Why did He let them walk away?

[mtr01]

michaelp:

But you are committing the either or fallacy, as if He is bound to some obsure metaphor. The context of the discourse and of John provide the interpretation of the metaphor to the reader. The reader should be well aware of Christ’s use of metaphors by then.

Actually, as will become apparent, it is *you *who are stuck with the “either/or” problem, not me. As I have posted in the Clement thread, it is true that Jesus is using a metaphor in the early part of his discourse, however, it is not about eating and drinking. Besides, given the flow of John 6, if anything, the converse of your interpretation is more likely.

michaelp:

John 2: “Destroy this temple and raise it up again in three days.” Christ did not interpret it and left the pharisees with misinformation.

The pharisees weren’t his disciples.

michaelp:

John 3: “Unless one is born again.” Christ did not explain it to Nicodemous.

Nicodemus didn’t leave him. And in fact, since he was a disciple, Jesus in fact did explain it to him (what else would you call Jn 3:5-13?)

michaelp:

John 4: “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” Christ did not explain the metaphor to the woman.

Yet she did not leave him, in fact, she evangelized her town.

michaelp:

John 4: "But He said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about.’ So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought Him *anything *to eat, did he?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.’ Finally Christ explains to them what He means.

So, Christ actually explains his metaphors to his disciples?

michaelp:

John 6: “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.’”

Now notice the new eating and drinking metaphors which were established by Christ.

Here is where you go wrong. You have to take into account the entire flow of John 6. Our “difficulty” begins when the crown asks Jesus for a sign like the one Moses gave their fathers in the desert (Jn 6:30-31). Jesus responds by figuratively comparing himself with the manna:

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever…

Now here is where he explains the metaphor: “…and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” This is Christ’s own interpretation of the metaphor in John 6: bread equals flesh (a true metaphor). In other words, the bread that came down from heaven is flesh, which can be eaten that no one die. This is when the crowd started mumbling about “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”.

You recognize the metaphor in John 6 incorrectly, and despite your posts, you are still faced with the problem I have previously posted about introducing a novel use of an existing metaphor without explaining it. Furthermore, what happens next in the discourse also argues against your interpretation. Our Lord becomes even more insistent that we “eat his body” and “drink his blood”. As Felicity and others have pointed out, he emphasizes his point by repeating it over and over again, using different words. This repetition strongly suggests the literal meaning. Furthermore, we have the celebrated verb change from *phago *to trogo.

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d

Now, I’m not interested at all in whether or not *trogo *means to gnaw or tear, and what implications that carries. All that is important is that both verbs meant to eat. What I am interested in is the fact that *phago *indeed has a figurative meaning. Trogo, however, does not. In other words, Jesus emphatically switches from a word that can mean to figuratively eat to a word that has absolutely no figurative meaning whatsoever. Do you see what’s happening? As if to stress that He is not speaking in a metaphor, He changes verbs to one that **only **has a literal meaning. If He, as you suggest, was speaking in a metaphor, then it would have not been appropriate for the verb change.

michaelp:

The context of John is clear. You and I can read it and see that Christ is not being literal as He was not literal in all the previous metaphors, but the listeners could not. Why didn’t Christ explain it to them? I can’t say for certian any more than I can say for certian why He did not explain the metaphor to the pharisees. But more than likely, because these people were not His true disciples.

Yes, the context is quite clear, but I think you miss it. Everything from Jesus’ explanation of His own metaphor, to the verb change, to the disciples understanding him literally suggest that He was indeed speaking quite literally.

michaelp:

But again, the elephant is still in the room. It is obvious that John himself did not believe Christ was speaking literally since he did not even record the last supper discourse even though for nearly 1/4 of his Gospel John is recording the events of the upper room. How do you explain this?

I do not presume to be able to read John’s mind. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that it is much more likely that since he wrote his Gospel after the other 3 had been circulating for quite some time, that he didn’t bother repeating what had been already written, and focused more or what was not in the other 3 Gospels concerning the Last Supper. Your contention that John didn’t take Jesus literally is belied in that the entire Church believed that Christ was present in the bread and wine, as is evidenced by John’s own disciple Ignatius.

michaelp:

If they were truly His disciples they would have stayed with them. John had already established this by showing that Christ knew that even if people followed Him and sat under His teaching for a time (i.e. became His disciples), that they were not true disciples because they failed to believe in Him.

**John 2:23-25 **

23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.

That’s an unconvincing tautology…and another misinterpretation Notice the passage doesn’t say they “failed to believe in him”, all it suggests is that his early disciples were weak and unsteady…that their faith could be shaken. Indeed, Saint Austin (Augustine of Canterbury) compared them to catechumens…they believe in Christ and confess his name, but Jesus doesn’t trust them with the knowledge of his mysteries.

michaelp:

So you admit that Christ would sometimes leave people with a misconception of what He said??? Now we are getting somewhere!

Not his disciples, though. Besides, we’re really getting somewhere since you admitted he explains his metaphors to his disciples in John 4.

michaelp:

Same reason he did with the Jews concerning the Temple.

