Transubstantiation and John 6

[spockrates]

A similar question Jesus’ disciples asked in Matt 13,10 and Jesus gave the answer right away in Mt 13,11: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’

So, let’s make sure to belong to those to whom it had been given to understand, for they kept doubts away, - and not to those to whom it has not been given and is refused, for the clear reason of doubting in the first place and keeping up doubts; and therefore will hardly ever receive the gift of comprehension - for God knows they’d misuse it.

Yours
Bruno

Yes. So it seems Jesus’ speaking in parables might have the same goal as making ambiguous statements–to obscure the truth from some who should not hear it. The question is this: Why? Why is it sometimes more loving and more wise to keep the truth a secret from many? I have an opinion about that, but I’d like to hear what you think, Bruno.

 

[Cinette]

Yes, but the question still remains for the one trying to decide: Is the rock who Peter is, or is it instead what he said?

*That is very easy!

In French Pierre is a stone. In Portuguese Pedro is a stone (which is pedra because it is female - pierre is also female but the spelling does not change)

So my friend Peter is the rock! Peter is the “rock” on which Jesus built his Church. Why is it so complicated for you?

Cinette *

 

[spockrates]

*That is very easy!

In French Pierre is a stone. In Portuguese Pedro is a stone (which is pedra because it is female - pierre is also female but the spelling does not change)

So my friend Peter is the rock! Peter is the “rock” on which Jesus built his Church. Why is it so complicated for you?

Cinette *

Not complicated. Just ambiguous. Evangelical pastors point out, as you said that the Greek for Peter means a small stone, but the Greek for the rock does not mean a small stone–it means a large rock, like a bolder. So they say the stone is not a rock, and Jesus was speaking of the truth Peter spoke rather than the truth about who Peter is.

It seems the words alone that Jesus spoke are not enough to settle the dispute among Protestants and Catholics. Don’t you agree, Cinette?

 

[Porknpie]

Not complicated. Just ambiguous. Evangelical pastors point out, as you said that the Greek for Peter means a small stone, but the Greek for the rock does not mean a small stone–it means a large rock, like a bolder. So they say the stone is not a rock, and Jesus was speaking of the truth Peter spoke rather than the truth about who Peter is.

It seems the words alone that Jesus spoke are not enough to settle the dispute among Protestants and Catholics. Don’t you agree, Cinette?

Evangelical pastors don’t know their Greek and/or their hearts are hardened in discerning the truth. This tract explains it nicely. Note that there are numerous words in Greek for stone, rock or pebble…believe eight or more. Translating from Aramaic to Greek, you can not give St. Peter a female name. You are Spock, not Spockette.

Live long and prosper!

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock#.UHK0QZG9KSM

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

Quantity means nothing.

The very issue with Protestantism is the inablity to simply read what is there and respond to that - without all of the layers of those who were in revolt and those who revolted from them and so forth until today.

I am quite serious - approaching this scripture passage anew - without any bias - and just writing a brief summary of what you read is the challenge that few can accept. And, the reason for this is that is strips away the deceit of those who call Christ’s Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - the Real Christ - as a mere symbol.

Hey, all I can do is point in a direction. It just does not seem to me that a 100 word summary would be considered threatening or offensive or a burden or any of the other dismissive remarks that have been offered, from those who claim to understand John 6.

Ultimately, we are all responsible with how we respond to the Grace of God as we make the choices that form our lives.

If you change your mind, I’m here.

God bless

I suppose I’ve written more than 10 times that many words on John 6 in discussion threads such as this, Tom. But it took just 12 words to convince me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

Not to steal any of BrunoMarie’s thunder … … let me offer a response.

First of all, your attetion is directed to Luke 8:10 - and, here is a link giving the entire Chapter so there are no context difficulties: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_8

We really do not have the standing to ask God 'Why?" He chose to do as He did. Why this and why that, and “This is more ambiguous then that and none is really clear!” are all statements of men trying to think as men - and not seeing as God sees. Samuel the Prophet had to come to grips with this - here is an interesting Chapter: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_Kings_16 and I bring this to your attention to see how God want about chosing David through Samuel, and that God removed His Spirit from Saul. Everyone is asking 'Why?" - and the only real answer is that God chose to do it this way.

