John 6 focusing on the words spoken by Jesus {from the King James Version}

Biblegateway ^ | 85 AD | John

[Elsie]

Jesus: “You will do even greater than I.” — John 14:12

Fact or fiction?

[Elsie]

The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

There you go again!

[Elsie]

He makes it graphically clear that the flesh is literal as the body on the Cross was literal

Really?

If it's so LITERAL, why do folks eat a wafer and sip some wine?

Surely you remember why; right??

[Elsie]

Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body."

Yeah; that bread they ate then was LITERALLY Christ's body.

[Elsie]

Are you, imardmd1, humble enough that you can bow before the Word of God, Jesus Christ who tells us to eat of His body, or will you follow your council of fallible, wrong-headed, religionists?

As soon as you quit calling Catholic priests FATHER.

[imardmd1]

"grape juice"? Have you any inkling how this is impossible due to fermentation?
You can drink grape juice only within a couple of weeks of the fall harvest season.

So at Cana, Jesus made an intoxicating fluid, about 150 gallons of it, to make drunk people drunker? And because of it, people believed in Him as the Messiah? /sarc That's rich, Cronos. Go ahead, keep on writing--the words you post just keep on nailing down your level of intelligence and refinement.

Are you aware that the grape juice found on today's grocery shelf was made from the concentrate that was made by the same way that maple syrup is made?

I have on my cupboard a half-pint container of such syrup made by boiling down fresh grape juice to syrup. That was made in 1992, put in the little jam jar without sealing it except for the threaded lid. Once every year or two, I have opened it up to assure that it has not gotten any mold, taken out a spoonful, stirred it into some water to reconstitute it, and tasted it. It has always come back as unchanged, unfermented grape juice.

Now, for your information, this kind of process was used in ancient civilizations, and recorded in their documents.

But apart from that issue, and confronting your prejudicial viewpoint, Jesus' wine from water was freshly made from "living" water that would otherwise have been used for ritual cleansing and/or safe drinking. It was given no time or toe-jam filth for fermentation, and proclaimed as "good" by the caterer of the feast. The only way that it could have been intoxicating would be if Jesus had concurrently created ex nihilo the additive ethanol, an extremely unlikely unmotivated deliberate poisonous addition to the unnatyrally created "wine."

Your hypotheses about this situation are unneeded, unnecessary, irrational, unspiritual, and ungodlike. From another aspect, they are exactly conformable to a Satanic viewpoint, which your casual flippant narrative displays.

And contrary to your insistence, the Hebrew/Aramaic noun "yayin," transliterated in Greek as "oinos" and in English as "wine" is in those Bible languages a generalized term for any form of drinkable grape juice, intoxicating or not. This aspect is provable by both the Old Testament writings and the New. Your argument on this is incorrect. The state of the drink is either determined by the immediate context, or else it is indeterminate, open to speculation.

A mature review of the knowledge base of viniculture, its processes, and its products destroys your false, ignorant assumptions, Cronos, that mark your determined intent to mislead the FR audience.

[circlecity]

Sorry, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Cronos]

So at Cana, Jesus made an intoxicating fluid, about 150 gallons of it, to make drunk people drunker? And because of it, people believed in Him as the Messiah? /sarc

You really have no idea about fermentation, do you?

firstly, grape juice ferments within a couple of week

Then you have no idea about what the Bible says either, do you? The attendees accuse the steward of keeping the good wine for later -- has anyone talked about good or bad grape juice?

Finally, the wine was mildly alcoholic - 10% or less AND was diluted with water.

Jesus made wine - alcoholic wine - out of water

wine was part of the culinary culture, as was beer, . These two alcoholic beverages were often safer to drink than whatever water was available, as that water might have come from a questionable source and was pretty surely crawling with bacteria. Wine was made from grape juice, and beer was boiled. Both contained alcohol, and were therefore more safe to drink.

