Arguments against John 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cephas

Guest
Would like to hear some of the arguments against John 6.
If Jesus was speaking “symbolically”, what ‘proof’ can be shown to support that?
 
I would ask where does it say in the Bible what is the correct interpretation of John chapter 6?

Since there is no such thing, it had to come from somewhere, and proving which interpretation is correct from the scriptures alone is not possible 🙂
 
One of the ways is the all the other disciples “went away”. Christ was only left with the original disciples. The gospel describes the people’s response to Jesus’s statements with statements like “these sayings are hard” and “who can listen to them”. They would not have reacted that way if he was speaking symbolically. I take these statements that the people there with Jesus knew he was talking about flesh. Only the original ones stayed and he asked them why do you stay. They may not have fully understood but they knew enough to stick around so they may come to understand fully.
 
40.png
ncgolf:
One of the ways is the all the other disciples “went away”. Christ was only left with the original disciples. The gospel describes the people’s response to Jesus’s statements with statements like “these sayings are hard” and “who can listen to them”. They would not have reacted that way if he was speaking symbolically. I take these statements that the people there with Jesus knew he was talking about flesh. Only the original ones stayed and he asked them why do you stay. They may not have fully understood but they knew enough to stick around so they may come to understand fully.
The first Biblical evidence of Protestants. 🙂

I’ve seen arguments against it, but they’ve all been so slippery and/or so flimsy as to evade discussion. Those arguments truly evaporate when you realize that Christ said it three times that he was the Bread of Life, two of those times saying that his flesh must be eaten, literally, and then followed it up twice more to indicate that he was serious about what he said.
  1. “I am the living bread”
Murmuring… you’re kidding, right? No, Jesus was not kidding. So he repeats it:
  1. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”
More murmuring… you’ve *got * to be kidding. (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”)
  1. Jesus: No, really, (“except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”)
More murmuring.
  1. Jesus: “Doth this scandalize you?”
Yep. They walk away.
  1. “Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?”
Look at the opportunity he had to "correct’ any misunderstanding! After they questioned him after his first utterance he could have said “Well, yes, I’m the living bread, but I’m talking about my message, my words. You’re not supposed to literally eat* me*, you silly geese.” Even after that they continued to question him as to whether he was speaking literally or metaphorically, and he continued to repeat the same message.

Sorry, but this is one of those sections in the Bible that’s really incapable of further interpretation.
 
One thing thta I always hear against John 6 is that when Jesus says the spirit is life and the flesh is nothing, that voids everything that he said before. Too bad thats wrong!
 
40.png
Cephas:
Would like to hear some of the arguments against John 6.
If Jesus was speaking “symbolically”, what ‘proof’ can be shown to support that?
Hi! One route that an anti-Catholic will take is the Jesus frequently says of Himself “I am the…” but not in these other circumstances do we take him literally. When He says “I am the door…” we don’t think he really is made of wood, in a rectangular shape with a metal knob. No, it’s obviously figurative. And why is that? Because we know the natures of doors and the natures of men (as in, what it is to be a door and what it is to be a man) and we further know that the natures are not the same. So, since we already know this basic metaphysical principle just from living reality and intercoursing with it, we don’t need to be told that to say “I am the bread, door, etc…” is figurative because it’s obvious. A man (or a God) cannot be bread. It’s antecedently a violation of basic metaphysics, which we all know. That’s the best argument I’ve ever heard anyway. Of course, it doesn’t take into account a number of things like:
(1) He says “I am the bread…” several times, much more so than in the other instances of “I am the…”
(2) He also says unambiguously in that very chapter “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life in him.” and it’s also stated negatively, “unless you eat of the flesh of the Son… you have no life in you.”
(3) He states it differently in the Last Supper discourse, “This is my body…This is my blood…” introducing a new phrase, which wouldn’t readily allow for so much confusion over figurative ways of speaking, which perhaps a phrase like “I am the…” is suggestive of a metaphor.
 
When it comes down to it there is no argument that makes sence.
 
I’m still trying to find the verse in the Bible where Jesus said “Hey, I was speaking metaphorically here!!!” 🙂
 
It is so hard to understand why otherwise logical people will reason illogicaly when it comes to this part of the Bible.

thank God for the guidance provided by the Holy Spirit, and His Church
 
If Jesus’ whole teaching in chptr 6 is suppose to be symbolic then why didn’t the crowd get disgusted and leave in Chapter 5? Jesus would have been teaching similar stuff if we are to believe that “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” are symbolic for “believing”.
 
