Why did He let them walk away?

[st_felicity]

**So the Questions are: **

1. What was the “saying” that was hard to accept?

1. he said they had to eat him and drink his blood and in order to do that you have to kill him first or maybe you bite in while he is still alive…how would you do this logistically speaking?

I agree that they fully understood he was asking them to do something “beyond belief”–but consider the source! As Peter clearly said, “You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Those that STAYED believed that and knew that the words Jesus spoke were the way to that eternal life.

1. Why did the disciples ***leave ***Jesus?

1. they thought he was off his rocker or kidnapped by aliens and they didn’t want to kill him to eat him…dead or alive. or they suddenly lost their appetite.

Obviously, then, they did not believe in Him as those that stayed did. They lacked faith.

1. Why did Jesus let them go?

1. cause you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…its not nice to ask/demand that your friends kill you.

I agree with the first part–Jesus offered them the means of eternal life, but they chose to believe their own view of His words–they imposed their own interpretation on His “saying” rather than trust that “for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (heh-heh…for memory from my Baptist youth… ) However–the second part…I hope you’re just being funny…making a play on the “usual way” “eat the flesh” was viewed–The way the WORLD viewed such words, rather than the way Jesus presented them as truth. Jeses was being the superlative of “nice” by giving us this gift of the Eucharist–His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity–for us to have such an intimate communion with our Creator. PRAISE GOD!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

**So the Questions are: **…

I know, but I have to say this: Do you know that every time I come to this thread these days, I get that same feeling I get after Communion? I get all calm, quiet, and ‘deep’.

I see other folks getting into it too when they come back from Communion. Once at one of the three Masses our Cathedral had for JP2 after he died, we were outside freezing in the front courtyard. A young man had brought his obviously non-Catholic friends.

The young man received the Eucharist and he dropped to the hard stone pavement as if he weighed a thousand pounds and just prayed quietly there for quite a long time. His friends were stunned and could not pry their eyes off him.

Two years ago would have been about the time JP2 died? What an incredible harvest of souls that time was. I can remember first-time visitors dropping in on CAF in droves; so many that I had to make a list of links to online Catholic Bibles, Catechism, vatican.va, and all sorts of other useful sites.

As soon as I posted one list, another person asked for the same info. And people started looking into vocations in such volume that it seemed like there were whole clouds of them. I love John 6.

 

[mercygate]

I know, but I have to say this: Do you know that every time I come to this thread these days, I get that same feeling I get after Communion? I get all calm, quiet, and ‘deep’.

I see other folks getting into it too when they come back from Communion. Once at one of the three Masses our Cathedral had for JP2 after he died, we were outside freezing in the front courtyard. A young man had brought his obviously non-Catholic friends.

The young man received the Eucharist and he dropped to the hard stone pavement as if he weighed a thousand pounds and just prayed quietly there for quite a long time. His friends were stunned and could not pry their eyes off him.

Two years ago would have been about the time JP2 died? What an incredible harvest of souls that time was. I can remember first-time visitors dropping in on CAF in droves; so many that I had to make a list of links to online Catholic Bibles, Catechism, vatican.va, and all sorts of other useful sites.

As soon as I posted one list, another person asked for the same info. And people started looking into vocations in such volume that it seemed like there were whole clouds of them. I love John 6.

Thanks for the reminders. I remember this thread very well as I actually did some of my better work on it (or so I thought at the time).

John 6. Hebrews (the whole thing). Can’t tear 'em apart!

 

[st_felicity]

I love John 6.

The entire Gospel of John AWES me! John 6 crystalizes it for me.

Thanks, Ani!

 

[st_felicity]

John 6. Hebrews (the whole thing). Can’t tear 'em apart!

Ah!!! Hebrews! And Ephesians…you know…I suppose the wealth in these is why they are part of the canon!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

The entire Gospel of John AWES me!

Me too.

st_felicity:

John 6 crystalizes it for me.

Me too.

st_felicity:

Thanks, Ani!

Thank God for this amazing opportunity. Not me. btw for those of you who are curious about John 6, our old friend Church Militant is leading a Scripture Study on John here: CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ah!!! Hebrews! And Ephesians…you know…I suppose the wealth in these is why they are part of the canon!

Hebrews was almost taken out I believe by Luther. I am amazed and thunderstruck when I think of all the perils to which the books of the Bible were prone. And yet Guess Who was there keeping those books under the Shadow of His Wings.