Like so many others, throwing up one’s hands and claiming that such and such is beyond understandable is only partially correct. The correct response is to fall to our knees and clearly identify the limits of human understanding and believe as a little child. St. Augustine prayed for more Faith so that he could understand - and not greater understanding so that he could have more Faith. We can not fault God for our lack of understanding - our ‘job’ is not to understand the workings of God - only to have Faith in Him. Lacking that, we quickly become the plaything of Satan.

Speaking of St. Augustine, here is a prayer that has been inspirational to me:

Lord, I commit my failures
as well as my successes
into your hands,
and I bring for your healing
the people and the situations,
the wrongs and the hurts
of the past.
Give me courage, strength and generosity
to let go and move on,
leaving the past behind me,
and living the present to the full.
Lead me always to be positive
as I ‘entrust the past to your mercy,
the present to your love,
and the future to your providence’.
And the link it came from: prayingeachday.org/100Prayers.pdf

God bless

Yes. So it seems Jesus’ speaking in parables might have the same goal as making ambiguous statements–to obscure the truth from some who should not hear it. The question is this: Why? Why is it sometimes more loving and more wise to keep the truth a secret from many? I have an opinion about that, but I’d like to hear what you think, Bruno.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,

Some do know Greek - but, chose to follow in the path of those who rebelled and apply their own personal interpretation. I do think there is an issue of hardened hearts here - a genuine reluctance to look at this in a fresh new way.

For example, most Protestants appear to get ‘hung up’ on this ‘big rock vs little rock’ problem that they themselves have created. When Christ appears in Matthew 16 - we do not hear about crowds surrounding him as is reported in other accounts of other events (and, sometimes they are even numbered, like the 5,000 men he few with bread and fish). While we do not know what language Christ spoke when He was along with His Apostles - my guess is that it was all in their native tongue - Aramaic. Matthew wrote in Greek because that was the language his readers were most familar with.

What tends to be forgotten is that Christ only gave the Keys to Peter - Scripture does not record that there were 11 copies waiting to be handed out, or that Christ told Peter that after he ‘turned’ he was to strengthen his brothers (the other Apostles) or that Christ specifically charged Peter to feed Christ’s lambs and sheep. Naaaaaaw… all of that - along with all of the Early Church Fathers - accepting the Successor of Peter as the leader of the Church - is thrown out because of this ‘big rock vs little rock’ smoke screen.

Now, this is just a theory of mine … so, take it for whatever it is worth. As I see it, those in revolt had placed themselves in quite a bind. They all started out as practicing Catholics who believed in the Real Presence (Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli were all Catholics - and Calvin never rejected the infant baptism he received!) But, ultimately, all valid ordinations have their origin in Rome - and having rejected Rome … well … they realized that soon all of the priests who aposticized with them would eventually die and then no one could even come close to the Consecration of the Host and Wine. So, they just dropped their belief in anything that would involve an ordained priest. Luther came up with his solution: “Priesthood of all believers” ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mackenzieearlyluther.pdf And others in revolt saw that as the only thing they could do, too. So, we move from rejecting a sinful man who was Pope - to rejecting the Successor of Peter - to rejecting the need for a priest (and of course that meant all of the Sacraments). Simply stated, the entire ‘theology’ is based on rejecting what Christ said, then questioning if He really said it, then questioning the interpretations that have been present for 1,600 years - and with no further attachment ot Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - everything spun out of control. At no time did any of those in revolt claim Christ had appeared to them and told them He was revoking the promise He made to Peter and set up one of the revolutionaries as the ‘new pope’. This then means we have a multiple groups establishing themselves on the traditions of men.

The ‘proof of that pudding’ was the surprise Luther experienced when he realized that others were protesting his doctrines and coming up with their own. Today we have over 30,000 Protestant groups all claiming to be the True Church - the way to Christ!

God bless

Evangelical pastors don’t know their Greek and/or their hearts are hardened in discerning the truth. This tract explains it nicely. Note that there are numerous words in Greek for stone, rock or pebble…believe eight or more. Translating from Aramaic to Greek, you can not give St. Peter a female name. You are Spock, not Spockette.

Live long and prosper!

