Ok, I have a very black and white view of the bible. I'm not saying that it doesn't have hypothetical meaning as well, but all of the places that have hypothetical meanings also have basic meanings, even Jesus' parables. however that's not what I want to go into right now.

As you'd guess I had trouble reading John 6 because it says: "Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." (6:53-58)

Ouch! that's difficult, it actually says that: "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard [this], said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" (6:60) well, since it is in the bible I can't just ignore it, I have knowledge of it, but I don't fully understand it, and it is written: (prov 4:5) "Get wisdom! Get understanding! Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth." well, I was searching the scriptures (the bible) for the meaning of this,

And yes I know it's a big subject, but what does the bible say about it? I feel like I almost have the answer, but I can't quite get it, so EDIT look away! I'm not looking for an argument. I have a few theory's about this subject, based on scripture, please help if you have any scripture that can help.

THEORY 1: did "eat" mean the same thing back then as it does today? Today it means to chew and swallow and start the digestive track. but back then they didn't know what a digestive track was! so did it mean rather to "consume"? or to consume by the mouth, because that would work as well. It's written "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Mat 15:11) so in the same way it could be that: it's not what goes into the mouth that saves a man but what comes out that saves him? and that would make sense, as it's also written: (Rom 10:9) "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Please try and use as much scripture as you can, because opinions can be thrown around all day, but God's word, that's the thing that matters.

And, Can't forget this: PRAISE THE LORD!

This post has been edited by Affogato: May 16 2009, 10:02 AM

Allow us to start with the monologue in Capernaum, since that is what we are discussing, right?

There are four times that Jesus explicitly says "I AM the bread from Heaven." (John 6:35,41,48,51)

Jesus explicitly says this bread is His flesh; "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." (John 6:51)

The Jews immediately question this, as they are interpreting His words literally. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v.52)

And Jesus answers, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 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." (v. 53-58)

Jesus' words appear quite explicit, and He didn't correct the Jews of their literal interpretation. Further, where Christ says "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink," the Greek word used by John for "true" is alethes, which means "truly" or "really."

Further, it is recorded numerous times throughout Scripture that Christ said "This is my body and blood." (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25)

Also, Paul proclaimed that the taking of the body and blood of Christ is a solemn event that must be done with a careful examination of conscience. "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Of course, that's only a precursory glance at Scripture. An even stronger argument could be made by an analysis of ecclesiastical history.

This post has been edited by AquinasD: May 16 2009, 02:39 PM

I am going to present the exact opposite from Aquinas's argument. I am going to say, in no way was Jesus speaking literally.

For one, use common sense. Is a righteous, omnipotent God going to tell you to eat someone? I don't think so.

Secondly, John 6:63 is the key to the whole chapter. Jesus said
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" - John 6:55 (KJV)

But, even if it is His flesh, it profits nothing by consuming it in the Eucharist.

Because in verse 63 He says that the flesh profits nothing. And the exact same word is used both times for "flesh", when you look in the Greek.

Joseph, I can't help but disagree with you on the interpreation of John 6:63. The full verse reads: "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." The words are the words talking about eating his flesh. That message, that pratice is spirit and life. When he says spirit vs. flesh, that is the exact disagreement we're having right now. The flesh, is the earthly and natural way of thinking and doing this while the spirit is the heavenly and supernatural way of worship and experence with God. Mass is the worship of the angles in heaven and a normal service is an earthy worship. It is good for instruction and growth, but compaired to true union with God and the others in your community, it is of no avil. Of course, this is a strictly Catholic reading of this verse, and I hope I'm not sounding to debate like in here. I just really, really love the Eucharist.


Dog as for your theory, I don't like it so much. First off, the ancients very much so knew about digestive track. They would have known because the Egyptains, well before biblical times, studied the interal organs very well, and they even removed parts of the digestive track when they mumified their kings. This knowledge would have been avaliable to the Jews. Also, your whole point about what comes out of one's mouth that saves him, that's either badly worded or badly thoght through because nothing a man can ever do will save him. Salvaiton is a gift of God, something we can never be worthy of or that we can ever gain by ourselves. So saying that it what a man says that saves him is wrong. What a man says is just the by-product of being saved. It is one of the "fruits" that we know only comes from a good tree.