Gosh, anyone who has been a 99th sheep like me knows what it is like to be found. Wow! Thank you God!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Some folks have been wanting this thread. My link to it apparently has not been working. So I am bumping it up to the top.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01 posted this excellent link on another John6 thread:

Scott Hahn, The Fourth Cup

And you know the story about the plagues and how they came upon Egypt and pharaoh kept hardening and turning away from God and wouldn’t listen, or he would listen and act like he was going to give in but at the last minute he’d turn away and harden his heart some more.

Until finally the tenth plague came, which was the plague of the angel of death visiting death upon the firstborn sons in Egypt.

All firstborn sons would have died, not just the Egyptian firstborn sons, except for one thing - the Passover. If you and your household through the father took a lamb and slew that lamb and sprinkled the blood on the doorpost and ate the meal you would wake up and your firstborn son would be alive…

Because we know the way the Passover has been celebrated for centuries, for millenia; it’s a very ancient liturgy, it’s well known, it’s no secret. Jews still celebrate it according to the same structure. There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover…

The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God”… Why did he skip the fourth cup?..

In Gethsemane: “All things are possible to Thee. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” Remove this cup. Take away this cup… On the Cross: "They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, “It is finished”…

Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Once and for all on Calvary he’s been put to death, therefore - what? Therefore we’ve nothing to do. Just celebrate the sacrifice, which is over and done with - No, something’s missing. We need to eat the Lamb.

 

[Ahimsa]

I can’t give you a Protestant perspective. How about a perspective from way out in left field instead? Here it is:

OK felicity. John 6 is your specialty. Walk me through this one because I am full of questions.

26: Jesus sees the crowd coming. And says …”you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.”

My first reading of this (bear with me; there is a deepening method opening up to contribution from others) is that Jesus diagnoses their level of ‘interpretation.’ They want food. The signs were cool, but they want food. He can give them food. The food is free. Good deal. So the crowd is going to interpret information at a pragmatic level: can this feed our physical bodies?

27 So Jesus provides them with the opportunity for a paradigm change: “food that endures for eternal life.” He is offering them the option of learning to interpret information at a metaphysical level:

What is real? Food or signs?

Or at an ontological level:

Of what substance am I made of?
What do I need to sustain my substance?
What am I?
Am I my appetites?
Or that which remains unsatisfied when all my appetites are sated?

28-29 The crowd is confronted with the possibility of interpreting their existence at a level beyond loaves of bread. Jesus says “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” To wit, interpreting beyond the level of loaves of bread is the work of God and flows from believing in Jesus. God gives the interpretive skills necessary to see reality beyond food and to see being beyond appetite. Those interpretive skills flow from believing in Jesus.

29-30 Although Jesus has already said that the crowd is not looking for signs, the crowd then asks for a sign. Why does the crowd ask for a sign, if they are not looking for signs? What possible sign could persuade them?

31 The crowd refers to a historical sign: manna in the desert. Why does the crowd refer to a sign, when they have not come looking for a sign, but for loaves of bread? What do they mean? Could it be that they refer to the sign of manna because that sign means to them only that God gives food to sustain the body? And they want loaves of bread, not signs? Of course, because their interpretive skills are at the level of food and appetite.****

So what you’re suggesting is this: that a Protestant could argue that when Jesus said “this is my body and blood”, that Jesus did not mean this literally, because Jesus saw that the crowd only wanted food to eat, so, in order to “shock” them into wanting something more, he said something equally “shocking”. Those who then left, only wanted food for their bellies, while those who stayed, understood what Jesus actually meant: “If you guys are that focused on food, then here, eat my body and drink my blood. That’s pagan, you say? Well, then, good – maybe you should reconsider your obsession with the physical body’s need for food, and direct your attention to repentance and God.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

So what you’re suggesting is this: that a Protestant could argue that when Jesus said “this is my body and blood”, that Jesus did not mean this literally, because

Jesus saw that the crowd only wanted food to eat, so, in order to “shock” them into wanting something more, he said something equally “shocking”. Those who then left, only wanted food for their bellies, while those who stayed, understood what Jesus actually meant: “If you guys are that focused on food, then here, eat my body and drink my blood. That’s pagan, you say? Well, then, good – maybe you should reconsider your obsession with the physical body’s need for food, and direct your attention to repentance and God.”

Nope. That is so totally not what I am saying. Please read the rest of the thread to see what I am saying. I cannot keep reposting it.

