What Does It Mean to Be an Enemy of the Cross?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 02-22-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[annalex]

I did not accuse Jesus of blasphemy. I said that he was accused and convicted of blasphemy by Jewish authority interpreting Jewish law.

[Springfield Reformer]

But I don't think you take the discourse about "flesh is meat indeed" literally, ad so at least on that part I correctly said "you don't take these passages in John 6 as words of eternal life".

There is no requirement that we abandon the ordinary use of direct metaphor to believe what Jesus is teaching in John 6.  The fact is, the fair weather followers of Jesus who abandoned Him in John 6 did so precisely because they rejected the metaphor and went to a literal sense. That literal sense jarred them because it seemed to go against Moses. They didn't have enough faith in Him personally to realize He would never lead them into rejecting the divine law.  They didn't have enough faith to realize that when He was gone back to Heaven, they would have still been able to continue feeding on Him by faith, simply by believing on Him, and feeding on His words.  

Therefore you are not correct. Jesus in this passage does not insist on "literal" meaning for spiritual teaching, but rather confirms the opposite.

(2) The Catholics take these words to mean what they say ("my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed") and don't reach for hidden meanings to the opposite.

The spiritual meaning is not hidden at all.  As I have said repeatedly, Jesus states explicitly He is teaching about faith in Himself, and at a spiritual not a fleshly level. And Peter demonstrates the right response at the end of the discourse, not in an effort to literally eat Jesus, or to secure transformed bread and wine, but from out of his heart proclaim his faith in God's chosen Messiah.  The meaning, so far from being hidden, could not be more plain if it were written across all the starry host, "come to Jesus, and you will hunger no more, believe on Jesus, and you will never thirst again."

But those who wanted to understand him literally, because after all, the fishes and loaves were literal, they were blinded by their literalism. It was their literalism that drove them to reject the words that might have led them to eternal life.

we are not asked to be theologians alongside St. Thomas, but we are asked to take Christ's words on faith even when they are "hard teaching".

And indeed it was very hard teaching. The rabbinical teachers had concocted various stories of how Messiah when He came would provide literal bounty, literal freedom from oppressors such as Rome, a literal and outward kingdom that the power brokers could walk into with all their worldly glory, yet with uncircumcised hearts.  Messianic utopia without the new birth that changes a person from the heart.  This sort of literalism was a dodge, a way to avoid the pain of remorse for sin. It was central to the spiritual problem of the Pharisees.  Outwardly, they were lovely tombs, but inside was the stench of death. Throughout all of Jesus' ministry, He is teaching by parable, by metaphor, about truths that get past the superficial outside, and cut down into the deepest parts of the human heart, where the real problem resides.  It is a spiritual matter, and it always has been.

And that is what made Jesus' teaching so hard.  On the heels of one of the most spectacular and game-changing physical miracles in human history, a miracle that promised the elimination of hunger for all time, He turns it upside down and drives them to think about the true hunger all men and women face. What will satisfy that? Fishes and loaves? No literal food can satisfy a spiritual hunger such as that. But those who ingest Jesus by faith, who feed on every word that proceeds from His mouth, their hunger will be satisfied. He is the manna from Heaven, but He can only be consumed by faith. It is not enough to tag along for the miracles.  There must be a change of heart. 

It was too big a shift for most of them. They refused to see it in spiritual terms. All they had left was the literal, and they couldn't figure out how that could work. Yet there was Peter, to whom the Father had revealed the Son, demonstrating the very faith of which Jesus speaks. Hard, yes, but all things are possible with God.

Peace,

SR

[Mark17]

Boil, boil; toil and trouble...

Yes, and don't forget the all seeing eye of Lehkesis, Atropos and Clotho. 😀

[annalex]

I mean (a) insofar that the First Commandment is not a tradition. In general, yes, Jesus irritated the Jews also in great part by not following their traditions, but on the point of being the Christ who sits at the right hand of God, — that is a blasphemy unless you happen to believe that Christ is God. Caiaphas et al. judged Jesus according to their law and lacked the Christian faith. They applied the Law as they understood it.

[metmom]

Well. That about says it all.

[annalex]

How can Christ command someone to do something He had declared to be sin?

He could because Peter was no longer a Jew and would not be sinning by violating Jewish rules.

[metmom]

I’m not asking for a dissertation.

I showed you where you were wrong and you keep evading and deflecting.

[annalex]

He might be driving them away on purpose

Yeah, right. When protestant charlatans cannot explain plain scripture in front of them, the last resort is often that Jesus had that mean character and enjoyed sending people to hell rather than explaining Himself to them.

[metmom]

I did not accuse Jesus of blasphemy. I said that he was accused and convicted of blasphemy by Jewish authority interpreting Jewish law.

NO! You're moving the goalposts again.

What you said was THIS.

No question Jesus violated many of the precepts of the Jewish Law; He was, after all, convicted of blasphemy.

In that statement is your accusation of Jesus committing blasphemy.

You can't weasel out of it. It's there in black and white and too many people with reading comprehension skills have seen it for you to snow anyone.

[boatbums]

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

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.

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.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

That was the REAL reason those followers left. It wasn’t because they didn’t understand Jesus’ use of metaphor. These verses always seem to be forgotten. Why is that?

[metmom]

You still have not yet provided the Scriptural reference for your claim that claiming to be the Messiah violated the Law so that you accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

[metmom]

Wrong. At the Passover, Peter was an observant Jew.

He was still under the Law as Christ had not yet died and fulfilled it.

Had Peter eaten what he thought was blood, he would have been unclean and cut off from Israel.

Had he thought that what Jesus was telling him to do was literally consume literal flesh and blood, he would, as an observant Jew,. refused to do so and his own testimony, that he had never eaten anything unclean, exonerates him and proves you wrong.

[annalex]

Yes, believing in the Holy Eucharist being real encounter with real and whole Jesus is very important belief. It is in fact the belief that separates authentic Christians from fellow-travelers. This is why Jesus refers to the faith so often in this chapter.

[metmom]

Those verses aren’t forgotten.

They’re ignored.

[metmom]

Or they’re interpreted out of their clear and plain meaning.

[boatbums]

Not to ALL Jews it wasn’t.

[Springfield Reformer]

It is not our place to judge God.  The whole point of Jesus using parables was precisely because there were some He had determined to leave under the judgment they deserved:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
(Mark 4:10-12)

Incidentally, this is a hard teaching, is it not? Shall we be like those fair weather friends of Jesus who abandoned Him over a hard teaching?

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

Truly a beautiful lesson.

[Mark17]

You can't weasel out of it. It's there in black and white and too many people with reading comprehension skills have seen it for you to snow anyone.

Roger that MM. Remember, someone said he did not interpret scripture, he just read it, and tells us what it means. I can't remember who said it, but I laughed so hard, I almost blacked out.
You know, it is possible that there are some charlatans here. If I figure out any of their names, I will tell you. 😂😄😎

[annalex]

I ask or contradict in order to correct misunderstandings of the Catholic teaching. Similar to yourself, I post for the reader, not necessarily for the addressee of my posts. I try to avoid posting my opinions, even though it is sometimes hard to draw a line. I dismiss outright when someone starts some kind of speculation about the Holy Scripture without staying close to the text.

I also think that the world would be a better place if Protestant charlatanism were ridiculed more often. When I find time, I do my part. For example, on this thread it was asserted that Christ said one thing but meant the exact opposite, and that instead of seeking disciples He all of a sudden decided to drive them away and to what He just described as a state of damnation. That is rich material, worth of highlighting for all to see.

Yeah, we all would do better if we cut to the chase faster.