Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6?

[climer97007]

Re: Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by moondweller
Actually, it’s the other way around. Those disciples left because they DID take His words literally. Now based on your own logic, who did those disgruntled “ex-disciples” prefigure?

They left because they did not believe what Jesus said.

God Bless,
Michael

You see, the literalists have not changed since the beginning. Peter and the Apostles also took Jesus literally. The difference is that Peter did not leave Jesus. The others failed to believe and they left Him. They all took Jesus literally. Catholicism is that Universal (catholic) Church founded by Jesus that still takes Him literally and which also still believes, just as Peter did.

Gene

 

[po18guy]

You didn’t answer my question. Based on YOUR logic, who are the one’s prefigured in John six?

I am thinking of those who have rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

AFA Jesus correcting error as He taught, that is not true, as Jesus never taught anything in error; I think what you mean is that Jesus always corrected those who misunderstood His teaching; neither is that true:

Matthew 13:10-11 I was speaking of the error of His listeners. Of course, Christ made no errors.
​

​

 

[Grace_Angel]

Why would G-d expressly command His people NOT to eat/drink blood, and then later say, “Go ahead, drink blood.” G-d is not capricious. Neither does He contradict Himself.

And you dear one are either Jewish and I think not so I suspect Seventh Day Adventist. Are you here on a mission to cause dissent?
Jesus did also say that Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Jesus also is the new covenant. Jesus left the words “unless you the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you cannot have eternal life.”
You can call Jesus a liar. I wont thank you.
GraceAngel.

 

[moondweller]

I am thinking of those who have rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Christ’s peace.

Can you show me in John 6 where Jesus literally teaches on the “Eucharist?” Can you show me where the Apostle John even mentions the “Eucharist” in his gospel account?

You pointed out rightly that it was those who took His words literally that left Him. You claim that those who took Him literally and no longer walked with Him prefigured a certain people.

Well, then according to YOUR logic those people must be the same ones who still take His words literally today. So, according to YOUR logic, those who take His words literally today are still not His disciples.

Who are the ones who take His words literally today?

 

[paidion]

And you dear one are either Jewish and I think not so I suspect Seventh Day Adventist. Are you here on a mission to cause dissent?
Jesus did also say that Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Jesus also is the new covenant. Jesus left the words “unless you the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you cannot have eternal life.”
You can call Jesus a liar. I wont thank you.
GraceAngel.

I still say that those who left DID understand that he was being literal, and those that stayed did too. They left because, as they said “this is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?” They left because they did not understand with human intellect alone and WOULD NOT go on faith alone. Peter echoed this when he said “to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Translated into Ralph “I do not understand it either, but I know that you are the source. I must go by what you say and not what I want you to say.”

ALL of us are prefigured into this. All of us doubt at some time. There are parts of our faiths, no matter what that faith is, that we have to accept without understanding it. Just because we don;t understand does not make it false. After all, I don’t understand women, but they still exist.

I am not trying to be disrespectful of anyone’s beliefs.I am merely trying to understand. My sister married into the RC faith and is a convert herself. I appreciate much of what the RC Church teaches/does, but I’m really stumped by this issue.

ralphinal: I appreciate the thoughtful/thought-provoking response, and I can especially relate to G-d being the Source of all knowledge and understanding - as I’ve said before, there is a reason why G-d compares us to sheep (very small brains). And you are correct in that just because one doesn’t understand something, that doesn’t necessarily make it false.

Grace Angel & ralphinal: I don’t see where Jesus is asking us to automatically hit the “I believe” button here. Asking a Jew to drink blood and eat flesh was/is an incredible abomination.

While the disciples may have had some understanding of who Messiah was (at the time of Jn 6), none of them - including Peter and John (who perhaps knew Him best) - really had the idea of Who He was/is. It wasn’t until a bit later (Jn 8:58) where Jesus declared, “… Before Abraham was, I AM” and the people understood that He was identifying Himself with G-d. It was after this that some took up stones (to throw at Him), because they understood exactly what He was saying.
(Even after this event, His followers still struggled with Jesus’ identity. It wasn’t until His death and resurrection, that they all really finally “got it”.)

shalom

 

[climer97007]

Well, then according to YOUR logic those people must be the same ones who still take His words literally today. So, according to YOUR logic, those who take His words literally today are still not His disciples.

Who are the ones who take His words literally today?

I think you are ignoring the facts.