Basically, Jesus would not trick the disciples. Remember first that they are disciples, not novices. Second, Jesus cannot trick them. Why? Because they are about to make the most critical choice of their lives: for Jesus or against Jesus.

To make that choice, the disciples need to know exactly what is going on.

It is because of the Real Presence of Jesus

– which goes far far beyond the meaning of the words in John6 – the disciples understand that to gain everlasting life, they must eat the Sacrifical Lamb.

Why? Because they are all Jews. The Passover is only completed when the Sacrifical Lamb is eaten. Jesus is the Lamb of God.

I posted a link to Scott Hahn’s brilliant essay on the Passover. It is called The Fourth Cup. He explains this. Read it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is another insight against the notion of a symbolic commemorization of the Sacrifice:

It was later recorded by the Rabbis, in conjunction with this passage, that “In every generation a man must regard himself as if he himself had gone out of Egypt.” (Mishnah Pesachim, 10.5, source)

Thus the “memorial” aspect of this feast was far more than a mere mental recollection; it was a true re-presenting or “entering into” the past historical event.

The participants did not say “because of what the Lord did for my forefathers when they came out of Egypt,” but speaking in the first-person, “because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.”

The salvation wrought by Christ was accomplished at the Cross, and the sacrifice is presented as complete on the heavenly altar; we, however, are still in bondage to the “Old Covenant” of this created world, still trapped in time and history. Our participation in the liturgy is an entrance into eternity, here on earth. This is expressed beautifully in the ancient Liturgy of St. James (c. AD 200):

We thank Thee, O Lord our God, that Thou hast given us boldness for the entrance of Thy holy places

, which Thou hast renewed to us as a new and living way through the veil of the flesh of Thy Christ. We therefore, being counted worthy to enter into the place of the tabernacle of Thy glory, and to be within the veil, and to behold the Holy of Holies, cast ourselves down before Thy goodness. (Liturgy of St. James, Prayer of the Veil)

 

[jtown]

You know this is a very good post (took me 3 days to go through). I wish I would’ve been there when Stone was posting his case.

One thing I did want to show, and I am surprised nobody harped on it more:

What happened in history belongs to that time in history. His sacrifice was accomplished in our world’s time/space continuum. That historical event certainly has eternal effects, but the event itself is limited to that time in man’s history and does not nor cannot continuously occur. That’s why the writer of Hebrews employs the phrase *“once-for-all.”*The ultimate difference between Paul and at is the Greek word…In His divine nature Christ can be wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name, but not in bodily form. Yes, His resurrected body transcended some earthly limitations, but Scripture NEVER shows Him showing up bodily in two places at one time (much less millions).

and again

The idea that this transubstantiation transcends human understanding has been stated before. It still looks like bread, feels like bread, tastes like bread, nothing whatsoever indicates that a transformation has actually taken place. Right? The whole doctrine is based on Jesus saying, “This is My body.” He doesn’t say this becomes My body, nor does He ever teach those at the table that when they repeat His words, “This is My body” that the bread miraculously and instantly transforms. Nor does He say to them that He gives them such power. So there really had to be come kind of divine revelation explaining this supernatural transformation either by Holy Spirit inspired writings or some kind of Apostolic teaching, yet only silence prevails. Only to be defined 1200 years later, but not by someone who claimed he had special revelation from God.What are you saying here? That the early writings of these men are Divinely inspired?But this is not a true definition of the hypostatic union. What you state above denies the teaching of the “communicatio idiomatum” which ascribes both the divine and human natures to the single Person of Jesus Christ. But what is not being stated is that the human nature of Christ takes on the divine, and the divine takes on the human. Hence, Jesus can be omnipresent in His divine nature, but not in His human nature (i.e., bodily). In Christ, the two natures are in union in one Person, but they are held distinct. He is fully man and fully God. But the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another – the divine does not become localized, and the human does not become infinite. If that was the case both the divine and the human would be violated, and Jesus would have not taken on true humanity, and by definition He would not be a true man, not a true “Kinsman Redeemer.”

I would’ve posted Matthew 14:25

5During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake.

Because this is a limitation as well. And Church Militant showed the other necessary verses. Anyways…I wish the posts would’ve been more friendly rather than all the accusations against Stone and Michaelp. I know its frustrating, but I guarantee you were answering a lot of the questions they had that may have concerned them if they were to convert 1 day.

Peace
-Jtown

 

[jtown]

One thing I was curious about is the fourth cup Scott Hahn. He quotes 1 Cor. 10:16 as:
the cup of blessing

but I only see this statement used on the New American Standard Bible not the others I am familiar with.

