Why did He let them walk away?

[michaelp]

Desert Dweller:

Come on now. That is not fair or intellectually honest. If you can tell me that you have never learned any of your beliefs or ideas from another person including a pastor, parent or friend, then I will let it go. However, I know that neither of you just picked up the Bible and came up with the arguments you are presenting. You may be presenting what you think the Bible is saying and I can respect that. However, if you have learned anything from someone who came before you then I too could accuse you of outsourcing. It’s just that as Catholics we can point to people in the second century that were taught by the apostles. They then handed these teachings down throughout the last 2000 years. If you can do the same then I would love to read your arguments. But leave the cute little jabs for the playground. I take this very seriously.

My friend, many Catholics are proud that they defer judgement to the Magisterium, so some may take this as a complement. While I admit it is in a perjorative tone, this is the kind of thinking that I very seldom encourage. People need to think for themselves and make up their own mind based on the evidence, not on the opinion of the Magisterium. Yes, the Magisterium must be taken into perspective because it is just another interpretation to which respect needs to be given, but that is all–just another interpretation. Once people realize this, they no longer need to outsource their theology. People can and should come to a theology of their own while listening to the opinion and advice of others, but in the end, people need to make up their own mind based on the evidence, not outright submission to one authority.

You are not even free to disagree or have any free thoughts against the conclusions of the Magisterium, are you? If not, you are outsourcing your theology.

Now what remains is can you defend the legitimacy of that oursource as worthy of your blind allegience even when there are other dare I say more valid options out there.? But that is the subject of another thread.

In short, you and I will stand before God alone, not with any teachers to point fingers at. We are responsible for that which we believe.

Sorry to have offended you.

Michael

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

This at least shows that you are willing to think and consider what the other side is saying.

I hope that this is what we are all doing; otherwise we can get no where. If that happens, we may as well be talking to a wall.

God Bless.

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

Actually, it was nowhere near a great response as it totally avoided the same argument that I presented to you without answer at least 3 times, and Ani posted yet again on this thread I believe.

Once again, by assuming that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”, you must needs assume he was speaking in some figurative or metaphorical manner. However, it is a demonstrable fact from Scripture that “to eat the flesh” and “drink the blood” of someone already had a non-literal meaning, being to do someone harm, especially in a bodily way. If you would like, I can post all the relevant references in Scripture for a fourth or fifth time.

Therefore, your position forces Jesus into being some kind of babbling fool for making a statement that amounts to “Verily, verily I say unto you, except you attack the Son of man and harm him, ye have no life in you. Whoso reviles me and curses me hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:53), or you make Him into a liar and deceiver for letting the crowd leave Him and go off to eternal damnation (Matt 10:33) over a misunderstanding caused His own deliberately misleading use of a common Jewish metaphor.

Either way, your non-literal interpretation does extreme violence to the text itself, not to mention it casting some very negative aspersions upon our Lord and Savior. Is holding to your erroneous hypothesis really worth it?

Furthermore, this ground has already been covered in depth on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37423

Sorry that I have passed over this. It seems that your argument carries little weight. Read here:

members.aol.com/epologist/John6reviling.htm

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Ignatius:

I hope that this is what we are all doing; otherwise we can get no where. If that happens, we may as well be talking to a wall.

God Bless.

Amen, my friend.

God bless.

 

[st_felicity]

You’re told by the Magesterium that these words refer to the Eucharist and the Mass, so why bother to study His words in context?

…ignoring blatant Catholic-bashing rhetoric…

In verse 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life (He begins with an obvious metaphor); …nciple behind the metaphor He now presents to them concerning Himself.
That just as the life of the manna was transferred to the one who ate it, thereby sustaining his physical life, … which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (cf. Jn. 3:16).

This is all just off topic blathering…Catholics and Protestants agree on all this. Catholics consider there to be symbolic meaning in the Eucharist, as well as the literal–we’ve gone over this it’s as they say, “preachin’ to the choir” UNTIL you say this…

This is not a reference to the Eucharist but His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross

.

