Vine, Branches, flesh and blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter jemfinch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jemfinch

Guest
Again, I’m looking for an argument that the search function isn’t helping me find.

A common objection to the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that Christ also said “I am the door” and “I am the vine” but we don’t take him literally there.

Someone posted, at some point, an argument based on a systematic interpretation of those passages, each with three separate parts, showing that there is a pattern, and that John 6 fits that pattern, but the pattern indicates that John 6 is talking realistically, not figuratively.

Anyone have a reference to that thread or argument?

Thanks,
Jeremy
 
I remember the arguement. It was brought up as:

Jesus original saying (in one color).

The Apostles showing confusion or mis-interpretation (in another color).

Jesus clarifying himself (in a third color).

Didn’t TruthStalker present this? I remember it was very well put.
 
I don’t think it was that one – that would probably cover Matthew 16 (the leaven of the pharisees) and John 11 (Lazarus “sleeping”). I don’t remember the disciples expressing any misunderstanding about “I am the vine” or “I am the door.”

It went something like this:

Statement: I am the vine
Explanation: You are the branches
Elaboration: …

Statement: I am the door
Explanation: If anyone enters by me, he will be saved
Elaboration: …

Statement: I am the bread of life
…

Something like that, if I remember correctly.

Jeremy
 
My answer to those objections is as follows.

When Jesus said He is the vine, He also said that we are the branches. Since we know that humans are not literally branches, we understand therefore that He is not speaking literally here.

When Jesus said He is the door, He also said that we are the sheep. Since we know that humans are not literally sheep, we understand therefore that He is not speaking literally here.

When Jesus said He will give us living water, He also said that this spring will well up in the human heart. Since we know that humans do not literally have springs of water welling up inside of them, we understand therefore that He is not speaking literally here.

But in John 6 Christ said nothing about humans that is literally untrue. All He said is that we must eat and drink - both quite literal human actions. So, quite unlike those other instances, He gives us no information that He is not speaking literally here.
 
jemfinch said:
Again, I’m looking for an argument that the search function isn’t helping me find.

A common objection to the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that Christ also said “I am the door” and “I am the vine” but we don’t take him literally there.

Someone posted, at some point, an argument based on a systematic interpretation of those passages, each with three separate parts, showing that there is a pattern, and that John 6 fits that pattern, but the pattern indicates that John 6 is talking realistically, not figuratively.

Anyone have a reference to that thread or argument?

Thanks,
Jeremy
Click to expand...
John 6 even though it does say “I’m am the bread that came down from Heaven”. It goes far beyond that, My flesh is real food, My Blood Real drink", Unless you eat the Flesh of the son of Man and Drink His Blood…"

In the door and vine and other examples Christ is saying “I am” at the Last Supper He reverses this to say not, I am this bread, but, this “bread” is ME.
 
jemfinch said:
Again, I’m looking for an argument that the search function isn’t helping me find.

A common objection to the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that Christ also said “I am the door” and “I am the vine” but we don’t take him literally there.

Someone posted, at some point, an argument based on a systematic interpretation of those passages, each with three separate parts, showing that there is a pattern, and that John 6 fits that pattern, but the pattern indicates that John 6 is talking realistically, not figuratively.

Anyone have a reference to that thread or argument?

Thanks,
Jeremy
Click to expand...
I recall that post. But I think it was lost after Catholic Answers was hacked.

God Bless,
Michael
 
BTW, I thought we had a google search added to CAF. Does that not work anymore?
 
jemfinch said:
I don’t think it was that one – that would probably cover Matthew 16 (the leaven of the pharisees) and John 11 (Lazarus “sleeping”). I don’t remember the disciples expressing any misunderstanding about “I am the vine” or “I am the door.”

It went something like this:

Statement: I am the vine
Explanation: You are the branches
Elaboration: …

Statement: I am the door
Explanation: If anyone enters by me, he will be saved
Elaboration: …

Statement: I am the bread of life
…

Something like that, if I remember correctly.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
Regarding the “door” parable, the apostles did not understand and actually fits the **Ambiguous statement/Misunderstanding/clarification **pattern I pointed out in my other post:

John 10:1-10

“**Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

Verse 7 is actually the beginning of the explanation of verses 1-6. In other words, he is explaining what the door in the parable represents.

God Bless,
Michael
 
NotWorthy said:
Yes, Michael, at least for me, that’s the post!!! I don’t know if it helps Jemfinch.

In any regards, that’s one of the best “Interpretation Tools” I’ve seen on explaining the Gospel of John.

I’m going to save it for future reference this time, like I thought I did the first time.

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
Thanks! :o

God Bless,
Michael
 
VociMike: That’s exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

Mike Ledes: That’s another awesome argument, I’m using it as well 🙂 I especially like how Scriptural it is.

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
Again, I’m looking for an argument that the search function isn’t helping me find.

A common objection to the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that Christ also said “I am the door” and “I am the vine” but we don’t take him literally there.

…

Thanks,
Jeremy
Click to expand...
One very big difference I see between the “I am the bread…” discourse and the “I am the door” and “I am the vine” discourses is that Jesus never took an actual door or an actual vine, held it in His hands, and said “This is my body… Take and eat.” If He had, I would also be eating pieces of vine and door wood!!! But He didn’t.

Granted, Jesus did not institute the Eucharist at the same time He gave the Bread of Life discourse. I can well imagine the thoughts that must have been going through the apostles minds - eg what does He mean?? How are we supposed to do such a thing???
After puzzling about that for days/weeks, can you then imagine being one of the apostles at the Last Supper and having Jesus pick up real bread, hold it before you, look into your eyes, and say “This Is My Body. Take and eat”.

Nita
 
Exactly, Nita.

Jesus may have said “I am the vine” and “I am the door,” but he never once said “That vine is me” or “that door is me.”
 
jemfinch said:
VociMike: That’s exactly what I was looking for, thanks.
Click to expand...
When I started discussing the faith with Protestants I was bothered by this objection. I believed what the Church teaches, but I could see where it could appear as an arbitrary belief, so I looked at those passages more closely, and what popped out is what I posted. And I’ve never yet had a Protestant even try to engage that particular analysis. They just shrug and bring up the Inquisition. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top