Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

[PRmerger]

It is hard to understand if you don’t get the symbolism.

Even my 2nd grade daughter understands the symbolism, fly.

It’s not that difficult to understand that Jesus said he is our spiritual nourishment.

If you don’t understand the metaphor, then it won’t make sense. Even your statement that this is where Judas “left” the flock is a metaphor because he stayed with Jesus up until the Last Supper. Physically, he did not leave but spiritually and metaphorically he left.

Yes. And what shocking teaching caused Judas to leave “metaphorically”?

Not a single person will be shocked if you tell them that Jesus is spiritual nourishment.

Not

A

Single

Person.

Why would they? It’s such a benign, palatable, non-threatening teaching. Jesus is our food. Of course he is. What’s not to like about that?

 

[ERose]

A rememberance is not the literal event. In this case it is the act of eating the bread and drinking the wine that is done in rememberance, which is the very definition of symbolism…one thing represents another.

So remembrance is the definition of symbolism? Comeon now that is really a stretch. Remembrance means to remember. To not forget. The Eucharist is repeated throughout to world to always remember the sacrifice of Jesus. And we just don’t remember but we participate in a very unique way in the sacrifice of our Lord.

I find it interesting that you can get the symbolism of the bread symbolizing the members of the body of Christ, yet not see that that same symbolism is used to compare the Eucharist.

Because we are all members of the extended body of Christ which is the Church. The Eucharist being the Body of Christ also represents the Church.

Because of what the Eucharist represents. Not only does the Eucharist represent the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of Christ represent the Atonement. Can the Atonement be participated in unworthily? NO.

The only way the Holy Eucharist represents Atonement is if it is the body and blood of Christ that was Sacrificed upon the Cross for our Sins.

And what does the consuming of the sacrifice represent? Jesus tried to give the understanding:
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Yes the flesh of the sacrifice establishes holiness feeds not only the physical body but the spiritual one as well.

And there was apostacy going on while the Apostles were still alive, otherwise they would not have had to go around trying to put out fires.

We call it heresy and you are correct there was heresy at the time. But concerning the Great Apostasy, we are going through it right now. It wasn’t an occurance back then and it had nothing to do with the Church. The Apostasy is just that. Turning away from God. Away from his Church. Christ said he will be with His Church always. Even to the end of the world. Christ never left his true Church. No the Great Apostasy is now. In the world where people are just no longer willing to believe in God but would rather believe in the god of this world. Whole countries that used to be filled with holy people are now embracing Satan and his doctrine of secularism. Morality and ethics are turned upside down. That which used to be virtue is now vice and vice virtue. If you don’t believe me look out your window. Watch the news. We are living in the Great Apostasy right now. One of our Bishops in the states recently said that he will die in his bed, his successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr’s death. I believe him. If you have kids I recommend preparing them. Because after the great turning away will come the tribulation. I believe my children will see the beginning of the Great Tribulation and my grandchildren, if they hold firm, will also die the martyr’s death.

How is it you don’t know how? If it is a literal thing, then there is only one way to accomplish it. If it is symbolic, then there are many ways it can be done.
This is the type of understanding the Apostles had…they didn’t understand completely but had faith that it would be made known to them.

How are we saved? How does the Holy Spirit come and dwell within us? How does Baptism wash away our sins? By the power of God. I know that. I don’t know how He does it. I just know that He does.

That is a wonderful scripture. If anything it demonstrates how even the Apostles did not fully understand everything that was prophecied and taught, even though they walked beside the Lord during His ministry. Even though they were receiving manifestations of the truth, they were slow to believe until He blessed and brake the bread. At that time the spirit revealed to them wihtout a doubt of the truth that was before them.

This we can agree. It wasn’t until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that the disciples trully understood everything that Jesus taught them. But in the breaking of the bread as it is called in the Book of Acts we are for a short period of time, more intimately connected to our Lord because we are sharing in His body and in His Blood. We trully become one, not just spiritually but physically as well. A taste of heaven on earth. I always liked the saying “you are what you eat” I can only pray so.

God Bless.

 

[flyonthewall]

So please tell me the teaching to which Jesus referred to as “shocking”.

That he is spiritual nourishment? Um…no. Not so shocking is it?

You tell any Muslim, Hindu, pagan that Jesus claimed he was spiritual nourishment and not a single one will be shocked.