The facts are that both Peter and those who left Jesus took Jesus literally. The only difference is that Peter knew that Jesus had the words of eternal life. Peter knew that there was no where else to go. The ones who left Jesus, left because of their unbelief. Has anything changed from then until now? The Church of Peter still clings to the Words of eternal life. The ones who left still cling to their unbelief in the Eucharist.

Gene

 

[paidion]

To clarify my above post to Grace Angel and ralphinal:

In order for His followers to hit the “I believe” button and accept that He was literally speaking of His flesh and blood, then they would have had to have had some sense of Who He was/is. While you might accept a premise without fully understanding it, you do so because you have a certain amount of trust in the person saying it. To blindly follow someone into doing something you know to be wrong isn’t faith, it’s foolishness.

For example, if someone came up to you and said, “I will lead you into a new dimension of spirituality… all you have to do is lie with your neighbor’s husband/wife…”, would you do so? I would hope not! Likewise, it would be the same for the disciples, when hearing the words Jesus said, to say it is a hard saying - who can follow it?

G-d allowed certain followers to hear/understand what Jesus was really saying. Others could not understand and walked away. The ones who walked away missed that He was calling them to trust in Him in the same way the Israelites did when they applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts of their houses to preserve themselves from the slaying of the firstborn. He knew that they would understand the analogy of the life being in the blood.

I believe He was calling them all to fully throw their hearts into trusting Him even more than before (while realizing that they would have some times of doubt and stumbling.) He was “upping the ante” so to speak or “raising the bar”. What He was saying was difficult to grasp. No one (not even the Patriarchs or prophets) had ever put out such a challenge.

 

[po18guy]

Can you show me in John 6 where Jesus literally teaches on the “Eucharist?” Can you show me where the Apostle John even mentions the “Eucharist” in his gospel account?

This is the fallacy of sola scriptura! It has lead to confusion among the faithful. To me and millions of Catholics, it obviously prefigures the Eucharist, which Christ instituted at the last supper. Especially when combined with Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 11.

To those without Sacred Tradition, the bible can be twisted to mean almost anything (and has been - the KKK used it). Sacred tradition is what Paul spoke of, when he exhorted us to keep it, whether oral or written. Christ taught using the oral tradition, and the Apostles maintained it. The reformation threw it away.

You pointed out rightly that it was those who took His words literally that left Him. You claim that those who took Him literally and no longer walked with Him prefigured a certain people.

Those who left took it literalistically. They viewed it as cannibalism. Catholics and Orthodox take Christ’s words literally - to mean the Eucharist. Big difference between literal and literalist.

Well, then according to YOUR logic those people must be the same ones who still take His words literally today. So, according to YOUR logic, those who take His words literally today are still not His disciples.

Those who reject, or fail to believe Christ’s words - do they really follow him? They love Christ right up to the point where He is found in the Catholic Church. The love stops dead, right there. Show me the difference between them and those who left Him. Both were enthralled with Christ’s teaching and faithfully followed him - until…

Those baptized Christians who do not believe in the Eucharist are still Christian, it’s just that they are missing so much of Christ. Catholics, Orthodox, many Lutherans and Episcopalians and some others cannot practice their faith without the Eucharist.

Christ’s peace.

 

[ralphinal]

To clarify my above post to Grace Angel and ralphinal:

In order for His followers to hit the “I believe” button and accept that He was literally speaking of His flesh and blood, then they would have had to have had some sense of Who He was/is. While you might accept a premise without fully understanding it, you do so because you have a certain amount of trust in the person saying it. To blindly follow someone into doing something you know to be wrong isn’t faith, it’s foolishness.

For example, if someone came up to you and said, “I will lead you into a new dimension of spirituality… all you have to do is lie with your neighbor’s husband/wife…”, would you do so? I would hope not! Likewise, it would be the same for the disciples, when hearing the words Jesus said, to say it is a hard saying - who can follow it?

G-d allowed certain followers to hear/understand what Jesus was really saying. Others could not understand and walked away. The ones who walked away missed that He was calling them to trust in Him in the same way the Israelites did when they applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts of their houses to preserve themselves from the slaying of the firstborn. He knew that they would understand the analogy of the life being in the blood.

I believe He was calling them all to fully throw their hearts into trusting Him even more than before (while realizing that they would have some times of doubt and stumbling.) He was “upping the ante” so to speak or “raising the bar”. What He was saying was difficult to grasp. No one (not even the Patriarchs or prophets) had ever put out such a challenge.

thanks for the refinement of your post. This topic, John 6, is an excellent example of why you must take the Gospel as a whole, not piecemeal. Yes, Jesus was calling for everyone to fully throw their hearts into following him. This is throught the Gospel. What you must do with John 6, in order to get its full meaning, is put it with the Last Supper story. I can imagine the proverbial light bulb going off on Pentecost when Peter thought about the two things together. “You must eat my Body” and “This is my body” go together. Suddenly, we can see that we can consume Jesus in an unbloody manner.