This post has been edited by Zabby: May 16 2009, 09:23 PM

In that case, if the "flesh profiteth nothing" in your interpretation meaning that nothing physical will ever profit something spiritual, then Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection (which were all physically tangible events) profit nothing whatsoever in the same way.

Further, you are interpreting Christ's meaning in the word "flesh" incorrectly. "Flesh" means "by your natural reasoning." This is why Christ also says "Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh." (John 8:14-15) The word flesh in the Gospels, unless otherwise indicated (as in Luke 24:39), always meaning "less than spiritually, naturally."

A simple cross-reference yields this;

"And Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

"Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41)

John was esp. keen to making the distinction between flesh and spirit in such a way.

"who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)

"the Word became flesh." (John 1:14)

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)

Christ's death and resurrection was certainly "in the flesh," was it not? And yet His bodily, physical, fleshly actions have real, spiritual consequences, do they not?

"even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life." (John 17:2)

Shall we go over the belief of the early Church as well?

I don't mean to drag debates in.
But here in Genesis we are quoting God say how He made the Earth (when properly translated is an actual 24 hour day and all that) and Genesis it not interpreted literally, even though it's the words of God.
In the Gospels, we've decided to then translate the words of God literally?

I just find it humorous is all, not looking to pick a fight.

In many ways, it would appear that the literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts of Creation would be against a literal historical interpretation, but would not preclude an otherwise literal metaphorical and/or moral interpretation.

But personally, I choose to stand upon the teaching of the early Church above all in regards to whether Jesus' words here are literal or metaphorical, in addition to the very strong case that can be made (that I am, in fact, making) for taking Jesus' words literally.

Jakob, what good comes from taking the words, "Take and eat; this is my body... Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." as a metephor? What truth is reveiled through that assertation? Besides there is other Bibical proof of a litteral consuption of the Body of Christ. I can compile them if you want me to, but I will not waste your time if you would rather not read them.

Would you compile them please, Zabby? I would like to read them. I am honestly interested in this.

So you think you can interpret Genesis the same way you interpret the Gospels?

They're two very different types of literature, each of them making use of entirely different literary devices and most importantly, exemplary of theological and literary thought and convention from two very far removed epistemes.

Well, I left out most of the questionable verses where a believer of the Eucharist would see it there, but a nonbeliever would be confused as to how I was liking this. These are the clearest ideas of the Eucharist in scripture. The Old Testment, I will have to explain though:

Old Testement

The offering of Melchisdech is a forshadowing of the offering of the Eucharist that we now do:

The connection comes between Melchisdech and Jesus is that of David. It was written of Daivd that "The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." (Psalm 109: 4). To be according the order of Melchisdech makes a clear connection between the offering that he gave and the offering that Jesus gave now.

The next forshadowing comes from Malachi:
(Malachi 1:10-11).
One would say that the sacrifice that is being discussed here would be the one of the cross, but that does not makes sense due to the fact that it says "and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." This means that the new sacrifice that the Lord is talking about one is one that everyone partakes in, like the Eucharist.

New Testement

I believe these verses are self-explanitory, but that is just my point of view.

1 Corinthians 10 : 14-22:

1 Corinthians 11: 23-29:


Then from the Gosples, there is both Capernaum, which we have been discussing and then at the last supper Jesus gave his body in the form of the bread and the wine. It was his last act before his death, and I can not see it meaning anything less the that the bread acutally became his body and the wine acutally became his blood like they do every Sunday.

Also, another interesting thing is that most of us know that Jesus is equated with the lamb from the passover. It had to be unblemished, male, etc. One thing we often leave out that God said was to eat the lamb. If you did everything for the passover and then didn't eat the lamb, the angel of death would have still come knocking at your door.

