JOHN 6:50-58 LITERAL OR SPIRITUAL?

What did you think of fr Ron and our discussion? Leave a comment below, please make sure to hit the like button, and share this with others.

Does John 6:26-69 teach you must believe eating Jesus literal flesh and drinking Jesus literal blood is essential to get eternal life? Is that the context?  Share your comments below on what you believe whether you are a Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic.

Lord bless,

Kelly

Father Ron always blows my mind in his explanation of Scripture. When u understand the Greek you realize there is much more there and that its not Just a story Book it is Scripture, and its meant to be read as scripture alongside all other Scripture, nothing written  really stands alone and is meant to be interptated as a whole.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Great discussion

Thank you Mr Powers for Hosting  one of our beautiful Priest and defender of the faith.

Glory to god☦️❤

Fr Ron is the best!

This was a really good conversation. Thank you.

Great conversation guys

"Man shall not live by bread alone"

“Your words were found, and I ate them, and Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart; For I am called by your name, oh Lord God of hosts “Jeremiah 15:16.

Thank you father Ron and Kelly. Discussions like this can be profitable even when there is disagreement, this one certainly was. Perhaps at some point father Ron could come up with an outline he would share as he goes through his exegesis of Scripture, I think that might be of a great benefit for those trying to follow along with him, as I know he has a wealth of knowledge and ideas. He's trying to establish how the original hearers would have heard the words in the original language and with the context of the text, their culture and the history of the Jewish culture and tradition. This is why a plain English reading of many of these texts loses that context. Unsurprisingly, this is also likely why, after the Reformation, there are so many different interpretations of the same text. In the first 1500 years, there were certainly disagreements, between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, and then after the schism of course with the Latin West. However, even with these disagreements, theologically, there's much more in common than what separates. Major issues like baptism, the Eucharist, and other such things are largely agreed upon as apostolic teachings & holy traditions handed down from the first century. The Eastern Orthodox were not part of the Reformation against the Latin West and the accretions of the papacy. It is true that the Eastern Orthodox would agree with some of the criticisms by the reformers, the ultimate direction they went left the apostolic, authoritative teachings that were preserved by the Holy Spirit for the previous 1500 years. Martin Luther did not depart as far as those who proceeded after him, Calvin and Zwingli. The disagreements and the additional denominations multiplied exponentially in the following years. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there is one Faith, one baptism, and one Lord Jesus Christ who is head of His Church! 🙏🏼☦️🙌🏼

That the general person wouldn’t get it is the very reason why Orthodox turn to the apostolic fathers and their disciples and our priests to help us interpret the scriptures.

Pretty bizarre to say it’s not a post resurrection notion, given the whole Corinthian exegesis of the Cup and Bread being a “koinonia” (participating/sharing/fellowship) with the “Body and Blood” of Christ

Kelly gave me the impression he is just letting father Ron talk without engaging, but WOW! I was WRONG. There were interesting insights and questions from him, so well done! This was incredibly enjoyable, from both of you!

The Holy Eucharist was believed to be the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for 1500 years without issue. Martin Luther also believed similarly. However, it wasn't long after the Reformation before there was sharp disagreement. Before Protestants argue against Orthodox or Catholics, they should argue amongst themselves with lutherans and anglicans.

This isn’t difficult, everyone understood the Eucharist is the real body and blood until the 1500s. Then  Zwingli came, reinterpreted what communion entailed. Zwingli and most every Protestant or all Evangelical groups since has embraced what Zwingli and the ancient Gnostics and other ancient heretics believed about communion not being the real presence.

This should cause Prots/Evangelicals to pause and ask why.

Notice what happens in this video. Fr Ron spends about 40 minutes reading his own interpretations into the text (eisegesis). I’m not trying to disrespect the effort he put into breaking down the passage, but guess what he missed? The Gospel. Compare that with Kelly’s response. Within the first five minutes, Kelly points directly to what the text is actually saying. John 6 is about divine initiative, election, faith, and resurrection. Those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him, and the Son will raise them up on the last day. The chapter is saturated with Gospel themes from beginning to end. My contention is that John 6 is not about the Eucharist at all. The central issue throughout the chapter is believing in Jesus. The crowd asks what work God requires, and Jesus answers: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” Again and again, Jesus points people to Himself as the source of eternal life. The emphasis is not on a sacrament, but on faith in the Son whom the Father has sent. Fr Ron talks about the chapter functioning like a funnel that builds toward a climax, but I think he gets the climax completely wrong. The chapter culminates in a crisis of discipleship. Many followers abandon Jesus because His teaching is difficult, while Peter responds: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that You are the Holy One of God.” That is the climax. Not the Eucharist. Not bread. Not wisdom motifs. Not symbolic frameworks, not a priest and a wafer that comes 2000 years later. The climax is faith in Christ. What I find astounding is that after all the intellectual effort, all the links to wisdom literature, and all the interpretive speculation, the very heart of the chapter is missed. John 6 is about the Gospel. It is about who Jesus is, why He was sent, the necessity of believing in Him, and His promise to raise His people on the last day. The chapter begins with a crowd seeking physical bread and ends with a divided crowd confronted with the most important question of all: Will you believe in Jesus?

I can't believe that this EO priest is using an argument that goes, "If we were to REMOVE these ten verses, would your interpretation make sense?" Really?  What type of hermeneutic is that?

If these are two dorks what is Andrew?

NOTICE: when works trusters hear the true gospel they actually act like it’s a burden vs when a humble sinner hears it. This young man clinging to his COC religion is a perfect example. The true gospel was received with disdain n unbelief. Why?