“Moreover, when people misunderstand Jesus, he normally clears up the misunderstanding as we see in John 4:31-34 when the disciples urge our Lord to eat and our Lord responds”
A silly argument, since Christ declares in John 6, in response to their reaction, ‘The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that quickens.” And not only that, but when he first was asked how they might ‘eat his flesh,” He replies “Believe on Him whom God has sent.”
Such is Augustine’s plain and obvious reading of the text as well:
On these verses:
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
“Response: When Jesus asked this Samaritan woman for a drink in verse seven, she was most likely not only shocked that a Rabbi would speak to a Samaritan woman in public, but that any Jew would ask an “unclean” Samaritan to draw water for him. But in verse 10, Jesus answered her,... There is no doubt the Samaritan woman has it wrong here. But far from leaving her in her error, our Lord responds most profoundly, beginning in verse 16, “Go, call your husband…” And when the woman responds, “I have no husband,” in verse 17, Jesus reads her soul and tells her, “You are right… for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband.” He now has her attention, to say the least. And he then turns the conversation to what he was really speaking about in terms of the “living water” he came to give that would “well up to eternal life.” In verse 23, he declares,”
A deceptive response since, as a matter of fact, the argument that there should be a literal understanding of John 4 is greater than in John 6. Christ does not correct her. His comments in verse 23 are in response to the woman changing the subject, who asked Him where it was proper to worship. It wasn’t an explanation at all of how one can drink the water that gives eternal life.
” If Jesus was clearing up the point here, he’s a lousy teacher because he didn’t get his point across. According to verse 66, “many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” immediately after this statement. They obviously still believed his earlier words about “eating [his] flesh” to be literal because these “disciples” had already believed in and followed him for some time. If Jesus was here saying, “I only meant that you have to believe in me and follow me,” why would they be walking away?”
More sophistry on the part of the Catholic apologist. Christ declares that they would not believe, simply because it is impossible for them to believe unless it is given to them by the Father. They are blinded, and therefore cannot understand Him even when He is clear, since such is the nature of our depraved souls.
“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
(Joh 6:64-65)
The Papists need to stop reading their theology into the text, and instead let the test speak for itself.
Like Protestants do with Matt 16:18?
So I think what your are trying to say here Puny is: that his disciples walked away even though Christ cleared it up that he was speaking metaphorically because they couldn't understand because God chose the ones that would understand and the ones that wouldn't, "are blinded" on purpose?
If I am right here, I don't think I like the kind of god you are proposing, he sounds kind of evil, blinding people and all. The Jesus I know heals the blind.