Again, one group was his disciples, the other wasn’t

michaelp:

I do believe that we are beginning to go in circles.

While we may not convince each other of anything MT I do appreaciate your patience and your rhetoric. I think you make a good Catholic.

Michael

I do believe you are correct. We could probably go on like this for weeks. Thank you for the compliment (I assume you weren’t using “rhetoric” in a pejorative way), and let me say the feeling is mutual. I also thank you for the comment about being a good Catholic, and for what it’s worth, I think someday you’d make a good Catholic too

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stone:

Could it be that maybe you’re always on the defense, and that’s how you interpret it?

Defensive no. Unimpressed yes. And ooooh ‘always’? ‘Always’ is a pretty big claim. Sure you want to be that generous?

Stone:

All the above curt responses are your way of avoiding having to give (if possible) an adequate answer.

Nice try. The reality is that I have consistently given detailed and well developed and supported answers. Those answers have consistently been evaded. As usual. It’s a pattern. Here is another pattern: Kettle? Pot?

And despite the moderators having warned us to keep on topic, yall have led us a merry chase again.

Precision and economy of language is a feature of preparedness. Take notes.

Stone:

You’re not fooling anyone.

You’re someone.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Ok. Clearly you are not grasping what “metaphor” is.

1st–Jesus speaks both literally and figuratively in John 6.
2nd–the Sacrifice of the Mass is both a literal sacrifice and contains figurative elements.

Bread & Wine–is the work of human hands–it is our offering, like Abel’s offering–it is our effort and skill and wealth presented to the Lord. It is thanksgiving; it is our communion meal. It figuratively represents all of this. It remains bread and wine until the consecration.

At the consecration all of that is transformed into Jesus Himself. Literally. Everything that we are comes from God and in the consecration it is reunited to God. Literally. And when we unite with God in communion–the ultimate union possible here on earth–we do so by eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood. Literally. In this way, we participate in Christ’s Sacrifice–THE sacrifice of 2000 years ago–it is TRUE communion–not just a sharing of a community meal–but rather, sharing a moment with the Timeless Deity. It is awesome to try and get your brain around it!

One thing–bread, IS another thing–Jesus. Ultimately–isn’t everything? But not only that–all of the meaning associated with the one thing–bread, manna, food, work, etc…is carried over and better understood through the transformation–JESUS.

I hope that helps.

Whew! You can sure talk up a storm. I’m convinced. Where do I sign up?

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Ok. Clearly you are not grasping what “metaphor” is

Oh but I do. It’s you who want it both ways.

At the consecration all of that is transformed into Jesus Himself. Literally. Everything that we are comes from God and in the consecration it is reunited to God. Literally. And when we unite with God in communion–the ultimate union possible here on earth–we do so by eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood. Literally. In this way, we participate in Christ’s Sacrifice–THE sacrifice of 2000 years ago–it is TRUE communion–not just a sharing of a community meal–but rather, sharing a moment with the Timeless Deity. It is awesome to try and get your brain around it!Then what Jesus literally says about Himself BEING the literal bread of life must be lilterally true of the consecrated, transubstantiated host; thereby partaking of it will/must literally cause you to NEVER thirst or hunger again. Is this your experience?

One thing–bread, IS another thing–Jesus. Ultimately–isn’t everything?

Sounds like a form of pantheism

But not only that–all of the meaning associated with the one thing–bread, manna, food, work, etc…is carried over and better understood through the transformation–JESUS.

And so must what He says about Himself BEING the bread of life in verse thirty-five if you adhere to your literalness. You can ealily prove your theology by honestly telling me that you no longer have the need to eat and your body never thirsts. All I want to know is if this has been your experience since your first participation in Mass. Please let me know.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

Whew! You can sure talk up a storm. I’m convinced. Where do I sign up?

I need to work on that “Precision and economy of language” thing, eh? Ah well…I get a bit passionate sometimes!

 

[Stone]

Ani Ibi:

Whew! You can sure talk up a storm. I’m convinced. Where do I sign up?

I certainly give him credit for his personal effort. You should do the same when posting.

 

[st_felicity]

;thereby partaking of it will/must literally cause you to NEVER thirst or hunger again. Is this your experience? .

Yes. This is my experience in the Timeless union with Christ. I do not hunger nor thirst.

 

[st_felicity]

I decided perhaps my statement needed a little more explanation. It also relates to michaelp’s assertion that Jesus let the disciple’s leave on a misunderstanding because he knew their hearts and so let them leave without explanation.

God is outside of time–He is the Eternal NOW. God knows what I did yesterday and knows what I will do tomorrow–but for God it is one and the same instant–or better–constant. Therefore, though he knows me–I have the freedom to choose because I experience existence in a linier fashion–one moment after the next–and I make choices from one moment to the next. God sees all of my moments at once and therefore does not impose upon the freedom He gave me.