The metaphor of eating and drinking was the best possible figure Jesus could employ to express the assimilation of one body by another,

Really? Author of Everything could only come up with this? This (supposely exclusive) metaphor that causes so much contention among Christians? Why didn’t He use the vine and the branches? the grafting into Him imagery? the adoption methaphor? the physical union of husband and wife? Or any other number of GREAT examples of figurative language to testify to His meaning? What does BREAD have to do with Salvation–except that God set it up that way since Malcheizedec (sp?)

. Jesus carefully explained that the process was analogous to His own living by the Father (vs. 57; cf. Jn. 4:34; 5:19; 14:10-11), and obviously eating and drinking can not be literally applied there.

your point is really vague here–only 4:34 sys snything about food…what is the connection you are trying to make?

The truth fully set forth in Christ’s discourse in this chapter is the believer’s UNION with his Lord, his complete dependence upon Him for life, his continued appropriation, by faith, of His very self, his feeding on Him, living on Him, his experience that Jesus in giving Himself (on the cross) satisfies every want of his soul.

YES–very true, but there is also the TRUE food element you are so bent to dismiss.

Of course the metaphor was repulsive, but it graphically expressed the meaning of the complete assimilation of Christ into all the life of the believer, and the life of the believer into that of Christ ( vs. 56; cf. Jn. 14:19; 23; Jn. 17:20-23). Jesus explained to His disciples, who did not immediately defect by what He had said, that the words He spoke “are spirit and are life.”

What support are you hoping these verses provide?

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

People need to think for themselves and make up their own mind based on the evidence, not on the opinion of the Magisterium.

READ THAT…be your OWN Pope…ignore BIBLICAL evidence that says to defer to teachers etc…all that other stuff that does belong on another thread…

Yes, the Magisterium must be taken into perspective because it is just another interpretation to which respect needs to be given, but that is all–just another interpretation. Once people realize this, they no longer need to outsource their theology. People can and should come to a theology of their own while listening to the opinion and advice of others, but in the end, people need to make up their own mind based on the evidence, not outright submission to one authority.

You are not even free to disagree or have any free thoughts against the conclusions of the Magisterium, are you? If not, you are outsourcing your theology.

Now what remains is can you defend the legitimacy of that oursource as worthy of your blind allegience even when there are other dare I say more valid options out there.? But that is the subject of another thread.

This is so inflamatory and disgusting (and several other choice words I decided not to post), **I don’t know what to do with it…are you here to “save” us? No thanks. Jesus beat you to it. I thought you said…To start accusations is always a good way to dodge when you have no where else to go and not much confidence in your argumentation. This is becoming fairly common here. But, hey, I will not do the same. You know what? I agree with you! **

outright submission to one authority.

The ONLY authority is God–and that is who we must all submit to. God gave us the Magisterium–you reject it–just as you reject Jesus in the Eucharist.

In short, you and I will stand before God alone, not with any teachers to point fingers at. We are responsible for that which we believe.

Good luck! I have it on good AUTHORITY you’ll need it!

Sorry to have offended you.

You are dripping with sincerity…:nope: Here…I’ll show you what I mean…

sorry if I hurt your sensibilities…

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Sorry that I have passed over this. It seems that your argument carries little weight. Read here:

members.aol.com/epologist/John6reviling.htm

Michael

From michaelp’s link…
Essentially the Catholic apologist is saying that either Jesus was speaking metaphorically of reviling, or he was not speaking metaphorically at all. …

A False Dilemma

A false dilemma is the fallacy of forcing a complex issue into a choice between two options, without admitting of alternative solutions.