But the miracle of water to wine was done at a wedding; a celebration where the host was expected to accommodate the guests with his finest food and wine. The host had run out of wine, and was panicked at the thought of disgracing his family and disappointing his guests. Jesus stepped in and saved the day. Not because he wanted people to drink alcohol the way a bar has Ladies’ Night every Thursday, or two-for-one mojito specials during Happy Hour, but because he cared about peoples’ concerns and recognized the importance of a host not losing face.

[Cronos]

The Bible warns against getting drunk, it does not prohibit alcohol. Jesus was at a wedding. It was a celebration. When the wine ran out the Bride and Groom would have faced quite a lot of embarrassment, so Jesus helped them out.

This story is one of many that showed Jesus as a living part of his community

Any juice pressed from grapes was called wine. So theoretically, if you drank it immediately upon pressing while the grapes are very fresh, you could have non-alcoholic grape juice. But this was not the normal custom. Of course it happened, people tend to eat and drink while they work. But the vast majority of the produce would be bagged for fermentation. The fermentation process takes less than a week, maybe 3 or 4 days.

Based on the culture, the language used in describing it, and everything we know about the time period, it would be highly unlikely that what is intended is anything other than the usual drink we call “wine”—mildly alcoholic, fermented grape juice.

It could be argued that unfermented grape juice didn’t exist until 1869 when Thomas Welch invented a method for stopping the fermentation that otherwise begin the moment the grapes are crushed. Grape skins are covered in yeasts that instantly begin converting sugars to alcohol, so any grape juice stored for more than a day or two would have begun to become increasingly alcoholic.

Wine has its natural 5–6% average alcohol content because that’s about the point at which the alcohol concentration naturally kills the yeasts, stopping the fermentation. If we read the passage in its context, we know that this was a celebration of a wedding, which seems to be something universally celebrated (as God Himself commanded) with wine and merriment. The people at the wedding would have come expecting that, so it seems highly unlikely that they would have complimented the quality of what Jesus made, had it been mere juice.

[Cronos]

Are you aware that the grape juice found on today's grocery shelf was made from the concentrate that was made by the same way that maple syrup is made?

You have no clue about the Bible or about fermentation

>Unfermented grape juice didn’t exist until 1869 when Thomas Welch invented a method for stopping the fermentation that otherwise begin the moment the grapes are crushed. Grape skins are covered in yeasts that instantly begin converting sugars to alcohol, so any grape juice stored for more than a day or two would have begun to become increasingly alcoholic.

Wine has its natural 5–6% average alcohol content because that’s about the point at which the alcohol concentration naturally kills the yeasts, stopping the fermentation. If we read the passage in its context, we know that this was a celebration of a wedding, which seems to be something universally celebrated (as God Himself commanded) with wine and merriment. The people at the wedding would have come expecting that, so it seems highly unlikely that they would have complimented the quality of what Jesus made, had it been mere juice.

[Cronos]

Imardmd1, your hypotheses about this situation are unneeded, unnecessary, irrational, unspiritual, and ungodlike. From another aspect, they are exactly conformable to a Satanic viewpoint, which your casual flippant narrative displays.

Why do you deny Christ continuously?

[imardmd1]

Many disciples left Jesus because they refused to believe Jesus that this was His literal flesh. you, imadrmd1 would be one of those disciples.

Wrong. Contrary to this misstatement of yours, in the scriptural context the spiritually blind adherents DID cease following Jesus exactly because they DID take Him to be speaking in the plain literal sense, assuming that He was asking them to be cannibals.

Conversely, it was His Twelve chosen disciples trained to correctly interpret and apply figurative parables that DID NOT take him to be speaking of literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It was they that continued to cling to Him.

They knew that He, being the Word of God Personified (John 1:1), equated His teachings to be spiritual food the way flesh and blood (cooked) were food in the physical sense.

Now trained in discerning both good and evil, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, they no longer accepted His sayings to be in the plain-literal physical sense when that did not make common sense; but rather took them in the figurative-literal spiritual sense as being spiritual food to be ingested by hearing (or reading) and digested by meditation (Psalm 1). They did NOT leave Him but clung to Him because their mind had been reformed to be like that of the prophet Jeremiah:

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts" (Jer._15:16 AV).

