Transubstantiation and John 6

[in_servitude]

Definition; Symbolic: Significant purely in terms of what is being represented or implied

Definition; Metaphor: A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.

Yeah, manna was real and not seen as a metaphor by them. I’m sure that if they did not eat it, they would have died of starvation. Not sure if the eating of the sacrifices, or the act of sacrificing, or both caused their sins to be forgiven, or gave them eternal life.

I’m thinking this real stuff than fell like snow in the desert was not only real to them, but also a real symbol of Christ to us. For Christ was like manna in that he came from heaven to keep us alive, but the life he gives us is one that never dies if we keep it.

A “symbol”? Significant purely in terms of what is being represented?

Do you think the Eucharist is similar to manna in that it is both real and at the same time, symbolic? I mean, do you think it is the real body, soul and divinity of Christ and at the same time, representative of the body he sacrificed on the cross and the blood he shed for us?

Not a symbol.

Take a look at what happened in Exodus 12. The Jews had to first have faith that killing and eating the lambs was going to lead to their having life. As I’m sure you know, the killing of lambs like this, and putting the blood on the exterior of their dwellings would not sit well with the Egyptians in the morning (the lamb being on of their gods and all). That required tremendous faith from people living under the thumb of the Egyptians.

As I see it, the first exodus led by Moses out of Egypt is a physical model for what happens spiritually in the second exodus. As humans, we are going to understand spiritual lessons better if we have a physical model of those spiritual illuminations.

Just because God used a physical model to teach us about the realities of the spiritual world does not reduce this same spiritual reality to something “symbolic”. It is the rebellion of man that tries to rewrite God’s lesson into something spiritually meaningless.

 

[jim1130]

Yes, I concur that Jesus corrected the misunderstandings of his disciples, though it’s worth noting that he did not always correct the misunderstandings of his enemies. The question to consider: Were those who accused Jesus of suggesting they literally eat his flesh and drink his blood true disciples, or false ones? If false, would he treat them the same way as his true disciples?

Are not the sacrificial lambs and manna metaphores for the one who is the Lamb of God and the Bread of Life?

Yes, your response makes sense. I’d be interested in continuing to discuss any of your six points. Regarding the last one, I think Jesus’ words in the verse are the strongest in support of Catholic teaching on the chapter from John’s gospel. Would you like to know why?

Yes, I would like to know “why” regarding the 6th point.

I am not really sure where to go from the six-points. One of the differences in our conversation may be the authority that allows us to arrive at a specific conclusion. Since I am not an expert and I use this site to help strengthen my own understanding, I can only provide the information as I udnerstand it based on the teaching authority of the Catholic Chruch rather than an individual interpretation (sola scriptura, although I do not really believein sola scriptura because all non-Catholics seem to arrive at the same conclusion about John 6, which means they have been persuaded by an authority).

I want to be helpful and probably influential, but the reality is that at some point the timeout is over and the team must leave the safety of the sideline to return to the field and allow the game to resume. This is where faith comes in.

 

[jim1130]

I find your response clear, concise and cogent, Jim. Thank you. Let me give you the best reply I might have given when I was an Evangelical:

Yes, I agree some who heard him thought he was speaking literally. For they asked each other skeptically, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” But there were others in the audience who disagreed with their assessment of Jesus’ meaning. For they argued sharply with those who had this assessment.

Yes, I also agree. Certain passages that come to my mind would have certainly come to some of their minds too:

"I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.”

(Deuteronomy 32:42)

16 So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the Lord. 17 “Far be it from me, O Lord, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it.

(2 Samuel 23)

The Lord is my light and my salvation—
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life—
of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When evil men advance against me
to devour my flesh,[a]
when my enemies and my foes attack me,
they will stumble and fall.
3 Though an army besiege me,
my heart will not fear;
though war break out against me,
even then will I be confident.

