What I don’t understand is why they take the rest of the Bible literally, but refuse to do so with John 6.
Is something askew?
I got my question answered and made my point. I have no interest in plating in this specific mudhole any more.
Do you have literal rivers of water flowing from your belly as well? Do you believe John literally ate the scroll also?
What I don’t understand is why they take the rest of the Bible literally, but refuse to do so with John 6.
Perhaps there is envy that non Catholics reject some Catholic teachings because they cannot truly receive the Eucharist without becoming Catholics (or returning to the Catholic Church).
Perhaps they just like to protest, instead of doing the will of Father as Jesus lived and showed us.
“What I don’t understand is why they take the rest of the Bible literally, but refuse to do so with John 6.”
Well, that’s easy. We don’t take the “rest of the Bible literally”. Nobody takes everything in the Bible literally, that is a misunderstanding of fundamentalism.
Yes, its your understanding of what literal interpretation is.
Literal interpretation does not mean 'wooden' view of the text. It means consistent adherence to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. Grammar ... meaning the natural rules of language of the original ... Greek ... historical ... recognition of the historical context of the passage ... which in this case is the immediate context of all of chapter 6.
Literal interpretation recognizes the different genre of the scriptures ...
I would also point out that John is the only gospel that does not mention the institution of the Lords Table ... John 13-17 is the Upper Room discourse and John does not include it. ... therefore John 6 cannot be a foreshadowing of the Lords Table.
Many lesser events ARE recorded in all the gospels, including the Triumphal Entry which we all celebrated yesterday.