John 6 and what Jesus was saying to his disciples

Yes, Jesus has been misrepresented as Love, which detoured the believers into a focus on tolerating evil and even excusing it with efforts to stop capital punish, unilaterally with draw from war, argue that poverty is the cause of crime, to accept open Gayness in punlic, let young people fornicate ofr 14 years before marrying around age 26, stop corporal punishment in the schools, etc...

Jesus is about accepting Truth.
Jesus IS the Truth,... and he is the way of Life for believers in Truth.



John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

If John the Baptit was not the Elijah, the messiah could not come.

Since the New Testament specifically tell us that John was NOT The Elijah, we must conclude that Christ was "the one who came down from heaven where 800 years ago, the Elijah had gone up into heaven."



John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven

John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

NOTE:
John113 :And no man hath ascended up to heaven (as we read about in 32AD), but he, (The Elijah), that came down (after 800 years) from heaven, even (both are one and the same), the Son of man, which is in heaven (henceforth).

Six times in John 6 Jesus tells them he is the prophet that was in Heaven but came down:

 

1) Where your reading comprehension faulters starts with the verse wherein Jesus accuses these people of wanting free food.
He says to these people who will turn away from him, that they want the actual bread he miraculously creates for them, but they do not get his message.

He says he, and what he is teaching, is the thing that thy need focus on, not getting free food.
He says he is the bread that they must eat, a spiritual or mental fulfilling.

He doesn't care that these men leave because they have followed him for the comraderie and lunchs.


2) Jesus ritualizes the Eucharist so that his followers will thereafter remind the unbelieving Jews that he answered the ancient question of whether to drink the fifth cup of wine, the Elijah Cup.
The Jews traditionally taught that when Elijah returned, at a passover, he would tell them whether to drink from that cup or pour it out.

 

i'm really not interested in you bizarre interpretation. I don't believe God hides in obscurity.

 

Why is a literal "eating" (as the verb "trogo" tells us) excluded? Why can't it be both figurative AND literal?

 

I think Jesus meant himself as the “Word ´(that) became flesh and made his dwelling among us "(John 1:14). The disciples understood very well that it was the word, i.e. the message of God, that they’d have to ‘eat’ and not the physical body of Jesus. Otherwise they wouldn’t have buried Jesus after the crucifixion but have gotten out their knifes and forks.

And yes, in the imagery the author(s) of the gospel of John use here there’s an extended reference to the later crucifixion and the message it holds for us: God let His begotten Son die on the cross as the “lamb of God” so that He and humankind could be reconciled.

No that’s not at all what I suggested. Indeed I think the crucifixion has immense spiritual meaning. It’s not just another petty criminal who got crucified along with thousands of others, but Christ, who went through this suffering and death for us so that we may overcome death. In fact I deem this sacrifice so important that I deem human claims to repeat it ritually petty. We’re too small to offer an equal sacrifice in return, all we can do is being duly grateful.
In reference to the crucifixion “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.“ not only clear up that Christ did not speak literally, but can also be seen as comforting words for the disciples: They mustn’t dispair when the flesh, i.e. the physical body of Christ leaves them, because Christ’s spirit will remain with them. And that’s the main thing.
No contradiction whatsoever.

That you interpret His words literally doesn’t mean he meant them that way. In fact we don’t know what He said exactly. He spoke Aramaic, which doesn’t have auxiliary verbs. But as I pointed out context suggests that He didn’t mean us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. As I see it the author(s) of John make fun of the Jews taking Jesus’ words literally here (John 6:52) just like the Samaritan woman on the well took the words of the “living water” literally to begin with. And apparently early Christians did not take this literally. Transubstantiation is an idea that came up rather late. Augustine still warns us: “…our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many (Old Testament rites), and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3).http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

As pointed out above I see John 63 as a clarification of what He meant by "flesh" throughout the rest of the text. But as you pointed out somewhere in this thread one and the same verse can have a multitude of meanings. So if you find it encouraging to also see it as a reference to the physical life we live, I have no objections whatsoever.

Note that “sign” has a different meaning for Paul and Augustine. What Paul means with “signs” are miracles such as Manna raining from heaven or (even though he didn’t know about it) as the miracle todays Catholics see performed in the consecration supposedly leading to transubstantiation. What Augustine means with “sign” is a symbol. In his and my world the consecration would lead to filling the bread and wine with symbolic meaning.

