John 6 - full of symbolism

[BobRyan]

Someone recently made this claim about John 6

Yeah Jesus said Door, and vine. And those same disciples didn't say
"Well how is it he is a door!?" or "How can this man be a plant!?"

Because it was OBVIOUS symbolism. But when John 6 rolls around there could be no symbolism no metaphor.

Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

===============================================================

Now notice what John does with that symbol of bread.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 6
30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
(Just when some folks want to claim that Jesus came to abolish all that the Father had spoken in scripture)

The symbol of manna - bread coming down out of heaven is used by John.

========================================================

Deut 8
2 You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
...
16 In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.


Moses said that the spiritual lesson was that "Man does not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

=================================== back to John 6

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

What is it that literally came down out of heaven? ?? -- "bread"??
Shall we repeat the too-literal mistake of the disciples in Matt 16 on the subject of bread?

42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 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.”

58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Repeatedly stated that Jesus is the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Not "I will one day in the future be bread and one day in the future you will need to eat this bread to have eternal life... but not now... no absolutely not now"

Rather Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

 

[BobRyan]

How literally does the RCC take the statement -- "I AM Bread" ??

===============================================================

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J.
(Complete with papal “imprimatur” -)

Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”
------------------------------------------------
The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.
Ibid. Page 351

A last will is no place for figurative speech ; under the best of circumstances courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshiping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.

…

IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice, and nobody bites Christ then); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic opinion the apostles must have thought as do Catholics today). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition ?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

---------------------------- end

 

[Greg J.]

The way you evaluate whether or not a passage is symbolism is done by many people, but the result is inconsistent between people. Who is to say who is right? A more rigid method is necessary.

Regarding "the bread," Jesus made a point of saying that his body was real food in that passage, something that indicates he was not using symbolism. That passage simply means there is something spiritually true that is not true of the molecules.

An intermediate step to understand that might be to regard what you said:

understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord

Jesus is the Word. A person does not live just by what he eats, but also by the grace of God (Hebrews 1:3, among others).

Many spiritual truths are revealed in Scripture through what appear to be irrational references, but they aren't, because they are strictly true in Spirit. It is a process to be transformed by God to recognize spiritual truths from spiritual words that aren't revealed in the physical realm. God continues to show even the most spiritually mature people new spiritual truths through Scripture.

One example in Scripture is the use of sonship. A person is genuinely a spiritual son of someone when they have the spirit of their "father" even when they do not share a bloodline. Evidence of this is that they do the things that their "father" did. One example we see in Scripture is that non-Jews who believe what God said are sons of Abraham, the father of those that believe. Every person has many spiritual fathers (or if it is easier to accept, a degree of spiritual sonship from many fathers).

 

[Light of the East]

How literally does the RCC take the statement -- "I AM Bread" ??

The problem you have is two - fold:

1. The Holy Orthodox churches and all 22 rites of the Eastern Catholic churches also take the words quite literally. This is not just an issue of Roman Rite Catholicism. It was fashionable to pick on the Catholic Church here in the United States and elsewhere, but those who did so were profoundly short-sighted in acting as if only the Roman Rite did the things to which they object.

2. The Early Fathers took the words literally. In other words, history is against you. For 1500 years, the understanding of the Eucharist as the very Body and Blood of our Lord was universal in every jurisdiction both East and West, not just Rome. And it continues today. The idea that the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ is an aberration. The Fathers of the Church, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, etc., learned directly from the Apostles, which means that the Apostles must have taught this to them and the Apostles must have learned this directly from Christ.

Not everything we know of the Christian faith is in the Bible. I was reading the Scriptures the other day, and a verse jumped out at me, making me think of the discussions I have had here with those who are not Catholic or Orthodox.

Jhn 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

This is one of several verses in which it states that Jesus taught the people but does not tell us what exactly He did teach. We do not know, yet this is the God/man teaching Truth. Do you think perhaps there were also times when He took His simple disciples aside and answered their question "Lord, how can this be your Body when you are sitting right here with us? Are we supposed to ....gulp....devour you?"

And then He answered....and we don't have the answer, nor do we have the great body of what He did discuss in private with His disciples.

 

[Patrick Miron]

Someone recently made this claim about John 6

WOW!

Congrads on the great effort my friend.