(Psalm 27)

This is indeed an idiom with which the Jewish people would have been familiar in Jesus’ day. For there would have been much preaching about God defeating the Roman forces occupying Jerusalem. Is there any way we might consider that this idiom would possibly apply to Jesus’ audience?

Yes, I agree that in the Old Testament, it is used as an idiom for killing an enemy, rather than believing in someone. But is eating, or drinking given a different symbolic meaning in the New Testament?

Yes, I agree that in the Old Testament, it is used as an idiom for killing an enemy, rather than believing in someone. But is eating, or drinking given a different symbolic meaning in the New Testament?

But the kicker here is that Jesus did NOT correct any misunderstanding. At this point, as in other examples in the Gospel, Jesus would have answered “Amen, Amen, I say to you, that eating my flesh and drinking my blood is now a metaphor for belief.” I find it hard to believe that with all the other examples in which Jesus corrected misunderstanding that he would allow this important passage to remain unclear. He was very emphatic that he was speaking literally. As it is said in the Gospel (Mark) “all things are possible through God.” To think of the verses as Jesus speaking figuratively means you are thinking as man (remember that Jesus scolded Peter for doing so).

 

[spockrates]

A “symbol”? Significant purely in terms of what is being represented?

Not a symbol.

Actually, I had definition (1) in mind, as given at this link:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbol?s=t

sym·bol

[sim-buhl] noun, verb, sym·boled, sym·bol·ing or ( especially British ) sym·bolled, sym·bol·ling.

noun

1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
3. a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign.

Definition (1) allows for a symbol to have a significance other than what it represents. An example: A wedding ban can have a duel-significance. It can have a monetary significance, as the gold from which it is made has monetary value. It can also have a symbolic significance, as it represents the unending love for the one to whom the one wearing it is married.

I’m thinking the sacrificial lambs had a duel-significance: First, they had a non-symbolic significance. For their blood protected the Jewish people from the plague that killed the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. Second, they had a symbolic significance. For they represented Christ who would come as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. What do you think, my new friend?

Take a look at what happened in Exodus 12. The Jews had to first have faith that killing and eating the lambs was going to lead to their having life. As I’m sure you know, the killing of lambs like this, and putting the blood on the exterior of their dwellings would not sit well with the Egyptians in the morning (the lamb being on of their gods and all). That required tremendous faith from people living under the thumb of the Egyptians.

As I see it, the first exodus led by Moses out of Egypt is a physical model for what happens spiritually in the second exodus. As humans, we are going to understand spiritual lessons better if we have a physical model of those spiritual illuminations.

Just because God used a physical model to teach us about the realities of the spiritual world does not reduce this same spiritual reality to something “symbolic”. It is the rebellion of man that tries to rewrite God’s lesson into something spiritually meaningless.

Yes, I agree. Something can have both a symbolic and a non-symbolic significance. The Eucharist might very well have both.

 

[inkaneer]

Thanks, Ink. Please tell me: What did Justin Martyr believe about Jesus? Did he believe the Son of God is one in being with the Father?

Was it only the relationship of the Son he did not completely comprehend? Or did he also misunderstand the being (or essence) of the Son?

Yes, I agree his statements about the bread and wine are clearly supporting the modern Catholic view. Would you say he got the nature of the Eucharist right, but the nature of Son of God not quite right?

He certainly believed Jesus was God. But he struggled with the relationship between the Father and the Son. Our understanding, as limited as it is, of the relationship within the Trinity is based on philosophical terms such as person, substance, essence, etc. These terms were not in use in the second century and therefore attempts to describe it are at best clumsy. This is why a formal definition of the doctrine was required and that took another 300 years before it was finally accomplished.

As far as the Eucharist is concerned Justin Martyr is very clear in his writing about it stating it was something he was taught. That is important as it points to a time that this was believed earlier than Justin Martyr himself. Along with Ignatius of Antioch’s writing on it we can see where the belief is Apostolic in origin as Ignatius was the disciple of John the Apostle and would presumably have gotten it from him.

