What Jesus Teaches in John 6 About the Eucharist w/ Fr. Jonathan Meyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Become a Patron at / seanhussey
------------------------------- Sponsor -------------------------------
Hallow Catholic Prayer & Meditation App: www.hallow.com/...
Father Meyer and his best friend Father Hollowell saved my life -" He drew me up from the desolate pit,
out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure." - Old soldiers need more priest like these superheroes !!!! God Bless you Fathers - The sacraments of the church are the "rock" when they are instituted by Priest like these men...
Eating beef and chicken, literally, gives the human body nutrition. One cannot exist without protein that comes from beef and chicken. Protein is an essential building block of our human body.
There are those that consume raw beef and fish, even. They don't think twice about it. Why consuming Jesus' flesh and blood, supernaturally, so hard to accept? After all, aren't we made in His image and likeness? Isn't Jesus our "Life Source?"
Thanks for posting this.
Honest questions, if someone wouldn't mind answering: what are the Catholic beliefs as far as the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection in light of the Eucharist doctrine? In Catholicism, how do those connect with each other, or do they?
Also, if Jesus meant literally that the bread and wine were His body and blood, wouldn't it be the same for the disciples, in effect, if Jesus just offered them His physically body right there for them to eat and drink of instead of bringing bead and wine into the situation? I don't ask that disrespectfully or anything.
Just from reading John 6 a bit, it seems to me that Jesus was speaking more figuratively and the unbelievably disciples left in reaction the finding his statements to be outlandish and crazy, maybe, and to be taking them literally. I seem to recall elsewhere in the gospels how Jesus would speak in parables to sort of make it harder for unbelieving followers to understand (maybe to sort of weed them out...?). This can seem like one of those times. I mean, even Jesus mentioned in that chapter, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63 ESV). If one says to that, "Well, yes, because the Spirit turned the bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood", the fact would seem to still remain that the bread and wine are seen as flesh and blood and not the Spirit, right?
Also, if the bread and wine are to literally be Jesus flesh and blood, then, since it's literal, wouldn't they literally become flesh and blood?
Is there anything I'm missing or misunderstanding at all? Again, my thoughts and questions are all offered in respect.
All who heard it was thinking the same way as you. But Jesus did not correct them. Think of that
It is a great mission you do for the church
Love your works
Thank you! If God has said it, it is truth! God bless (:
At what point does the disbelief come in (I love to point this out ot Protestants)?
At John 6:66.
“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” Jesus *said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.”
John 4:32-34 NASB1995
The disciples understood His food to be works.
“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.””
John 6:27-29 NASB1995
The Eucharist is no different than bread that perishes. It is Christ in us (only those who are born again), who have eternal life. When Christ sat down with His disciples during the last supper, this was before He died on the cross where He committed His Spirit to the Father. It is Christ in us and wherever we gather in His name, He is there also. Man does not live on bread alone, but every Word that comes from the mouth of God. He said “do this in remembrance of Me”. This includes everything. During the first century the Lords Supper was eaten at their homes and tents (full meal). They enjoyed Christlike fellowship together. Some came just to eat a full meal which was wrong. The fellowship was a big part of it too. It was a good time of fellowship, not something somber. Why? Because Christ is in each and everyone of us born again believers (they would take a loaf and each person would break a piece from the bread). It was a celebration of His life and what He accomplished.
John 4:32-34
Lack of context. In this passage food is to be presented to Christ. When Christ presents food to His followers in John 6 it is verbatim and it is quite literal, graphic and very descriptive.
John 6:27-29
I'm not sure that this passage discredits the belief of The Lord's true and real presence in The Bread and Wine. It states how The Lord will present to us food and that we shall abide by it. In fact, again, this is a call for belief on Him whom He has sent. And, again, as per John 6, the words that institute The Eucharist as divine and salvific are: 1- clear, 2- verbatim and 3- illustrative of a people who again fail to believe Him whom He has sent with no repentance or correction from the Lord's side. Again, Christ did NOT correct or clarify his message to those who walked away.
-> He said “do this in remembrance of Me”
Remembrance does not imply that the event taking place is a mere symbol. Take any sport or event. Even when a championship game is still a remembrance of it's first occurrence, it does not make the current instance any less real or invalid. What would become the current champion isn't any less of a champion just because this wasn't the very first final to ever happen.