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock#.UHK0QZG9KSM

 

[Cinette]

Not complicated. Just ambiguous. Evangelical pastors point out, as you said that the Greek for Peter means a small stone, but the Greek for the rock does not mean a small stone–it means a large rock, like a bolder. So they say the stone is not a rock, and Jesus was speaking of the truth Peter spoke rather than the truth about who Peter is.

It seems the words alone that Jesus spoke are not enough to settle the dispute among Protestants and Catholics. Don’t you agree, Cinette?

*No I do not agree. I think Jesus spoke very clearly. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom, He told Peter to feed his sheep, He said to the Apostles that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” It is all so very c l e a r. At the end of the day we must also believe in all that Jesus has taught us whether we understand or not. Do you understand the Trinity?

We cannot perceive things the way God does. He told us “My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways your ways…”

I am so sorry that you find Jesus ambiguous.

Cinette *

 

[jim1130]

Jim1130, I have never asked “How can you believe THAT?” I understand ‘how’. God can do anything, because He is God (Romans9). I guess it depends who you talk to when it comes down to the “HOW” question, whether it be a Protestant, Agnostic, or my Catholic family member who questioned the doctrine. My faith is Christ and His ability to accomplish everything He says does not waiver. It is a matter of what He meant by the words-literal or figurative.

Sorry if you interpreted my statement as singling you out. I was not. I was making a general statement based on my previous experiences. In no way did I intend it to be directed at you specifically. I am sorry for my written carelessness.

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

Quantity means nothing.

The very issue with Protestantism is the inablity to simply read what is there and respond to that - without all of the layers of those who were in revolt and those who revolted from them and so forth until today.

I am quite serious - approaching this scripture passage anew - without any bias - and just writing a brief summary of what you read is the challenge that few can accept. And, the reason for this is that is strips away the deceit of those who call Christ’s Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - the Real Christ - as a mere symbol.

Hey, all I can do is point in a direction. It just does not seem to me that a 100 word summary would be considered threatening or offensive or a burden or any of the other dismissive remarks that have been offered, from those who claim to understand John 6.

Ultimately, we are all responsible with how we respond to the Grace of God as we make the choices that form our lives.

If you change your mind, I’m here.

God bless

As I’ve said, I’ve written far more than 100 words regarding the passage. Please tell me: In what way are you here for me?

 

[spockrates]

Evangelical pastors don’t know their Greek and/or their hearts are hardened in discerning the truth. This tract explains it nicely. Note that there are numerous words in Greek for stone, rock or pebble…believe eight or more. Translating from Aramaic to Greek, you can not give St. Peter a female name. You are Spock, not Spockette.

Live long and prosper!

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock#.UHK0QZG9KSM

An alternate response we might give Protestant skeptics:

Yes, Peter is the stone on which the Church is built, but the rock is the many stones–or apostolic successors of Peter!

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

Not to steal any of BrunoMarie’s thunder … … let me offer a response.

First of all, your attetion is directed to Luke 8:10 - and, here is a link giving the entire Chapter so there are no context difficulties: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_8

We really do not have the standing to ask God 'Why?" He chose to do as He did. Why this and why that, and “This is more ambiguous then that and none is really clear!” are all statements of men trying to think as men - and not seeing as God sees. Samuel the Prophet had to come to grips with this - here is an interesting Chapter: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_Kings_16 and I bring this to your attention to see how God want about chosing David through Samuel, and that God removed His Spirit from Saul. Everyone is asking 'Why?" - and the only real answer is that God chose to do it this way.

Like so many others, throwing up one’s hands and claiming that such and such is beyond understandable is only partially correct. The correct response is to fall to our knees and clearly identify the limits of human understanding and believe as a little child. St. Augustine prayed for more Faith so that he could understand - and not greater understanding so that he could have more Faith. We can not fault God for our lack of understanding - our ‘job’ is not to understand the workings of God - only to have Faith in Him. Lacking that, we quickly become the plaything of Satan.

Speaking of St. Augustine, here is a prayer that has been inspirational to me:

Lord, I commit my failures
as well as my successes
into your hands,
and I bring for your healing
the people and the situations,
the wrongs and the hurts
of the past.
Give me courage, strength and generosity
to let go and move on,
leaving the past behind me,
and living the present to the full.
Lead me always to be positive
as I ‘entrust the past to your mercy,
the present to your love,
and the future to your providence’.
And the link it came from: prayingeachday.org/100Prayers.pdf

God bless

Thanks for the quote.

