Replies

Why is that an "example"?

Try reading just a little bit further on to verse 62 (as numbered in KJV, being that the Douay has differing numbers than most others for various passages, quite often).

That's right, not verse 63, but 62. ~What~ was He talking about there ~and~ how could that relate to the passage you brought which is one of those alleged "high order concepts" few around here are capable of understanding?

Then go ahead and put those two (verses 62 &63 --for those of you in Rio Linda) together, and after some contemplation of how those not only go with the previous but are indeed very much key to the rest --- of not only John 6, but beyond also, tell us in your own words how so.

That could demonstrate to one and all just how well either of you two geniuses actually do understand "higher order concepts".

You guys are both talking about it -- and how others "have trouble with even simple concepts", let's see just how much better it could be if those whom really really knew, would really really reveal just how much they know!

Just think of what a wonderful world it could be! So bright and shining, if only the pair of you would lift the lamps of your own brilliance and light a path the rest could fruitfully follow!

Now -- this oh so very brilliant and illuminating 'breaking of bread' (the bread of the word) of which; whom-ever would it ever be that could doubt for even the briefest moment --->that either or both of you do indeed have as talent and gift to understand these sort of higher concepts?

Why, not me...no, I'm just one of those who so ~obviously~ would be dependent upon the brilliance of you both to dispel "the darkness" of how John 62-63 has been all but entirely orphaned from the light of the marvelous, magical, munificent Magesterium's scriptural expository expertise.

The absence of common (RCC sourced) theological treatment and discussion for those verses is puzzling beyond measure, being they are so generous with their words in much everything else which they so centrally identify themselves as primary & foremost if not only proper interpreters of.

To truly understand a thing, one does need to also be capable of explaining that thing..?

If that true...and if either or both of you guys were relying on perceived lack of ability in others to explain things, as sufficient evidence that these same persons not understand the precise sort of higher concepts which you brought rather naked scriptural sign of -- then where are your own explanations showing one and all for a certainty that you both do understand the particular concepts, including in those discussions full [enough] treatment & incorporation of consideration for the "two" verses I have been continually referring to?

We are to trust you that you know things? But at the same time, assume that others whom demonstrate 'lack' of ability to "explain", is proof they lack ability also to understand -- again trusting your own declarations as to these conditions?

Sadly enough the RCC magesterium, along with and oodles and gobs of RC apologists -- more than one can shake a stick at, do seem to have set near fully aside this lonely pair of sentences (as if those were mere & negligible afterthought) even though both of them (verses 62 & 63) are attributed to having been uttered by none other than Christ Himself, when he was speaking of what it meant, what He intended to be understood, concerning this consumption of His own flesh and blood.

Being that the two of you both are so capable of understanding Higher order concepts(?), to establish this now beyond any further doubt and enlighten others too, the (I'm so sure will be) illuminating explanations & treatments, do need to be written out, in your own words, expressing your own thoughts and understanding.

It would fairly well need to be in your own words regardless, for in discussions of scriptural foundations for RCC Eucharist theology, although other portions of John 6 have had veritable train-car loads of ink spilled concerning them, in comparison, those two otherverses (John 62-63) I do doubt there is much available in the way of opportunity for copy/past from, that would have been written by RCC source or apologists.

What is called for, is fuller considerations of how verses 62 & 63 should well enough apply --- to not only the rest of what preceded those two verses in John 6, but what can be gleaned from Luke 22 also, and how John 4, John 14, Matthew 17, Psalms 78, Psalms 139, Exodus 1, and yet even more can relate to John 6 -- (for that chapter though speaking of perhaps only a relative handful of concepts, can use support from the chapters I have just mentioned, and those other chapters too are themselves further illuminated in turn by John 6) --- all of which should be a piece of cake, simple-dimple, easy-peasy to discuss & demonstrate for those whom truly do have 'High & Holy'(?) magisterial-like ability to understand "Higher order concepts" that other people "have trouble with".

Take your time(!) all the time you may need. I'll wait.

