Replies

He says "the flesh." Not "my flesh." Two different things. When He says "the flesh" in verse 63, He is speaking metaphorically of the base, carnal human part of our selves.

But you ignore the examples he gives. And you ignore what he's saying (contextually) with regard to it. And you ingnore the all inclusiveness used. "The flesh" excludes nothing. You're standing that on it's head as if it's a dodge. It isn't. Nor can it be perverted into one. If he'd said "all flesh" you'd be debating the meaning of the word "all". This is legalism - looking for the technical instead of following the spirit.

Jesus is talking about spiritual life. He says with that regard that the flesh profits nothing. Spiritual food nourishes the spirit and fleshly food nourishes the flesh. His statement that the flesh profits nothing to the spirit is correct. It didn't under the old covenant and it doesn't now. Ya'll ignore this, play semantics games and ignore the fact that the bread of life was eaten before Christ ever arrived on the scene. If that is so, how do you suppose they were eating jesus flesh if that is what's required to eat the bread of life. Don't make any sense does it. The bread of life in the OT was the word of God - literally what he spoke. Eating the bread of life was a metaphor for hearing and believing/acting upon God's word. So it's not a new thing. It's just that you guys have to ignore and redefine things to conform them to your version - even if if it makes you look absurd. Like Clinton backed into a corner - you debate the meaning of the word is rather than fess up. This is the face of legalism.

Your argument is too tortured. A plain reading of the text yields the Catholic interpretation, an interpretation held by the immediate disciples of the Apostles, an interpretation held for close to 2,000 years by the Catholic Church.

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality
— grace — being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided. As such, the hunt for any interpretation to void the Catholic one is necessary. Any novel interpretation that overthrows the Catholic meaning is accepted. A prima facia case of eisegesis.