Posted on 11/29/2014 2:59:15 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
I recently had a few young men looking to join the Catholic Church. Their math teacher told them that if they join the Catholic Church, they'll go to Hell.
Are you taking all of chapter 6 into context when you examine this?
It sure looks like the conversation begins in John 6:22 where the conversation begins regarding food. On more than one occasion Jesus is linking food and belief.
In v27 He tells the crowd to not work for food that will perish but for the food that endures to eternal life.
They respond in v28 by asking how may they work the works of God....His reply in v29 is to believe in Him.
Then they ask for a sign that they may believe and reference God giving their ancestors manna.
Jesus explains the Father has given true bread from Heaven and they reply in v 34 to give them this bread.
In v35 Jesus identifies Himself as the bread of life. He who comes to Him will not hunger and he who believes in Him shall not thirst.
In v36, which is critical to understanding this, Jesus says, "But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe."
He follows up on this in v40 by saying that everyone who believes in Him, may have eternal life.
In v41 the Jews aren't happy as He called himself the bread of life and then attempt to cast further dispersion upon Him by noting: Is this not the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say I have come down out of Heaven?"
Jesus knows they are grumbling about His statement as noted in v43.
From there He again links Himself with God in vv 44-46 and then restates the need for belief in v47 "Truly, truly, I say to you he who believes has eternal life.
He makes the connection that He is the the bread in 48 that gives life and continues this theme in vv 49-51.
In v52 the Jews debate as to how He can give His flesh for them to eat. They are aware of the OT prohibitions on eating blood so this is blowing their minds.
In vv53-58 we come upon the verses we are debating. These verses relate back to v35 when Jesus notes that those who come to Him will not hunger or thirst. We know this is a metaphor because as Christians we still get hungry and thirsty....but not spiritually. So if this is not literal why do we take the verses in 53-58 as literal when the clear meaning is have faith in Christ...believe in Him.
If we keep all of this in context going back to v22 we have to ask the following:
What message has Jesus been trying to communicate to the Jews?
How has He said we have eternal life?
What has He compared Himself too that came from Heaven?
To reinforce that this is all about believing in Him, He questions His disciples who were grumbling amongst themselves.
In v64 he notes "there are some of you who do not believe."
Peter reinforces this is about faith in vv67-69 when Jesus asks the twelve if they want to leave also.
Peter answers by noting that "You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."
The whole passage is about faith. Do you believe Jesus is the bread of life?
That's what He's asking the Jews and that's the message He still asks today. Is He the bread of life? Do you have faith in Him?
In all of John this is the central question Jesus asks of people....do you believe in Me?
bttt
When Jesus says "I am the door, if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:9
If you suggest John 6:53-58 is to taken literally...that the bread and wine are His flesh and blood, why do we not take this literally and believe Jesus is an actual physical door? Does He mystically turn Himself into a door that looks like one in our homes and we literally pass through it??
Of course not. It is a figure of speech as are the passages in John 6.
We see the figure of speech used again in John 15 when Jesus says He is the true vine and we are the branches. We do not take this to mean He is a literal vine and us branches.
Again, it all comes down to faith in Christ. In all these verses, He is attempting to drive home the point that only through faith in Him can we have salvation.
But what about the disgusted, outraged thousands of people that Jesus allowed to walk away?
1) Why were they outraged and disgusted in the first place?
2) Why did Jesus say nothing to calm them down?
Because Jesus didn’t say he was A door, he said he was THE door...he didn’t say he was A vine, he said he was THE true vine...he didn’t say he was A good shepherd, but THE good shepherd... etc.
So yes, those statements are all to be taken literally. If anything, the symbolism is backwards: it’s not that Jesus is like a door, it’s that a door is like Jesus.
Take a watch of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBgsJ73aYlw
Note that Jesus has just fed the crowd in the desert with miraculous food, like Moses. I.e., Jesus is a prophet, another Moses. If he can feed people miraculously, like Moses, then he can make law like Moses.
This he proceeds to do. He lays it down as law that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yes: this goes counter to the Mosaic Law.
The whole gospel of John is about believing that the Word became flesh.
So focused is John’s gospel on this point that there is little or no moral teaching in the Gospel of John; it is all about whether people believe or disbelieve that Jesus is God made flesh. Each encounter with Jesus ends with a person either worshiping him as God, or plotting to kill him.
The Catholic position on John 6 in no way involves denying any of this.
The Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is absolutely inseparable from this same act of faith. Obviously, if God did not become Man 2000 years ago, if the Word did not become walking-talking flesh, then it is preposterous to believe that this identical God-made-Man is present with us today through the signs of bread and wine. To believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist absolutely requires believing that “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us [2000 years ago].”
