To non Catholic Christians let's talk John 6:34-69
- Thread starter Yakuda
- Start date
How much have you had to drink??????
Daylight63
Verified User
Is this not just a restatement of Christian soteriology (Christ is the way to God and that no one can come to God except through Christ) and then a description of the sacrament of communion (which isn't necessarily interpreted the same between Catholics and non-Catholics in re transubstantiation, the core concept seems to be here).
What do you expect to hear from non-Catholic Christians on this?
Yakuda
Verified User
Not enough that you would make any sense.
Yakuda
Verified User
Their thoughts on what they think Jesus is teaching. Transubstantiation is just the method of the fulfillment.of Jesus teaching
Yakuda
Verified User
But you're still the dunce
Daylight63
Verified User
Daylight63
Verified User
Isn't it just the plain ol' Christian salvation requirements? Is there some subtlety that is in play here?
Yakuda
Verified User
Not at all. Jesus is very clear what he is saying but non Catholic Christians ignore it preferring instead to apply their own meaning to it. Jesus is pretty clear and no one in those verses agree with non Catholic Christian teaching on this matter.
Daylight63
Verified User
So IS this all about transubstantiation? Is the thought that the Catholics get it right and non-Catholics are missing a key feature by adhering to the meaning if not the literal belief of actual meat and blood?
There's obviously quite a bit of wiggle room in the Gospels for metaphorical reading I should think. Is there something that makes this particular verse immune to a metaphorical reading of the instructions?
Into the Night
Verified User
Here Jesus is comparing the sacrament to bread in general. He reiterates that the sacrament is necessary to remember His sacrifice he will make for the world. While Man may eat bread, to partake of Christ's bread (representing the body He sacrifices) and his blood (representing the blood He sacrifices) is to partake of and willingly take on the teachings of Jesus Christ and of God (the Father).
Jesus Christ also reiterates that His purposes are that of the Father (God), and align perfectly with Him.
It also shows how the people are confused by these references (they WERE new, after all!), and that some were even trying to entrap Jesus in His words (which never works!).
Such is my take on it.
Yakuda
Verified User
No again transubstantiation only stems from the teaching. Non Catholics.dont even adhere to the meaning.
Yes there is wiggle room but Jesus is quite clear what he means. Many times in Scripture Jesus uses metaphorical language. I am the vine, is a famous metaphorical reference. Jesus never says and this vine is my arm as an example but after saying 4 times I am the bread of life, metaphorical, in v 51 he says, I am the living bread, again metaphorical, come down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. After this he repeats in verses 53, 54, 55, 56 that his flesh is what must be eaten for eternal life. The flesh that he just declared was the bread of life.
Last edited:
Yakuda
Verified User
Thank you but that doesn't really explain what Jesus is saying here. He declared that the bread he will give is his flesh then goes on to confirm 4 more times 53, unless you eat the flesh of the some of man and drink his blood you do not have life within you. 54 whoever feeds upon my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal.life. 55 for my flesh is real food... 56 whoever feeds upon my flesh and drinks .my blood dwells in him and I in him. My understanding is the Greek work used here for eat is "gnaw". Pretty clear
Into the Night
Verified User
This passage is distorted and taken out of context.
Jesus Christ is referring to the sacrament.
Yakuda
Verified User
You can read the entire thing. Nothing is out of context. This out if context argument is pure silliness.
He is talking about the sacrament, the sacrament of the Eucharist. The real presence of Jesus body blood soul and divinity in the appearance of bread and wine.
Into the Night
Verified User
I have.
No, you took a few verses out of context. That's a fallacy.
I already said this.
Yakuda
Verified User
They are not out of context. The entire thing points to Jesus speaking literally. Prove from the text that he isn't.
Into the Night
Verified User
The snippet you took out of context is not the entire thing nor the entire book of John.
Yakuda
Verified User
So can you prove from the text that Jesus is not speaking literally or cant you? The "out of context" nonsense is what people say when they have no counter argument.