John 6:26-58

Post Reply New Topic

Motl has inspired me. This is a tad long, but VERY rich. If you do not care for KJV - my version of choice - Biblos.com will give you a wide range of languages and translation styles as well as the original.

Discussion topics include but are not limited to -

A. The Bread issue

B. The Eucharist

C. "Abide in him"

D. "Raise him up at the last day"

Said it was rich. You could dump big chunks of the Bible and still spend a lifetime going over this.

26Jesus 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. 27Labour 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. 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Be a cannibal and be saved.

ruveyn

"The Eucharist" has nothing to do with this passage. Jesus is using a metaphor of his death for our sin. Those who accept Jesus death and have Jesus dwell in them will have eternal life of spirit. He specifically says that he is not talking about physical food in the first part!

Jesus answered, "You've come looking for me not because you saw God in my actions but because I fed you, filled your stomachs—and for free. Don't waste your energy striving for perishable food like that. Work for the food that sticks with you, food that nourishes your lasting life, food the Son of Man provides. He and what he does are guaranteed by God the Father to last."

This means take it once, and it lasts forever. Gods grace covers us forever when we accept Him! I fail to see how "The Eucharist" fits with what Jesus says at all.

By abide in Him I think you're talking about the part "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. By eating my flesh and drinking my blood you enter into me and I into you."

He emphasizes "real" drink and food because the disciples are wanting something tangible but he is talking about spiritual (but wants them to know, just because they can't see it doesn't make it less real). Abide in him, I think this means when we are in Christ (accept Him as Lord of our lives), we are covered by Grace. It means because Jesus died for our sin, in the eyes of God I have no sin (sanctified) because I am covered by Christ. Him in me, I would have thought, acting and being an ambassador of Christ, letting what he has done effect your life.

Sitting by itself it clearly does not establish the Eucharist. But there is too much of the eating flesh / drinking blood to say there is no connection.

The Corinthians version:
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: And 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. After 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Multivalence - and complex cross references. Including tie in to Isaiah 55: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

And of course back to John - "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Interlocking network.

He is saying, when you eat passover, remember my sacrifice.

He is saying come to me and I will fill your soul with spiritual bread.

He is speaking of the Holy Spirit which they had not yet received.

Where is the connection to the Eucharist? I can remember christ at passover, accept Christ as my savior, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Where does the Eucharist come in to it?

Are you REALLY going to force me to do this? Before I release my bound up leg, befoe I uncover my other eye, before I eats me spinach to unleash the awesome power of hereditary faculty, I need to know:

A. It is possible that you are here totally straight - that those are THE meanings YOU see in the passages in question and the source of my understanding is a blank to you, that you agree with Pastor Jerry [who I trust grew out of it] quoting his seminary instructors : "Each passage has ONE meaning"

B. It is possible that you are here acting a part, that you are doing devil's advocate to get me to be more explicit for the groundlings who will not do the thinking without Socrates pushing them. That you understand with me that polysemy characterizes human communication, that a text is a mesh, each statement a node held in tension between the meaning it makes with THAT node and the other meaning it makes in the context of the node on the other side.

Your personal style is relatively new to me, and I cannot [yet, I trust it will change] predict where you are coming from. Since my response to you if you are or are close to A woukld be quite different from what I would generate assuming you to be at or close to B, I have to ask.

I believe with some passages the author had one meaning in mind, and without the holy spirit we may not get any more use out of it than that.

People say they are in one camp, but when you push them they end up somewhere else. I find the best way to understand what somebody thinks is to ask them.

where I come from is a place that always challenges mainstream thinking. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's right and I never want to be somebody (or let somebody else be somebody) that accepts without question because somebody else thought it was right. Also to let you know, I only take 66 books to be the word of God.

Okay - enough to be getting on with. I am fine with the standard canon.

My thinking generally is far from mainstream About anything.

I am not exclusively but extensively a linguist. I am VERY aware that in normal human language no word has a single meaning, no text a single message. That often and often a person will say something to a group intending to have different messages heard by different subgroups. That often and often a person will say something intending a particular hearer to receive two distinct messages.

