V
vinessa
Guest
James, I think you missed my point (or one of them). What I said was that the Jews were sure it WAS a metaphor, but it was so bizarre and nonsensical (to them, from their worldview, and from their own understanding of their own religion), that they simply walked away and refused to waste their time any more. This is a far cry from “running away” in fear. And I don’t see how it has anything to do with doubt. If you saw (what appeared to be) a demented man on a streetcorner, raving about aliens coming, you wouldn’t “doubt” – most likely you would just cross to the other side of the street and try to ignore his lunacy. Conversely if, having a good heart and an open mind, you had given him a chance, and really tried to listen to what he was saying, then asked questions, and he still did not appear to be lucid… you wouldn’t “run away”, and you wouldn’t “doubt”, you would simply chalk him up as a lunatic, turn your back and leave. You might even be vocal about it, in case anyone else seemed likely to fall for his ridiculous claims.
And please remember, I am only trying to describe, like in real life, what was probably happening in the minds of those Jews in John chapter 6 (since you asked).
Perhaps you can clarify then, are you Catholic? Because the Magisterium doesn’t believe this. In fact, the Church’s view of the Bible as inspired but NOT literal or inerrant, is a huge difference it has with Protestants, especially modern evangelicals, who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Do you realize that Biblical inerrancy (or literalism) is a fairly new idea? You can Google this. Biblical inerrancy is a concept that has only been around for about a 100 years. Until then, all these centuries of Catholicism and no one, until 100 years ago, took the Bible to be 100% literal, factual, or inerrant. The Magisterium still does not believe it.
If you want to look into this yourself, the best way is to read the two genealogies of Jesus, in Matthew and in Luke. Count the names and the order they are in, you will see they are wildly different. Here’s a page on it, but you can also read them yourself:
bible-history.com/jesus/jesusMat_1117_Lk_32338.htm
These two are among the most easily accessible places that show variation, but there are many other places in the Bible where the text has to be taken with somewhat of a grain of salt.
Lastly, I think you are mistaken when you say that Jesus always, in every case, clarified for his listeners literally what he meant. I can’t find very many examples of that at all – he always used metaphor, it was the way Jews spoke and taught, because stories “stick” in our hearts and minds better than just facts.
And just because someone says it’s raining cats and dogs does not mean that cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky. We use that turn of phrase to deliver a “feeling” or an “inner knowing” that is larger than words… or a mystery. And Jesus was a master at this. But that’s the point. Metaphors are universal in time and allow for growth and depth. Literalism does not. Literalism says “the world is flat” – and when later, you find out it isn’t, you have to throw that concept out the window. Metaphors on the other hand communicate truths that are applicable anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance. They are always true and can never be disproven. So why would Jesus not speak in metaphor? It’s the best way to communicate universal Truth and reach peoples’ hearts, in all times and places.