First of all I would point out the following:

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES

One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to

Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay Catholic Bible explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

2nd. Peter 3: 14-18
“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen”

Secondly a two part question for you my friend:

Question #1. Five separate Holy Spirit Inspired {2nd Tim. 3:16-17} AUTHORS of the New Testament which BTW is authored completely by Catholics; testify to their belief in this Mysterious {a key word}Miracle {another key word}.

Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk 22: 17:20
John 6: entire chapeter but quoted here for space is verses 47:58

[47]Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen {FYI: "Amen" means TRULY} I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. {CONDITIONALLY}

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. "

1st. Cor 11: 23-30
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. {"sleep here" means Eternal damnation"}

Q #2 {pt 1 of 2}
HOW dear friend could these Holy Spirit Inspired authors have been more precise, more direct, more specif? What woulds could they have chosen?

Q #2 {pt 2 of}
Ist Cor. is authored by Paul, a Jewish CONVERT.

{a} His is a POST Teaching Lesson, Inspired by God Himself {either that or Paul lied?} IMPOSSIBLE
{b} It is impossible that partaking of the Body, Bread, Soul and Divinity of Jesus {the Christ} could or would bring "QUOTE": DAMNATION upon them IF as you suggest this was truly ONLY {just} bread & wine, and NOT the Body, Bloood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Himself
{c} Paul makes the above TRUTH twice, so as to emphasis the TRUTH of what Christ Taught him.
YOUR QUOTE:

Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

Two points again:
Point #1: See my first comments for right understanding of the the Bible{ A Catholic Book}

Point #2 :
Luke 24:35
{a} "And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking ofthe bread."

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
{b}And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers"

{c} GOOGLE "Eucharistic Miracles"

We see HERE that the early Church and certainly the Apostles themselves believed with ALL of there minds, heats, and Souls. Evidenced by the FACT they THEY and countless others gave their VERY lives in defecnce of this belief.

So the TRUTH {which MUST BE singular per defined issue, and can be nothing else} is as simple as the A, B, C's.... AMEN!

God Bless you
Patrick


===============================================================

Now notice what John does with that symbol of bread.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 6
30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
(Just when some folks want to claim that Jesus came to abolish all that the Father had spoken in scripture)

The symbol of manna - bread coming down out of heaven is used by John.

========================================================

Deut 8
2 You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
...
16 In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.


Moses said that the spiritual lesson was that "Man does not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

=================================== back to John 6

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

What is it that literally came down out of heaven? ?? -- "bread"??
Shall we repeat the too-literal mistake of the disciples in Matt 16 on the subject of bread?

42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 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.”

58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Repeatedly stated that Jesus is the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Not "I will one day in the future be bread and one day in the future you will need to eat this bread to have eternal life... but not now... no absolutely not now"

Rather Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Someone recently made this claim about John 6




Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

===============================================================

Now notice what John does with that symbol of bread.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 6
30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
(Just when some folks want to claim that Jesus came to abolish all that the Father had spoken in scripture)

The symbol of manna - bread coming down out of heaven is used by John.

========================================================

Deut 8
2 You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
...
16 In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.


Moses said that the spiritual lesson was that "Man does not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

=================================== back to John 6

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

What is it that literally came down out of heaven? ?? -- "bread"??
Shall we repeat the too-literal mistake of the disciples in Matt 16 on the subject of bread?

42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 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.”

58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Repeatedly stated that Jesus is the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Not "I will one day in the future be bread and one day in the future you will need to eat this bread to have eternal life... but not now... no absolutely not now"

Rather Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

 

[BobRyan]

The way you evaluate whether or not a passage is symbolism is done by many people, but the result is inconsistent between people.

Jesus said "I AM the BREAD that came down out of heaven"

Those people who believe that Jesus is literally bread coming down out of heaven... will take that as a literal statement and not a symbol.

I grant you that.

Regarding "the bread," Jesus made a point of saying that his body was real food in that passage, something that indicates he was not using symbolism.

Nobody..
ever..
bites..
Christ!

In all the NT.

Everyone on both sides of the symbol-or-not subject - freely admits that Christ died on the cross - with no bite marks from disciples.

====================================



Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

 

[BobRyan]

How literally does the RCC take the statement -- "I AM Bread" ??

The problem you have is two - fold:

1. The Holy Orthodox churches and all 22 rites of the Eastern Catholic churches also take the words quite literally. This is not just an issue of Roman Rite Catholicism.

Jesus said HE is the "BREAD that CAME down out of heaven" - already a fact in John 6.