If we agree God as thrown us / does throw us data, we are entitled to assume that some of it uses human language - that the way human language works is part of being "in his image"

Given that - if the Bible is assumed - as Christians generally do - to represent God communication, then we rightly assume that the Book of Job, for example, may have packed into it not only whatever meaning the original text communicated to its original heaers, but also meanings destined for later Jewry, for Martin Luther, for Frances Sophia Burling, for Franz Hoffman, for you and for me. One message for me in 1992, one for me in December of 2002, one for me tomorrow.

Pause for breath.

that sounds right from what i can discern

So - not too log ago I realized how I visualize the structure of languages - as a multidimensional space with high connectivity that I ramble around in, moving from plural formation to the marking of case in the sentence to the interaction of tense and aspect, to the history of the fourth conjugation passive marker.

Going through scripture for understanding is much the same - network interconnections.

The group of texts I listed is that kind assemblage.

Beyond the simplex messages given to the hearers at the time, they talk to me linking incarnation and passion, the Spirit and the Eucharist - and a mort more.

---

Where do you stand on the inspiration question? My rendition is rathe compldext. Has to be since the Bible is talking [with the help of the Spirit] to each individual reader annd hearer past present and future.

what inspiration question?

and just taking a quick stab at Catholicism, if Jesus didn't pray over the bread at the last supper, turning it into his body, why does it need to be done today? Plus he got a new body, so if you were turning it into the body which was sacrificed you would be eating 2000 year old bread and no longer living bread.

Inspiration: frequently brought up in Reformation and later creeds http://www.creeds.net/

A. Bible written by men under God's supervision

B. Bible written by God using humans as wordprocessor

1. Every word of every copy and translation and edition endorsed by God.

2. Every word [or letter] of the ORIGINAL [lost] version dictated and proofread by God

3. Much if not all content loaded with material suitable as jumping off point for the Spirit.

-------------

On the form of the sacraments [if such they be which we have not discussed]: Man and his organizations are inclined to build rituals. Man and his organizations are inclined to build theories. Baptism, Eucharist - we complicate the simple. Go apply for a fishing license as opposed to walking down to the bank with your rod.

The REALITY is mucxh simpler than the ritual.

------------

The 2000 year old body bit is cute - but do NOT forget there is a detour through timelessness. Commnion links us without regard to space or time.

So you're asking what 2 Timothy 3:16 means to me when it says "All Scripture is God-breathed"? Having written something which I think was under the influence of the Holy Spirit I can tell you my brain didn't have a lot to do with it, though it sounds like my words. I could go back to that thing I had written and learn from it. So because of my own personal experience I would have to say B. is how the bible was written. I think God kept the translations accurate by Holy spirit coercion. The Holy spirit seems to be able to work as a compelling outside influence even when the person has no specifically asked for the Holy spirits presence.

-------------

And all I am saying is, show me where God told us to make the ritual. I can see where God commands us to undertake the baptism ritual but I can not see where he commands us to undertake anything that resembles the Eucharist. What he commands us to do at the last supper is more like saying grace before dinner. The Eucharist was an invention by us to remember Christs death but not a commandment by Christ.

------------

I don't think even God exists in our universe outside of linear time. He is timeless in that he doesn't change, He isn't timeless because he can teleport through time.

All this verse quoting from the Gospels sounds positively pharisaic.

ruveyn

Come on. Go find your reading specs. For a discussion of technical points Christian to Christian this is very low density for citations. It is not even up to English 206 term paper standard.

Let alone PPR video tag!

So you go for literal inspiration. I frankly would not go so far . While we don't want to annoy ruveyn with his antipharisaical prejudices, multivalence is rampant in godbreathing. My own experience is consistent with the Spirit highlighting whatever text an much as with excercising control. Which is less consistent with free will and more with the irresistible grace theory.

As for baptism and the Eucharist - we get told to baptise without being told how or why or really what the effects will be. we get told "do this - make a commemoration" - that IS a commandment - as often as you do this." We are not told - each Passover? each church gathering? each meal? every time you have bread and wine? Multivalence again. The details are left up to us. Even ruveyn's compatriot Saul does not get all that explicit. The organizations have variously jazzed it up.

God existed IN time in the universe during Christ's life. Otherwise, time exists in him and he acts from outside the fish tank.