The Last supper was a ritual Christ gave us to remember Him and His sacrifice, to gather strength not only nourishing our body but nourishing our souls by feeling unity with Him and with each other.

Again: I didn’t really want to go into all this, because I did not want to hurt your feelings. I hope I didn’t by clearing up my own viewpoint. As I said: while I don’t believe in it and think it's slightly weird, contrary to many other Protestants I don’t deem transubstantiation to be heretical idol-worshipping of a wafer. If it helps you to fill the Eucharist with special meaning for you, go for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but I'm not really that interested in your theories about Jesus being Eliah.

 

So you do believe that the “flesh” Jesus referred was literally his bodily flesh--his incarnate flesh. Good. We agree.

I’m trying to read you carefully so as not to assume anything. This sentence is unclear. In your prior sentence, you said the as John 1:14 states the “Word became Flesh and made his dwelling among us " ...Where do you make this leap of logic that the Word made Flesh then is to become no longer Flesh, but a message? Where is that evident. In John 6, Jesus clearly states “my Flesh is true food...my Blood is true drink.” (John 6:55). If you are “eating Jesus’ word...why are you ignoring that bit? Do you have some alternative reading of 6:55? I’d like to hear it.

c’mon… They didn’t know what Jesus meant specifically about this--they didn’t understand that Jesus was going to the Cross willingly. They heard his word and trusted his word--no matter how crazy Jesus sounded-- WITHOUT understanding and did not walk away. They were not “enlightened” fully until Pentecost. Faith comes before understanding--we walk by faith, not by sight. The Apostles chose to walk by faith--the ones who left chose to walk by sight.

What did the Hebrews do with the lamb Sacrificed at Passover. It wasn’t metaphorical there. Further, the Jewish Tradition had the sin offering also eaten.

http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm#Types
Did the kohanim (priests) or anybody else eat the animals offered?~Yes! Most types of offerings could be eaten. Certain types were eaten by the kohanim only, or by a specific kohein. Other types were eaten by the person offering the sacrifice and his family. The types of offerings and who was permitted to eat them will be discussed further below.
>>>>>>>>>>
Chatat: Sin Offering~A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin. It is an expression of sorrow for the error and a desire to be reconciled with G-d. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat, from the word chayt, meaning "missing the mark." ....A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person's personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim.

Now--as the part of the priesthood of all people--WE eat the sin offering made present on the altar by the Liturgical Priest (an Apostolic ordained man). We participate in the ONE Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus.

I need to correct you again concerning what Catholics actually believe...

--we don’t attempt to repeat Christ’s Sacrifice--we participate miraculously in the ONE Sacrifice. Please note the following:


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.(*).(*). this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

For further clarification, see: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass

Now you are suggesting that the word “flesh” in 6:63 both means his physical body and DOESN’T mean his physical body! Is this because you recognize that if he means His physical flesh it would mean Jesus is saying his Sacrifice would “count for nothing?” HERE’S where your grammatical analysis MUST come into play. What is He saying? On the one hand, you say it's literal: "They mustn’t dispair when the flesh, i.e. the physical body of Christ leaves them,..." ...and that it ISN'T literal: "the flesh counts for nothing"


You are attempting to have the passage mean two very different things. Which is it? His Flesh, or nothing?

What is the meaning of “flesh” in verse 63. Just answer that. What is THERE? NOT what you think it means in terms of your belief system, but rather what it means in the context of the Scripture right there.

Wait...so the Bible isn't good enough now?

And, what auxillary verb are you going on about? EAT is a simple verb. It most certainly is a word in Aramaic. http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=eat&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0


Perhaps this will help you, it is an interlinear Pes-hitta Bible. Please read John 6:55.
http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=eat&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0

EXACTLY! As YOU see it--not as it is grammatically presented by Jesus! Do you believe Jesus’ words? You say it’s about believing Him, and yet you’re claiming he’s being purposefully confusing (and “making fun of” people). Do you REALLY think Jesus is like that? I assure you, He isn’t. Jesus corrected misunderstanding--He DID NOT mock it!

Or maybe you're saying that the Bible doesn't represent what Jesus ACTUALLY said, since you rather blame "the author(s) of John " which suggests that there's some problem with the message of the Gospel....BUT WAIT! Didn't you say it was Jesus' "message" that was to be eaten? How can we eat that message if we can't trust the message? You are contradicting yourself all over here. Inconsistency shows FLAW in reasoning.

