The lesson was posted to address a mischaracterization : "The Protestants, therefore, agreed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Springfield Reformer addressed that with the following:
Not really. If there had been Protestants in the crowd that day, they would not likely ask 'how' as if it were a physics question. The physics approach would be more natural to those who had no experience with a mracle like that which Jesus had just performed, the feeding of the five thousand from the fishes and loaves. Now Jesus says He is the bread from Heaven and you have to eat His flesh and drink his blood and if you are stuck on physics you want to know the mechanism.But Protestants are well versed with metaphor. Jesus Himself is largely responsible for that. You know the drill. "I am the vine, the good shepherd, the light of the world, the way (path), the door (gate)." So a Protestant hearing Jesus' words would not ask a physics question like 'how.' All the normal language triggers are there to red-flag metaphor, so the Protestant would ask 'What is He teaching? Where is the analogy that helps us understand what He is saying?"
And that analogy is given, in verse 35:
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. (John 6:35)
The header, the main metaphor, "I am the bread of life." Analogy #1: Coming to Jesus will satisfy your hunger. Analogy #2: Believing in Jesus will satisfy your thirst.
These are very helpful analogies. They are saying the same thing. Coming to Jesus is believing in Jesus is having faith in Jesus, the core message of the Gospel. There is no physics question here.
Do we accept that a person who believes in Jesus will never again get hungry at dinner time? No? Why not? Shouldn't we be consistently literal? By what authority may we disregard the normal signals of metaphor to begin with a literal premise and then switch to metaphor when convenient?
Lets do it again. Does a person who believes in Jesus continue to have physical thirst? We are sure everyone here will Amen that, Catholic and Protestant alike. So obviously, Jesus is NOT referring to satisfying physical thirst. Still, literally He is speaking of thirst, agreed? It is a lesser metaphor used to explain the greater metaphor, Jesus as the Bread of Life. Of course "bread" here is not even literal bread. It is a generic term for the sustenance of life. Literal bread cannot satisfy thirst. So even at that level is it metaphor.
Which is fine, as every informed Protestant knows, because there's nothing the least bit suspicious or unspiritual about seeing metaphor where there really is metaphor. Indeed, for us, given our training and upbringing (I have always been a Baptist), it would seem dishonest to blow past all those clear indicators of metaphor and try to reduce what Jesus is saying to a test of faith over the physics of 'how.' No, for us it will always come back to the core question, Where is your faith centered? In the things you can do to earn your keep with God? Or in who Jesus is and what He has done for you?
Peace,
SR
746 posted on 1/16/2017 9:41:35 AM by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
If you, as a Catholic Priest, refuse to get the message, strongly revealed through reading verse 35 of John 6, then you will leap to the carnal explanation because it empowers tyou as 'specially qualified' to serve up bread and wine but transform them into the real FLESH, Blood, SOUL and DIVINITY of The Christ! Your org teaches that blasphemy as truth, refusing to comprehenmd because you lose your powerful position if you follow The Truth of Jesus's / GOD's teaching there.
Not just your immortal soul is in the balance here. The souls of those you lead away from The Spiritual Truth are imperiled as well. THAT is the reason I continue to contend with you over this most crucial catholic error.
Meant to includes you in the ‘TO’ line. Pingaling ... and God bless you for your faithful e4xplanations so adroitly delivered.
I read your posting. It does not logically or rationally or spiritually refute the words of Jesus Christ.
If you were with Jesus and he told you to do something for your eternal life, would you actually do it or would you question Him as many Jews did? And then tell Jesus that it is against the law and is repugnant.
Your comments indicate to me that you do not believe the Word of Jesus, and instead substitute your own meaning (or that of others)and still profess your Faith (Faith Alone) and try to use other quotes from the Bible to justify your false faith.
So you would stand next to God and ask a physics question on “how”? So you would question the all powerful and all knowing God on “how” He could do something? Shame on you protestants for having no faith and questioning that God would ask you to commit an evil act.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?l 17Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.m 1 Cor 10:16-17
Are you a former Catholic? Or just someone that is part of the churches of the Protestantism Heresy of the 16th century that has many different doctrines yet do not accept specific teachings of Jesus such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass,the Sacraments, marriage, the pope’s infallibility, etc.
I can sense your anger and frustration, but remember Our Lord’s Prayer that we need to ask for forgiveness and forgive others.
May you find God’s Peace.