Originally posted by AngelforChrist:
Its seems you have missed a few things for context in John Chapter 6:
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes , but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
28Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
Then you can also see this and know that Christ was not speaking of physical bread and wine , but of Spirital food which is the word of God (the truth of the gospel:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Then you can look at this part :
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
Note it says some of them who do not believe , not some who wont eat his flesh , and he said the flesh profits nothing and his words were speaking to something SPIRITUAL , not physical .
Perhaps a message I wrote a few months ago would be good for you to read, which I will paste-in here:
NOTE: Where you see">>" and ">" denotes quoting from a previous conversation...
THE EUCHARIST
What does Chapter 6 start out with? The multiplication of the loaves (and fishes) of course! By performing the miracle of multiplying this small bit of food (certainly against nature, I am sure you would agree) I propose to you that Jesus was setting them up for what was to occur later (and why John wrote his gospel the way he did.) Jesus is speaking of
food. As we have previously discussed, we both agree that by this act, Jesus further establishes His own divinity. He "credibility" of being who He is claiming is reinforced. Which means that what he says further must have greater weight.
(And in between, we have Jesus "walking on water" in the discourse that has Jesus traveling with his companions to Capernaum, across the Sea of Galilee.
And then guess what? The crowds came in boats to follow to where Jesus was! They were interested in what He had to say! Is He indeed, the Messiah? Is He who He is claiming to be. And just maybe he will "feed us again" is performing another miracle! (I'm setting this all up for what I am about to say here.)
In verses 24 thru 26, we read (Taken from the Catholic NAB):
[blockquote]
When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. And when they found him across the sea they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled."[/blockquote]
Notice that the theme of
food is still with us....
Reading further, we notice that Jesus takes the opportunity to speak of not working for food that perishes but for food that "endures for eternal life" (verse 27) in what I consider a most skillful "easing-in" of a profundity that will be rejected by many. But here is how He does it:
Verses 32-33:
[blockquote]
So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life tro the world."[/blockquote]
Christ goes all the way back to the Old Testament to see a foreshadowing of what is to come as the "true bread."
Notice further that there is nothing that can be taken literally here. The natural tendency is to see this "bread" as a metaphor for "something that will save us" most likely Christ Himself.
And as we well see, nothing truer then "Christ Himself" can be said!
In verse 35 of John chapter 6, we read:
[blockquote]
...whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.[/blockquote]
Now, what do we see starting with verse 41?
[blockquote]
The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."[/blockquote]
...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42)
In John 6:48 I am that bread of life. Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine" in other places of scripture. These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here?
We read in verses 49 through 51:
[blockquote]
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."[/blockquote]
Oops, something quite disturbing here! He speaks of "eating" what is identified and His own "flesh"!
And now we come down to an interesting question:
Why did the Jews desert Him here, as well as some of His own disciples?
Verse 52:
[blockquote]
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]
Do you see a questioning of his deity here? And did they really understand the implications of exactly what this "bread" was, His own flesh, that they did not take Him literally here?
They may have questioned exactly who He is, such as His divinity. But that is not the main objection here, including those who would join the Jews is objecting to Him.
John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
To what were they originally reacting to, as we see in verse 42 which I give again:
[blockquote]
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]
Get it yet? They questioned, "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (The body of His disciples were still "intact" up to this point.)
Now, are you ready for this, sir? What was the thing that Christ said after the above "quarreling among themselves"? Do you not agree that the Jews took Christ literally in that they were to "eat" His body? Now, if they were mistaken, and if Jesus really meant to use the term "his body" im a metaphor or figurative sense, could He not then correct them? Could He not simply say, "No, no, I mean that figuratively, not my actual body!"
So now, let's see what Christ actually said in verses 53 thru 56:
[blockquote]
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.[/blockquote]
Is that not a statement that hits you over the head like a club? Does it not only affirm what the Jews suspect (a literal interpretation) but why some of His own disciples join with the Jews and leave him?
Look at verses 60 to 62:
[blockquote]
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them. "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the son of Man ascending to where he was before?[/blockquote]
In other words, if you don't believe Jesus now, why would you believe if you saw Him ascending back to heaven? Why is this saying so hard if Jesus was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically about the eating and drinking of His body and blood? Instead of a simple explanation, why the reaffirmation of his "hard saying?"
And now, verse 63:
[blockquote]
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.[/blockquote]
Some Protestants point to this verse as Christ correcting the impression of what he just said. The problem with this is what happened later in verse 66:
[blockquote]
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.[/blockquote]
Well, I thought verse 63 explained all that!