Some came just to eat a full meal which was wrong. The fellowship was a big part of it too. It was a good time of fellowship, not something somber.
Early Christians were persecuted and labelled as cannibals... Now, why would that be?
@@andresvasquez7109 You missed what I wrote about how the disciples understood it. They understood His food to be works, and Jesus answered them with John 6:29.
Food is to be presented to Christ? Please explain.
“Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.””
John 4:36-38 NASB1995
As far as cannibalism, it is because some believed the bread was Jesus literal flesh. However this is not the bread Jesus was referring too. His food is His word and applying it to our lives and believing in Him in our daily life. Some examples of the Word being food:
“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”
Hebrews 5:12-14 NASB1995
“like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:2-3 NASB1995
The bread we eat perishes. When Jesus shared the loaf of bread to His disciples, He was using the loaf of bread as His body, then corporate body. Each disciple tore a piece off. The next day Jesus died on the cross, committed His Spirit to the Father. Now there are many who becomes born again, who are a part of the body of Christ. Christ is in each born again believer. He mentioned to do this in remembrance of Him. This includes all of scripture. Like He said, man does not live on bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God. They ate manna and died. However His Words are for eternal life. Not what we eat that goes into our body and gets expelled out which perishes.
Let me put it another way. Christ’s body, singular, was broken on the cross and out of Him became many who are born of His Spirit which creates the body of Christ. Same way with the bread, the bread was one body, broken and digested by each the disciples. This is the corporate body. The bread itself does not give eternal life, but Christ, who is the Word is what is life. The Father is the waterer, the water we are given springs to eternal life. We live by His Word, which helps us to continue to grow in Him. We are not literal plants, but helps us understand the process. The bread is not His literal flesh, but helps us understand what it means to be a Christian. Jesus was a rabbi, disciples follow everything a rabbi does. We are His disciples, we follow everything He did. All we have are His Word which became flesh in the first century.
Eating the bread does not make one born again.
John 3:8, which is according to His mercy, Titus 3:5-7.
@@urawesome4670
>> "Food is to be presented to Christ? Please explain."
John 4:27-34. In context, Our Lord talks about His food and not food that He is presenting to us.
>> "You missed what I wrote about how the disciples understood it. They understood His food to be works, and Jesus answered them with John 6:29."
No they didn't. In John 6:52: "Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”"
The same people who were extremely excited about the prospect of free food are now extremely disgusted about getting offered His Real Flesh and His Real Blood. These are the same people that walk away from him in John 6:66. At no point in time did Our Lord recant his words or pander to the people who left disgusted by the explicit message of Our Lord. To assume that the Lord meant The Eucharist as a symbol in this instance would be to also accept an alternate fact where Christ explicitly misguided the people in John 6:52 to the point that they left with a misunderstanding. We could draw all the speculation or interpretation on this book as much we are able to but the self-evident truth of these passages is that it is clear, concise and most importantly VERBATIM.
Yes, the Lord often speaks in parables and allegory and can indeed use food as a teaching item. I mean... how couldn't we say that divine grace isn't as nurturing as food? or that his teaching is also food for out fallen souls? Of course that is also applicable. But for your point to stand, we would have to assume that every time The Lord talks about food, he is automatically referring to a perceived lack of presence in The Eucharist just as you are doing with John 4:27. This would also stand in complete opposition to the clear and literal nature of John 6. At this point, the conversation isn't as much about finding all instances of the word "food" in the bible as much as it is: "How does The Lord teach that The Eucharist is a symbol as taught in John 6?" I hope that you understand that, as part of your evangelizing strategy, you are asking me to ignore the literal, verbatim teaching of Our Lord for your own personal interpretation of alternate scripture where, without context, we can make anyone say anything.
>> "As far as cannibalism, it is because some believed the bread was Jesus literal flesh. "
Some people: Yes Christians as outlined by the church fathers.
>> "However this is not the bread Jesus was referring too. His food is His word..."
Your interpretation
>> "Eating the bread does not make one born again."
Not the argument I'm putting forward at this time... Not sure how this applies
@@andresvasquez7109 "Food is to be presented to Christ? Please explain." John 4:27-34. In context, Our Lord talks about His food and not food that He is presenting to us. >>
I quoted what Jesus said later on. Not sure how you missed it. Jesus was not only referring to Himself, please see John 4:36 quoted you. “Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together”. Matthew 7:21 backs up what I am saying about John 4 that you are overlooking.
