Which book "Upon This Rock", "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" or something else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lori-H
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, I doubt you even know what Eucharist is. Second, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the John 6, and third, Isaiah was prophesying of Christ not your pope. I know you think he is Christ on earth but he is not.

  1. *]If Jn 6 was metaphore, why did Jesus come back at His followers so many times to refute their objections? Seeing that His followers were denying this teaching, why didn’t Jesus change His approach? Jesus didn’t back down because He wasn’t using metaphore. And most of Jesus disciples left Him over this teaching never to follow Him anymore, and He didn’t go after them. He let them go!!! Catch that? He let them go. He didn’t say hey guys I’m using metaphore…come back. Would God let His disciples go over a metaphore? Hardly. What did they prove by leaving? They were dark inside. They weren’t teachable, and they had no life in them.
    *]The Isaiah quote points towards the one who is of the house of David, the king who has the power to give the keys of his kingdom to one of His choosing who would be under him and speak for him. Jesus, son of David and King of Kings. He has the power to name His prime minister. Jesus gave Peter the keys to His kingdom.
    *]The pope is in the line of Peter. But because he speaks for Christ, which is the function of the keys, he acts in personna Christi
    BC:
    I was raised Catholic, I’ve studied Scripture, the development of the canon of Scripture, and the early church. I read primary documents not books about the documents. Your accusations are extremely weak Carl, and you back nothing up.
    You’ve posted 14 times so far on this subject. All your posts can be read in their context and within the context of people who responded to you.
    forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=5633320

    Have you backed up what YOU say?
 
“The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open. I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house. ‘They will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the posterity, all vessels of small quantity, from the cups to all the pitchers. In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘the peg that is fastened in the secure place will be removed and be cut down and fall, and the burden that was on it will be cut off; for the LORD has spoken.’” (Isa. 22:22-25)

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.” (Rev. 3:7)

Still think Isaiah is talking about the pope?
[Rev 3:7] doesn’t deny the papacy. Jesus the owner of the keys gave Peter the keys. Any disagreement there?

[Is 22:22-25] typologically, shows Jesus can give the keys to who he chooses. Eliakin (type of Peter) receives the keys from Jesus. (Shebna) a type for scrbes and pharisees who sit on Moses seat were being removed from office. Our Lord’s people will be led by Peter, NOT the scribes and pharisees… The Isaiah scripture also describes (typologically) Jesus the giver of the keys, and Peter the receiver of the keys were both crucified. But since Jesus kingdom has no end, the kingdom will be led by successors to this promise from Jesus. And we see this in scripture AND Tradition.

Here’s another approach. Peter is the Father’s choice. In Jesus words

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Any questions?
BC:
“Then He spoke many things to them in parables…” (Mat. 13:3)

The feeding of the 5000 happens in Matthew 14. That would be the same feeding of the 5000 from John 6:1-12. The Bread of Life discourse happened in John 6:25-71.
Is the miracle of feeding the 5000 a parable? No. What the 5000 witnessed and were taught had them so enthusiastic they followed Jesus accross the lake.

THEN

Jesus gave them the REST of the teaching. Jn 6:25-71 (bread of life discourse) was the Eucharistic teaching, which corresponds with the Eucharistic passages (last supper) in Matthew Mark and Luke.
BC:
John tells us that those disciple that left did not believe in Him, so tell me, why would He want people following Him that don’t believe in Him. Do you know why they were following Him?
The 5000 followed Him because they witnessed the miracle feeding of the 5000, AND because they heard His teaching. But they ultimately showed they were unteachable, even face to face with God when they received the REST of the teaching… and denied it. Before that, the 5000 were squarely in Jesus camp. But they left Him over the Eucharist, and He let them go.
 
Thank you to all for soundly refuting the claims of the self-proclaimed Pope Brian. I have been very busy today, and I really have nothing to add to what you have done in trying to educate this lost soul who is filled with hate for the Church.
 

  1. *]If Jn 6 was metaphore, why did Jesus come back at His followers so many times to refute their objections? Seeing that His followers were denying this teaching, why didn’t Jesus change His approach? Jesus didn’t back down because He wasn’t using metaphore. And most of Jesus disciples left Him over this teaching never to follow Him anymore, and He didn’t go after them. He let them go!!! Catch that? He let them go. He didn’t say hey guys I’m using metaphore…come back. Would God let His disciples go over a metaphore? Hardly. What did they prove by leaving? They were dark inside. They weren’t teachable, and they had no life in them.