The misled Romanists misinterpret this passage the same way that the bread-seeking opportunistic unspiritual John 6 crowds who quit following Jesus did, but have invented an unscriptural illogical process that they call "transubstantiation," without which they also would have to cease professing loyalty to Him. It's a concept that no true regenerated child of God can or needs to accept to fulfill God's Will for them.

[Cronos]

Imadrmd1 And contrary to your insistence, the Hebrew/Aramaic noun "yayin," transliterated in Greek as "oinos" and in English as "wine" is in those Bible languages a generalized term for any form of drinkable grape juice, intoxicating or not. This aspect is provable by both the Old Testament writings and the New. Your argument on this is incorrect. The state of the drink is either determined by the immediate context, or else it is indeterminate, open to speculation. --

you have no clue about hebrew either, do you?

Yayin clearly is alcoholic. Gen 9:21 tells us that Noah drank yayin and passed out drunk and naked.

Ps 104:15 yayin makes the heart of people merry.

Proverbs 20:1 yayin is a mocker, and the wiseman should not be deceived by it.

[Cronos]

Cronos Many disciples left Jesus because they refused to believe Jesus that this was His literal flesh. you, imadrmd1 would be one of those disciples.

Im a dumd Wrong. Contrary to this misstatement of yours, in the scriptural context the spiritually blind adherents DID cease following Jesus exactly because they DID take Him to be speaking in the plain literal sense, assuming that He was asking them to be cannibals.

This is the only place int he Gospels where disciples of Jesus left Him over a doctrinal issue. This is the first time we hear of Jesus doubting the wisdom of His master.

We in orthodoxy PLUS the Lutherans know that Jesus is really present in the consecrated Host

You are like the disciples who leave Christ because they cannot bear that Jesus tells them CLEARLY that This bread is my flesh. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life... for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

you keep denying Christ.

[Cronos]

spiritual food the way flesh and blood (cooked) were food in the physical sense.

Jesus repeats that we must "eat his flesh" SIX times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic - "CHEW on my flesh" -- this word is NEVER used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament or the Old Testament or even in ancient secular literature.

The words are clear - eat His flesh. Not symbolic

[Cronos]

The fact that it IS the body of Christ - not just your "symbolic" concept is shown in Corinthians 11:23-32 "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

... For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself

One cannot be "guilty" if this is just a memorial as you imadrdmd1 preach

One can be "guilty" if this is real as Jesus preached.

Your philosophy contradicts Jesus

[Cronos]

This is the Literal body of Christ - that is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. -

[Cronos]

Elsie Jesus: “You will do even greater than I.” — John 14:12

Perhaps you ought to actually read the Bible rather than excerpts?

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Having said, Believe for the works’ sake, our Lord goes on to declare that He can do much greater than these, and what is more wonderful, give others the power of working them.