This again is talking about eternal life.
Please compare to John 6:27-29, they understood what Jesus was referring too when gathering fruit for life eternal with the passage I quoted to you that you overlooked for some reason. They understood it to be works which Jesus answered to them with John 6:29. This also goes with what Jesus said, you will know them by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-20).
"You missed what I wrote about how the disciples understood it. They understood His food to be works, and Jesus answered them with John 6:29." No they didn't. In John 6:52: "Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”" The same people who were extremely excited about the prospect of free food are now extremely disgusted about getting offered His Real Flesh and His Real Blood. These are the same people that walk away from him in John 6:66. At no point in time did Our Lord recant his words or pander to the people who left disgusted by the explicit message of Our Lord. To assume that the Lord meant The Eucharist as a symbol in this instance would be to also accept an alternate fact where Christ explicitly misguided the people in John 6:52 to the point that they left with a misunderstanding. We could draw all the speculation or interpretation on this book as much we are able to but the self-evident truth of these passages is that it is clear, concise and most importantly VERBATIM.
Yes, they did not believe in verse 36, those were the ones who Jesus was referring to in the very next verse;
It is in accordance to His power one believes (Ephesians 1:19), which is what is going on here in the next verse (John 6:37), which is repeated in John 6:66 you quoted. This again is dependant upon the Father as quoted in the previous verse 6:65. Again, we are talking about eternal life as mentioned in verse 40, which is the same eternal life I was referring to in John 4.
Yes, the Lord often speaks in parables and allegory and can indeed use food as a teaching item. I mean... how couldn't we say that divine grace isn't as nurturing as food? or that his teaching is also food for out fallen souls? Of course that is also applicable. But for your point to stand, we would have to assume that every time The Lord talks about food, he is automatically referring to a perceived lack of presence in The Eucharist just as you are doing with John 4:27.
There is not a single verse that states Jesus is present at the Lords Supper or Eucharist. When applying their tradition of checking the scriptures (Acts 17:10-12) you don’t have one. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You are making a positive statement that needs to be proven. I was simply telling you the food is His Word, which Paul and Peter used per verses I quoted you. Also making the point the principle they are using is the same principle with Jesus being the bread that came out of heaven. Like Jesus said, man does not live on bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God. Jesus also stated do not work for food that perishes, the eucharist perishes.
This would also stand in complete opposition to the clear and literal nature of John 6.
Jesus was clearly speaking in spiritual. Cannibalism was not allow based on OT law. This is why some left, they were not seeing the spiritual.
At this point, the conversation isn't as much about finding all instances of the word "food" in the bible as much as it is: "How does The Lord teach that The Eucharist is a symbol as taught in John 6?" I hope that you understand that, as part of your evangelizing strategy, you are asking me to ignore the literal, verbatim teaching of Our Lord for your own personal interpretation of alternate scripture where, without context, we can make anyone say anything. >> "As far as cannibalism, it is because some believed the bread was Jesus literal flesh. " Some people: Yes Christians as outlined by the church fathers. >>
Again, cannibalism was not allowed in the OT law. This is not what Jesus was referring too, the eucharist being His literal flesh. He was speaking spiritual, without His death on the cross, none of this would be applicable. No one would become born again, or His Spirit (Romans 2:28-29).
"However this is not the bread Jesus was referring too. His food is His word..." Your interpretation >>
They even said do not work for food that perishes but food for eternal life. Eating the wafer/bread does not give eternal life. Being born again and living His word and bearing fruit does. The bible is clear about this.
"Eating the bread does not make one born again." Not the argument I'm putting forward at this time... Not sure how this applies
Again, eating the bread does not give eternal life.
In John 6:51, Jesus is the living bread that comes out of heaven. His flesh was given up on the cross which He gave for the life of the world (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24).