 

[spockrates]

*No I do not agree. I think Jesus spoke very clearly. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom, He told Peter to feed his sheep, He said to the Apostles that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” It is all so very c l e a r. At the end of the day we must also believe in all that Jesus has taught us whether we understand or not. Do you understand the Trinity?

We cannot perceive things the way God does. He told us “My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways your ways…”

I am so sorry that you find Jesus ambiguous.

Cinette *

Yes, Protestants have quoted the same scriptures to me that you did, but they tell me Jesus’ words clearly mean what Peter said, and not Peter himself is the rock.

 

[Cinette]

Yes, Protestants have quoted the same scriptures to me that you did, but they tell me Jesus’ words clearly mean what Peter said, and not Peter himself is the rock.

Why do you call yourself a closet Catholic?:whacky:

 

[GraceSofia]

Hi,

Now, this is just a theory of mine … so, take it for whatever it is worth. As I see it, those in revolt had placed themselves in quite a bind. They all started out as practicing Catholics who believed in the Real Presence (Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli were all Catholics - and Calvin never rejected the infant baptism he received!) But, ultimately, all valid ordinations have their origin in Rome - and having rejected Rome … well … they realized that soon all of the priests who aposticized with them would eventually die and then no one could even come close to the Consecration of the Host and Wine. So, they just dropped their belief in anything that would involve an ordained priest. Luther came up with his solution: “Priesthood of all believers” ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mackenzieearlyluther.pdf And others in revolt saw that as the only thing they could do, too. So, we move from rejecting a sinful man who was Pope - to rejecting the Successor of Peter - to rejecting the need for a priest (and of course that meant all of the Sacraments). Simply stated, the entire ‘theology’ is based on rejecting what Christ said, then questioning if He really said it, then questioning the interpretations that have been present for 1,600 years - and with no further attachment ot Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - everything spun out of control. At no time did any of those in revolt claim Christ had appeared to them and told them He was revoking the promise He made to Peter and set up one of the revolutionaries as the ‘new pope’. This then means we have a multiple groups establishing themselves on the traditions of men.

The ‘proof of that pudding’ was the surprise Luther experienced when he realized that others were protesting his doctrines and coming up with their own. Today we have over 30,000 Protestant groups all claiming to be the True Church - the way to Christ!

God bless

I think I’d go along with that theory.

 

[jim1130]

Yes, Protestants have quoted the same scriptures to me that you did, but they tell me Jesus’ words clearly mean what Peter said, and not Peter himself is the rock.

I suppose it has been a litle clearer to me that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. After all, wasn’t Peter’s named changed to mean Rock? Also, Christ talks of Himself as the cornerstone (that which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone). From this perspective, you have your foundation (Peter) and you have your cornerstone (Christ). What am I missing?

 

[jim1130]

Hi, Porknpie,

Some do know Greek - but, chose to follow in the path of those who rebelled and apply their own personal interpretation. I do think there is an issue of hardened hearts here - a genuine reluctance to look at this in a fresh new way.

For example, most Protestants appear to get ‘hung up’ on this ‘big rock vs little rock’ problem that they themselves have created. When Christ appears in Matthew 16 - we do not hear about crowds surrounding him as is reported in other accounts of other events (and, sometimes they are even numbered, like the 5,000 men he few with bread and fish). While we do not know what language Christ spoke when He was along with His Apostles - my guess is that it was all in their native tongue - Aramaic. Matthew wrote in Greek because that was the language his readers were most familar with.

What tends to be forgotten is that Christ only gave the Keys to Peter - Scripture does not record that there were 11 copies waiting to be handed out, or that Christ told Peter that after he ‘turned’ he was to strengthen his brothers (the other Apostles) or that Christ specifically charged Peter to feed Christ’s lambs and sheep. Naaaaaaw… all of that - along with all of the Early Church Fathers - accepting the Successor of Peter as the leader of the Church - is thrown out because of this ‘big rock vs little rock’ smoke screen.