  1. Jesus plainly told them no less than seven times that if they believe in Him they would have eternal life. But that is not what they wanted to hear because they believed that Messiah would come and establish the kingdom that would stand forever. They were excited about Him because they thought He would enter Jerusalem, oust the Romans and set up the kingdom. That is what they were looking for! They were confused by the things He was telling them and so they stared to probe Him to see if He really was the promised Messiah. The more Jesus answered them the more they doubted He was the Messiah. Finally, after seven time of telling them plainly, He used a metaphor that would offend them to the point of convincing them He is not the Messiah. The twelve were tested as well, but with one major advantage, they knew He was the Son of God. They realized that in the boat the night before.

    What is the meat of God? “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him. Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (v27-29)

    Later Jesus said to them, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v40)

    Then He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v53-54)

    The only way these two verses can coincide is if eating His body and drinking His blood is the same as believing in Him.
    Is the miracle of feeding the 5000 a parable? No. What the 5000 were taught had them so enthusiastic they followed Jesus accross the lake.
    How can you understand Scripture if you can’t even understand what you are reading here? I did not say the feeding of the 5000 was a parable. Carl, a Catholic, told me that Jesus never spoke in parables prior to the bread of life discourse. I simply proved him wrong.
 
Thank you to all for soundly refuting the claims of the self-proclaimed Pope Brian. I have been very busy today, and I really have nothing to add to what you have done in trying to educate this lost soul who is filled with hate for the Church.
Feel better now, Carl? Nice example of Christian charity.
 
Jesus plainly told them no less than seven times that if they believe in Him they would have eternal life. But that is not what they wanted to hear because they believed that Messiah would come and establish the kingdom that would stand forever. They were excited about Him because they thought He would enter Jerusalem, oust the Romans and set up the kingdom. That is what they were looking for! They were confused by the things He was telling them and so they stared to probe Him to see if He really was the promised Messiah. The more Jesus answered them the more they doubted He was the Messiah. Finally, after seven time of telling them plainly, He used a metaphor that would offend them to the point of convincing them He is not the Messiah. The twelve were tested as well, but with one major advantage, they knew He was the Son of God. They realized that in the boat the night before.

What is the meat of God? “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him. Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (v27-29)

Later Jesus said to them, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v40)

Then He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v53-54)

The only way these two verses can coincide is if eating His body and drinking His blood is the same as believing in Him.

How can you understand Scripture if you can’t even understand what you are reading here? I did not say the feeding of the 5000 was a parable. Carl, a Catholic, told me that Jesus never spoke in parables prior to the bread of life discourse. I simply proved him wrong.
I said no such thing. What I said was that in the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus never spoke in parables prior to the discourse, and in favt, the word parable never occurs in the entire Gospel. You have proved nothing other than your willingness to twist whatever you can to further your cause of anti-Catholic hate.
 
I said no such thing. What I said was that in the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus never spoke in parables prior to the discourse, and in favt, the word parable never occurs in the entire Gospel. You have proved nothing other than your willingness to twist whatever you can to further your cause of anti-Catholic hate.
There is no reason to believe John 6 is a parable or a metaphor. Jesus did not speak in parables previous to this… (Post #59)
You really should be clearer. And you are right about the discourse; Jesus told them plainly before he used the metaphor.

You’re such a nice guy Carl. It’s been a pleasure talking to you! 😉
 
what I have is over ten years of early church study. I know the context of the writings, not just quotes taken from apologetics websites.
Okay…if you have studied the Early Church Fathers for ten years, let me ask you this question:

In your opinion, were the Early Church Fathers mostly “Catholic” or mostly “Protestant” in their understanding of the Eucharist, the priesthood, confession and other doctrines that you and I would easily agree are distinctively Catholic today?

Thanks.
 
You really should be clearer. And you are right about the discourse; Jesus told them plainly before he used the metaphor.