One thing that I like to mention is that Jesus NEVER exactly cleared up if he was being figurative or literal. Often in the Gospels, he would explain to the Apostles what a parable meant or how they should understand. On this one, he left it alone. Once the puzzle was finished, it became clear.

 

[ralphinal]

Can you show me in John 6 where Jesus literally teaches on the “Eucharist?” Can you show me where the Apostle John even mentions the “Eucharist” in his gospel account?

MD,
I do not want to get into the “who prefigures who” discussion that you guys are having. I do want to point out that “Eucharist” is not mentioned any more than “Trinity” is in the Gospel. Just because the word isn’t there doesn’t mean the teaching is not.

 

[paidion]

thanks for the refinement of your post. This topic, John 6, is an excellent example of why you must take the Gospel as a whole, not piecemeal. Yes, Jesus was calling for everyone to fully throw their hearts into following him. This is throught the Gospel. What you must do with John 6, in order to get its full meaning, is put it with the Last Supper story. I can imagine the proverbial light bulb going off on Pentecost when Peter thought about the two things together. “You must eat my Body” and “This is my body” go together. Suddenly, we can see that we can consume Jesus in an unbloody manner.

ralphinal:
thanks for your post…

The thing is that Jesus said this in the context of Passover, if I’m not mistaken (Jn 6:4 refers to the festival of Passover approaching). So wouldn’t it make more sense to see this whole discussion later in John 6 as it relates to Passover (and Jesus being the Paschal Lamb)? And yes, the Passover and the L-rd’s Supper are most certainly connected. Wouldn’t it follow, though, that if the bread were to turn into anything at all, why not lamb?

I’m not sure just when Peter made the connection with the Last Supper and Passover. (I’m not understanding to your reference of Pentecost). But I suppose it’s not so important as to when the lightbulb went on, but that , in fact, it did.

I’m really not trying to be a problem-child, just trying to get some understanding on this.

shalom

 

[po18guy]

thanks for the refinement of your post. This topic, John 6, is an excellent example of why you must take the Gospel as a whole, not piecemeal.

Amen!

I can imagine the proverbial light bulb going off on Pentecost when Peter thought about the two things together. “You must eat my Body” and “This is my body” go together. Suddenly, we can see that we can consume Jesus in an unbloody manner.

Just as Peter denied Jesus three times, then Jesus corrected that by making Peter confirm his love for Him three times.

One thing that I like to mention is that Jesus NEVER exactly cleared up if he was being figurative or literal. Often in the Gospels, he would explain to the Apostles what a parable meant or how they should understand. On this one, he left it alone. Once the puzzle was finished, it became clear.

This required the Apostles to have complete faith and trust in Christ, even when his words were difficult to accept.

Christ’s peace.

 

[moondweller]

Those who left took it literalistically. They viewed it as cannibalism. Catholics and Orthodox take Christ’s words literally - to mean the Eucharist. Big difference between literal and literalist.

But the words of Jesus were not in the future tense. He didn’t say days are coming when you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. Nor did John even record Jesus’ words when He instituted the ritual of Communion. It’s far more likely that the words of Jesus had nothing to do with the “Eucharist.” The context certainly doesn’t support it. And Jesus did explain:"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing (i.e., eating and drinking); the words that I spoke to you are spirit and are life."He reveals that His words were not meant to be taken literally. So I would say those who do take them literally still don’t understand His words.

And AGAIN, I must point out, those who took His words literally are those who left.

 

[moondweller]

MD,
I do not want to get into the “who prefigures who” discussion that you guys are having. I do want to point out that “Eucharist” is not mentioned any more than “Trinity” is in the Gospel. Just because the word isn’t there doesn’t mean the teaching is not.

I have no problem with the word “Eucharist” not in the Bible. I don’t know how you extrapolated that from my posts.

 

[revelations]

Are we seriously getting into **ANOTHER **John 6 diatribe. What is the going rate on these things, two IDENTICAL threads per day? Sometimes I just wish the Lord would peak his head out of the tabernacle and go “look, it’s me, i’m here! see!” to clear all the bad mojo out of the air.

Truth: for 1600 years the same doctrine was taught regarding Holy Communion and the real presence. It continues to today.