Now, this is just a theory of mine … so, take it for whatever it is worth. As I see it, those in revolt had placed themselves in quite a bind. They all started out as practicing Catholics who believed in the Real Presence (Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli were all Catholics - and Calvin never rejected the infant baptism he received!) But, ultimately, all valid ordinations have their origin in Rome - and having rejected Rome … well … they realized that soon all of the priests who aposticized with them would eventually die and then no one could even come close to the Consecration of the Host and Wine. So, they just dropped their belief in anything that would involve an ordained priest. Luther came up with his solution: “Priesthood of all believers” ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mackenzieearlyluther.pdf And others in revolt saw that as the only thing they could do, too. So, we move from rejecting a sinful man who was Pope - to rejecting the Successor of Peter - to rejecting the need for a priest (and of course that meant all of the Sacraments). Simply stated, the entire ‘theology’ is based on rejecting what Christ said, then questioning if He really said it, then questioning the interpretations that have been present for 1,600 years - and with no further attachment ot Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - everything spun out of control. At no time did any of those in revolt claim Christ had appeared to them and told them He was revoking the promise He made to Peter and set up one of the revolutionaries as the ‘new pope’. This then means we have a multiple groups establishing themselves on the traditions of men.

The ‘proof of that pudding’ was the surprise Luther experienced when he realized that others were protesting his doctrines and coming up with their own. Today we have over 30,000 Protestant groups all claiming to be the True Church - the way to Christ!

God bless

I think I’d go along with that theory.

From The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373:

The Reformers were not uniform in the agreement.

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

 

[MollyMac]

Can you not bring yourself to take Jesus at his word? You have never responded to my question about why Jesus repeated himself 6 times (John 6).

I believe I have.

“What did He repeat “6 consecutive times”? Is it a matter of which “I Am” is repeated the most? Is it equivilant to taking score in a sports competition? Christ also calls Himself the Good Shepherd. John 10 as a whole is dedicated to Christ as our Shepherd. He also implies it in His prayer in John 17. The Old Testament refers to Him as our Shepherd, so does Peter and Revelation 7:17. There are over 20 “I Am” statements, most of which are repeated more than once. All of them are of equal importance. The context of John 6 is regarding physical food and spiritual food and Christ explaining to the people around Him that while they need physical food to survive, they need HIM to live eternally. He is the True Bread. The Passover points to Christ, Christ replaced the Passover feast the night of the “Last Supper” with what He says we need to do in remembrance of Him. So, taking Christ’s word “remembrance” literally, that is what I do. Christ is my Bread, Shepherd, Gate, Door, Vine, Morning Star, Light, Author and Perfector of my faith, Savior, Lord, Friend, God. He is my lifeline. This is a serious subject to most and once again while most won’t agree with me, I do appreciate this thread. Thankyou.”

I take Christ’s words as they are. He said He is my Bread, Light, Shepherd and so on…all of this I believe. He is the ONLY Way Truth and Life and I will not come to the Father but through HIM. He saved me. I have not saved myself. If I don’t believe in His work for me then I am spiritually dead. If I don’t believe in Him as my lifeline then I will not see Him in Heaven. God gave me life and God gave me eternal life. Christ Jesus is my Bread. Food and drink keeps me physically alive but Christ keeps me alive eternally. He is my Saviour.

 

[jim1130]

I believe I have.

“What did He repeat “6 consecutive times”? Is it a matter of which “I Am” is repeated the most? Is it equivilant to taking score in a sports competition? Christ also calls Himself the Good Shepherd. John 10 as a whole is dedicated to Christ as our Shepherd. He also implies it in His prayer in John 17. The Old Testament refers to Him as our Shepherd, so does Peter and Revelation 7:17. There are over 20 “I Am” statements, most of which are repeated more than once. All of them are of equal importance. The context of John 6 is regarding physical food and spiritual food and Christ explaining to the people around Him that while they need physical food to survive, they need HIM to live eternally. He is the True Bread. The Passover points to Christ, Christ replaced the Passover feast the night of the “Last Supper” with what He says we need to do in remembrance of Him. So, taking Christ’s word “remembrance” literally, that is what I do. Christ is my Bread, Shepherd, Gate, Door, Vine, Morning Star, Light, Author and Perfector of my faith, Savior, Lord, Friend, God. He is my lifeline. This is a serious subject to most and once again while most won’t agree with me, I do appreciate this thread. Thankyou.”

