John 6: 53 Commentary

Help! A family member is attacking me by texting me Bible verses that are not nice at all. this person says shes Christian and not using verses the way god wants us to teach and help each other. What is this kind of person called and why would a person do this?
Mrs GG

By Mrs.GG (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/14/2009 03:32 am

Thanks L.A., I’m sorry too.

Anywhoo, Catholicism is a valid subtopic for this verse for several reasons:

(1) It is one of the largest groups ‘claiming’ to be Christian, thus, there are many who share Richard’s view of this verse.
(2) There are many like myself, who believe that believe Catholic indoctrination is the ‘only’ reason for his view on this verse.

On another note, this cannot become a Catholic vs. Protestant discussion because frankly, I’m not a protestant.

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/26/2009 11:56 am

Scott, I had not interjected anything outside of the Word of God to support my belief. Jason brought up Catholocism and I thought I was responding to be fair to him and others on the basis of my beliefs.

It was an adhominem attack plain and simple by Jason which had nothing to do with John 6:53. Frankly I hope the admins delete the response of mine and Jason’s or any other which have nothing to do with John 6:53.

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/15/2009 01:31 am

He asked about my faith and I decided to be fair and answer the question to confirm that my base of belief was Catholic.

Scott, I did not interject anything outside of the holy Word of God to support my belief so I believe you are the one mistaken. I was expecting jason to give a response of that particular teaching and not turn this discussion into protestant vs Catholic hence my response.

It was an ad hominem attack by Jason plain and simple which had nothing to do with the commentary on John 6:53. I should have recognized that maybe Jason had an anti-Catholic agenda and maybe my initial response would have been different. There are tons of other forums in the online world to address such issues. Frankly I hope the admins will delete the responses of jason and I and any others which has nothing to do with John 6:53.

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/15/2009 01:26 am

Thanks Scott,

Apparently my comments are being ‘moderated’ by lord Administrator (which, isn’t affiliated with any church, church organization or religious denomination…lol)

By Jaysun (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/15/2009 01:23 am

Richard,

You are mistaken. You said;

“All I did was back up my beliefs using bible verses..”

But this is not true. You opened the door for Jason’s response with the unseemly historical record of your denomination when you tried to “back up” your beliefs by invoking “2000 years of teaching” as if two millenia is evidence of ERRORLESS teaching.

It would be wise to back away from the “church fathers” on this one and trust only in the text. The historical church record is simply too jaded.

Your accusation of “attack and spewing hate” is likewise unfounded. If you don’t feel equal disdain for the crimes of the Catholic church (historic and recent) that Jason expressed, then you might want to check your own heart to see if it can still blush. Your patronization of Jason’s supposed lack of peace comes across completely disingeuous.

But back on point, your exegesis of this text is terribly inaccurate unless you are trying to prove Catholic doctrine. Let me ask you this: When someone is said to “eat the will of God” is it literal or figurative? How does one literally eat God’s will?? Yet John 4:34 has a clear implication that this is what we are to do. Tell me, how do we literally “sink our teeth” into God’s will?

Or, could Jesus be speaking figuratively?

By Scott (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 22:32 pm

Sorry, Administrator.

My wish was to rebut the common misconception implied by Richard, that Catholicism is the oldest ‘form’ of Christianity. Which further implies that their teachings are therefore more ‘traditional.’

As for ‘hate,’ I admit, I hate Romanism. I make no apologies for that. But perhaps I could have made the same statement, less caustic.

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 22:05 pm

Now who is spewing the propaganda? All I did was back up my beliefs using bible verses yet you attack and spew hate. All I can do is pray for you and hope one day you have peace in your heart preferably the peace of Jesus…

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 21:44 pm

I was just curious. But contrary to the propaganda you’ve been spoon-fed all your life, before the first catholic priest ever put on a dress and started molesting little boys, men were standing up with the Bible saying, “What can wash away my sins - nothing but the Blood of Jesus.” They were persecuted and branded as heretics by YOUR ‘church.’ Men were tied to trees and forced to watch as their wives were raped and their babies’ brains were bashed out on rocks.

And “Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” (Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent, Letters, Apud Opera, pages 112,113.)

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 20:19 pm

Jason yes I’m Catholic and have been all my life… I’m not sure what that has to do with the conversation though since I have answered you strictly from bible verses… I mean if you want to move the commentary in that direction, I do have 2000yrs of teaching on my side.

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 19:28 pm

Why did no one walk away when he called himself a gate/door? They all walked away in John 6 because they knew Jesus was talking literally hence John 6:60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”. If Jesus was not talking literally then why would he not explain and stop them from leaving based on a misunderstaning. Instead He says in John 6:61 …”Does this shock you?

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/14/2009 19:24 pm

Don’t forget, He’s also, the door, not A door, but THE door.

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/13/2009 10:46 am

Hmmmm indeed, Richard.

Let’s see, bread IS human flesh and wine IS human blood?

It seems to me that the Creator of all things would know the differences between these elements. But then again, maybe Jesus was a bit confused because he also said that he was a GATE!

How can any man be bread, wine and a gate all at the same time? Or is this a postmodern definition of the Trinity?

(tongue in cheek intended)

By Scott (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/13/2009 04:10 am

Well,if you want to believe that, you’re free to do so. You’re wrong but even if you were right, I’ve had the Lord’s supper a few times. Anyway, have you been a catholic all your life?