It obviously did not!
Why don't we see an affirmation of the defecting disciples, with a "oh, I get it now! You were only speaking figuratively and not actually!" But no, they depart from Him!
What Christ is saying in verse 63 is that only the Spirit can understand, the flesh cannot understand it. Christ explains why His words are rejected - the flesh rejects it! If they have had the Spirit, they would have at least taken His words at face value, even while they may not have understood exactly how they were to "eat" His body and drink His blood - Something that became plain as day at the Last Supper!
Even the apostles, including Peter, stayed with him, so the Spirit was at least active to that extent. And I love the words of Peter as he answers Jesus' question, "Do you also want to leave?" (verse 67)
"
Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
AMEN TO THAT!
>Disciples and Jews:
>Joh 6:64
But there are some of you that believe not.
>"believed not" what? that He was bread - or did not believe in
>His claim to Deity?
That they were to "eat his body and drink His blood" in a literal sense! They simply did not understand where Jesus was going with all of this! All cleared-up with the disciples who stayed with Him and His apostles as the events of the Last Supper unfold!
>>If you mean that it is literally Christ's body and blood
>>under the appearance of bread and wine, you would have
>>it right.
>How can something be "literally" under the appearance of
>something else?
That is a wonderful question, sir! This is something theologians have been wondering about since the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted! And the answer is, I simply do not know - it is a mystery! All I know is, God did it that way, and I believe it!
>"literally" for the purpose of re-sacrificing what Christ said
>was finished and said He had accomplished once for all?
Oh no, not that canard! Christ was the sacrificial
Lamb of God in that one event in human history that is celebrated at every Mass, not as a re-sacrifice, but as a continuing sacrifice that has no time dimension. And what He accomplished once and for all is that supreme sacrifice, which we celebrate daily! All though out what remains of human history, Christ's sacrifice is represented, Christ becomes present on the altar in the form of bread and wine now His body and blood, all made available when He said the words, "It is finished!"
>>Because there is no change in the bread and wine
that
>>can be discerned by our natural senses. [/i]
>then there is no change... it is symbolic of His body and
>blood.
No, there is a change out of faith that we cannot discern with the human senses! And as verse 63 explains, the "flesh cannot understand this" so you are not alone, sir!
>>If your definition of "literal" here means the literal
>>natural flesh and blood of Jesus, you would be wrong.
>>Catholics certainly do not believe that.
>maybe you do not believe that - but there are millions of
>catholics who do... a few right here on this board.
Do you actually think that some Catholics think that the Eucharist is the actual "natural" flesh and blood of Christ?
I invite them to speak up right here and now if they do!
>>Even Simon Peter remained faithful, certainly not
>>understanding what Christ said, commenting, when asked if he
>>wanted to leave too,
"Master, to whom shall we go? You have
>>the words of eternal life."
>Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that
>Christ, the Son of the living God.
OK.................
>here's the rest of Peter's statement in comparison to the
>one's who do not believe in the previous verses. THAT's why
>they stayed - they believed in His deity.
Of course, and only God can do what He is claiming to do, can he?
>>Peter, in his lack of understanding as well as the
>>apostles,
>they understood -
>Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that
>Christ, the Son of the living God.
And again, they stay with Him because He is the Son of the living God! But that does not explain the awesome words about His own body and blood that must be consumed to have eternal life!
>>Note carefully that Christ never said "I am the bread" or
>>"I am the wine (chalice)." Bit difference, right?
>why is that? Because He was comparing to the manna - He had
>just finished feeding 5000 physically. What better time than
>to explain to them the higher importance of spiritually
>feeding them - using something they understood and was
>recorded in the OT... manna.
No, Christ contrasted His "food" as a saving food that is everlasting, compared with the food that only fills the tummy.
And again, please note that Christ said, "THIS (the bread he is holding in His hands)
is (a declaration of what it is) my body!
He does not say, "this represents by body," or "this is a symbol of my body," but "THIS IS MY BODY! A profundity that brought me into the Catholic Church when I first believed! It was the
Coup de grace that evaporated all other objections I had for Christ;s true church!
>He said I am the spiritual Bread - much like the physical
>bread your fathers ate...
And of course, He said nothing of the kind! He never used the phrase, "I am the spiritual bread."
>Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh
>profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you,
>they are spirit, and they are life.
Already explained! Of course the flesh will not understand, but the Spirit will! Sorry, but I like my exegesis better!
And besides, the context below that verse indicates that, else why do the disciples who left Him not come back with a "oh, now we undetstand! You were only speaking figuratively!"
Not in scripture, sir..................
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