You’re such a nice guy Carl. It’s been a pleasure talking to you! 😉
It was no metaphor. As a teacher, he was morally obligated to explain himself if he was misunderstood, which he did not. Therefore he was speaking plainly, and not using a metaphor
 
“…the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vicar of Christ)

Close enough wouldn’t you say?
Only if extreme prejudice drive you to read into that what is not there. Vicar means a person who acts in place of another; substitute. Here is how that works:

PETER AS VICAR OF CHRIST PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Non-Catholics respond to the claim that the pope is the Vicar of Christ by stating, “There is no vicar of Christ on earth except the Holy Spirit!” It is true that the Holy Spirit is a vicar of Christ (John 15:26, 16:12-15), but there may be others also. The term “vicar” means “a substitute; esp. an under-servant [who substitutes].” The scriptures clearly show that Simon Peter was appointed by Jesus to such a position in His kingdom.

Matthew 16:13-19
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 17:24-27
24
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25"Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?” 26"From others," Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Jesus specifically commands Peter to pay the tax that He Himself owed. Peter acted on Jesus’ behalf in fulfilling the requirement to pay the tax.

John 21:15-17
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (Jn 16). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
 
“The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open. I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house. ‘They will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the posterity, all vessels of small quantity, from the cups to all the pitchers. In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘the peg that is fastened in the secure place will be removed and be cut down and fall, and the burden that was on it will be cut off; for the LORD has spoken.’” (Isa. 22:22-25)

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.” (Rev. 3:7)

Still think Isaiah is talking about the pope?
Absolutely. Here’s why:

Peter – The Rock and the Keeper of the Keys

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
  1. Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
  2. Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
  3. The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
  4. For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
  5. Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
 
“…the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vicar of Christ)

Close enough wouldn’t you say?
Nope. I have more on this.

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19
, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.
 
John tells us that those disciple that left did not believe in Him, so tell me, why would He want people following Him that don’t believe in Him. Do you know why they were following Him?
Because they had eaten their fill and wanted to make him king.

But you’re right. He wouldn’t want unbelievers as disciples. Which is why he didn’t go chasing down the road after them after they left saying, “Wait! Don’t go! I was speaking metaphorically. Let me explaaaaaaaaain…”

Remember, there are different groups in John 6:
  1. the crowd (those primarily interested in free food and a king)
  2. the disciples (his followers who were more knowledgable about his identity)
  3. the apostles (the twelve)
Jesus is willing to let some of his followers go over their understanding of his words, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” because there was no misunderstanding…they understood him to be speaking literally and they could not accept the “hard teaching” - a teaching he would not and could not change or explain as a parable because he had spoken literally.

This is why he challenged the Twelve, “Do you want to go away also?”
 
Later Jesus said to them, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v40)

Then He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v53-54)

The only way these two verses can coincide is if eating His body and drinking His blood is the same as believing in Him.
Not so fast! It isn’t an either/or thing it is a this and that thing!
The first quote is from the Invitation to faith discourse:verses 35-47.
The second comes from the invitation to Eucharist discourse: verses 48 - 58
(Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Gospel of John; Ignatius Press; 2003; footnotes)

In the first one(verse40), he IS speaking metaphorically, in the second one(verse53-54) he IS speaking literally.
The word that Jesus uses for “eat” literally means “to gnaw, or chew on”. vs 57:“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
The first discourse is so obviously metaphorical and the second section is so obviously literal.
That is how the first verse can coincide with the second.
CC
[SIGN]I love my German Shepard[/SIGN]
 
Jesus plainly told them no less than seven times that if they believe in Him they would have eternal life.
What was the test of their belief?
BC:
But that is not what they wanted to hear because they believed that Messiah would come and establish the kingdom that would stand forever. They were excited about Him because they thought He would enter Jerusalem, oust the Romans and set up the kingdom. That is what they were looking for!
This was NOT in the bread of life discourse.
BC:
They were confused by the things He was telling them and so they stared to probe Him to see if He really was the promised Messiah. The more Jesus answered them the more they doubted He was the Messiah.
The followers (from the 5000 the day before) were offended because He was telling them unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they would have no life in them. Those who eat His flesh and drink His blood have life in them and He will raise them on the last day. This was John’s account of Jesus teaching on the Eucharist. Matthew Mark and Luke had the last supper. John didn’t. He records the bread of life discourse.
BC:
Finally, after seven time of telling them plainly, He used a metaphor that would offend them to the point of convincing them He is not the Messiah.
What metaphor?