 

[spockrates]

Yes, I would like to know “why” regarding the 6th point.

OK, please see my next post, Jim.

I am not really sure where to go from the six-points. One of the differences in our conversation may be the authority that allows us to arrive at a specific conclusion. Since I am not an expert and I use this site to help strengthen my own understanding, I can only provide the information as I udnerstand it based on the teaching authority of the Catholic Chruch rather than an individual interpretation (sola scriptura, although I do not really believein sola scriptura because all non-Catholics seem to arrive at the same conclusion about John 6, which means they have been persuaded by an authority).

Yes, but I don’t believe that means Protestants (who say they put faith in the Bible alone) have no authorities of their own. For instance, when Jesus says,

“Take and eat; this is my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Protestants say the words of Christ tell them he was speaking only figuratively. Catholics say the words of Christ tell them he was speaking non-figuratively. In effect, both interpret the words differently by adding a word of clarification. Many Protestants believe he meant this:

“Take and eat; this is [like] my body.”

Most Catholics believe he meant this:

“Take and eat; this is [actually] my body.”

Whether they add one word consciously, or subconsciously, both understand the passage to imply the missing word. Catholics might say this is because the Church teaches that the bread Jesus held in his hands was his body. Protestants might say this is because the Holy Spirit revealed the true meaning of Christ’s words to them, but it is also true that their teachers, or pastors revealed this truth to them when they heard the Bible taught. I know of no Protestant who is completely self-taught. So I’m thinking Protestants rely on their own authorities just as much as Catholics rely on the authorities of the Church. What do you think?

I want to be helpful and probably influential, but the reality is that at some point the timeout is over and the team must leave the safety of the sideline to return to the field and allow the game to resume. This is where faith comes in.

Agreed. But what if one is a free agent trying to figure out what team to join? If two teams might be courting him, is it faith that will tell him which one is the right team for him? Or is it wisdom that will best guide this decision?

 

[jim1130]

Yes, but I don’t believe that means Protestants (who say they put faith in the Bible alone) have no authorities of their own. For instance, when Jesus says,

“Take and eat; this is my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Protestants say the words of Christ tell them he was speaking only figuratively. Catholics say the words of Christ tell them he was speaking non-figuratively. In effect, both interpret the words differently by adding a word of clarification. Many Protestants believe he meant this:

“Take and eat; this is [like] my body.”

Most Catholics believe he meant this:

“Take and eat; this is [actually] my body.”

Whether they add one word consciously, or subconsciously, both understand the passage to imply the missing word. Catholics might say this is because the Church teaches that the bread Jesus held in his hands was his body. Protestants might say this is because the Holy Spirit revealed the true meaning of Christ’s words to them, but it is also true that their teachers, or pastors revealed this truth to them when they heard the Bible taught. I know of no Protestant who is completely self-taught. So I’m thinking Protestants rely on their own authorities just as much as Catholics rely on the authorities of the Church. What do you think?

Agreed. But what if one is a free agent trying to figure out what team to join? If two teams might be courting him, is it faith that will tell him which one is the right team for him? Or is it wisdom that will best guide this decision?

Actually, the Catholics do not add a word to “Take and eat; this is my body” because Jesus says "“Take and eat; this is my body.” He uses the word “is.” “This is my body.” Pretty straight forward. Non-Cahtolics have to add a word to get their interpretation “Take and eat; this is like my body.”

Jesus does not say “this is like my body.” He just doesn’t. It is that straight forward.

 

[jim1130]

These is too much evidence and consistency to add the “figurative” to these readings.

Jesus says “is my body, blood” and “flesh is meat, blood is drink indeed.” I just do not know how much more to explain it.

Matthew 26: 26-28.
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14: 22-24.
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-20.
And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians Chapter 10:16.
The chalice of benediction which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

John 6:54-57
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I think this one is both early and clearly Catholic in understanding:
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

• St. Justin Martyr, 2nd Century

Is this the only quote from the second century, or before?