No such arguments. Those who think they have are mistaken.

Which gives us really a deep sense of awareness and reverence each time we receive HIM in Holy Communion!

O how must we praise the LORD for his kindness and humility, that He should take the form of a bread to be our food! The beginning phrases each time the Mass is said over at EWTN should really make us stand in awe before God.
 
Gen. 6:4 prohibits eating flesh and blood together. “But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

This is the best that I can come up with. Noah and his son’s are being told what they can and can’t eat, so it appears to be more of a food safety issue. I don’t really know . . . does anyone have a comment?

I am a Protestant and I am considering converting. It was the Eucharist that drew me in, and after reading John 6 with an unbiased state of mind, I am increasingly convinced that transubstantiation is real.
 
Tyler Smedley:
One thing thta I always hear against John 6 is that when Jesus says the spirit is life and the flesh is nothing, that voids everything that he said before. Too bad thats wrong!
But then they’d have to argue that Christ’s flesh, the flesh He said He would give for the life of the world, was nothing. Ouch!

You can also point out that previous to speaking of “the flesh” here in John 6 Christ was speaking of “my flesh”. That alone is an indication that there are two different meanings involved.
 
40.png
sabrinaofmn:
Gen. 6:4 prohibits eating flesh and blood together. “But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

This is the best that I can come up with. Noah and his son’s are being told what they can and can’t eat, so it appears to be more of a food safety issue. I don’t really know . . . does anyone have a comment?
I’ve heard that this was a prohibition against trying to “eat the life” of the animal (and it was only animals that were being discussed), which I gather was a pagan concept. Christ, however, clearly invites us to “eat His life”. To me it’s the same difference as the difference between worshiping an animal and worshiping Christ. Just because the former is forbidden doesn’t make the latter forbidden – indeed, it’s required.
 
Sabrin: That’s great! Have you looked closely at 1 Cor. 11? And also, have you looked into the Greek Jesus uses in John 6? The verb he uses for ‘eat’ apparently gets more literal…the words he uses are apparently akin to ‘chewing’ and ‘gnawing’. Dave Armstrong’s book is great for explaining the Real Presence and many other issues, A Biblical Defence of Catholicism, which is available in a .doc format as well (his site is ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM).
 
Tyler Smedley:
One thing thta I always hear against John 6 is that when Jesus says the spirit is life and the flesh is nothing, that voids everything that he said before. Too bad thats wrong!
In my bible it says the flesh profits nothing. So I don’t get how people can confuse that. Great point by the way.
 
40.png
sabrinaofmn:
Gen. 6:4 prohibits eating flesh and blood together. “But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

This is the best that I can come up with. Noah and his son’s are being told what they can and can’t eat, so it appears to be more of a food safety issue. I don’t really know . . . does anyone have a comment?
Well, Jesus DOES command us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we will have His life inside us. If we don’t, we won’t have His life inside us.

Looks like He changed the rules, as He has every right to do so, since He is God.
 
40.png
sabrinaofmn:
Gen. 6:4 prohibits eating flesh and blood together. “But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

This is the best that I can come up with. Noah and his son’s are being told what they can and can’t eat, so it appears to be more of a food safety issue. I don’t really know . . . does anyone have a comment?

I am a Protestant and I am considering converting. It was the Eucharist that drew me in, and after reading John 6 with an unbiased state of mind, I am increasingly convinced that transubstantiation is real.
Congratulations 👍 , I hope we can welcome you home soon. I too am a protestant on my way home.

Shari
 
One argument against John 6 might be:

“How does one know that the Mass and the consecration of the bread and the wine by a priest is effective or necessary for one to comply with John 6?”

My approach to the answer is found in the history of the Eucharist, and, the occasional “uncovering” of the accidents of the bread and the wine. The well known Eucharistic Miracles, some of which can be seen in Churches today, clearly indicate the flesh of the heart of a man under extreme stress and the blood of a man. (see Eucharistic Miracles by Cruz)

This is the evidence, it cannot be explained by investigation. 😃

Joey
 
One reason (among many, I’m sure) I never excelled in debate is that I found it difficult to debate from the point of view that I don’t hold.

That being said, one Protestant fellow I spoke with about it appealed to a more general principle he held. He said the Jews of Jesus’ time were focused on the material, but Jesus’ interest was in the spiritual. What verses from the Bible would you cite to demonstrate this doesn’t apply to John 6?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top