Again, the question is, Was Jesus saying something more disturbing to his Jewish audience than recommending to them a MENTAL act of faith? The reaction of the crowd is evidence that he was. St. John never hints that the crowd was revolted at Jesus’ words because they misunderstood Jesus. They repeated his words back to him: How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink?
“Give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink” is NOTHING like saying, “I am like food” or “Food is a good metaphor for me.”
But wasn't it God who fed the people through Moses?
As it was God who provided the manna isn't it God who provides His Son as the bread of life in John 6...as Christ noted in v 32?
Number lines in the early grades to teach addition and substraction have been used since at least the mid-60’s.
Dagogo redux, I was trying to be cute and wound up BEING a mean old Christian. Forgive me?
The reason we argue so much over these things is they are a BIG DEAL to us. I have probably goofy ideas re:Buddhism, but I imagine it isn’t the SoCal new agey stereotype its made out to be. Christians aren’t all whacko fundies, either. To us the stakes are enormous, so “live and let live” isn’t really an option for us who worship the Risen Lord.
Whatever truth you find in Buddhism, I point you to THE truth...Jesus Christ. Being eternal and alive and holding “all things together by His powerful word”, he can be called on and counted on!
Moses did not make the Law. He gave the Israelites what God handed down to him on the mountain.
Neither did Jesus come to change the Law. He said so Himself.
Not one jot or tittle from the Law is to pass away.
The Law was still in effect at the time of the Last Supper. Jesus had not yet completely fulfilled it, so the numerous prohibitions against eating blood were still in effect.
I wasted the 20 minutes watching this cute little thing...EVERYTHING IS LITERAL, he says...
I am THE door...Is that literal??? Of course...We know Jesus is the portal, the opening in to heaven...
Well, wait a minute...A portal, an opening into heaven IS A METAPHOR for door...
Who's this guy think he's foolin'? Lutherans???
Then when he gets to 'I am the true vine' he really loses it...From a 1 to 10 this guy gets a 1...At least he used some scripture...
2) Why did Jesus say nothing to calm them down?
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
These were all religious Jews...
Every one of them knew it was forbidden to eat human flesh and drink blood...Jesus said this to them in that way to offend them...
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
And in case that wasn't enough, Jesus continued to offend them some more...
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
And why did Jesus intentionally offend those people??? Because they didn't believe in him...
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
It was time to thin the crowd...Thousands believed in Jesus...Many more thousands did not...The last thing Jesus needed or wanted was to have thousands of people following him around for free food...They wouldn't have made very good witnesses to Jesus' ministry...
Joh 6:64 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.
So, Jesus didn't lose any real disciples...They weren't disciples any way...He wasn't concerned about them leaving...Likely had they believed Jesus about eating his flesh, he would have had to continue the story with something like, unless you chew your own fingers off in a show of dedication, you will in no wise make it to heaven...Jesus was looking to get rid of them...But the clincher was, that you guys ignore is:
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
This was the clincher, the frosting on the cake...Not that Jesus told them they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood...
Not believing Jesus, Jesus then tells them that since they don't believer in him, these religious Jews had no real connection to God...What an insult to a life long religious Jew...THAT is when they left...
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
There is far more in John 6 than those few verses you guys commandeer to prove your religion...
Why??? Certainly nothing offensive or in violation of the law was said in claiming he was the door or vine...
You ignored my first clause: “If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true...”
If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true, wouldn’t the declaration that we must eat his body and drink his blood be received by the crowd with the same equanimity as his statements that he is a door/vine/way, etc.?
Why??? Certainly nothing offensive or in violation of the law was said in claiming he was the door or vine...
I take into consideration that biblical interpretation that has developed for 2,000 years by the original church that Jesus founded is probably a lot closer to the truth than whatever interpretation that I come up with myself.
I consider ALL interpretations made by those who have fallen away from the true church to be at least partially in error. There have been hundreds of people who have started their own idea of what Christianity really means and all have fallen far short of Catholic interpretation.....in fact most are not even close to reaity.
+1.
If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true, wouldn’t the declaration that we must eat his body and drink his blood be received by the crowd with the same equanimity as his statements that he is a door/vine/way, etc.?
I must be missing something...I explained in two posts that the disciples who left Jesus were deeply offended because Jesus told them they must violate their own Jewish law by eating human flesh and drinking blood...
In the other case, there was no command that was so offensive...Why should they then react in the same way and how do we know they didn't???
It is noted that you and the others refuse to discuss scripture but try to deflect the questions and statements you apparently can't respond to...
So you admit you are blindly following your religion...
My point all along is that Jesus was really saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I thought that you were arguing that the words of Jesus were only metaphorical, i.e., that by “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” he was only saying “Have faith in me.”
It seems that I was mistaken. It seems now that your position is that Jesus DID say, and mean, that he was going to give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink.
That is exactly the position I have been arguing for. That is exactly why they left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.