Our family has been reading through the gospel of John and over the last couple of nights we read John 6. I have been meditating on John 6:43-71 and I do not feel content with the spiritualizing of the passage that I have always used to interpret it.
I do believe that there is a spiritual element to what Jesus said, but....
Why did he make such a big deal about it being his flesh and blood? Clearly some people quit following him because there was no doubt that he was teaching some really disturbing stuff.
How does it tie into the communion formulary used in the other 3 gospels and restated by Paul in 1 Corinthians?
Was it just a test to weed out the non-serious people? How many people do you know that would continue following Jesus if he told them that it involved cannibalism? (I think my daugther Hope said it best, everytime we talked about eating flesh and drinking blood, she said "Thats disgusting, I hate blood".)
We did some research on transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Clearly there is a problem with needing a priest to turn the elements into the body of Christ, but I am intrigued with some of the other parts of these two views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment