Disciples Doubts

[Credo_in_Deum]

There is an interesting dissonance in the scriptures between the apparent fact of the miracles said to have happened, and the willingness of people to not believe that Jesus was anything special because of them. The dead rising, the miracle of the loaves, the tearing of the veil of the temple, the mass resurrections after the passion and Christ’s rising, and so on. yet the scriptures also record widespread unbelief. One explanation is that the miracles were in fact the sort of miracles we see reported today - fine if you belief, not if you don’t, and the the scriptures have exaggerated the physical facts of what happened. If the NT miracles happened as claimed, almost everyone would certainly, and with good reason, believed that Jesus had supernatural power. Yet they did not. The most likely explanation is that they did not see the miracles as reported.

I’m sorry but I will have to stop you there. The Scriptures comment on the widespred unbelief because they’re illustrating the fact that miracles do not have the power to convert those who do not want to be converted. We Humans have the ability to accept and reject the truth just like we have the ability to accept or reject love. I have the ability to know the truth and reject it. I have the ability to know love and reject it. I have the ability to Know God and reject Him. But lets not forget my ability to do these things does not mean I have the right to do them; as the Scriptures also point out.

I don’t know where you get this idea that if you saw a miracle you would be instantly converted or if you knew God you would automatically accept Him. Lets face it like any relationship if you’re selfish you will always do whatever you want regardless of how much you know the other person loves you and regardless of if it hurts them or even yourself.

When the scripture record the unbelief of those who witness Christ’s miracles they are showing us the sad state of hardened hearts.

 

[Faithdancer]

My friend, God is very clear in Leviticus 3:17 that the prohibition against blood is EVERLASTING.

Do you know what “everlasting” means? It means the prohibition never ends, but lasts FOREVER!

Are you saying that Leviticus 3:17 trumps the teaching of Jesus Christ?

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m sorry but I will have to stop you there. The Scriptures comment on the widespred unbelief because they’re illustrating the fact that miracles do not have the power to convert those who do not want to be converted. We Humans have the ability to accept and reject the truth just like we have the ability to accept or reject love. I have the ability to know the truth and reject it. I have the ability to know love and reject it. I have the ability to Know God and reject Him. But lets not forget my ability to do these things does not mean I have the right to do them; as the Scriptures also point out.

I don’t know where you get this idea that if you saw a miracle you would be instantly converted or if you knew God you would automatically accept Him. Lets face it like any relationship if you’re selfish you will always do whatever you want regardless of how much you know the other person loves you and regardless of if it hurts them or even yourself.

When the scripture record the unbelief of those who witness Christ’s miracles they are showing us the sad state of hardened hearts.

Amen I say to you, Credo in Deum! Those who reject God will go to extreme lengths to explain away the miraculous as “coincidence” or as something for which there is an as-yet-unknown scientific explanation. This is true even though “Occam’s razor” argues for the direct and simple explanation.

 

[Faithdancer]

If those who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s miracles knew them to be false, why would they continue to preach His divinity, and allow themselves to be martyred for something they knew was false? This is completely different from all of the subsequent martyrs who did not know Christ, but believed and died for their belief. I’m talking about those who knew Christ personally, and perhaps those others who may not have been eyewitnesses but had prolonged and intimate discourse with those who were eyewitnesses- e.g. Luke, and of course Paul, who had additional motivation to believe.

I can anticipate the skeptics already, who will say that there is no proof the Apostles were martyred, or even existed, the Gospels and Acts are fabricated, etc. etc.

 

[Faithdancer]

Why? Did your mother always understand you?

Great point, Pete. And I will add that Mary understanding Christ who is true man and true GOD is quite a bit more complicated than a human mother understanding a purely human child.

 

[Faithdancer]

Exactly. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, and what you’ve been avoiding.

At the time of John 6, Jesus is still alive and uncrucified; therefore, the New Covenant is still future, and the Old Covenant is still in effect.

It is impossible for Jesus in John 6 to be instructing that His flesh and blood be literally eaten, otherwise, He is instructing the Jews to break God’s commandment to them.

God doesn’t tempt people to sin (Jas 1:13,14).

The new Covenant began with the institution of the Eucharist, not with the Crucifixion. John 6:35-58 relates directly to the institution of the Eucharist, which was completed at the Last Supper. John did not relate the details of the Last Supper, but eminent theologians such as Scott Hahn write that John was quite familiar with the Synoptic Gospels’ versions of the Last Supper, and for whatever reason chose to relate the institution of the Eucharist in a different manner. The words, however, in John are strikingly similar, and their meaning much more elaborated upon by Christ than in the Synoptic Gospels.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Leviticus said the that we cannot eat or drink blood, and this law is everlasting. That is true.

Jesus said we should eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

So which should we follow, the Law of Moses (Leviticus) or Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Of course Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning He is the Lord of the Law. Just as the commandment to rest on the Sabbath was overruled by Christ, he can overrule any law as He is the Lord of the Law.

 

[Faithdancer]

Here is a link to the argument by Scott Hahn who, btw, was a Protestant minister prior to his conversion to Catholic Christianity: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm

And of course, as Dr. Hahn points out, the setting in John 6 is the time of Passover…

 

[Faithdancer]

Leviticus said the that we cannot eat or drink blood, and this law is everlasting. That is true.

Jesus said we should eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

So which should we follow, the Law of Moses (Leviticus) or Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Of course Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning He is the Lord of the Law. Just as the commandment to rest on the Sabbath was overruled by Christ, he can overrule any law as He is the Lord of the Law.

Amen to another of your posts, ConstantineTG! To argue against Christ’s own words using the old Law is…problematic.

 

[Mystophilus]

The Law isn’t a “preconception,” it’s the law, and what it prescribes is real. The prohibition against blood in Lev 3:17 is “everlasting.” There’s absolutely no confusion about that in the passage.

“Preconception” means “pre-existing idea”. In this case, the pre-existing idea was that consuming blood was wrong, but that is precisely what Jesus is asking his disciples to do in Jn 6, whether or not he meant it figuratively, hence their unhappiness in vv. 601.

Those who left understood wrongly that Jesus meant they were to literally eat His flesh and blood.

Those who depart do so in v.66, after Jesus makes further comments, and the text does not say what they understood.

 

[gus]

I am so sorry, I will pray for you.
May God bless you

20,000 people including atheists witnessness the mirrcle of the sun in 1917 it was well documented How many today ever heard of it.
Most people are like thomas unless you put you hand in the wounds you do not believe.
Why would you assume the 5,000 or 6,000 people being fed would equate that with eating the flesh of Jesus.
The former is something you do every day and recalls mana from exodus
for for sustaining an eartly life
The latter is asking for something not allowed by the Jews which will allow for eternal life.
The one in the former context is in the body and for the earthly body
The latter can only be comprehended by being in the spirt.
Its the greatest test of true faith

 

[William_C]

Are you saying that Leviticus 3:17 trumps the teaching of Jesus Christ?

I’ve clearly said that Jesus would never “trump” the law.

 

[William_C]

The new Covenant began with the institution of the Eucharist, not with the Crucifixion. John 6:35-58 relates directly to the institution of the Eucharist, which was completed at the Last Supper. John did not relate the details of the Last Supper, but eminent theologians such as Scott Hahn write that John was quite familiar with the Synoptic Gospels’ versions of the Last Supper, and for whatever reason chose to relate the institution of the Eucharist in a different manner. The words, however, in John are strikingly similar, and their meaning much more elaborated upon by Christ than in the Synoptic Gospels.

The Eucharist is future to John 6.

 

[William_C]

Leviticus said the that we cannot eat or drink blood, and this law is everlasting. That is true.

Jesus said we should eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

So which should we follow, the Law of Moses (Leviticus) or Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Of course Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning He is the Lord of the Law. Just as the commandment to rest on the Sabbath was overruled by Christ, he can overrule any law as He is the Lord of the Law.

Well if Jesus saying that He was the Lord of the Sabbath overruled the law regarding the Sabbath then I should expect that were He overruling the law of the blood He would say that He was the Lord of the blood.

But He says no such thing. Eating Jesus flesh and blood is sin to the Jews of John 6 (cf Lev 3:17).

 

[William_C]

“Preconception” means “pre-existing idea”. In this case, the pre-existing idea was that consuming blood was wrong, but that is precisely what Jesus is asking his disciples to do in Jn 6, whether or not he meant it figuratively, hence their unhappiness in vv. 601.

Then Jesus is instructing them to break the commandment of God.

That’s why the Jews left, they took Him to mean that they were to literally eat Him, but it’s obvious that’s not what He meant. That would be a violation of the law, and Jesus knew that as well.

Your position, however, is that Jesus is encouraging them to sin when James is clear: God doesn’t tempt anyone to sin (Jas 1:13, 14)?

Jesus cannot mean the literal eating of His flesh and blood; that would be sin (Lev 3:17).

Mystophilus:

Those who depart do so in v.66, after Jesus makes further comments, and the text does not say what they understood.

So you admit you have no idea why they left. OK. You don’t know.

I know why they left. It’s in v65.

 

[Faithdancer]

Then Jesus is instructing them to break the commandment of God.

That’s why the Jews left, they took Him to mean that they were to literally eat Him, but it’s obvious that’s not what He meant. That would be a violation of the law, and Jesus knew that as well.

Your position, however, is that Jesus is encouraging them to sin when James is clear: God doesn’t tempt anyone to sin (Jas 1:13, 14)?

Jesus cannot mean the literal eating of His flesh and blood; that would be sin (Lev 3:17).

So you admit you have no idea why they left. OK. You don’t know.

I know why they left. It’s in v65.

 

[Faithdancer]

The Eucharist is instituted by The Word in John 6, and in the relevant chapters describing the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. The New Covenant begins with the institution of the Eucharist. How fortunate we are, as Catholic Christians, to understand this and to celebrate the New Covenant at every Supper of the Lamb! Deo gratias!:harp:

 

[William_C]

The Eucharist is instituted by The Word in John 6, and in the relevant chapters describing the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. The New Covenant begins with the institution of the Eucharist. How fortunate we are, as Catholic Christians, to understand this and to celebrate the New Covenant at every Supper of the Lamb! Deo gratias!:harp:

Your catechism says the Eucharist was not instituted in John 6, but with the words, “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” (See below, para 1365).

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in **the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” **In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The New Covenant was not institued at the Last Supper, but at the death of Christ (cf Heb 9:16ff).

 

[Faithdancer]

John 6:53-56

From Ecclesia Eucaristia, by Pope John Paul II: “the actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper laid the foundations of the new messianic community, the People of the New Covenant.”

And based on the writings of none other than our current Pope Pope Benedict XVI:
"The establishment of the new covenant is described by the words of institution spoken by Jesus over the cup during the Last Supper. In the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mk. 14:24), which echoes the institution of the Mosaic covenant in Exodus 24:8. A covenantal ritual of this kind establishes a blood-union or kinship between its participants. Through the covenant, God establishes a “mysterious consanguinity” between Himself and man. By declaring the cup to be the “blood of the covenant,” Jesus is stating that His blood, poured out in His Passion and made really present in the Eucharist, will reestablish the bond of kinship between God and man. In this way, “the words of Sinai are intensified to an overwhelming realism.” The Last Supper was fundamentally the “sealing of the covenant” and the Eucharist is now “an ongoing reenactment of this covenant renewal.” from cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/Pimentel.asp:bowdown2::angel1:

 

[William_C]

John 6:53-56

From Ecclesia Eucaristia, by Pope John Paul II: “the actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper laid the foundations of the new messianic community, the People of the New Covenant.”

And based on the writings of none other than our current Pope Pope Benedict XVI:
"The establishment of the new covenant is described by the words of institution spoken by Jesus over the cup during the Last Supper. In the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mk. 14:24), which echoes the institution of the Mosaic covenant in Exodus 24:8. A covenantal ritual of this kind establishes a blood-union or kinship between its participants. Through the covenant, God establishes a “mysterious consanguinity” between Himself and man. By declaring the cup to be the “blood of the covenant,” Jesus is stating that His blood, poured out in His Passion and made really present in the Eucharist, will reestablish the bond of kinship between God and man. In this way, “the words of Sinai are intensified to an overwhelming realism.” The Last Supper was fundamentally the “sealing of the covenant” and the Eucharist is now “an ongoing reenactment of this covenant renewal.” from cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/Pimentel.asp:bowdown2::angel1:

Hopefully he didn’t make that assertion ex-cathedra because God says,

"For a testament is in force AFTER MEN ARE DEAD, since IT HAS NO POWER AT ALL while the testator lives" (Heb 9:17).
According to God, the New Covenant was instituted at the death of the Lord on the Cross.