Some as you seem to imply will imagine that literal bread had come down out of heaven by John 6 - and Jesus was in fact bread floating down out of heaven.

I have no problem with that being our "difference".

Jesus did not say "some day in the future I WILL be BREAD falling out of the sky" -- rather Jesus said that HE is the BREAD that CAME down out of heaven already - in John 6.

And not one single disciple in all of the NT - bites Christ. Not a single bite mark on him at the cross - from even one of his disciples.


============================



Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

 

[Light of the East]

Nobody..
ever..
bites..
Christ!

In all the NT.

Everyone on both sides of the symbol-or-not subject - freely admits that Christ died on the cross - with no bite marks from disciples.

Probably because, as I said earlier (and you probably missed) Jesus most likely took His disciples aside after testing them with the Bread of Life statements and explained to them further just how this would come about.

You still don't get it, do you? The entire Church believed from the very beginning that the elements of the Eucharist do become the very Body and Blood of Christ. There is no way to explain this away. It is not as if the Apostles were Seventy Day Adventists and then someone came along and corrupted everything. You could claim that if you didn't have to deal with the pesky fact that long before Constantine and the so-called "paganization of the Christian faith," these things were practiced and written about in epistles and sermons.

But instead of thinking that perhaps you are wrong, perhaps you have been misled by the teachings of someone who came 19 centuries after Christ and the disciples, you go into a state of cognitive dissonance from which you can only make smarty-aleck statements like this one:

And not one single disciple in all of the NT - bites Christ. Not a single bite mark on him at the cross - from even one of his disciples.

 

[BobRyan]

Probably because, as I said earlier (and you probably missed) Jesus most likely took His disciples aside after testing them with the Bread of Life statements and explained to them further just how this would come about.

Let us say as you imagine that we must "imagine into the text" another meeting where Christ says "I hope you did not take me literally when I said I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven -- because I seriously do not want any of you to bite me... just to know that some day in the future - at the last supper I will transmogrify bread to the point that while it still appears on the outside in its accidentals as just-bread it will be ME and when you bite that bread I will then scream out in pain for you will then be biting ME... However After I go to heaven you will not see me wince in pain when you bite that bread -- after first confecting the body soul blood and divinity of my divine person".

Let's just "say" that we did that for a second. Doing so WOULD be much more consistent with what the RCC would like to "read into" the text - but that is "eisegesis". Most Bible scholars know to avoid it.

You still don't get it, do you? The entire Church believed from the very beginning that the elements of the Eucharist do become the very Body and Blood of Christ.

Not in real life.

And the phrase you just used - is found nowhere in John 6. At no point does Jesus say "not now - but in the future at the last supper - during the Eucharist celebration..not now do you hear me not now. This is just future".

Your argument is not "Here is where John 6 says - the elements of the Eucharist do become the very Body and Blood of Christ" ... rather your argument is to imagining what other Christians not Bible writers may have said at some point in time.

what is more -- this statement is a fact of history.. that anyone can check out -- read the actual Bible and see for yourself.

" not one single disciple in all of the NT - bites Christ. Not a single bite mark on him at the cross - from even one of his disciples."

It is a historic fact that I dare say even you agree with. Not some little annoying detail that nobody should notice .

 

[Light of the East]

Where did these first preachers of the Gospel get this idea, except directly from the Apostles:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)


St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly…(Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

Origen (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK."(Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

 

[BobRyan]

Where did these first preachers of the Gospel get this idea, except directly from the Apostles:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

Those who find that they must ignore the Bible at all costs - to make their case - reveal more than they may have at first imagined.

As for Ignatius - of the pile of 15 Ignatius letters - almost all scholars admit that the majority are proven forgeries and the remaining minority - are rife with interpolation so it can hardly be known how much of it Ignatius actually penned.

That is the perfect source for arguments that need to oppose the details we find in the text of scripture.

 

[Light of the East]

Funny you should mention "ignoring the Bible" when Jesus clearly said "This IS my Body, this IS my Blood" and did not stutter.

 

[BobRyan]

Funny you should mention "ignoring the Bible" when Jesus clearly said "This IS my Body, this IS my Blood" and did not stutter.

Jesus said "I AM the BREAD that came down out of heaven"

If your statement is that a loaf of bread literally fell out of the sky and Jesus in John 6 was literally a loaf of bread -- then I am very happy to have THAT is the point where you and I differ.