No one can come to Jesus and the the Eucharist unless the Father draws them. Now either they weren’t drawn by the Father or they won’t bend their will to the will of God. Either way, God was teaching them face to face, and they weren’t teachable even by God in person. Yesterday they wanted more. This day they were given more but walked away. Just like people do today. They walk away from the Eucharist.
BC:
The twelve were tested as well, but with one major advantage, they knew He was the Son of God. They realized that in the boat the night before.
After Jesus followers from the day before left, Jesus turned and asked the 12, are you going to leave me too? “THEY” didn’t speak. “THEY” didn’t respond to the question. We don’t know what “THEY” thought at that moment. Only Peter spoke. Only Peter responded to Jesus question
BC:
What is the meat of God? “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him. Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (v27-29)
And when He told them (those from the 5000) what they must believe, they didn’t believe it and left.
BC:
Later Jesus said to them, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v40)
They saw Him but didn’t believe what He was teaching them.
BC:
Then He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v53-54)

The only way these two verses can coincide is if eating His body and drinking His blood is the same as believing in Him.
The only other time Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is at the last supper when He institutes the Eucharist. The bread of life discourse is John’s account of Jesus teaching on the Eucharist.
 
After Jesus followers from the day before left, Jesus turned and asked the 12, are you going to leave me too? “THEY” didn’t speak. “THEY” didn’t respond to the question. We don’t know what “THEY” thought at that moment. Only Peter spoke. Only Peter responded to Jesus question.
This is precisely why I don’t take anything you say about Scripture seriously. We do in fact know what THEY thought at that moment, and it can be easily verified in the Gospels. I even gave you the answer in my comment.

When the disciples set out after Jesus departed from the crowd, they encountered Him walking on the sea. “Then those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God.’” (Mat. 14:33)

And even before that, when Nathanael first encountered Jesus he said, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’” (Jhn. 1:49)

And in John 6 when Peter responded to Jesus he said, “WE have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (v69)

They all knew that Jesus was the Son of God prior to the bread of life discourse.

Incidentally, all this happened prior to Peter’s confession in Mat. 16. In Mat. 16, Jesus demonstrated the difference between the twelve He chose and all the other so-called disciples. Nobody but them knew who He was, and He told them that God in Heaven revealed it to them. Now compare that with what He told the Jews in Jhn. 6: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v44)

He is the bread that man may eat of and not die (v50).

The Eucharist, which is not defined by the elements that represent Christ’s body and blood, is the offering of thanks given by the church in recognition that we are participants in His passion through faith. That is what we eat and drink whereby we will not die.

If you take His words to mean we must physically eat His body and drink His blood, then you must believe that by doing so you will not die. We can prove that wrong all day long.

Since devout Catholic die just like everyone else, how do you interpret verse 50?
 
The Eucharist, which is not defined by the elements that represent Christ’s body and blood, is the offering of thanks given by the church in recognition that we are participants in His passion through faith. That is what we eat and drink whereby we will not die.
No where in Scripture does Jesus EVER say that he meant the Eucharist is the offering of thanks. We know that the Apostles were not the brightest bulbs on the block and Jesus had to explain His parables to them, He would NEVER NOT specifically state something so critical to Christian belief. You are interpreting scripture to suit your own theology.

If you take His words to mean we must physically eat His body and drink His blood, then you must believe that by doing so you will not die. We can prove that wrong all day long.

Yes, I do take Jesus AT HIS WORD…just as later on the Christians took the Apostles at their word. Jesus promises EVERLASTING LIFE. Jesus says that there is “death”(physical death) and then there is “DEATH”(Spiritual death). We need not fear those that can kill the body, but fear those that can kill the soul!

Since devout Catholic die just like everyone else, how do you interpret verse 50?

See answer above! How else would I interpret it??

