In preparation for the Memorial... (page 2)

Honesty

Lily, I used to know how they twist and shape it into the faithful slave's teachings but I have forgotten the intimate details.

Lilycurly

Well it okay, I'll just ask my dad and smile as he tries to explain that one out. Oh...oh wait, I can't speak to him anymore....well, I'll ask my mom to ask for me...

Honesty

Better hurry and ask her before she reads this little gem from the voice of GAWD:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm

Lilycurly

This makes me sick!

Fortunately, mom is not a JW anymore, we fight on the same side. Since they are married, she still can speak to my dad.

Narkissos

Watchtower 2/15, 1986:

·
In John 6:53, was Jesus referring only to anointed Christians when he commented: "Most 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"?
For many years we have explained these words as being limited to anointed Christians who will be taken to heaven to rule with Jesus Christ. However, a further study of this matter recommends a broader application of John 6:53.
Over the years we have viewed this text in the light of other verses that use similar expressions. For example, the phrase have "life in yourselves" is similar to Jesus’ words in John 5:26, which dealt exclusively with Jehovah and Jesus. Yet, as explained on pages 11 and 12 of this magazine, the context of John 5:26 provides the basis for understanding the words "have life in himself" in that verse. But John 6:53 was uttered a year later and has a different context.
Another influence on our previous view of John 6:53 was Jesus’ comment about ‘eating his flesh and drinking his blood.’ This had similarities to what Christ said when instituting the Lord’s Evening Meal. When instituting that, he spoke about his flesh and blood, and he directed that emblems of these (unleavened bread and wine) be partaken of by his followers who would be taken into the new covenant and into a covenant for a kingdom. (Luke 22:14-22, 28-30) Again, however, the context of John 6:53 needs to be appreciated.
When Jesus said what is recorded in John 6:53, his institution of the Lord’s Evening Meal was yet a year away. None who heard Jesus had any idea about an annual celebration with literal emblems standing for Christ’s flesh and blood. Rather, Jesus’ theme, or line of argument, in John chapter 6 had to do with his flesh being comparable to manna. There was a difference, though. His flesh (and, he added, his blood) was greater than literal manna in that his flesh was given for the life of the world, making everlasting life possible.—John 6:48-51.
Consequently, added research has recently highlighted that there was a time difference of a year between Jesus’ words in John 5:26 and his comments in John chapter 6; then it was another year before he instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal. Greater weight has also been given to the immediate context of John 6:53. Thus, the article on pages 15-20 offers a broadened application of John 6:53, including both those who are taken into the new covenant for heavenly life and those who have the prospect of endless life on a paradise earth.

So, in WT terms: most of those who actually do whatever "eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood" stands for are denied the symbol of their own condition.

Lilycurly

Sheeesh! Why is it always so complicated with them!? I read that and I feel like they are just trying real hard to confuse me.

Looking forward to hear how dad untangles his way out if this one!

Narkissos

What they say, in effect, is that John 6:53 is not about the Memorial.

In the same direction, they could have added that there is no Memorial (or Eucharist) in John's Gospel -- but this is meaningless to them because, like all apologists, they are not interested in the individual Gospels as distinct texts but in the supposed "unique history" behind them.

The Eucharistic overtones of John 6:51b-58 are almost unmistakeable though. But they are probably a later orthodox addition to the Johannine Gospel. Without them, the rest of the chapter makes sense as a non-Eucharistic description of Christ and his teaching as life-giving Wisdom from heaven (like the manna). That's what they have right (in part).

Now if you read (as they do) the whole chapter as a continuous unit, then it is almost impossible to miss the allusion to the Eucharist and there is no reason to deny the symbols of blood and flesh (i.e. wine and bread) to those who do eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood by living on his teaching.

Mary

Finally Free said: John Chapter 6 talks about "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood". But JWs will find some way of twisting it, saying the NT is primarily for the "annointed".

Ya, until they get to Matthew 28: 19, 20...........then, suddenly it's applying to "all Christians".

In preparation for the Memorial...

Share this