How this relates to never hungering and never thirsting: In my brief communion with God in the Eucharist–there is no hunger or thirst–because hunger and thirst are a function of a linier existence–if there is no time–I would be perpetually filled! That is a foretaste of heaven! It is God’s will that we experience this life subject to time–the Eucharist allows us a window to the timeless.

How this relates to the disciples who walked away: I cannot accept that Jesus allowed disciples to unwittingly damn themselves because He knew their ultimate destiny because Jesus was God who allowed Himself to be subject to this linier existence. He COULD have an effect on the choices the disciples in “supposed” error were making–He could clarify himself and explain the misunderstanding so that in the next moment the disciples could more reasonably choose God or themselves. He did not do it–BECAUSE there was no misunderstanding. He meant what he said: My flesh is TRUE food; My blood is TRUE drink.

I still need to work on that economy of language—but hey…I’m not perfect…

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Sounds like a form of pantheism

:nope: See…now this is the kind of thing that is just not necessary and gets people all defensive…:tsktsk: yeah, I worded it poorly…but regardless–Everything is from God and not the other way around–that was my OBVIOUS point and to be such a stick in the mud about a little over-zealous turn of phrase just brings meaningful communication to a screeching halt. You want to play like that?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stone:

I certainly give him credit for his personal effort. You should do the same when posting.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about.
2. Please refrain from telling me what I should do.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Ok. Clearly you are not grasping what “metaphor” is.

Stone:

Oh but I do.

Afraid not. The metaphoric nature of a thing does not mean it is not real. You are equating literal with real. Sometimes literal may be real. In this case, metaphor is real.

Stone:

It’s you who want it both ways.

Yes. That is what she said earlier. Both not either/or.

Stone:

Sounds like a form of pantheism.

Wow. That’s really harsh and rude. Is this another feature of your hermenutic? In any case, even if you do not apologize, it is still only another one of your attributions: a false analogy at that.

Stone:

You can ealily prove your theology by honestly telling me that you no longer have the need to eat and your body never thirsts.

And when she has proven that, will you not have another objection? Another barrier? This is not a question of proof. We have given ample proof. You’ve made your decision.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

I need to work on that “Precision and economy of language” thing, eh? Ah well…I get a bit passionate sometimes!

Oh, misunderstanding. I appreciated the precision and economy of language in your post. It was convincingly written.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

the Eucharist allows us a window to the timeless.

Yes.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

Oh, misunderstanding. I appreciated the precision and economy of language in your post. It was convincingly written.

No offense taken–I do get a little “wordy”…

See, it’s just natural for a person to correct a language-related misunderstanding; why would we expect Jesus to act anything but human? Thanks for demonstrating the obvious.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

No offense taken–I do get a little “wordy”…

We need words to communicate, do we not? It is when words interfere with communication that the red flags go up, do they not? I haven’t found circumlocutions in your posts.

st_felicity:

See, it’s just natural for a person to correct a language-related misunderstanding; why would we expect Jesus to act anything but human? Thanks for demonstrating the obvious.

Yes, it is natural in a give-and-take situation. But not in a take-and-take situation. Well, yeah, Jesus knew that the disciples were about to decide. So he gave them a good solid experience on which they could base their decision. The disciples didn’t want what Jesus was offering.

Further to the ‘misunderstanding’ theory.

1. The disciples had free will.
2. The disciples were about to make a decision.
3. In order to make a decision with free will, they needed to be informed.
4. Jesus informed them.
5. The disciples made their decision based on their values not on a lack of information and not on a misunderstanding.

 

[st_felicity]

Yep–Christ was VERY to the point on giving all the information to the disciples so that they make an informed decision. As mtr01 succinctly summed it up…

mtr01:

Jesus responds by figuratively comparing himself with the manna:
…
Now here is where he explains the metaphor: “…and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” This is Christ’s own interpretation of the metaphor in John 6: bread equals flesh (a true metaphor).

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

one must be careful not to build doctrine on non-Holy Spirit inspired writings. As well as pour into those writings your own preconceived ideas.

What you fail to comprehend, my friend, is that the writings of Ignatius are completely in line and compatible with Sacred Scripture. It’s a fine example of how Sacred Tradition complements Sacred Scripture. Ignatius agrees with Scripture. Nothing is being built upon here. He teaches the Real Presence. The apostle, John, taught it to him through the written and the oral.

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

Could it be that maybe you’re always on the defense, and that’s how you interpret it? All the above curt responses are your way of avoiding having to give (if possible) an adequate answer. You’re not fooling anyone.

No…but you aren’t either by avoiding answering my valid points in multiple posts under the pretext of you “don’t like my fonts” :crying: :crying: SSDD
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by Stone

Then what Jesus literally says about Himself BEING the literal bread of life must be lilterally true of the consecrated, transubstantiated host; thereby partaking of it will/must literally cause you to NEVER thirst or hunger again. Is this your experience?

I’ll ask the same of you since you claim to have partaken of the Living Water…you are cherry picking the places where you coose to interpret literally or figuratively…despite the clear evidence that the early church…specifically St.Paul; so believed.
Pax vobiscum,