There is no “mis-interpretation” of John 6 because by the time John 6 was written there was already about 150 years of actual liturgical practice in place regarding the real presence. Early texts indicate this. Inform yourselves.

Fact of the matter is: The Eucharist IS Jesus. We receive the Eucharist. Therefore, we receive Jesus. Therefore, those who receive piously have an intimate relationship with the Lord. I say piously because simply receiving the Lord in the sacred species doesn’t mean you know him, you have to be correctly disposed to receive that grace.

This is NOT saying that protestants don’t have a relationship with Jesus. It is simply not as intimate as the one available to catholics is. So, protestants, all we are saying is if you wish to deepen your relationship with Christ, come and check us out. I did, and I am more than happy.

The Eucharist has nothing to do with an interpretation of the bible. The bible can only be interpreted one way, and that is the Catholic way. This is truth, and it will offend. I am not going to lie to everyone. This is not gumdrop-lollipop stuff, this is serious business. The truth hurts unfortunately, and this stuff does require a leap of faith to believe it. Jesus did not come to unite, but rather he came to divide. Brothers and sisters, let us pray that the Lord will illuminate the lost ones as he has done for us.

The Eucharist is the final stumbling block against Christian unity. In it resides the power to unify all Christians into an undying love for Christ our Lord. Once other denominations come to see the truth and power that resides in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christian unity is sure to swiftly follow.

I encourage you to look deeper than the superficial after the fact arguments against the Eucharist you find on the net, rid your heart of hate and pride and prayerfully contemplate the subject. You might be surprised.

In Prayer,

-revelations

 

[po18guy]

And Jesus did explain:“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing (i.e., eating and drinking); the words that I spoke to you are spirit and are life.”

You have free will to believe or disbelieve anything. You are calling Peter, Paul, Barnabas, the Apostles, Polycarp (student of the Apostle John), Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch and all of the other church fathers and 1,974 years of Christians ever since WRONG! Thank about that for a minute. They all practiced the Eucharist. Why don’t you?

He reveals that His words were not meant to be taken literally. So I would say those who do take them literally still don’t understand His words.

Explain to me how you keep a figurative command.

And AGAIN, I must point out, those who took His words literally are those who left.

And, you do not understand literal vs.literalist again.

You have the bible, that is 50% of Christianity. You do extremely well with that 50% that you have. Just imagine your love of Christ if you had the missing 50%…

Christ’s peace.

 

[moondweller]

You have free will to believe or disbelieve anything. You are calling Peter, Paul, Barnabas, the Apostles, Polycarp (student of the Apostle John), Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch and all of the other church fathers and 1,974 years of Christians ever since WRONG! Thank about that for a minute. They all practiced the Eucharist. Why don’t you?

What does “practice the Eucharist” mean?

Explain to me how you keep a figurative command.

Well, I don’t think Jesus’ words in John six are about the “Eucharist” at all.

But at the last supper He said,"Do this in remembrance of Me."He didn’t say, “Do this in order to eat Me.” Nor did He say, “Upon your command these will miraculously become Me.”

But Paul said,"For as often as you eat the BREAD and drink the CUP, you PROCLAIM the Lord’s death until He comes."Now this I do take literally and is the reason I partake of Communion. You do not.

And, you do not understand literal vs.literalist again.

One is an adjective, one is a noun.

You have the bible, that is 50% of Christianity. You do extremely well with that 50% that you have. Just imagine your love of Christ if you had the missing 50%…

Christ’s peace.

My thoughts never really go on measuring my love of Christ, but contemplating what He did selflessly on my behalf (Jn. 15:13) I often ponder on His infinite love toward me (1 Jn. 4:10), and rejoice!. :extrahappy:
.

 

[moondweller]

Are we seriously getting into **ANOTHER **John 6 diatribe.

Well, the OP’s original John 6 “diatribe” was to denigrate non-Catholics. He thought he’d discovered some profound, iron clad truth which proclaimed all non-transubstantiationists to be non-disciples of Christ. I would say that’s quite serious, indeed.

 

[po18guy]

Well, the OP’s original John 6 “diatribe” was to denigrate non-Catholics. He thought he’d discovered some profound, iron clad truth which proclaimed all non-transubstantiationists to be non-disciples of Christ. I would say that’s quite serious, indeed.

I would have been called “exclusive” if I intended the question for Catholics only. As a devotee of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, I call all to a fuller relationship with our Blessed Lord. It’s that simple. I want you to question your faith, if you do not eat His Sacred Body and drink His Sacred Blood.

Christ’s peace be with you.