I take Christ’s words as they are. He said He is my Bread, Light, Shepherd and so on…all of this I believe. He is the ONLY Way Truth and Life and I will not come to the Father but through HIM. He saved me. I have not saved myself. If I don’t believe in His work for me then I am spiritually dead. If I don’t believe in Him as my lifeline then I will not see Him in Heaven. God gave me life and God gave me eternal life. Christ Jesus is my Bread. Food and drink keeps me physically alive but Christ keeps me alive eternally. He is my Saviour.

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors for belief. Certainly there is an example somewhere in either the OT or the NT where eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood means “belief.”

 

[jim1130]

I believe I have.

“What did He repeat “6 consecutive times”? Is it a matter of which “I Am” is repeated the most? Is it equivilant to taking score in a sports competition? Christ also calls Himself the Good Shepherd. John 10 as a whole is dedicated to Christ as our Shepherd. He also implies it in His prayer in John 17. The Old Testament refers to Him as our Shepherd, so does Peter and Revelation 7:17. There are over 20 “I Am” statements, most of which are repeated more than once. All of them are of equal importance. The context of John 6 is regarding physical food and spiritual food and Christ explaining to the people around Him that while they need physical food to survive, they need HIM to live eternally. He is the True Bread. The Passover points to Christ, Christ replaced the Passover feast the night of the “Last Supper” with what He says we need to do in remembrance of Him. So, taking Christ’s word “remembrance” literally, that is what I do. Christ is my Bread, Shepherd, Gate, Door, Vine, Morning Star, Light, Author and Perfector of my faith, Savior, Lord, Friend, God. He is my lifeline. This is a serious subject to most and once again while most won’t agree with me, I do appreciate this thread. Thankyou.”

I take Christ’s words as they are. He said He is my Bread, Light, Shepherd and so on…all of this I believe. He is the ONLY Way Truth and Life and I will not come to the Father but through HIM. He saved me. I have not saved myself. If I don’t believe in His work for me then I am spiritually dead. If I don’t believe in Him as my lifeline then I will not see Him in Heaven. God gave me life and God gave me eternal life. Christ Jesus is my Bread. Food and drink keeps me physically alive but Christ keeps me alive eternally. He is my Saviour.

This is what I documented in # 208 with 4 small assignments for you on the bottom,which you never answered or completed, which makes me think you prefer to avoid the reality of what Jesus intended his audience to understand in John 6:

I can see where you are coming from; however, “vine,” “gate,” “light,” etc. are understood to be metaphors, then as of now. If I said “you are solid as an oak” would that mean you are an acorn-sprouting tree? No. It is a metaphor to describe your strength and stability. When Christ said He “is the cornerstone that the builders rejected” people understood the metaphor. When Christ told St. Peter that he is the foundation on which Christ will build His Church it was understood that St. Peter was not a stone slab.

Here are two examples in St. John’s Gospel where the message is clarified:

St. John 2: 18 The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up. 20 The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days? 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.

St. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Now, taking the pattern established by St. John of (1) Statement, (2) Question; (3) Clarification, let us apply it in St. John 6:

Six times in St. John 6 Jesus states “My flesh and my blood.” This means six opportunities to correct the message; To say He spoke figuratively rather than literally. He was questioned. He repeated His answer. His emphasis that he was speaking literally was repetitiveness punctuated with “Amen, Amen.” Think of school. When your teacher wanted to drive home an important point, a statement was repeated more than once.

Here are homework assignments I would give to you.

1 - Outside of St. John’s Gospel, Chapter 6, find an example in the Bible where eating someone’s body and drinking someone’s blood are figurative statements associated with faith and love.​

2 - At Capernaum where Christ addressed the Jews, what did “eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood” mean to the Jews?​

3 - What is the key word in these verses that shows christ is speaking literally rather than figuratively? St. John 6:54-55, Jesus says, “Whosever eats my body and drinks my blood will have eternal life, for, my flesh is indeed food and my blood is indeed drink.”​

4 - If the message of Christ at Capernaum was understood to be figurative, why did not Christ call back those who walked away to explain that He was NOT speaking literally? That they misunderstood?​

Thank you.