Are you also satisfied with such a thing? If so - it is 'instructive' for the unbiased objective reader to see you admit it.

Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

===

Notice that only the faithLESS disciples of John 6 spin up a story about how Jesus must want them to bite him in their own oh-so-too-literal spin on what is being said.

 

[Hieronymus]

Transubstantiation is an 11th century idea.
It's bread of earth supposedly transforming in Bread of God and wine of earth transforming into the Blood of Christ.
It is not done in His remembrance but is supposed to be literal eating of Christ's Blood and Flesh, as a sacramental ritual.

 

[Light of the East]

Let's look at this from another standpoint rather than "He said...she said."

Man is sick. A cursory look at our world and its history verifies this. A look in our own souls, if we are honest with ourselves, shows that we have something terribly wrong inside.

The Protestant idea is that by simply doing something - "accepting Jesus" or making a profession of faith of some sort" - we are legally forgiven and all is well. We are on our way to heaven with no stops in between. And certainly God, as a loving Father, will forgive those who are sincere and ask for Him to forgive them.

But what of the inner man, the problem we have within? What St. Paul refers to as "the old man" who is filled with sinful desires and often acts out on them (much to our embarrassment as Christians).

The Eucharist, as the living Flesh and Blood of Christ, unites us with a living energy. There is a truth to the saying "You are what you eat." If we eat something poisonous, the energy of that poison unites to us and causes a metabolic change which causes us to die. We have a sickness inside. We need a medicine which will help us by entering us, changing our very ontological being, and make us whole. This is why the Eucharist is so important. Received in faith, it changes us by uniting our sick being to the spiritual health of the God/man.

Another analogy is that of marriage. St. Paul speaks about the "new man created in Christ" who is within us by our union with Christ. We are called "the Bride of Christ" as the Church. This is nuptial language - it looks not just to marriage, but to the wedding night where the two flesh become one. And from that union, a third is created. When Christ enters our life, a "third" is created, that "new man" which St. Paul speaks of. It is the new life of Christ which lives within us. But just like a child, we must feed this new life, and feed it the appropriate food.

The food for our spiritual life within is the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Just as mere thinking of food will not feed a child, neither will orthodox and correct theology feed the Christian. The Eucharist is called "bread" because it is the main food of the Christian life to make us grow. Bread was the main food and staple of life when this was written. Jesus is saying that He is the main food for the soul.

The idea that either orthodoxy of thinking or legal forgiveness achieves holiness is a distinctly Western thought which comes from Roman legalism. The Eastern Fathers understood that salvation is more than just a legal declaration - it is a change of our very selves which is accomplished by our union with Christ.

When I saw these analogies clearly in Scripture, I could hardly wait to receive the Eucharist and all the benefits which i saw could be mine in letting Jesus and His energies enter into my body and change me into His likeness.

 

[Jipsah]

How literally does the RCC take the statement -- "I AM Bread" ??

Maybe for the same reason St. Paul did. He said:

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Our Lord says it's His Body and Blood. St. Paul says that if you eat and drink the the bread and drink the cup, that you're
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Not guilty of failing to understand the metaphoric nature of bread and wine, but guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Your sect says no, that can't be true, that interferes with our doctrine. It's just a sip and nibble, nothing more. I say your sect is wrong. Again. The interesting thing is how adamant y'all are that the Creation story in Genesis must be taken literally, but how equally adamant you are that our Lord's words must not be taken literally. Apparently because your tradition demands it be that way.

A fig for your tradition!

 

[Jipsah]

Nobody..
ever..
bites..
Christ!

I'm sure that if St. Paul had heard that brilliant refutation, he'd have immediately written another letter to the Corinthians tell them he'd been wrong, and wrung your hand in apology.

 

[Jipsah]

but that is "eisegesis". Most Bible scholars know to avoid it.

Unless they're trying to find some plausible Biblical warrant for stuff like Investigative Judgement and/or a belief in Space Men and Flying Saucers, in which case they'd eisegete away like murder. If they were SDA, anyway. <Laugh>

 

[Jipsah]

Those who find that they must ignore the Bible at all costs

Especially 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, it seems.

 

[Jipsah]

Funny you should mention "ignoring the Bible" when Jesus clearly said "This IS my Body, this IS my Blood" and did not stutter.

SDAs apparently believe that our Lord had a really difficult time making Himself understood. It took their staff prophet to get His Real Meaning sorted out.