No. I editited the following out of my exegesis of John 6 for space considerations:
“Even if explicit attributed citations of John 6 are sparse in patristic defense of the Real Presence, the Fathers use the discourse’s very concrete language (especially “Flesh”, “food”, and “drink”) as much as they quote from the Last Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels or 1st Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the very same John the Evangelist, also had to contend with Gnostic infiltrators and their denial of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Ignatius in particular uses John’s vocabulary:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 107 AD)””

 

[spockrates]

Jim:

Here is the reason why I believe verse 55 is the strongest evidence supporting the Catholic view is this: Many Protestants say they believe that when Jesus’ said this,

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

he was using eating and drinking as metaphors for belief. But if eat means believes in and drink means believes in, then Jesus words must mean this:

(a) “Whoever [believes in] my flesh and [believes in] my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

I’ve pointed this out to many Protestants and then asked, “Exactly what must I believe about the flesh and blood of Jesus to be saved?” Their responses (if they make sincere attempts to answer the question) is always to fall back on plan B, by saying Jesus must have instead meant this:

(b) “Whoever [believes in me] has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

For they do not put faith in the flesh and blood of Christ. Instead they put faith in the divinity and sacrificial death of Christ. So they explain to me that it’s actually not the words eat and drink that are symbols. Rather, it is the words “eats my flesh and drinks my blood” that symbolize saving faith.

But then I point out that plan B appears contrary to Jesus’ words in the very next verse. For Jesus does *not *say,

“For [eating] my flesh is real [nourishment] and [drinking] my blood is real [relief of thirst].”

Instead he says,

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

That is, if Jesus was using a figure of speech, his** flesh and blood **were the symbols, *not *eating and drinking. So far, I’ve found no Protestant who can explain why I am mistaken, or how the flesh and blood of Christ are metaphors. As an Evangelical, I did not have an explanation, either. So for the first time, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic view of John 6 might be true.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…I’ve pointed out to Protestants who told me eating and drinking are metaphors for belief that this results in interpreting Jesus’ words to mean (b). After I then asked them exactly what about the flesh and blood we must believe to be saved, they then fall back to definition (a) and say that it is not eating and drinking that are symbols of faith in Christ, but it is eating flesh and drinking blood that are symbols of such saving faith.

But this view appears contrary to Jesus’ words in the very next verse. For Jesus does *not *say,
“For [eating] my flesh is real [nourishment] and [drinking] my blood is real [relief of thirst].”

Instead he says,
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

That is, if Jesus was using a figure of speech, his flesh and blood were the symbols, not eating and drinking. As an Evangelical, I could not figure out in what way he was using his flesh and blood as metaphors. So for the first time, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic view of John 6 might be true.

Indeed. again from my essay:
"…murmured at him, because he said “I am the bread which came down from heaven”. They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?”
Deniers of the Real Presence, both historical and contemporary, tend to gloss over that passage and how it applies to what Jesus says from here on. The listeners can’t ignore what they just heard compared to what they see: they look at Jesus with their “natural” (the “flesh”) senses and reason. All they see is a human man, who they know was born of a human woman, but now this man claims he came down from heaven."
If you reject the Real Presense in John 6 you must as consistent exegesis reject the Incarnation as well.

 

[jim1130]

Jim:

Here is the reason why I believe verse 55 is the strongest evidence supporting the Catholic view is this: Many Protestants believe Jesus’ words,

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

mean this,

(a) “Whoever [believes in me] has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

So the words “eats my flesh and drinks my blood” are understood to symbolize faith. They do *not *believe Jesus meant this:

(b) “Whoever [believes in] my flesh and [believes in] my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

That is, they do not hold that eating and drinking are metaphors for belief. For most Protestants do not put faith in the flesh and blood of Christ, as this would be believing in his humanity, rather than his divinity. Instead, they put faith in the spirit of Christ (that he was God incarnate) and in the sacrifice of Christ.