EXACTLY! “to begin with”...THEN he corrected her and TOLD her what He was talking about:

[25] The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things."
[26] Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."


I’ll get to the rest of your post later concerning Paul and Augustine...It’s not really about John 6, however, so it’s off topic a bit.

 

It's obvious that Joseph of Arimathea didn't have any qualms about eating Jesus. He took his words literally, which is why he had the body placed in his tomb. BTW, since Joe didn't live in Jerusalem why did he have a tomb there anyway?

 

There was an issue with my Aramaic bible link. Here it is...

http://www.aramaicpe(*)(*)(*)(*)ta....(*)(*)(*)(*)tainterlinear/4_John/Yukhnch6.pdf


Also, it is interesting to note that this Aramaic bible renders "flesh" as "body." In most of John 6, Jesus says "my" body," but in v. 63 it is rendered as " the " body which is distinctly different in meaning and less confusing to interpret. "My body" referring to Jesus; "the body" referring to physical life.

EDIT: this is rediculous--the auto censor won't let the link remain intact due to the word Pes hitta being in the url! Here it is broken in three parts--you'll have to manually put it in your search.

www.aramaicpes hitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Pes hittainterlinear/4_John/Yukhnch6.pdf

 

I suppose it can be both if one interprets it that way.

What I understand from John 6 is that Jesus had a lot of people socializing as so many church meetings will do to this day.

He realized that was what these supposed followers were interested in.
But he told them that thi was not one of those kind of casual get-togethers.
He told them that he was the one that had come down from heaven.
He was their Elijah.

This was a biggie, in other words.
But they just did not get the point, nor did they respond in the way his apostles had.

What he was saying almost had a sarcastic ring to it.
Eat my flesh, not this free bread you are focused upon.

This idea has the same symbolic meaning as the hunt for the hidden matzo during the Passover which is called Afiḳomen,eaten by all while chanting slowly in Aramaic: "This is the bread (symbolic) of affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt, (and the affliction about to occur in the coming crucifixion): whoever, (now in 32AD), is hungry come and eat (this bread which symbolizes me)."

 

I don't think Christians are supposed to take an interest in this because it criticizes their understanding of the entire Gospel story.
They will be defending their teaching as the converted Jews proselytize them to accept Elijah and the better understanding of the Gospels.
They will even accuse Christianity of having told the story so badly that a Jews could never have accepted what they claimed.

The last 2000 years has illustrated how effectively the Jews have managed to debate against the traditional christian teachings.

They will insist that had th Christians correctly identified Jesus as the messiah ben joseph, and the Elijah as the Christ, Jews would have bought into the Gospels long ago.

They will take a superior position to the churches of today and claim that they alone have the gospeltruth, gathering converts from traditional churches into their synagogues.

7 The Lord, (Elijah), also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David, (Christianity), and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (the orthodox Jews), do not magnify themselves against Judah (teaching Elijah is lord)..

 

Of course you are not.
It will be the Jews who "eat" this bread every passover and ooen the door for the Elijah to come in who will be very interested.
I am just laying out the argument those Jews will bring to you believers in Christ, the King of the Jews and root of the house of David.


Zech. 12:7 The Lord, (Elijah), also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David, (Christianity), and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (the orthodox Jews), do not magnify themselves against Judah (teaching Elijah is lord).

Zech. 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, (Hebrew-Christians, [Rev 5:5]) and upon the (House of Nathan, the theocratic) inhabitants of Jerusalem, (the House of Judah), the spirit of grace and of supplications: and (the rabbi), they shall look upon me [Mal 4:5; Rev 22:4] whom they have pierced: [Ps 22:16] and they shall mourn for him, (Jesus), as one mourneth for his only son, (actually, their Elijah who returned in 32AD) and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn: [Gen 22:2,13]

 

]

Why do you keep adding stuff to your quoting of verses? There is no indication you are correct in your interpretation.

Ex:
7 The Lord, (Jonathan Swift), also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David, (Lilliput), and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (Lilliputians), do not magnify themselves against Judah (teaching Gulliver is lord).



