Jesus' flesh (bread) would have a more lasting sustaining effect than the temporary manna.
Hebrews 10:24-26 explains Jesus' ransom is once done for all time - Hebrews 10:12-14 shows one sacrifice or one offering ( singular )
Since Jesus was talking to Jewish crowds with illustrations - Matthew 13:34 - then the verses of John chapter 6 are figurative as verses 35 and 40 show.
Jesus was stressing to them he will resurrect on the last day ( Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth )
No where does it say there is a resurrection before that last figurative millennial day - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
The reason the Jews found Jesus' words repulsive is because Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10 forbid them to consume blood - 2 Kings 6:26-31
Jesus stressed at John 6:38-40 the doing of God's will. Jesus connected God's will with believing, and belief was connected with labor or works of God mentioned at John 6:27-29
So, we are to do ' spiritual works' as Jesus instructed in order to end up with everlasting life - Matthew 24:13-14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts of the Apostles 1:8
The disciples did Not eat Jesus, but they did the spiritual works as Jesus instructed them to do.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The verses are symbolic but it reminds me with the story which says that Judas' spirit (soul) owned the body(flesh) of Jesus and becomes
him in flesh and the one who suffered on the cross was Judas(soul) but the flesh was of Jesus which profiteth nothing, that also may
explain the disappearance of Judas after the crucifixion of Jesus.
I never ignore anything, went to have a look at it, and realized it wasn't anything to do with our list of contradictions.
By all means have a go, and will carefully examine what you've got to say....Here is the original list, and here are a load more in the same thread.
Yeshua spoke in parables, we find them in all Synoptic Gospels, and even a few in Gnostic texts; yet in the gospel of John he speaks entirely differently, to the point it doesn't sound anything like him.
The feeding of the many wasn't a deception; yet your take on it is... Yeshua was showing when we come together, there is enough for everyone.
In the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, Yeshua taught those thinking they get free inheritance from his death, shall be condemned by God; so all this idea of thinking he came to die for you is off key (taught by John, Paul and Simon).
Drinking the blood of the offering, is why Revelations says the children of the Mother of all Harlots are all deemed accountable for murdering the prophets.
Sharing bread in remembrance of Yeshua as a person, and what he taught us is one thing; making a covenant with death, and then eating his flesh as a sin offering is against the law, and thus condemnable.
kepha31
Active Member
John 6:23-53 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 skeptics 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 skeptics 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 6:60 - as are many skeptics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
John 6:63 -skeptics often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, they must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.Methinks that someone(s) posting here haven't a clue what symbolism is.
Therefor they jump on any opportunity to defame the faith and beliefs of other.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the people that take a sentence out of context and build an
entire pseudo science out of it.
(in case a few ignorant that don't know what pseudo is)
pseu·do1
/ˈso͞odō/
adjective
NO INSULT MEANT! I'm far to righteous to do such a thing.
- not genuine; sham:
(yeesh. That last even made me sick.)
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
Jesus wasn't speaking in parables, metaphors or symbols in John 6, He was speaking plainly and literally.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says FOUR TIMES: "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
The verse, nor the chapter, nor the entire book says anything about the crowds being disappointed. But many walked away in John 6:66 because they refused to believe.
According to who?
kepha31
Active Member
The Passover is an intimate event with family and friends, nobody invited whole crowds. Jesus also instituted the priesthood with the Washing of the Feet, ordaining whole crowds makes no sense.
Agreed.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented (not represented) over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
Since Jesus was talking to Jewish crowds with illustrations - Matthew 13:34 - then the verses of John chapter 6 are figurative as verses 35 and 40 show.
Jesus made it quite clear He was not speaking figuratively nor in parables in John 6.
John 10:7 - you may point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his death, and hopefully, we will rise with Him the day we die.
Standing in front of the greatest Teacher the world has sever seen, and they didn't understand??? or they refused to believe??? Who is Lord of the Sabbath? He has no authority over Jewish scruples?
Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.
Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.
2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.
2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.
Jesus isn't talking about doing spiritual works in John 6, although I agree they are important. Believing in Him means doing what He told us to do, which is to eat His Flesh, and drink His Blood, in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine.
Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.
Last edited:
moorea944
Well-Known Member
The meaning is symbolic! Some disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying, so they left. Not everyone understand..... Paul and Peter knew exactly what Jesus WAS saying and they wrote it in their letters. Even in the gosples with Mathew, Mark and Luke. It is symbolic. But what is not, is the "eating" of the bread and "drinking" of the wine. That WAS literal as it is today. They did that every week.
And yes, Jesus IS the bread of life. Again, that is symbolic. Jesus is not saying he is a loaf of bread, the meaning is symbolic.
So if you say that it is not symbolic, then what are you really saying here? There is no other meaning.
Interesting that you say Jesus as the ' bread of life is symbolic ' because Jesus is also a figurative: door, lamp, vine, and shepherd besides being a cornerstone and bridegroom.
To which disappearance of Judas are you referring?
Gospel writer Luke picks up the account about Judas at Acts of the Apostles 1:16-18
Doesn't Matthew 27:5 tell us that Judas hanged himself ?______
Luke adds the details at Acts of the Apostles 1:18-19
So, Matthew deals with Judas' mode of attempted suicide, whereas Luke describes the result of Judas' suicide.
In other words, Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope broke, or the tree limb broke, so that Judas plunged down and bust himself open on the rocks below.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Why do people take this verse out of context? Jesus said His words were spiritual. He never cut off His skin and fed it to anyone nor did He open a vein and ask someone to drink His blood.
Please. The ignorance I'm reading here is staggering.
Please. The ignorance I'm reading here is staggering.
kepha31
Active Member
There would be no need to walk away (John 6:66) over a mere symbol.
No, they were disgusted . Symbols don't disgust people. Jesus didn't say, "Hey, come back, I was only speaking symbolically!" They understood, they just refused to believe. If they didn't understand, why walk away?
Furthermore, you may have trouble explaining why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic."
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." 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,
It didn't become symbolic until well after the reformation. Nuthin' like historical consistency.
What did Jesus say to the Apostles after John 6:66?
67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.
What words? The words of Jesus found in the whole New Testament that didn't yet exist??
Or the words in context of His previous discourse? It only takes 2 functioning neurons to figure out the answer.
How many times did Jesus tell them the words of eternal life? 6 by my count.
54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
Symbols are made up of mere physical matter, they cannot give eternal life.
A literal meaning. John 6:55 - 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
Evangelical Protestants of the “low church” or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or “blessing”). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a “reduction” of Christ’s Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.
Sacramentalism
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I meant both Jesus and Judas left the world at the same moments.
Right, Jesus never opened up a vein and asked anyone to drink his blood. Jesus is the ' fruit of the vine ', Not vein.
Jesus would have to be an endless supply of blood like a large reservoir in which people could tap into like a blood bank so people could drink their God.
One student asked the teacher if the wine becomes blood than how is it that the priests can get drunk on the wine if the wine was no longer wine but now blood ?
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Absolutely! I totally agree with you!
kepha31
Active Member
Bread and Wine are consecrated by the priest to be transubstantiated into His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The appearance doesn't change.