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/13/2009 03:12 am

Oh absolutely Jesus’ words were meant to be literal… I assume you are confused because of the last supper and to answer the question did Jesus eat himself let’s go directly to the Last Supper passages…
Luke 22: 19-20
19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many
Luke 26:26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I don’t see anywhere that he says the bread is “like” my body; He says “This is my body” and they ate it… hmmm.

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/13/2009 02:13 am

Richard,

Which is it? Literal or figurative?

According to your post #9, Jesus’ words are literal.

But according to your post #11, His words are figurative.

This does not compute!

By Scott (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/12/2009 17:53 pm

so, are you saying Jesus ate Himself at the Last Supper?

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/12/2009 03:55 am

Jesus wasn’t dismissing a crowd; the crowd was outright rejecting Jesus because they knew Jesus was talking literally. Then what did Jesus do… did he clarify because he was talking figuratively? No, he asked if the apostles are going to leave also. Because the apostles(at least 11 in any case) knew he was the Christ they stayed and then understood his words at the last supper that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood.

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/12/2009 03:44 am

I don’t doubt that the crowd was a little confused as to what Jesus meant.

But to say Jesus wouldn’t dismiss a crowd unless His Words were fully understood by everyone, isn’t right.

In John 2, His Disciples were apparently as confused as the Pharisees when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

But when “…He was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; (”OH, That’s What Jesus Meant!”) and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:19-22)

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/11/2009 23:13 pm

Yes they were not spiritual because they had earthly aspirations of Jesus hence wanting to make him an earthly king. “The flesh is of no avail” meaning because they were thinking earthly and not spiritually they could not accept this teaching of eternal life. Jesus meant what he said or he would not have let these disciples leave on a misunderstanding. Jesus meant what he said “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” and everyone knew he was talking literally…

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/11/2009 22:51 pm

spiritual does not equal figurative…

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/11/2009 22:44 pm

Yeah Dick, and they were real spiritual folk weren’t they?

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/11/2009 22:40 pm

I’m pretty sure all those followers of Jesus who were practically ready to make him “king” yet left him did not think Jesus was speaking figuratively…

By richard (wrote 10 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 8/11/2009 22:37 pm

Here in John chapter 6, Jesus is telling that He is the One who gives eternal life. The words in Jesus in V.53 are not to be taken literally, but figurative only; otherwise it would mean that we may have to bite Jesus’ body and suck his blood. The Jews took Jesus lierally and were offended, while some of his hearers went away from thence and did not follow Jesus.(Jn.6:52,60).For Jesus did not mean that way.Peter also responded to Jesus in this matter, ” Where Shall we go? For you have the words of eternal life”. But eternal life is available through the sacrificial death of Lord Jesus, by breaking his body on the cross and by shedding his blood for the remission of sins of many.Sin and death go together. Life comes only when sin is done away with.Forgiveness of sin is based on the propitiation made by our Lord.So the real meaning is that our spiritual life is dependant on our Lord Jesus and he is the true meat and true drink for our nourishment and sustenance.

In the Lord’s communion, we do not kill Jesus, but proclaim his death(1 Cor.11:26)-that by this sacrificial death we have the remission of sins and getting of life.Since his resurrection, Lord Jesus has spiritual body and we cannot eat it. Some believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning that when blessed, the bread really changed into the body of Christ and that the wine turns into his blood.Such people based their doctrine on JN 6:53, but the verse is not to be taken literally as discussed above. They may also refer to the words of Jesus,”This is my body” They argue that Jesus doesn’t say that my body is like bread! But it is not a Hebrew way of saying that this (bread)is like my body, but it is,”This is my body.” Now when Jesus first spoke these words, did the bread became his body? Where was then the physical body of Jesus that was to be crucified?

Some say they only mean that they refer to the presence of Lord Jesus, that he is really present when we partake from the blessed Eucharist. But Jesus is present where two or more are gathered together in his name, irrespective of the Lord’s communion.(Mt.18:20) Again, we don’t eat his presence, we enjoy his presence,his fellowship, which we have on the basis of the living relationship we have with our Lord! To sum up then, the Lord’s communion is for His remembrance, for proclaiming his death in ensuring the right relationship with Him and with His.The bread and wine are the symbols respectively for the broken body and the shed blood of our Lord Jesus, and they indeed speak a lot! Good reminders for us that we may not get lost sight of and significance of the sacrificial death of our Loving Lord. Glory be to His name!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2009 16:59 pm

I’ve always had a healthy appetite. But I’ve never tried to eat God.

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2009 20:06 pm

Anthony,

Please THINK about what you are saying. Your interpretation of this verse makes Jesus into a lunatic! If nobody could have LIFE until Jesus came and instituted the “eucharist”, how did Abraham find LIFE, and what about Isaac and Jacob and Joseph and Moses and Joshua and David and Samuel and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel…etc, etc.

Do you think, perhaps, Jesus may have been speaking figuratively?

Yes, sadly, many Christians DO believe what you have said. And just as sadly, they miss out on the glorious TRUTH of what Jesus was really saying. Seek out this truth, my friend, until you are certain you have found it. In fact, here is a novel idea:

HUNGER AND THIRST FOR IT!!

By Scott (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2009 19:58 pm

LoL! You should sue your brain for non-support if you believe that. What? I guess Jesus ate Himself that night too huh?

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2009 16:11 pm

In this verse Jesus confirms what many Christians already believe that we have to eat the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist if we want life. Without the Eucharist we have no life.

By Anthony (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2009 03:57 am