No really...Praise Gulliver! ........... [ /sarcasm]

 

Zech. 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, (Lilliputians-Brobdingnagians) and upon the (House of Flimnap , the theocratic) inhabitants of Jerusalem, (the House of Reldresal ), the spirit of grace and of supplications: and (the rope dancers), they shall look upon me whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him, (Gulliver), as one mourneth for his only son, (actually, Jon Swift--the Author of all) and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn: (see: Tale of the Tub)

 

Bracketed commentary does not grammatically speaking add to the text, but is used to explain what the text means to me.

Your own example is doing the same thing as you demonstrate how one could bracket funny remarks that are interjections of humor.
The intent is not to contend that my comments are the right ones, but to get them clearly on the table in context with the whole passage so one can evaluate that such a strong case that can be made.

 

hahaha...

But, the reader can see the joke you are making and understand how funny it would be if one actually argued that this what the Bible was saying.

When you place your own explanations for what you really do think Zech 12:10 means, then we here can then compare it to what I have placed on the table.

Do it for us.


Fill in the same brackets so we can see how you would interpret this verse within the context of the verse and the whole passage of chapter 12, which I have prepared already.
This context, the historical facts, the rest of scripture, and the comments made in the brackets are arguments we can examine for their reasonableness and comprehensive explanations.

 

Ok. Good. ...."strong" is an opinion. And again, as both Junobet & I have said, (one of the few things we apparently agree on), there is little ( read "no") interest in your interpretation (in this thread, anyway).

 

For the fourth time: START YOUR OWN THREAD. This thread is about John 6. NOT Zechariah.

 

Erm, “incarnate flesh” is a bit of a useless pleonasm. My little toe is “incarnate flesh”. I think what John 6 refers to is that Jesus was the incarnated word. God's word as embodied by Jesus is what His audience should strive for, not Mannah raining from heaven which may be miraculous but is just food for the stomach.

No leap of logic required. The man Jesus in a body that could feel physical pain, that would be bound by the same biological laws as all our bodies, which are in the end nothing but earthly vehicles for our souls, became a vehicle for the word/the spirit of God. Jesus Christ shared our lowly existence and finally was willing to suffer death, to bring this word/God’s message of reconciliation to us.
No offense meant, but I doubt you have difficulties with imagery modes of speech in general, your difficulties coping with them seem to be limited to this one topic.

The “flesh” is an image for the incarnated word, incarnated about 2000 years ago when Jesus was living an earthly existence and preached God’s word to the people. Not any more, Jesus died, and according to both our beliefs got resurrected and ascended into heaven. Note the meaning of “true” here in John 6. It means “true” in the sense that Jesus offers spiritual food as opposed to food to stuff your stomachs with. His food is food to stuff your souls with, which is much more important.

So all these extra-lessons Jesus gave His disciples were a waste of time? And how come that, not only does Peter not bother to mention transubstantiation in his Pentecostal sermon, but it took the church hundreds of years to come up with this idea? Christians like Augustine (354 – 430) would have found it as bizarre as I suppose both you and me find the creationists literal reading of Genesis bizarre.

Very clearly "Christ, lamb of God" is a metaphorical expression. Unfortunately in your example you show some problems with taking biblical symbolism too literally and too far. Yes, we see Christ as God’s Passover-lamb which we merged with the imagery of the scapegoat of Yom Kippur. “The ‘sin offering’ of Yom Kippur would not be eaten but be sent into the desert. Also Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice, not for the average person’s personal sin, but for the sins of all mankind, so he could probably be likened to the most special ‘chatatot’ of all. So if anything your reference to Jewish practices would be an argument not to have a Eucharist at all.

What I find surprisingly revealing in your quote is the bit I highlighted. I suspect that the Catholic Church finally embraced transubstantiation as a doctrine because it added a bit of miraculous mystery to the Eucharist and miracles were what impressed people at all times, especially in the middle ages: the more the better.

Answering that human demand is one of the Catholic Churches strengths, especially compared to the bare rationalism Protestants tend to restrict themselves to, but these days it also brings the Catholic Church into trouble. If the Council of Trient’s proclamation was absolutely true, the Catholic Church should occupy itself with the problems vegetarians might have with receiving the Eucharist rather than with the problems Alcoholics and people with gluten intolerance encounter. (http://www.adoremus.org/CDF_Lowgluten-mustum94.html) Without wanting to put words into your mouth, I assume that you’d now answer that transubstantiation involves more of a spiritual rather than a complete substantial change of the wine and bread. If that is so, we’d find that your and my understanding of the Eucharist would be much much closer than our discussion here might suggest. If that is not so … ah well.