So Jesus fulfills the passover lamb and part of the fulfillment is that we must eat Him

It isn't His actual blood and flesh.It's symbolism.We have to "eat" His flesh and "drink" His blood.This is like food,you take it into your body.You accept Jesus "into you."
In the Bible times it was fobidden by God to drink blood,especially of a human.Even if Jesus is special,God's Son,it does'nt really change it.Why would God want that? He forbade it.

Salvation is only through faith in Jesus.

This is all interesting. I see what you mean, there, Zabby.

Which is one of the reasons the Jews flipped out in John 6. They took Him literally and Jesus does not say, "No. This is a parable." I really doubt that Jesus would let SO many walk away because of a misunderstanding.

I've said it before, I'm not the smartest at the gospels, I spend enormous amounts of time in the Epistles although I do know the gospels.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians "Do this in remembrance of Me" quoting Jesus. To me, the idea of eating His actual "flesh" and drinking his actual "blood" is crucifying Him again to me, and I don't like that. I eat my bread and I drink my grape juice and I do this in remembrance of the unconditional love that our Savior showed to save a terrible person like me. I am an enormous advocate of Sola Scriptura, I am completely reformed in every way (well probably almost, unless there's something I'm not quite aware of which is likely.) Communion is just my memorial of the work of the cross towards an ill deserving sinner like me.

Not to change the argument but that's close to my thinking in the Creation debate but I'll answer the question.

What happened the following day marked the beginning of our New Covenant, it is that we will no longer be under law but under grace, God's everlasting grace which saves us from hell. We eat and we drink in memory of what was done for us, it's simple but to me, it's true. I have no reason to think that me eating a cracker/waffer/bread is me consuming the actual body of Christ because I do not approve of that and I do not drink his "blood" because I don't approve of that either. My life story is that Jesus lived, died, rose again and was the propitiation for my sins and I celebrate that by taking communion in rememberance of that.

That's just my stance on it, I don't mean to offend anyone although I probably didn't but honestly, some catholic traditions offend me and that's one of them.

Although, I could go into deeper detail about what acutally happens at Mass when take Communion, I will not because you mentioned that this particular Tradition offends you. Thank you for having enough respect around here to share your views with me maturly, and I shall not try to draw you into a deeper conversation with it. If you ever have the need to discuss it though, I am here.


Interestingly enough, I was also thinking the same thing. It's weird how we can use the same and yet not see how they apply to the other's reasoning.

Perhaps another day, or if you'd like to discuss it via any form of messenger I would be more willing but something like that via posting isn't something I'd like to do.

I think I am rethinking my beliefs on this.

There is nothing my beautiful than the Eucharist. The night Satan thought he was about to rid the world of Jesus, Jesus was making it possible to be in every tabernacle in the world till the end of time at The Last Supper.

To quote a beloved martyr of the Church, "You come to me and unite Yourself intimately to me under the form of nourishment. Your Blood now runs in mine, Your Soul, Incarnate God, compenetrates mine, giving courage and support. What miracles! Who would have ever imagined such!"

- St. Maximilian Kolbe

Aww St. Maximilian Kolbe, by far one of my favorites . That really was beautiful.

Also, Joseph, I have no other biblical evidence for you, but if you are interested, you can look into the writings of Early Church fathers to see how the early church explains the Eucharist. The earliest of these documents would be St. Justin Martyr's First Apology. It was a letter adressed to Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar.

Was there anything from Josephus, Iraeneus, or Augustine on the Eucharist?

But He could have meant it as symbolism.Like I said,it's like eating Him,accepting Him in.

Ugh,I hope I am not debating.Debating and discussion are sort of alike.

Josephus was a Jewish Historian, so he did not have anything to say about the Eucharist, and I am currently searching St. Augustine's writings. He has written a lot, but as I am kind of rushing this because it is late at night, I have a link that has excerpts from sermions of him that discuss the Eucharist. I shall be searching his works for you better if you would like next week because this is my last week of school. link. As for Iraeneus, He wrote about the Eucharist in Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 2). This is a link to it. I will continue to search, but this is all I have right now. Sorry

"And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling on the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of the Christ (...)”. - Irenaeus

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227) -St Augustine