I only mention this because I saw the same thing with St_Felicty posting on John 6:40:

For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who (BG)beholds the Son and (BH)believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will (BI)raise him up on the last day."

The word “beholds” is only there in the New American Standard Bible, not the others I am familiar with.

If you could offer insight that would be EXTREMELY helpful.

Peace
-Jtown

 

[st_felicity]

One thing I was curious about is the fourth cup Scott Hahn. He quotes 1 Cor. 10:16 as:
the cup of blessing

but I only see this statement used on the New American Standard Bible not the others I am familiar with.

I only mention this because I saw the same thing with St_Felicty posting on John 6:40:

For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who (BG)beholds the Son and (BH)believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will (BI)raise him up on the last day."

The word “beholds” is only there in the New American Standard Bible, not the others I am familiar with.

If you could offer insight that would be EXTREMELY helpful.

Peace
-Jtown

Hi Jtown…I’d like to help, but I don’t understand what your asking. Could you be more clear for me? (and I don’t know what BG-BH-BI means either… sorry…)

 

[jtown]

sure, the BG stuff was just probably due to me copy and pasting from biblegateway.com

I went to www.biblegateway.com and the default bible you see when you search a text is the “New International Version”

In this version and the King James version of the bible it does not have the verses the same as the New American Standard Bible.

In certain verses i.e. John 6:40 you see the word “behold” in others you don’t.

I was just curious as to why there was a discrepancy. It seems central to both the 4th cup “cup of blessing” in 1st Corinthians and also your point when you state that nobody can have eternal life unless you “behold” and “believe” the son.

Hope this clarifies!

peace
Jtown

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jtown:

One thing I was curious about is the fourth cup Scott Hahn.

The link I gave for Hahn’s fourth cup has gone down. But I found another one:

The Fourth Cup

And here are a few other good articles:

Mishnah Pesachim
The Paschal Character of the Mass: A Repetition of Redemption
The Hunt for the Fourth Cup

He quotes 1 Cor. 10:16 as:
the cup of blessing

The Douay Rheims Challoner Bible has 1 Cor 10:16 as

The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

jtown:

but I only see this statement used on the New American Standard Bible not the others I am familiar with.

What others are you talking about? That might help us understand your question.

NIV: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

KJV: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jtown:

I was just curious as to why there was a discrepancy.

Here is a link to some information on the origin of the Bible versions. Is this what you are asking?

jtown:

It seems central to both the 4th cup “cup of blessing” in 1st Corinthians and also your point when you state that nobody can have eternal life unless you “behold” and “believe” the son.

I am not sure I understand you. Can you explain why you believe it is central? What do you understand from each different version?

 

[st_felicity]

sure, the BG stuff was just probably due to me copy and pasting from biblegateway.com

I went to www.biblegateway.com and the default bible you see when you search a text is the “New International Version”

In this version and the King James version of the bible it does not have the verses the same as the New American Standard Bible.

In certain verses i.e. John 6:40 you see the word “behold” in others you don’t.

I was just curious as to why there was a discrepancy. It seems central to both the 4th cup “cup of blessing” in 1st Corinthians and also your point when you state that nobody can have eternal life unless you “behold” and “believe” the son.

Hope this clarifies!

peace
Jtown

Thanks!

I’m still confused concerning 1 Cor. 10…KJV says “cup of blessing”

As for NIV -vs- NAB… NIV is a translation put together by Evangelicals, and there are some valid criticisms of some textual translations.

As for the other versions that say “see” instead of “behold”–again, I would need more clarification on the discrepancy you “behold” between those two words so that I can better understand the concern you have.

In an attempt to intuit your question, I’m going to guess at an answer that may help clarify the point I was making:

Seeing Christ is a physical encounter–beholding Christ is a physical encounter–we apprehend His presence in the Eucharist with our minds, bodies, and souls. It is a transformative experience that permeates our physical and spiritual nature–we BELIEVE BODY and SOUL.

I hope that helps.

 

[jtown]

Awesome!!!

Thanks guys that cleared it up. Scott Hahn is one of my favorite writers, the “Lamb’s Supper” coupled with the fact Martin Luther even believed it is what won me over on the Eucharist a year ago…be patient with the others…remember we spent our entire lives learning it a different way, and its a “hard teaching” But once you discover it; it is so much more in depth and richer than what it was for the Methodist.

; )

peace!
jtown