Why did He let them walk away?

[Strider]

Ani Ibi:

Well, dunno. If you look earlier on that chapter, you will notice the commentary of Jesus when he sees them scrambling over the hill. He says that they are not looking for signs. Their remark about signs is only to remind Jesus of the bread and fish he had given them the day before. They were curious about this ‘free meal ticket’ and could care less about signs.

Possible, but unlikely. In verse 27, Jesus admonishes them, “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him God the Father has set his seal.”
“The food that perishes,” clearly refers to the loaves ands fishes, and sets up the “Eat my flesh and drink my blood,” verses further on.
And they still didn’t ask.

 

[st_felicity]

Genesis315:

I’ve posed this question to every Protestant on these forums and not one has even attempted to answer. They blow me off everytime. So good luck finding a Protestant taker.

EVERY single one???!!

Surely one of you Protestant lurkers have an explanation as to why you don’t believe that Jesus meant to eat his flesh literally, or an explanation as to why, if the discourse was purely symbolic, Jesus allowed the disciples to turn away from him and lose their souls over a misunderstanding! How could you bear to hear Jesus’ words yourself and chose to not believe??? I assume you have a reason for your disbelief. Is it because it doesn’t “fit” with what you “want” Him to say? I am calling you out in the interest of understanding.

Please, the silence is deafening.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Strider:

Possible, but unlikely. In verse 27, Jesus admonishes them, “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him God the Father has set his seal.”
“The food that perishes,” clearly refers to the loaves ands fishes, and sets up the “Eat my flesh and drink my blood,” verses further on.
And they still didn’t ask.

Yes, Strider. Sigh. That is my point. The crowd is not interested in signs nor in anything Jesus has to offer except a repetition of the loaves and fishes of the day before. I think my post above sets this out.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

Yes, Strider. Sigh. That is my point. The crowd is not interested in signs nor in anything Jesus has to offer except a repetition of the loaves and fishes of the day before. I think my post above sets this out.

I think they wanted signs and bread and glory–ALL OF IT–they wanted the triumphant KING to boldly lead them.

Jesus had a very different plan…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

I think they wanted signs and bread and glory–ALL OF IT–they wanted the triumphant KING to boldly lead them.

Jesus had a very different plan…

Why are you guys saying that they wanted signs when Jesus said that they did not want signs?

 

[michaelp]

I agree with Strider. They were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in his talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. Christ did not correct them This is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. It is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life, as Peter said. Many times Christ would speak in parable and not tell any but those who were following him for the right reasons. The rest he let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.

John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says:

**John 2:24-25 **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.

He did not entrust himself to his listeners. I suppose some wanted a king who would provide for them like Moses in the wilderness and they left when he was not going to be such. Some thought that he was speaking about actually eating his flesh and blood, I violation of the law, and they left.

Cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

I don’t agree with Keatings accertation that he would have corrected them if this was the case:

“There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct ‘misunderstandings’, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).

Why? For two primary reasons:

1. John does not even record the last supper. All the other Gospel writers do. Obvioiusly a literal interpretation of John 6 to foreshadow something that had not happened yet (the last supper) as being essential for eternal life would have been recorded if that is what John believed Christ to mean. What an oversite by John! In fact, since John is the only author that did not record the last supper, he seems to be trying to take emphasis away from it. Many commentators (even non-Christian) suppose that he does not record it because by the time of writing (A.D. 90+), there was too much emphasis being placed on the Lord’s supper. Something to think about.

Therefore, it is very far-feached to say that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation when he wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s supper.

John 20:30-31 30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Cont. . .

 

[michaelp]

1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely recordes Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.

a. “The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?’” (John 2:20). He was not being literal here and Jesus did not correct the misunderstanding of a statement that eventually leads to His conviction.

b.“Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?’” (John 3:4). Jesus does not correct Nicodemus (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally). Nor does John.

c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he” (John 4:33)? This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the sybolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret his words sybolically since this is the way he spoke.

d. Now we come to John 6. The reader knows that Christ speaks highly sybolic in such statements as these. They know that he is always misunderstood. They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. This therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to act like the apostles did in (c) and take him literally.

cont. . .

 

[michaelp]

So would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers who’s heart he already knew?

“For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).

“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40).

It does not seem so.

Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood his statements. A very common theme in John.

Hope you all are doing well. Sorry for the mispellings.

Michael

---

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

I think they wanted signs and bread and glory–ALL OF IT–they wanted the triumphant KING to boldly lead them.

Jesus had a very different plan…

Exactly!

 

[Genesis315]

I have to give props to michaelp. He’s the first guy I’ve seen not sidestep the issue, and it was a good argument. Obviously there is a very good argument for the Real Presence too. Is this another one of those interpretation questions? It seems like that’s what every difference eventually boils down to…

Anyway michaelp,

What about the argument that Jesus was the paschal lamb and the paschal lamb was eaten? I found this Protestant site (I think it is anyway, it seems to argue for the rapture) and it had a surprising checklist at the bottom. What do you think (don’t worry, it’s short):
biblicist.org/bible/lamb.htm

Another thing, there is an OT passage that seems to forshadow the sacrifice of the Mass and Christ as the offering. The strength of this argument is not as strong as John 6, but I’ve never heard a Protestant address it (because it hasn’t come up in these discussions).

“Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands, For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:10-11).

This sacrifice across the nations seems to reflect the Mass, which is offered from sun-up to sundown across the nations. I’m not sure if other nations besides the Jews were making sacrifices to Him at this time. The fact that it is a pure offering seems to reflect that it is Jesus, who would be the only truly pure offering. It also seems that Jesus must be present physically at each place since He couldn’t be offered from sun-up to sundown all over the place otherwise. Any thoughts?