CC
[SIGN]I love my German Shepard![/SIGN]
 
This is precisely why I don’t take anything you say about Scripture seriously. We do in fact know what THEY thought at that moment, and it can be easily verified in the Gospels. I even gave you the answer in my comment.
“THEY” didn’t answer Jesus question. Peter answered the question. Jesus still asked the question of them at THAT moment, “are you (plural) going to leave me too”?
BC:
When the disciples set out after Jesus departed from the crowd, they encountered Him walking on the sea. “Then those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God.’” (Mat. 14:33)
For that confession, why didn’t they all get name changes to Rock, and receive the keys of the kingdom like Peter did?
BC:
And even before that, when Nathanael first encountered Jesus he said, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’” (Jhn. 1:49)
For his confession, why didn’t he get a name change to Rock and receive the keys to the kingdom?
BC:
And in John 6 when Peter responded to Jesus he said, “WE have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (v69)

They all knew that Jesus was the Son of God prior to the bread of life discourse.

  1. *]That wasn’t the point I raised. The question He asked His 12 apostles was, “are you going to leave me too”?
    *]Regarding YOUR point, why didn’t they get name changes to Rock, and receive the keys to the kingdom like Peter if it is that confession that makes it happen?
    BC:
    Incidentally, all this happened prior to Peter’s confession in Mat. 16.
    :coffeeread:

    Since we are comparing John’s gospel

    Jn 1:
    41* He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42* He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter *).

    As you can see, from the opening of John’s gospel, Peter knew Jesus was the Christ when he was 1st introduced to Jesus. And Andrew ALSO knew. Therefore, In a sense, that takes away the Protestant argument that Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith in Mt 16 caused Peter’s name change and caused Jesus giving Peter the keys. Andrew knew what Peter knew 1st. He didn’t get name changes. He didn’t get singled out to get the keys like Peter did. Nor was he singled out all the other times like Jesus singles Peter out for specific directions and duties. So it wasn’t necessarily Peter’s faith, OR his confession…true? Can we agree then, that It was God the Father who chose Peter from all eternity, to be the Rock, and head apostle, to feed and rule the Church. :cool:
    BC:
    In Mat. 16, Jesus demonstrated the difference between the twelve He chose and all the other so-called disciples. Nobody but them knew who He was, and He told them that God in Heaven revealed it to them.
    Technically, in that passage, the language is more specific. Jesus switches tense from you (plural) when speaking to all His disciples, to you (singular) when speaking to Peter specifically.
    BC:
    Now compare that with what He told the Jews in Jhn. 6: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v44)

    He is the bread that man may eat of and not die (v50).

    The Eucharist, which is not defined by the elements that represent Christ’s body and blood, is the offering of thanks given by the church in recognition that we are participants in His passion through faith. That is what we eat and drink whereby we will not die.
    The elements Jesus used specifically, are bread and wine. Jesus changed THOSE elements into His body and blood. THAT is what we do, That is what we use, That is who we eat and drink at the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine…

    Anyone who does this in an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation on themselves. 1 Cor 11:29]
    BC:
    If you take His words to mean we must physically eat His body and drink His blood, then you must believe that by doing so you will not die. We can prove that wrong all day long.

    Since devout Catholic die just like everyone else, how do you interpret verse 50?
    Brian, are you serious?
 
If a purely metaphorical eating were meant Jesus would not have changed phago to trogo when addressing the Jews
 
This is precisely why I don’t take anything you say about Scripture seriously. We do in fact know what THEY thought at that moment, and it can be easily verified in the Gospels. I even gave you the answer in my comment.

When the disciples set out after Jesus departed from the crowd, they encountered Him walking on the sea. “Then those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God.’” (Mat. 14:33)

And even before that, when Nathanael first encountered Jesus he said, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’” (Jhn. 1:49)

And in John 6 when Peter responded to Jesus he said, “WE have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (v69)

They all knew that Jesus was the Son of God prior to the bread of life discourse.
If the Twelve were as solid as you say, why did Jesus even bother to ask the question? In fact, Jesus reveals that one of them, Judas Iscariot, was not on board at all.

Additionally, Peter expresses what they believed, but his response gives NO indication whatsoever about what they thought about the teaching they had just heard.

Therefore, despite your claim, we do NOT know “what THEY thought at that moment.”

My opinion is that they were reeling from the idea of eating his flesh which they (and those that left) obviously understood literally. Peter’s response suggests this, for he says, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

IOW, Peter was saying, “Jesus, we don’t really follow everything you just said; it’s a hard teaching - almost too much to accept. We’re trying to understand, and we’re hanging on by faith. We’re torn…but where else can we go to see and hear the things you have shown us?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top