It is clear you are interpreting it literally, which goes against the old testament law and are content with it. Jesus was clearly speaking in spiritual terms. This is why Jesus continued on with John 6:65 (dependant upon the Father, those who come to Christ). The ones who thought of cannibalism walked away (they were not in Christ, did not have the spiritual understanding, for they were not born again, the disciples were, as indicated in Matthew 16 when Peter makes the confession Jesus is the Christ which is consistent with 1 John 5:1, he was born of God just like the other disciples), the ones who understood Jesus referring to His Word understood the spiritual nature of His food which is His Word (John 1:1) which is consistent with what Jesus said about bread that we eat perishes, but He is the bread that came out of heaven that does not perish (John 1:12-14). The physical eucharist/bread does not feed your spirit, Gods Word does. You are not eating Jesus, sorry. It is perishable, and is a reminder of what happened when Moses and the manna came down and they all died. It does not give everlasting life. One needs to be born again first, which only God does (John 3:8, Titus 3:5-7), then we are to bear fruit which is why we need Gods Word, not bread/eucharist. Like Jesus said, "Man does not live on bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God".
@@urawesome4670 You are wrong Jesus was completely literal in John 6 and its no surprise those with true Apostolic succession take it as literal. Also If its just bread and wine then people wouldnt get sick and die from it. 1 Cor 11:29-30.
Take note of verse 56 and what Jesus says in John 15 1:4-6. The Eucharist is very important and its weird that someone who says they are Christian reject the opportunity to be in the presence of Christ and spin his words.
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered 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 will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me- 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever 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 that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “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 you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
St. Justin Martyr
“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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
This is so embarrassing.
Here is the “hard saying” of John 6:
-
John 6:53-57 KJV
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
-
Yet Jesus himself almost immediately addressed the seeming weirdness and paradox:
-
John 6:61-65 KJV
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. [64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. [65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
-
Let me try to paraphrase his response: Does my saying this trouble you? [Why does it?] Consider: what if I were to return to God whom I say is my Father? [Would I not thereby show that I am of the Spirit, as the Father is?] It is the Spirit [of God] who makes us alive [as he did Adam, our first fathers with the breath of life: *pneuma* is the same word, spirit and breath]. [Now, you were troubled that I said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. But my serious irony was this:] Not flesh, but Spirit, is the source of life. The thing that will make you live is my words [and not flesh], for my words [*logoi*, plural of *logos*, Word] are of the Spirit. [You must believe these words and do them if you are to live.] But some of you will not believe these words [and so will die].
End of paraphrase.
I think Jesus was speaking with serious irony. He was actually saying something incompatible with the doctrine of transubstantiation: he is “the bread of life,” not literally-after all, flesh “profiteth nothing”-but because he is the Word of God, a life-giving God who is Spirit. Thus his Word, and the words of his Gospel, are what are life-giving. There is of course his body sacrificed on the cross which saved sinners. But the value of that flesh and blood comes from what it accomplished spiritually: the justification of the faithful.
I think moreover that he was saying two things: (a) if the Lord gives you insight, you will understand properly how I am life-giving, and you will know it is through the Spirit. (b) I am speaking in an offensive paradox to throw up a stumbling-block to those who are not of me, whom God has not called; they will think I am being somehow literal, and, in their poor fleshly understanding, fail to grasp the figure.
I *think* that’s what he saying.
The whole exchange actually begins with the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus’ observation:
-
John 6:26-27 KJV
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
-
In other words: You foolish people chased after me because you were impressed by my ability to fill your bellies, not realizing that the “meat” that gives everlasting life is Spiritual.
Look, if he meant his “eat my flesh and drink my blood” *literally*, then why would he begin by criticizing the people who desired “meat which perisheth,” and end by saying that flesh “profiteth nothing”? His entire point is that, as the bread of life, the gift he offers is not worldly (thus repudiating the temporal kingship is another point in the same theme) but spiritual. Again, to say the point is somehow about the metaphysics (theory of the being or underlying nature) of the Eucharist is to ignore the context in an embarrassing way; not only is that not his point, his point is entirely incompatible with such metaphysical speculation.
Good morning
john 6 is about spiritually accepting Christ as a savior and Lord. the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood was symbolic/metaphoric, just as He spoke in His parables. where in the bible do His apostles and disciples actually eat Christ's flesh, and drink His blood??? there wouldn't be enough of Jesus left to hang on the cross!!! by the way, the mass/eucharist is a denial that Christ's death and sacrifice on the cross was insufficient.
John 6:41-42 the BRED who came from Heaven ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkx0WL3C57QqWDnP58X2HHC2VqHpkfpQxLP?si=uX8JYkfaYoc8uxr5
ua-cam.com/users/shorts9UwNvMJGx-o?si=CdlwCFHxqYmwq7H7