But what are these greater works? Is it that the shadow of the Apostles, as they passed, by, healed the sick? It is indeed a greater thing that a shadow should heal, than that the border of a garment should. Nevertheless, by works here our Lord refers to His words. For when He says, My Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works, what are these works but the words which He spoke? And the fruit of those words was their faith. But these were but few converts in comparison with what those disciples made afterwards by their preaching: they converted the Gentiles to the faith. Did not the rich man go away sorrowful from His words? And yet that which one did not do at His own exhortation, many did afterwards when He preached through the disciples. He did greater works when preached by the believing, than when speaking to men’s ears. (lxxii. 2). Still these greater works He did by His Apostles, whereas He includes others besides them, when He says, He that believeth on Me. Are we not to compute any one among the believers in Christ, who does not do greater works than Christ? This sounds harsh if not explained. The Apostle says, To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom. 4:5) By this work then we shall do the works of Christ, the very believing in Christ being the work of Christ, for He worketh this in us, though not without us. Attend then’; He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also. First I do them, then he will do them: I do them, that he may do them. Do what works but this, viz. that a man, from being a sinner, become just? which thing Christ worketh in us, though not without us. This in truth I call a greater work to do, than to create the heaven and the earth; for heaven and earth shall pass away, but the salvation and justification of the predestinated shall remain. (c. 3.). However, the Angels in heaven are the work of Christ; shall he who worketh with Christ for his own justification, do greater even than these? Judge any one which be the greater work, to create the just, or to justify the ungodly? At least, if both be of equal power, the latter hath more of mercy. But it is not necessary to understand all the works of Christ, when He says, greater works than these shall he do. These perhaps refers to the works He had done that hour. He had then been instructing them in the faith1. And surely it is a less work to preach righteousness, which He did without us, than to justify the ungodly, which He so does in us, as that we do it ourselves. Great things truly did our Lord promise His people, when He went to His Father: Because I go unto My Father.

All the miracles that they did, He did: the hand of the Lord was with them.

The revelation however of these hidden things was a mark of His Divinity: hence the meaning of what follows; And if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before; supply, What will ye say? He said the same to Nathanael, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. He does not add difficulty to difficulty, but to convince them by the number and greatness of His doctrines. For if He had merely said that He came down from heaven, without adding any thing further, he would have offended His hearers more; but by saying that His flesh is the life of the world, and that as He was sent by the living Father, so He liveth by the Father; and at last by adding that He came down from heaven, He removed all doubt. Nor does He mean to scandalize His disciples, but rather to remove their scandal. For so long as they thought Him the Son of Joseph, they could not receive His doctrines; but if they once believed that He had come down from heaven, and would ascend thither, they would be much more willing and able to admit them.

[ADSUM]

Jesus who is God has done many miracles and at the Last Supper changed bread into HIS BODY and wine into HIS BLOOD. A True miracle that was given to us for our eternal life with Jesus. He authorized the Apostles to continue this miracle and do this in His memory. This practice has continued in daily Mass for over 2000 years and many believe that this is truly Jesus that abides in us.

Some did not believe then and even today some follow man-made false doctrine and reject the Words of Jesus. So how does one have faith in Jesus if they do not believe in His words?

Obviously they can not receive the Real Presence of Christ in their protestant denomination as we can only receive as a member of the Catholic Church the Real Presence. Why do protestants that follow man made beliefs need to change the understanding of the words of Jesus that has been passed down over the centuries? How can protestants have so many different interpretations of God’s Truth in 20,000 to 40,000 churches?

The Mass and Holy Eucharist was documented in the Bible after the Last Supper. (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 10:16-17)

On the walk to Emmaus, Jesus was made known to His disciples through the breaking of bread (Mass with reading of Scriptures as Jesus interpreted to them and gave them Holy Communion (Luke 24: 27-35).

If you still don’t believe do a google search on Eucharistic miracles and explain how independent scientists have determined that a consecrated host contains heart muscle of a tortured man with AB blood type (with white blood cells that indicate living flesh, not dead flesh).

Jesus is a living divine and human person and did not ask us to be cannibals of dead flesh.

So why do you not believe? If one does not believe in God’s Truth, then I question if your faith is true. I do hope that you accept the words of Jesus as the Truth and not reinterpret based on opinions of fallible man.

There are many false statements and beliefs about the Catholic Church, and we have many sinners within the Church, but we have stayed true to the teachings of Jesus, even when many leave the Church. Please find God’s Truth in the Catholic faith.

[MHGinTN]

The flesh and blood of which Jesus does your preist's incantation serve to you? It is the flesh and blood of the still dying on the cross Jesus? Is it the dead Jesus taken to the tomb? Is it the risen Jesus before His ascension? Is it the Jesus Who in In the Throne Room at God's right hand? Which one do you believe you are being served by the priests of your religion?

IF you believe you are consuming real flesh and blood, from which Jesus is this substance taken?