Bread of life Discourse

[Brother Adam]

I was reading this today and thought it was fascinating. The next time a Protestant states that John 6 is nothing more than a symbol, go ahead and say "oh, okay". Then share with them what it would have meant to the disciples if Jesus shared with their culture that they were to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' symbolically. To those he was talking to, it would have meant that those who follow him were to mock and scorn him, to beat him and his family. Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him.

[SarahB]

The problem with most Protestants is that they don't have any understanding of the culture of Jesus' time. I mean, lets face it...most Catholics don't either unless they take the time to study it. It's not hard to see why they think we're nuts. Heck....growing up Catholic I never heard any of this stuff and eventually I left the Church because someone else's explination made more sense. It wasn't until I took the time to study the Church's teachings(and not for increased knowledge) that I began to see the Truth in the Church's teachings.

Even if you tell them that.....most of them aren't going to believe it. Most of them probably won't even give it a second thought. But....for those of us who do, it's well worth it to try.

[Brother Adam]

To an extent you are right of course. The vast majority of Protestants will turn to intellectual dishonesty when there is no other way out. Those who are intellectually honest, and seek truth, there is only conclusion. The same one that so many of us here came to - the Catholic Church is what she says she is. This piece of information serves as just one more 'point' for us catechists and apologists.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[SarahB]

I've actually discussed this with some of my Protestant friends. Their response is, "Well, the reason some of the people didn't follow Jesus anymore is because that's exactly what they thought he was saying. They thought he was saying that they were going to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. But the disciples stayed because they realized that's not what he was saying at all."

It's quite frustrating.

[Brother Adam]

Sarah, there is no way he was speaking symbolic though. If he was, he would have an obligation, like he does thoughout the rest of the scirptures, to tell them "Hey - guys, I was speaking symbolically", else what kind of teacher does that make him? Not even the disciples knew what to make of it. So their assertion that the disciples understood it as symbolic is false. Jesus turned to Peter and asked him what he would do. Peter didn't say "ah, Jesus, I gotcha, you sly dog, you were just talking in symbols back there, haha". He instead said "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life". The disciples didn't understand it as symbolic at all.

The Greek

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

John 6:54-58 - 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.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

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).

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; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are 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

[SarahB]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 01:57 PM'] Sarah, there is no way he was speaking symbolic though. If he was, he would have an obligation, like he does thoughout the rest of the scirptures, to tell them "Hey - guys, I was speaking symbolically", else what kind of teacher does that make him? Not even the disciples knew what to make of it. So their assertion that the disciples understood it as symbolic is false. Jesus turned to Peter and asked him what he would do. Peter didn't say "ah, Jesus, I gotcha, you sly dog, you were just talking in symbols back there, haha". He instead said "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life". The disciples didn't understand it as symbolic at all.

The Greek

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

John 6:54-58 - 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.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

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).

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; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are 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 [/quote]
Oh, I know all this. Trust me....I had it pounded into my head by my Catholic friends when I tried to tell them they were wrong.

I'm just still trying to find a way to get through to my Protestant friends who haven't ever been exposed to the Catholic Church. I think it was easier for me to start to understand because I was baptized and raised Catholic. This all makes perfect sense to me. I just wish I knew how to help my friends come to these conclusions.

[Brother Adam]

Well, they need to be open for one. I know if I wasn't open to learning, it wouldn't have mattered what you or anyone could have said, I would still be Baptist. I wish there was a way to make people open to learning, but we must rely on prayer and wait for the Holy Spirit to move peoples hearts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SarahB' date='May 13 2005, 12:35 PM'] I've actually discussed this with some of my Protestant friends. Their response is, "Well, the reason some of the people didn't follow Jesus anymore is because that's exactly what they thought he was saying. They thought he was saying that they were going to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. But the disciples stayed because they realized that's not what he was saying at all."

It's quite frustrating. [/quote]
There's an obvious reply to this.

Note that in the Gospel, after people were leaving Him, he did not try to explain what He really meant. He did not tsay that they misunderstood His message, and explain that this was all just metaphor. NO, He asked His disciples, if they would leave too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have a few ideas for response.

One is what were you refering to when you were talking about what Jesus was saying either meant to eat Jesus or to beat him? I've heard that before, and I've heard the argument that Jesus only used a more literal use of the word eat argument. But I always hear them separate. What's the connection between beating Jesus and his stronger use of the word eat?

What was the word used for "eat my words" or whatever phrases were used in the old testament when the prophets ate Jesus' words? How does this word for eat relate to the words Jesus used? I realize that if they are the same, then that doesnt' at all disprove the Catholic eucharist interpretation, I'm just curious for further study.