I’ve amply pointed out what it means in the scripture right there. You are the one who has to jump to the conclusion that “flesh” in verse 63 must suddenly mean something different. I’m coming to the conclusion that Jesus clarifies what he meant by flesh all along: that what is incorporated in his flesh/his person: the spirit. You need to ignore this clarification in verse 63 to sustain a literal meaning and your material understanding of what happens at the eucharist.

 

Don’t mistake me for one of the ‘bible-believing’ evangelical fundamentalists who are rampant in the US. I’m a German Protestant, member of the EKD. The aforementioned fundamentalists wouldn’t be able to bear a single lesson in bible-studies in a German Protestant (or Catholic) Theology faculty. We tend to take historical-critical methods of exegesis seriously over here and they’ll tell you that the scriptures of the NT are a crutch when it comes to what Jesus really said verbatim, albeit they're the only ones we have and they are certainly good enough "testimonies of faith".

Sorry, I went on about the words of institution as found in Mark, a gospel the author(s) of John probably knew , but another text.

I’m sorry but a Pes-hitta Bible is not really helpful, if you are on a quest Jesus originally said and meant. As far as I’m aware of it’s merely a translation of the Greek scriptures of the NT into Syrian Aramaic. The authors of the original Greek gospels must have taken on some translations of the oral tradition of what Jesus once said in His Aramaic dialect. Some think there may have been some written Galilean Aramaic recordings the gospels authors may have known of and translated, alas if they existed they are lost and they’d probably leave you with the problem I tried to line out: Aramaic (which while my Greek is just bad, I admittedly don’t speak at all) is the kind of language that would leave the meaning of the words of institution even more open than the Greek version. Personally I think contextually the Greek versions undoubtedly present Jesus as speaking symbolically both in John 6 and in Mark 14 and the other gospels’ descriptions of the last supper. Feel free to differ.

Sigh. Jesus did not write the gospels. And yes, biblical scholars put the extremely negative attitude the gospel of John in particular shows against Jews down to this gospels author(s) historical situation rather than attributing it to the historical Jesus’ attitude.
The author mocks the Jews here for not getting what Jesus said and describes how Jesus explains it again and later gives a more intricate explanation to His disciples.

Just as He explains it in John 6:63.

It's not that off topic, as I put it to you that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation leads to mistaking the sign for the signified, a mistake Augustine criticized.

 

LOL
Why would one expect the other persons' opposing view to be complimented as interesting?
Do you think I find your labored attempts to make sense of eating Jesus as interesting commentary?

What is "strong" about the bracketed chapter 6 is the contextual consistency with the Passover seder.

The symbolic hidden three pieces of matza and the drinking from the Elijah cup, these all are connected in John 6 with the frustration inferred when Jesus willingly chases away a crowd, one interested only in eating free bread and socializing, instead of reconizing the implication of his having said, "I came down from heaven where only Elijah had previously gone up alive and well."

Seven times in John 6 this fact is mentioned, "I came down from heaven where only Elijah had previously gone up alive and well."
That is strong redundancy and explicitly a focus for attention.

 

I only respond tos psoted by you or others when they infer a discredit to my view here about john 6.
My consistent point of view on John 6 is that Christ was telling the crowd that he was Elijah, that prophet who had come as prophesied:


14 Then those men (who had experienced the miracle of multiplying the bread and fish), when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth, (Elijah), that prophet that should come into the world (Mal 4:6).

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king,(which he opposed because he is not from the House of David, but a Levite), he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

 

I don't find it "opposing," I find it irrelevant.

Do you realize how thread topics work?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay...well...we heard you. See ya.

 

Jesus was talking in metaphors in order to teach people not to take him litterally. Bread and blood were ment to represent the ideas, concepts , and nature of true spiritualism. Jesus was not a cannibal. Jesus was raising their conciousness as well as their ability to communicate and understand . L.

 

ings he spoke to

It is true that in all things, he spoke to the crowds in parables, which are very similar to metaphor.

I believe he used the idea of "eat bread" and "eat me" in the sense of ingesting the essence both nutritional acts, one physically nutritious and the other intellectually.