John 6:30 takes place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert."Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
Jesus then told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews thought, just like many protestants that HE was speaking metaphorically.
He then repeated "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Jews then argued among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stunned because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think of flesh, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But some did not believe."After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
Here some followers left Him because of what HE said (perhaps even Judas). If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and say 'no, you misunderstood me, I meant a symbol'? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic/Orthodox
Yet, why then did John leave out that entire ceremony from his gospel? There is no mention at all of him breaking the bread and giving the cup of wine at their Last Supper together as was told in the other three gospels. DO you have some idea why it was omitted?
YOu left out half my statement apparently so you could twist what I said...
Jesus then told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews thought, just like many protestants that HE was speaking metaphorically.
Joh 6:35 And 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.
Is this literal or metaphorical???
If that's the case, then why not teach that Jesus was made from bread, like the Pillsbury Dough boy? He said He was bread more times than He said we have to eat His flesh and blood. Why take it literally that the bread and cup are His literal body and blood, but not take it literal that He is composed or bread dough? Or wood (being the gate of the sheepfold)? Or plants (being the true vine)?
He also, in the three gospel accounts of the last Supper, referred to the cup as the *fruit of the vine*. Now unless something has changed in recent years, I don't think grapes are made of blood.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, which very specifically prohibits the eating of blood. He and the disciples were still under the OT Law at the time of the Last Supper. Tell me how He could violate the Law without sinning and yet still be the perfect sinless sacrifice for our sins.
In Hebrews, Scripture is very clear that He died once for all and lives forever, sitting at God's right hand. To say that He needs to be sacrificed daily, everywhere says that the sacrifice He made on the cross wasn't adequate.
What Catholics fail to realize is that if the bread and cup do become the actual body and blood of Christ during a communion service, it happens whether our faith lines up with it or not. If it doesn't, no amount of believing it doesn't isn't going to change that.
Another question I've never received an adequate answer to this: Just WHEN does this transformation occur? I've never seen anyone take anything that resembles raw flesh. It's always a wafer, and not even the cup. The Catholic church has historically not served complete communion to its parishioners. Why is that? And WHEN does the transformation occur?