Now, tell him that Jesus gave us his body/blood/soul and divinity to be consumed, and see what reaction you’ll get.

It would be shocking to literally eat His flesh and Drink His blood. And that is the whole issue, He meant it spritually(symbolically), but they took it literally.

Surely you’re not claiming that all of Jesus’ discourses were parables, are you, fly?

And, you really can’t be trying to say that John 6 is a parable. I am simply incredulous that you would try to proclaim that.

Not all of Jesus’ discourses are parables, and John 6 is not a parable, but it is definately symbolic.
There was a reason for Him to teach symbolically, and that was explained when He was asked why He taught in parables.

Even my 2nd grade daughter understands the symbolism, fly.

It’s not that difficult to understand that Jesus said he is our spiritual nourishment.

Symbolism is easy to understand when it has been explained. The bible gives examples of the Apostles not understanding the words of Christ, so it is safe to say that His words were not easily understood by all, even those within His inner circle.

Yes. And what shocking teaching caused Judas to leave “metaphorically”?
Not a single person will be shocked if you tell them that Jesus is spiritual nourishment.
Not A Single Person.
Why would they? It’s such a benign, palatable, non-threatening teaching. Jesus is our food. Of course he is. What’s not to like about that?

As I stated above, it was not palatable because they took His words literally and not spiritually. Their understanding was not quickened by the spirit.
It is the same when Jesus stated that a man must be born again. Nicodemus took His words literally and asked how a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born again?
That seems like such a ridiculous question now, but it was asked by a religios leader of the Jews, one who should have understood.
But just as being re-born is symbolic, eating His flesh and drinking His blood is symbolic.
Those in John 6 made the same mistake as Nicodemus, only in John 6 Jesus let those who had ears to hear His message.

 

[joe370]

Flyonthewall, so you believe that Jesus specifically, purposefully spoke in parables in John 6 to those disciples who were true followers of Jesus, up to the point, so that they could hear but not understand? Really??? Or is it that the parable itself was too offensive so they walked away?

What would have been so shocking about a parable that did not mean that they must eat his flesh and drink His blood??? Surely you must ask yourself the same question.

Why did Jesus teach with parables?
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The same thing is going on here in John 6. Those that left were hearing but they heard not. Their understanding was not quickened by the spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be shocking to literally eat His flesh and Drink His blood.

Yes! :extrahappy:

And you see that Jesus affirmed that his teaching was hard and shocking. He does not correct those who understood his shocking teaching, but let them walk away.

Judas left.

I think that is the most trenchant point here.

Judas left. Just like all disciples who care not to take Jesus’ hard sayings but change them into something more palatable.

 

[PRmerger]

Symbolism is easy to understand when it has been explained. The bible gives examples of the Apostles not understanding the words of Christ, so it is safe to say that His words were not easily understood by all, even those within His inner circle.

A perfect rationale for why the flock needs a Magisterium to provide correct interpretation of God’s Word.

As I stated above, it was not palatable because they took His words literally and not spiritually.

Right. And Judas did not like his saying and changed his heart at that moment.

But just as being re-born is symbolic, eating His flesh and drinking His blood is symbolic.

Indeed. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is symbolic. It’s just not ONLY symbolic.

The marital embrace is symbolic, too. It’s just not ONLY symbolic. It’s a true physical One Flesh Union.

 

[flyonthewall]

So remembrance is the definition of symbolism? Comeon now that is really a stretch. Remembrance means to remember. To not forget. The Eucharist is repeated throughout to world to always remember the sacrifice of Jesus. And we just don’t remember but we participate in a very unique way in the sacrifice of our Lord.

The Last Supper was an ordinance whose purpose was to remember. The bread and wine were emblems, symbols of the Atonement. When something is done or performed in rememberance then it is symbolic, representational, metaphorical, figurative.

Because we are all members of the extended body of Christ which is the Church. The Eucharist being the Body of Christ also represents the Church.

At the Last Supper, He states specifically that the bread is His body that was given, and the wine is His blood that was shed. These are the emblems of the Atonement.

The only way the Holy Eucharist represents Atonement is if it is the body and blood of Christ that was Sacrificed upon the Cross for our Sins.

okay.

Yes the flesh of the sacrifice establishes holiness feeds not only the physical body but the spiritual one as well.

