Reconciling the John 3 with John 6

[PaulSacramento]

How do we reconcile John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

With John 6:52-58
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

[RickD]

What are you having a problem reconciling?

[PaulSacramento]

What are you having a problem reconciling?

One states that belief is all that is required (3:16) and the other that states we must "eat the flesh and drink the blood", ( what some view as a commandment to partake of the Lords's Supper and only those that partake will have eternal life).

[RickD]

What are you having a problem reconciling?

One states that belief is all that is required (3:16) and the other that states we must "eat the flesh and drink the blood", ( what some view as a commandment to partake of the Lords's Supper and only those that partake will have eternal life).

I guess you have to figure out what this means:

54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Does it mean literally eating Christ's flesh, and literally drinking his blood? Is it symbolic of something, just like water baptism is symbolic? Is whatever eating and drinking symbolizes, what is necessary for eternal life? Or perhaps Catholicism is correct, and literally eating and drinking is necessary for salvation?

[PaulSacramento]

What are you having a problem reconciling?

One states that belief is all that is required (3:16) and the other that states we must "eat the flesh and drink the blood", ( what some view as a commandment to partake of the Lords's Supper and only those that partake will have eternal life).

I guess you have to figure out what this means:

54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Does it mean literally eating Christ's flesh, and literally drinking his blood? Is it symbolic of something, just like water baptism is symbolic? Is whatever eating and drinking symbolizes, what is necessary for eternal life? Or perhaps Catholicism is correct, and literally eating and drinking is necessary for salvation?

I think we all agree that it doesn't mean the literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. BUT the issue is IF the symbolic act of the last supper ( eating the unleavened bread and drinking of the wine) is something we MUST or at least SHOULD do to get eternal life.
Those verses in John 6 certainly seem to state that quite explicitly.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I think we all agree that it doesn't mean the literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Plenty of Catholics would beg to differ.

BUT the issue is IF the symbolic act of the last supper ( eating the unleavened bread and drinking of the wine) is something we MUST or at least SHOULD do to get eternal life.
Those verses in John 6 certainly seem to state that quite explicitly.

To me, communion is a remembrance of what Christ did for us. I really don't see how participation or not, has anything to do with salvation.

So I guess I'd say that I have no problem reconciling those verses.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
I think we all agree that it doesn't mean the literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Plenty of Catholics would beg to differ.

BUT the issue is IF the symbolic act of the last supper ( eating the unleavened bread and drinking of the wine) is something we MUST or at least SHOULD do to get eternal life.
Those verses in John 6 certainly seem to state that quite explicitly.

To me, communion is a remembrance of what Christ did for us. I really don't see how participation or not, has anything to do with salvation.

So I guess I'd say that I have no problem reconciling those verses.

I mean we are not literal eating flesh and drinking blood, that is cannibalism.

The thing is Rick, that John states that Jesus said that unless you do eat of the flesh and drink of the blood, you do NOT have eternal life, so...

[SeekingSanctuary]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

[RickD]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

Yup.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think those verses in John 6 mean?

[Byblos]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think those verses in John 6 mean?

Even if one doesn't take John 6 to point to the literal presence in the Eucharist (and I see no warrant whatsoever to do so), at a minimum the text is pointing to the Lord's Supper as an integral part of the life of a Christian.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think those verses in John 6 mean?

Even if one doesn't take John 6 to point to the literal presence in the Eucharist (and I see no warrant whatsoever to do so), at a minimum the text is pointing to the Lord's Supper as an integral part of the life of a Christian.

I think we all agree on that part BUT what of those that believe that without partaking there is no eternal life?

[Byblos]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think those verses in John 6 mean?

Even if one doesn't take John 6 to point to the literal presence in the Eucharist (and I see no warrant whatsoever to do so), at a minimum the text is pointing to the Lord's Supper as an integral part of the life of a Christian.

I think we all agree on that part BUT what of those that believe that without partaking there is no eternal life?

Then Lord help them. Even the Catholic Church teaches of only the moral, not absolute necessity of receiving communion.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't see a problem. His blood was spilled and his flesh was torn on the cross. To "Drink" his blood and "Eat" his flesh is to receive the fruits of crucifixion. Its kind of like drinking living water, we don't actually drink water.

Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think those verses in John 6 mean?

Even if one doesn't take John 6 to point to the literal presence in the Eucharist (and I see no warrant whatsoever to do so), at a minimum the text is pointing to the Lord's Supper as an integral part of the life of a Christian.

I think we all agree on that part BUT what of those that believe that without partaking there is no eternal life?

Then Lord help them. Even the Catholic Church teaches of only the moral, not absolute necessity of receiving communion.

Indeed, BUT how to reconcile what John wrote then?

[B. W.]

How do we reconcile John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

With John 6:52-58
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”