What relation does Greek have to the words that the bible were written in?

Didn't people walk away when Jesus made other parables and people just misunderstood him? Maybe it was "I am the door" but that's so obviously figurative that the people must have walked away because they did not want to follow him. Maybe there was another word. I can' think of the exact one, but I've heard this counter argument.

Also couldn't it be that he was using the words to test the people's faith in him in that even thought they knew he didn't mean what he was saying literally, they believed in Jesus and would come to a greater understanding of what he meant? Especially given that Jesus said, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. If this means that the people have to understand his words spiritually, the ones who left either did not want to or did not have God to show them to stick through until they did understand fully.

I will be back for clarifications of my points.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

To answer your first question, the New Testament was written in koine Greek which developed out of Attic Greek. To answer your second assertion, the bread of life discourse was not a parable. Nothing about the langauge or Jesus' words suggests a parable. Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

--- was saying either meant to eat Jesus or to beat him? I've heard that before, and I've heard the argument that Jesus only used a more literal use of the word eat argument. But I always hear them separate. What's the connection between beating Jesus and his stronger use of the word eat?----

This isn't very clear. I think you'd say that since he used a stronger word, it probably doesn't mean beat. I mean what word that he uses means beat?

The way he saved humanity according to mainstream christianity is by being beat and killed by mankind. I know no one uses this argument, but this does seem like a pretty good counter argument. Unless you crucify me, you will have no life within you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

--Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence--

One thing Catholics like to avoid:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (vs 63)

This was said to Jesus right [i]after[/i] they were undertanding him literally. This is not not exactly being bankrupt on evidence..

catholics have their interpretations, others have theirs.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 11:45 AM'] Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him. [/quote]
In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 05:14 PM'] --Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence--

One thing Catholics like to avoid:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (vs 63)

This was said to Jesus right [i]after[/i] they were undertanding him literally. This is not not exactly being bankrupt on evidence..

catholics have their interpretations, others have theirs. [/quote]
That's hardly evidence. To be interpretted the way you suggest, Christ would basically have been saying, "this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."

Rather, Jesus is referring to the words He speaks as spirit and life, and therefore, there can be a couple interpretations:

1. He is saying that they are thinking carnally and not spiritually, i.e. as man thinks and not as God thinks, and that they must amend this.

2. He is saying that His words are of life and are life-giving, where as the words they think He is saying (they were thinking that He was telling them to be cannibals or something) are of the flesh. That is, that there is a "fleshy" thing in this world which is evil (cannibalism) and that He is offering the spiritual truth of which cannibalism is a twist (the Eucharist, which Satan defames by cannibalism).

[dairygirl4u2c]

--In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory--
Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.

--"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."--
This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.

How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.

I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..

This is more abridged, but maybe this interpretation will help you better understand Jesus' words.
[quote]Jesus exclaimed. "You aren't here to discover the truth about me, but because you saw those loaves appear and you ate your fill. And now you're just looking for more of the same. Listen to me! Don't seek after the food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life. This is the kind of bread, of which a man may eat and not die, that the Son of Man can give you if you but ask."

"Then, sir!" they said. "By all means, give us some of this bread!" Jesus replied: "I'm still not sure you understand what I'm telling you. To begin with, it wasn't Moses but my Father who gave your forefathers the manna in the desert. And even though they ate their fill of it, they eventually died. But now God has sent you the true bread from heaven, and anyone who eats of it will live forever."

And he said: "I am that living bread that came down from heaven to give life to the world! I haven't come to do my will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is his will: he who comes to me - and no one can come to me unless the Father draws him - and he who believes in me will never be hungry or thirsty again!" At this, some Pharisees in the congregation began to grumble about Jesus among themselves: "Here he goes again, saying: 'I came down from heaven'."

"Stop your grumbling," Jesus said. "Soon enough, you'll see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before. And then, just as I live because I feed on the living Father who sent me, so will the one who feeds on me live because of me. For this bread of which I speak is my body, which I will give for the life of the world. This is the real food and drink you should be seeking: my flesh and blood. For whoever eats and drinks of it remains in me, and I in him. And I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will have no part of the life to come."

On hearing this, the Pharisees raised their voices in sharp protest: "This man's asking us to eat his flesh! How can he say such a thing?" And even many of Jesus' disciples said, "This is a hard teaching! Who can accept it?" Aware that some of his disciples were repelled by what he had said, Jesus asked them: "Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.