I’ve asked myself and many Protestants who held definition (b) exactly what about the flesh and blood they must believe to be saved. The response they all give is to fall back on definition (a) and say that it is not eating and drinking that are symbols of faith in Christ, but it is eating flesh and drinking blood that are symbols of such saving faith.

But this view appears contrary to Jesus’ words in the very next verse. For Jesus does *not *say,

“For [eating] my flesh is real [nourishment] and [drinking] my blood is real [relief of thirst].”

Instead he says,

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

That is, if Jesus was using a figure of speech, his flesh and blood were the symbols, not eating and drinking. As an Evangelical, I could not figure out in what way he was using his flesh and blood as metaphors. So for the first time, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic view of John 6 might be true.

Jesus has a history of clarifying misunderstanding. There is a pattern:

1. Statement by Jesus
2. Misunderstanding by Followers
3. Clarification by Jesus

One can look at these examples:

John 2:19-21 - Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”

Those aorund took Jesus literally, but then what he said was clairfied (“But he was speaking of the temple of his body.”).

John 3:3-5 - Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Again, confusion with what Jesus said and clarificaiton (“Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”)

John 8:31-34 - So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, “Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”

Where is the clarificaiton in John 6?

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

The clarificaiton is staign emphatically: Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

Following the previous three patterns, would not Jesus have said “Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you believe in me you have no life in yourselves.”

But that is not what he said. He said “Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.”

 

[spockrates]

Jesus has a history of clarifying misunderstanding. There is a pattern:

1. Statement by Jesus
2. Misunderstanding by Followers
3. Clarification by Jesus

One can look at these examples:

John 2:19-21 - Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”

Those aorund took Jesus literally, but then what he said was clairfied (“But he was speaking of the temple of his body.”).

John 3:3-5 - Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Again, confusion with what Jesus said and clarificaiton (“Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”)

John 8:31-34 - So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, “Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”

Where is the clarificaiton in John 6?

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

The clarificaiton is staign emphatically: Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

Following the previous three patterns, would not Jesus have said “Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you believe in me you have no life in yourselves.”

But that is not what he said. He said “Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.”

Yes, this is an excellent point, Jim. I’d add that when Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd,” he made it clear that he was not a sheep herder by trade and that he was speaking figuratively when he added, “You are my sheep.” When he said, “I am the light of the world,” he made it clear he was not the sun in the sky by adding, “You are the lights of the world.” If Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said, “I am the bread of life,” wouldn’t he make this clearer by adding, “You are the bread baskets,” or something similar?

 

[spockrates]

Indeed. again from my essay:
"…murmured at him, because he said “I am the bread which came down from heaven”. They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?”
Deniers of the Real Presence, both historical and contemporary, tend to gloss over that passage and how it applies to what Jesus says from here on. The listeners can’t ignore what they just heard compared to what they see: they look at Jesus with their “natural” (the “flesh”) senses and reason. All they see is a human man, who they know was born of a human woman, but now this man claims he came down from heaven."
If you reject the Real Presense in John 6 you must as consistent exegesis reject the Incarnation as well.

Yes, the question, “How can he come down from heaven?” is not the only think his audience asked. They also asked, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” Many Protestants believe Jesus’ answer to the former question, rather than the latter, was the reason many of his disciples left him. It seems reasonable to me that they might have left because of his answer to the former question (since they did not leave until after he gave that answer), or perhaps they left because of both answers.

 

[jim1130]

Yes, this is an excellent point, Jim. I’d add that when Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd,” he made it clear that he was not a sheep herder by trade and that he was speaking figuratively when he added, “You are my sheep.” When he said, “I am the light of the world,” he made it clear he was not the sun in the sky by adding, “You are the lights of the world.” If Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said, “I am the bread of life,” wouldn’t he make this clearer by adding, “You are the bread baskets,” or something similar?