You know, like the Jewish mother in the light-bulb joke?

How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb -- None, "that's ok, I'll just sit here in the dark" (which assumes she speaking to someone else of course, to make the joke 'work')

What's the difference between Jewish babies and Catholic babies?
Jewish babies are born with guilt, but Catholic babies have to go to catechism school and learn it.

Did you hear about the pope's first miracle? He touched a cripple and made him blind.

Two Irishmen walked out of a bar. Hey, it could happen.

If a moose bit your sister, and cheese in Wisconsin does not come from cows as happy as the Milk Board says that California cows are, did your sister bite the moose back before running off and joining the Flying Wallendas?

See? somebody's sister can be and understand concepts like high and 'balance', too, all while working in full view of a peanut gallery.

Are you going to let your (or somebody else's?) kid sister ...her having suffered so from that moose bite) now make yourself appear as flea-bitten puny and scowl-y face bitter in comparison to her and happy California cows too?

Or will it be explained why He asked -- What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

As helpful hint to assist one in beginning formulation of the needed essay of explanation, I would ask; can it be determined where it was the He (Jesus Christ) went when He was seen to Ascend?

When He arrived fully there, back to where He was before, would He need there to Himself eat and drink just exactly as He did when still as yet-to-be transfigured (as I here admit to assuming that He likely was transfigured/transformed into incorruptible "flesh" which is Spirit, in some way, along the way when Ascending back to where He was before).

Would He there still need oxygen to breath, food to eat, something to drink, even vitamin C lest He come down with scurvy --- or is that place He was before, far beyond things of this earthly realm in ways most all of us still abiding upon this planet's surface know not much of?

As it is written, God is a Spirit, and those whom would worship Him need do so in spirit and in truth.

Since by your own testimony is could be assumed that you do(?) understand the higher concept associated with the scripture you provided for example of the same --- then there could be so many other "Jewish-mother light-bulb joke" persons sitting around in the dark needing you to do something about that bulb, and

Let your light so shine before men they can see your good works and glorify your father in heaven

unless

and leave those poor jewish mothers out there sitting around in the dark?

What would that little sister have to say about that? Don't you love mothers? Mary was a mother herself. A Jewish one, even. Do you want to make her sad? How could you even dream of doing such a thing?

There is no option left. You must write it all down, and tell of these higher concepts, so that others will be able to see the light.

Allow the Early Church Fathers to set your mind at ease about John 6:62-63:

CHRYS. The revelation however of these hidden things was a mark of His Divinity: hence the meaning of what follows; And if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before; supply, What will you say? He said the same to Nathanael, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, believe you? You shall see greater things than these. He does not add difficulty to difficulty, but to convince them by the number and greatness of His doctrines. For if He had merely said that He came down from heaven, without adding any thing further, he would have offended His hearers more; but by saying that His flesh is the life of the world, and that as He was sent by the living Father, so He lives by the Father; and at last by adding that He came down from heaven, He removed all doubt. Nor does He mean to scandalize His disciples, but rather to remove their scandal. For so long as they thought Him the Son of Joseph, they could not receive His doctrines; but if they once believed that He had come down from heaven and would ascend thither, they would be much more willing and able to admit them.

AUG. Or, these words are an answer to their mistake. They supposed that He was going to distribute His body in bits: whereas He tells them now, that He should ascend to heaven whole and entire: What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? You will then see that He does not distribute His body in the way you think. Again; Christ became the Son of man, of the Virgin Mary here upon earth, and took flesh upon Him: He says then, What and, if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? to let us know that Christ, God and man, is one person, not two; and the object of one faith, not a quaternity, but a Trinity. He was the Son of man in heaven, as He was Son of God upon earth; the Son of God upon earth by assumption of the flesh, the Son of man in heaven, by the unity of the person. THEOPHYL. Do not suppose from this that the body of Christ came down from heaven, as the heretics Marcion and Apollinarius say; but only that the Son of God and the Son of man are one and the same.

CHRYS. He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i.e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yes, verily. In saying then that the flesh profits nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word.