Then Jesus turned and asked the Twelve: "Don't you want to leave too?" Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? We know you're the Holy One of God, and believe that what you've just said are the words of eternal life." Jesus nodded. "This is what I was getting at when I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. All that the Father gives me will come. And, because he has given them to me, whoever comes I will never drive away."
[/quote]

We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think this whole argument is silly. The only ones who insist that the bible is proof in itself for their interpretation are always the extreme ones. Most catholics will say that the bible gives a strong indication, but cannot be relied on, which indicates that they're being reasonable and to insist otherwise is not. I am not saying that the Catholic interpretation is unreasonable, it is reasonble. I know I'm not the normal fundy and all, but they're the extreme ones anyway who'll argue with you. Others will just say follow the spirit whatever you think it means and maybe insist their interpretation is correct, but not because of a logical deduction.

The argument is misplaced. Catholics tend to think the early church proves their interpretation and prots usually ignore them. As catholcis, the best thing you cna do is start to debate early interpretations. You'll see that perhaps there are many ways to interpret the early chruch, and perhaps will insist that you can defend your position and maybe that it's the most orthodox, enought said. But if you do this, ou have nbot proved your position, you've only defended it as possible. Rignt now most of you do not realize this is what will happen to you hen studying and arguing a knowledgeable prot, but it is. If you dont beleive me, start up a thread and answer all of my questions. If you cannot, then you do not understand early chruch enough to make definitive statements like you think you can. Of course, I can draw up all kinds of silly questions. The point will be whether they're just silly random or actually relevant questions. This is where interpretation will come in, and where poeople can judge for themselves.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 07:00 PM'] Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.


We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's. [/quote]
Yes, and I've thought of this interpretation before, but it falls flat. Those who reject this statement include Judas, who very obviously was one of those who opted for crucifying Him. We are all guilty of Jesus' death, but that has nothing to do with what He is saying. As I said, those who stay with Him after this statement are the apostles, led by St. Peter. They agreed with Him in this statement (whether they understood completely or not). It would then be very contradictory for them to be the people who opposed the crucifiction. Likewise, those who rejected this statement by Christ are those who went for His crucifiction. They would have been rejecting the idea of beating Him, but then opting for beating Him later on. Such an interpretation would mean complete reversal of opinions about Jesus over the course of His ministry, which is not a notion supported by the Gospels. Opinions of Jesus remain steady the whole time.

[quote]This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.[/quote]

First off, "this is My Body" was said at the Last Supper, well after the "spirit and life" part. When He said the "spirit and life" part, it is important to notice that the people didn't all go, "oh, okay, He's being metaphorical." No...they didn't understand it the way you do...they still rejected it as being "a hard teaching."

[quote]How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.[/quote]

So far, I have seen no straw man fallacy. I have seen people arguing against you. Perhaps some people may be misinterpreting your point, but their arguments are still quite valid.

[quote]I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..[/quote]

The Bible does prove that He was speaking literally, as we have shown. You've made no points which can argue against that, but only accuse us of straw man fallacies (which is in itself an ad hominem attack). How about you try reading the Bible for itself instead of having an agenda. I tried to prove to myself that the Real Presence wasn't real, too...and when I abandoned my agenda, I found "words of spirit and life."

[quote]We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's.[/quote]

Except for a few flaws in that argument:

1. The people loved His parables before, except for the Pharisees and other such parties with agendas (I see a pattern here with agendas). It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.

2. They rejected it because it was a "hard teaching." Parables are generally soft stories used to show ideas. If this was a parable (and it wasn't), then the truth it was intended to show was still so strong that it was rejected in its entirety by almost all of Jesus' disciples.

3. The language of the Bread of Life Discourse does not suggest a parable.

Now my question is why do you try so hard to say that the Bible doesn't prove it, but that Tradition can be used to prove it. It sounds to me like you don't want to "rock the boat" to such an extend that you are willing to agree with Protestants that it's not biblical, but then explain the Catholic faith with "well, those silly Catholics have tradition." This creates a compromise in their minds...they don't have to face the truth of the Real Presence if they don't want to, because "it's not biblical" and Catholics are written of as having a "right to believe it because it's Tradition", which most Protestants are not willing to take on, but to concede to Catholics as an "agree to disagree" point of faith.

...but then, that's just my theory of your motives, based on my own experience.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 06:00 PM'] --In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory--
Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.

--"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."--
This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.

How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.

I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..

This is more abridged, but maybe this interpretation will help you better understand Jesus' words.


We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's. [/quote]
To be quite truthful, I can't follow your argument here.

Since when does "eat" mean the same thing as "beat"?

This "argument" is total nonsense.