Yes. One thing I typically fall back on is that words such as “light,” “vine,” etc. are commonly used for metaphors. We can shepherd our children or we talk about “herding.” When we refer to the Family Tree we do not consider family to be made of bark, branches, and leaves.

Jesus knew his audience and when he said “Eat my body and drink my blood” he knew how they would interpert it, hence the quesiotn “does what I say upset you?” rather than say “I did not mean to upset you because I was speaking figuratively rather than literally.”

I am well aware many non-Catholics will fall back on the early portion of John 6, JOhn 6-35-36 as the basis for their argument that Jesus spoke figuratively, but it that was the case then he did not follow through ont he string of the narrative.

 

[spockrates]

Yes. One thing I typically fall back on is that words such as “light,” “vine,” etc. are commonly used for metaphors. We can shepherd our children or we talk about “herding.” When we refer to the Family Tree we do not consider family to be made of bark, branches, and leaves.

Jesus knew his audience and when he said “Eat my body and drink my blood” he knew how they would interpert it, hence the quesiotn “does what I say upset you?” rather than say “I did not mean to upset you because I was speaking figuratively rather than literally.”

I am well aware many non-Catholics will fall back on the early portion of John 6, JOhn 6-35-36 as the basis for their argument that Jesus spoke figuratively, but it that was the case then he did not follow through ont he string of the narrative.

Yes. In conversations with Protestant visitors to the forum, it might help to skip right to verse 54 and ask them what it means, and then quote verse 55 and ask them what this next verse means.



54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

 

[jim1130]

Yes, the question, “How can he come down from heaven?” is not the only think his audience asked. They also asked, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” Many Protestants believe Jesus’ answer to the former question, rather than the latter, was the reason many of his disciples left him. It seems reasonable to me that they might have left because of his answer to the former question (since they did not leave until after he gave that answer), or perhaps they left because of both answers.

They left Jesus because what he had said (eat my flesh and drink my blood) was too much for them. Even the Apostles questioned. But, again, Jesus did not call back thsoe who walked away. Those who retained the faith (Apostles) did nto understand either, but trusted Jesus enough to know he would explain more later.

 

[jim1130]

Yes. In conversations with Protestant visitors to the forum, it might help to skip right to verse 54 and ask them what it means, and then quote verse 55 and ask them what this next verse means.



54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Often times they skip right to 61 or 62 and skip the 50’s altogether When I read this, it does read rather funny (skip the 50’s and go right into the 60’s).

 

[spockrates]

They left Jesus because what he had said (eat my flesh and drink my blood) was too much for them. Even the Apostles questioned. But, again, Jesus did not call back thsoe who walked away. Those who retained the faith (Apostles) did nto understand either, but trusted Jesus enough to know he would explain more later.

Yes, that seems most logical. The Jewish people had received visits from heaven in the past, so this would have been nothing new to the devout believers in the Old Testament. The implications were that Jesus was saying he was one of three beings:

1. 
   *]Elijah, who was taken up into heaven.
   *]An angel who was sent by God.
   *]God himself in human form.
   
   While (3) might have been hard to swallow, (1) and (2) would likely have been thought possible to his disciples, I think. In fact, when Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say I am?” one of them explained that some people believed he was Elijah returned from heaven.
   
   He did not make it clear–at least not in John 6–that he meant (3) so it seems to me this was not cause for a mass desertion of his disciples.

 

[spockrates]

Often times they skip right to 61 or 62 and skip the 50’s altogether When I read this, it does read rather funny (skip the 50’s and go right into the 60’s).

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

Not sure this would be enough to shake a Protestant of the idea that his disciples left because of his answer to the question, “How can this man come down from heaven?” rather than because of his answer to the question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”



Yes, I’m convinced that verse 55 is the cypher to decode the meaning of John 6 to those who find the Catholic view to cryptic to accept. But I suppose that what I found most convincing might not have the same effect on another skeptic.