Yet the physical only feeds the physical. Remember that the flesh availeth nothing, but it is the spirit that giveth life.

How are we saved? How does the Holy Spirit come and dwell within us? How does Baptism wash away our sins? By the power of God. I know that. I don’t know how He does it. I just know that He does.

This we can agree. It wasn’t until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that the disciples trully understood everything that Jesus taught them. But in the breaking of the bread as it is called in the Book of Acts we are for a short period of time, more intimately connected to our Lord because we are sharing in His body and in His Blood. We trully become one, not just spiritually but physically as well. A taste of heaven on earth. I always liked the saying “you are what you eat” I can only pray so.

God Bless.

And may God bless you too.

 

[flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall, so you believe that Jesus specifically, purposefully spoke in parables in John 6 to those disciples who were true followers of Jesus, up to the point, so that they could hear but not understand? Really??? Or is it that the parable itself was too offensive so they walked away? Let me see if I can clarify a bit…The Lord spoke in parables so that he who hath ears would hear. Remember “give not that which is holy unto the dogs…”, “pearls before swine…”? The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were not for everyone, but only those that were drawn by the Father. Speaking in parables and using symbols, allowed the mysteries to be taught to those who had “ears” while keeping them veiled from those that did not.

What would have been so shocking about a parable that did not mean that they must eat his flesh and drink His blood??? Surely you must ask yourself the same question.

Why does it seem that you base the truth of this by how shocking it seemed to those that did not understand?

 

[ERose]

The Last Supper was an ordinance whose purpose was to remember. The bread and wine were emblems, symbols of the Atonement. When something is done or performed in rememberance then it is symbolic, representational, metaphorical, figurative.

That is not the case. When Jesus tells His disciples to do this in remembrance, he doesn’t want this action to cease. It must be done until He returns. We must never forget, the sacrifice and He will never leave us as long as we do this in memory of Him. There is symbolism in the Eucharist there is no doubt. But there is no doubt either that when the priest says those holy words that the bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. And within that bread and wine can be found Jesus not just the flesh and blood and His soul and divinity as well. That is what the Sacred scriptures teach along with Sacred Tradition and that is what we believe.

At the Last Supper, He states specifically that the bread is His body that was given, and the wine is His blood that was shed. These are the emblems of the Atonement.

So now you agree that the bread and wine are his body and blood. We are making progress.

Yet the physical only feeds the physical. Remember that the flesh availeth nothing, but it is the spirit that giveth life.

The Eucharist feeds us physically and spiritually. The Eucharist is not just dead flesh and dead blood but the living flesh and the living blood of Christ. That flesh and blood is Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. This is a difference between the OT sacrifices and the NT Sacrifice. Where the OT sacrifices are killed and eaten, the NT sacrifice was killed and resurrected and then we eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of Him who is alive and divine.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Hey Fly…

flyonthewall;7178663]Let me see if I can clarify a bit…The Lord spoke in parables so that he who hath ears would hear.

OK

Remember “give not that which is holy unto the dogs…”, “pearls before swine…”?

Got it…

The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were not for everyone, but only those that were drawn by the Father.

So Jesus willfully and purposefully spoke to those disciples, who were following Him up to that point, with evasive language because the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were not for them???

Why does it seem that you base the truth of this by how shocking it seemed to those that did not understand?

Because they said, how can this man give us his flesh to eat. Shock…They didn’t say: how can this man speak with symbols or parables. They couldn’t understand why Jesus wanted them to eat his flesh. Right???

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey Fly…
OK

Got it…

So Jesus willfully and purposefully spoke to those disciples, who were following Him up to that point, with evasive language because the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were not for them???

With the same willfulness and purpose when he taught in parables. The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven were presented to all that could understand.

Because they said, how can this man give us his flesh to eat. Shock…They didn’t say: how can this man speak with symbols or parables. They couldn’t understand why Jesus wanted them to eat his flesh. Right???

Right.
They were shocked because they misunderstood the message. They focused on the words rather than the message.
It is interesting that those that left were the ones that thought they actually had to eat flesh and drink blood.
I also find it interesting that even though it is said that the bread is literally His body, it still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, and has the same texture as bread. There really is no physical change but it is only according to ones faith. Sounds very symbolic to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Right.
They were shocked because they misunderstood the message. They focused on the words rather than the message.
It is interesting that those that left were the ones that thought they actually had to eat flesh and drink blood.

