I don't believe I used the word 'symbolic' or entertained the concept. Do you think that I did ?
Uh, yeah. Think about it. The Lord says "My flesh is true food" and "If you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you."
We take that literally.
You cite a later verse about the "words" being "spirit" in order to come up with an interpretation that is non-literal. I don't see how this is anything other than symbolic, if it is not literal.
Every time this is discussed, the same verse is used to try to negate everything Jesus said. I don't understand why, so I ask. We are told that the "flesh" does not profit.
You yourself say this does not refer to the resurrection of the body. Then to what does it refer? Certainly not to Jesus' flesh, given "for the life of the world?"
Likewise we are told, over and over, that the "words" are "spirit," as if this is self-explanatory that the preceding verses are not to be taken in a literal fashion.
So I ask why "words" being "spirit" precludes a more literal interpretation of the preceding. Why? Logically, linguistically, why?
What I did do was to make the point that JESUS was encouraging and emphasizing SPIRITUALITY in the John 6 passage, as opposed to PHYSICALITY. He begins this emphasis in verse 26 of the passage and continues with it until the end of the chapter.
OK. And why can this "spirituality" not include the belief in the Presence of Jesus in the elements of Communion? It certainly is not something that is discerned by the human eye, or by our PHYSICAL scientific instruments. It is something discerned by faith, discerned by and for the spiritual part of our nature. The "flesh," our bodies, do not profit any more than a small cracker and a sip of wine nourish our flesh. But our SPIRIT profits greatly from this action.
SD
Uh, yeah. Think about it. The Lord says "My flesh is true food" and "If you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you."We take that literally.
You cite a later verse about the "words" being "spirit" in order to come up with an interpretation that is non-literal. I don't see how this is anything other than symbolic, if it is not literal.
Every time this is discussed, the same verse is used to try to negate everything Jesus said. I don't understand why, so I ask. We are told that the "flesh" does not profit.
You yourself say this does not refer to the resurrection of the body. Then to what does it refer? Certainly not to Jesus' flesh, given "for the life of the world?"
Likewise we are told, over and over, that the "words" are "spirit," as if this is self-explanatory that the preceding verses are not to be taken in a literal fashion.
So I ask why "words" being "spirit" precludes a more literal interpretation of the preceding. Why? Logically, linguistically, why?
Okay, let's look again at what's happening in the passage.
48 I am that bread of life.49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I 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.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then 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.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This 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.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Summarizing the previous ...
JESUS identifies Himself as the 'Bread of Life' and states catagorically that, in order to gain eternal life, one MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood.
The Jewish crowd is dismayed by these statements of JESUS and murmur among themselves about the fact that JESUS is apparently teaching cannibalism.
JESUS surmises their discomfort over the subject, but, rather than offering any explanation for His statements, forcefully re-emphasizes them.
Later, JESUS surmises that His disciples (a larger group than that of the 12) are also agonizing amongst themselves over this teaching (eating my flesh ... drinking my blood).
At this point, JESUS could have done with His disciples as He has done with the crowd. He could have offered no further explanation, or re-affirmed that He, indeed, was speaking of a LITERAL eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.
However, JESUS does not do this. He offers the following explanation ...
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Now, I take this to mean that JESUS wasn't speaking of a PHYSICAL (or FLESHLY) eating/drinking of Him. He says that what He is teaching is of a SPIRITUAL eating and drinking of Him. He further identifies His words as the SPIRITUAL nourishment He speaks of, and that they, when eaten (or taken in for nourishment) will yield (SPIRITUAL) life. In this, I further believe, JESUS is speaking of BELIEF in Him and His teachings.
This would be consistent with JESUS other teachings regarding salvation (i.e gaining eternal life, non-condemnation, becoming the children of God, etc.) elsewhere as recorded in the New Testament. It is only in this one passage that He likens receiving Him and His words to ... eating His flesh and drinking His blood. In John 4, He likens it to drinking the water of life. However, again He is speaking of a spiritual drinking, rather than a physical drinking. In John 3, He likens it to being born again, but, again, not PHYSICALLY, but SPIRITUALLY.
All of these references to our reception of the gift of Salvation, as well as all others (of which there are many), are explicitly tied to the idea of BELIEF. Belief is the theme that you see over and over again as JESUS teaches on salvation.
OK. And why can this "spirituality" not include the belief in the Presence of Jesus in the elements of Communion?
I certainly wouldn't say that it cannot. I don't think that belief in the Real Presence is an issue upon which our salvation is hinged. I would say, however, that one would want to be sure to be taking in (accepting/believing) JESUS and His teachings.
For, ... as He has said ...
... My words are SPIRIT, my words are LIFE.It certainly is not something that is discerned by the human eye, or by our PHYSICAL scientific instruments. It is something discerned by faith, discerned by and for the spiritual part of our nature. The "flesh," our bodies, do not profit any more than a small cracker and a sip of wine nourish our flesh. But our SPIRIT profits greatly from this action.
I agree.