These things would lead me to believe John 6 is literal (besides the the language of John 6 itself), no?

 

[st_felicity]

• John does not even record the last supper. All the other Gospel writers do. Obvioiusly a literal interpretation of John 6 to foreshadow something that had not happened yet (the last supper) as being essential for eternal life would have been recorded if that is what John believed Christ to mean. What an oversite by John! In fact, since John is the only author that did not record the last supper, he seems to be trying to take emphasis away from it. Many commentators (even non-Christian) suppose that he does not record it because by the time of writing (A.D. 90+), there was too much emphasis being placed on the Lord’s supper. Something to think about.

John does record the Last Supper—however, I assume you mean that he does not have the portion that specifically says, “This is my body…etc…” John’s gospel begins with “In the beginning was the Word…” John’s focus is on the WORDs of eternal life—the message given to those who will believe. Over and over and over again—John’s gospel charges people to LISTEN to his WORDS and BELIEVE what He has SAID, HEAR his VOICE, and DO as He TELLS… What is it that Jesus tells us. “my flesh is TRUE food.”

But who in John’s gospel DOESN’T listen?—the Pharisees—! Jesus tells them in Chapter 8:43 ***“Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.” ***

What He says is hard to believe and yet said so plainly. It requires you to BELIEVE His WORDS and not what you want him to say—it requires you to abandon yourself and cling to Him in complete trust—that is a hard teaching.

---

Therefore, it is very far-feached to say that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation when he wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s supper.

It is not so “far-fetched” when you consider the focus of John’s gospel—the WORDs of eternal life—Jesus—THE Word, and the words Jesus spoke—one and the same—“my flesh is TRUE food.”

 

[st_felicity]

So would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers who’s heart he already knew?

Then why did Jesus right after that ask Peter “Do you also want to leave?” ? According to your argument—Jesus wouldn’t have asked.

 

[st_felicity]

Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood his statements

So you contend that Jesus – One in Being with the Father and Holy Spirit-- would let a soul suffer eternal damnation because he was too dim to get His true meaning?

Or is it that Jesus already knew they were destined for Hell? That Predestination–to Blazes with free will–thing…?

 

[st_felicity]

st_felicity:

It is not so “far-fetched” when you consider the focus of John’s gospel—the WORDs

I must give credit where credit is due. michaelp is the one who turned me on to the focus of John’s gospel being THE WORD. I simply looked into it and found he was right–Jesus wants us to listen to his WORD and DO as he SAYS!

Thanks, michaelp!!!

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

I don’t agree with Keatings accertation that he would have corrected them if this was the case:

Hi Mike, it’s Mike!
I have to disagree…since Mark 4:34 says, " And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples." since Mark tells us that this was Christ’s common practice ,and since he did not do this at that time, and in fact made it a make or break issue with His chosen 12, by confrontationally asking in John 6:68, “**Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? **”

To me this just plain seals the whole deal of the literal intention of Christ here. The fact that he offered no explaination, but took that make or break stance on his remarks as so many were bailing even as they spoke, just shows that he was indeed deadly serious and literally meant what he said. The fact that Jesus reiterates it 6 times also makes it all the more forceful…in the same way that your own repeated statements of why you reject various Catholic teachings reinterates and stresses your own seriousness about it my friend.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[st_felicity]

Church Militant:

he was indeed deadly serious .
Pax vobiscum,

Deadly…is the operative word.

To deny it means …“you do not have life within you.” v. 52

 

[adnauseum]

Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence till the day he died. Do you think if there were the most remotely plausible argument against the Real Presence he would have invented it?

Disbelief in the Real Presence was too much for even Luther.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Wouldn’t there be clues?

I myself, in the first years of my apostolic ministry in the Chair of Peter, wrote the Apostolic Letter* Dominicae Cenae *(24 February 1980),8 in which I discussed some aspects of the Eucharistic mystery and its importance for the life of those who are its ministers. Today I take up anew the thread of that argument, with even greater emotion and gratitude in my heart, echoing as it were the word of the Psalmist: “What shall I render to the Lord for all his bounty to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord” (Ps 116:12-13).

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Some people become confused by what Jesus said after the disciples
complained that “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone
take it seriously’?” Jesus states: “It is the spirit that gives life;
the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are spirit and life”
(Jn. 6:63). They mistakenly think that this is proof that Jesus is
saying that He only means that the disciples will eat his flesh and
drink his blood spiritually and not literally. But it is illogical
that Jesus would say that is “useless” alter saying 'the
flesh of the Son of Man" gives “life” (Jn. 6:53). Rather, Jesus is
not talking about his flesh, but about Jesus is
telling the disciples that they cannot grasp or come to his teaching
on the Eucharist by their or their “flesh,” which is
“useless” for this purpose, but only through faith or “spirit”.
Now, the fourth century Church Fathers understood that the Eucharist
is really Jesus Christ Himself. St. Cyril of Alexandria states: “He
said and in a demonstrative
fashion, so that you might judge that what you see .”[3] And St. Ambrose of Milan teaches about the Eucharist
that “<nature itself is changed through the blessing”>.[4] So, it is
quite clear from the fourth century Church Fathers that the
Eucharistic consecration “changes” the “nature” of the bread and wine
into the “nature” of Jesus Christ and that the Eucharist is not just
“a mere figure” of Jesus Christ but “truly” Jesus Christ Himself.
This is precisely why St. Augustine states about the Eucharist: “no
one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not
only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we
did not do so”.[5]