Those that stayed said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” indicating that they also did not like the message; however, they trusted that what they heard was, however unpalatable, God’s Words.

I also find it interesting that even though it is said that the bread is literally His body, it still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, and has the same texture as bread. There really is no physical change but it is only according to ones faith. Sounds very symbolic to me.

Same could be said by an atheist regarding Christ. Even though it is said that he is literally divine, he still looks like a human, spoke like a human, smelled like a human, had the same form as a human. No physical change occurred in his humanity, eh?

Now, I understand that your views about the divinity of Christ are quite different than those of Christianity…

 

[TedDC]

Those that stayed said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” indicating that they also did not like the message; however, they trusted that what they heard was, however unpalatable, God’s Words.

Same could be said by an atheist regarding Christ. Even though it is said that he is literally divine, he still looks like a human, spoke like a human, smelled like a human, had the same form as a human. No physical change occurred in his humanity, eh?

Now, I understand that your views about the divinity of Christ are quite different than those of Christianity…

The difference is that we have the historical record (which of can be challenged, of course) in the form of eyewitness testimony that Christ performed miracles and rose from the dead, suggesting His divine nature. But in the case of the Real Presence, we have no evidence - just faith in the Church’s interpretation of arguably ambiguous Biblical texts.

 

[flyonthewall]

Those that stayed said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” indicating that they also did not like the message; however, they trusted that what they heard was, however unpalatable, God’s Words.

Same could be said by an atheist regarding Christ. Even though it is said that he is literally divine, he still looks like a human, spoke like a human, smelled like a human, had the same form as a human. No physical change occurred in his humanity, eh?

Now, I understand that your views about the divinity of Christ are quite different than those of Christianity…

TedDC makes a good point…The works of Christ, and His fruits were evident, They were seen, and felt and otherwise experienced by those around Him.
The physical presence, isn’t so physical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The difference is that we have the historical record (which of can be challenged, of course) in the form of eyewitness testimony that Christ performed miracles and rose from the dead, suggesting His divine nature. But in the case of the Real Presence, we have no evidence - just faith in the Church’s interpretation of arguably ambiguous Biblical texts.

Not ambiguous in the context of Christ’s Church. Outside of it, yes, you may as well go fire up your own church on the corner and start preaching every Sunday at 10AM, whatever you like to believe, or don’t believe, or just plain make up for the hell of it.

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[PRmerger]

TedDC makes a good point…The works of Christ, and His fruits were evident, They were seen, and felt and otherwise experienced by those around Him.
The physical presence, isn’t so physical.

Yet the majority of those who saw him did not believe, eh?

It would seem that Jesus being divine was not so evident.

 

[PRmerger]

But in the case of the Real Presence, we have no evidence - just faith in the Church’s interpretation of arguably ambiguous Biblical texts.

Interesting. The above comment could be made by not a few atheists regarding the Real Presence of Christ in human form.

They deny his divinity, because he looked like a man, walked like a man, spoke like a man.

There is no proof that he was God. In fact, he appeared as a man, fully and completely. Nothing else.

Thus one ought to be very, very careful about denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because of its appearance. You will not then be able to defend the Incarnation, because, of course, Jesus appeared as a human.

 

[flyonthewall]

Yet the majority of those who saw him did not believe, eh?

It would seem that Jesus being divine was not so evident.

That is true. His divinity was not apparent to the majority of people. He did not wear His divinity on His sleeve. He taught that it is by His works one would know Him.
There were very few whom He sought out, everyone else had to seek Him.

He even states in John 6 that those that were there were not there for His miracles, but for the food. What does that tell you about the audience?
Of course they will miss the spritual message because they weren’t there for it.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course they will miss the spritual message because they weren’t there for it.

Indeed. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that Catholics do not see the spiritual (are you intending to say “symbolic” here?) message in John 6. Of course we do! We’re just saying that we take Jesus at his word and understand his entire revelation: we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.

 

[NucleicAcid]

Indeed. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that Catholics do not see the spiritual (are you intending to say “symbolic” here?) message in John 6. Of course we do! We’re just saying that we take Jesus at his word and understand his entire revelation: we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.

From my understanding of the theology of those holding to a symbolic interpretation, there is no denying that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. The difference is in what it means to do so.