Your link demonstrates the fallacy it is accusing Catholics of…the writer of that essay, farces Catholic Doctrine into an either it’s literal or it’s metaphorical when it is obviously BOTH. But the metaphor makes no sense unless there is a LITERAL reality associated w/it…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

the metaphor makes no sense unless there is a LITERAL reality associated w/it…

Exactly. Metaphor is kind of a tricky thing to get a handle on.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

READ THAT…be your OWN Pope…ignore BIBLICAL evidence that says to defer to teachers etc…all that other stuff that does belong on another thread…

Authority is a fact of life. The real question (for those who evade the obvious as concerns the authority of the Catholic Church to teach) is not whether or not to submit to authority but who gets to wield that authority. Some would lay claim to that power with very little to support their claim and boldy do so in face of martyrdom, sainthood, and centuries of prayer, discourse, and study. In the words of Sir Winston Churchill: some chicken, some neck.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

READ THAT…be your OWN Pope…ignore BIBLICAL evidence that says to defer to teachers etc…all that other stuff that does belong on another thread…

This is so inflamatory and disgusting (and several other choice words I decided not to post), **I don’t know what to do with it…are you here to “save” us? No thanks. Jesus beat you to it. I thought you said…To start accusations is always a good way to dodge when you have no where else to go and not much confidence in your argumentation. This is becoming fairly common here. But, hey, I will not do the same. You know what? I agree with you! **

The ONLY authority is God–and that is who we must all submit to. God gave us the Magisterium–you reject it–just as you reject Jesus in the Eucharist.

Good luck! I have it on good AUTHORITY you’ll need it!

You are dripping with sincerity…:nope: Here…I’ll show you what I mean…

sorry if I hurt your sensibilities…

Felicity, once again you should probebly calm down. No one is going to convert off of what I said. This was an issue brought up concerning because I complemented someone for being intellectually honest and people got offended.

It is a forgone conclusion that we disagree with each other and the implications of this disagreement are far-reaching. I suggest that if you want to continue to converse in these type of conversations, you develop some thick skin and seek to converse without resorting to accusations. I have made no accusations concerning your judgement other than saying that we will all (me included) stand before God alone. You return with the accusation that my day before God is in jeapordy. I understand that you truly believe that it is. But you and I both don’t need to be making such judgements even if they are true. It is not the best way to gain an audience with each other, nor represent Christ to those who are viewing these threads.

Thanks and have a good day Felicity,

Michael

 

[mj330]

st_felicity:

You know…I totally agree…this is exactly how I see it…I’m interested in the Protestant perspective…

…any takers?

Hi felicity,
I can give you the Protestant perpective, although I may not agree with it. It was symbolic that those who believe in Christ would ‘feed’ on Him and get their sustenance from Him. Secondly, John 6 may have foreshadowed the Last Supper, which foreshadowed the Cross. Best I can do

 

[Church_Militant]

Isn’t it also interesting that the word translated “daily” in the Our Father is an untranslatable word that means that that bread is so vital to our very existence that we need it every day. It is so all encomapassing that that is why Jerome translated it “daily” and the translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible do it this way in Matthew 6:11. " Give us this day our supersubstantial bread."
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Hey Mike, maybe you ought to take a poll and see how many Catholics are amil and how many are premil. Or do you want me to?

You know what it will be since vatican has judged the early church fathers view of premil as unsafe–in short, it is wrong. But it is hard to interpret isn’t it?

Hi Mike!
As I told you before Mike…surveying us here is not the way to understand what the church teaches (or in your case to find a consistent set of beliefs to attack/diagnose, or whatever), since some of us do not know (or in my case, care) about this and some of the other “Protestant pastimes” (my term…no offense) like worrying about when Jesus will return. There are sick, poor, etc to be ministered to and the gospel to be shared with those who have no faith. These are the things that He told us to do until he returns.
Eschatology doesn’t bother me not one iota…in fact I could care less what others might believe…I know that the church is right and that those who choose to differ with her do so as suits them. I, on the other hand, intend to continue to be just exactly who and what I am…a member of the “Church militant” (those who continue the spiritual battles here on earth.) right up until Our Lord comes for us or I am taken into His arms at death. It matters not to me, I ask only for the grace to love and serve Him well until then.
Pax vobiscum, :irish1:

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Sorry that I have passed over this. It seems that your argument carries little weight. Read here:

members.aol.com/epologist/John6reviling.htm

Michael

Apology accepted for passing over this 4 times . Now as for your claim about it carrying little weight, well since you and the guy who wrote the article seem to think so, then it should be possible to give a decent rebuttal, which you haven’t done (and neither has the article you linked).

Aside from the remarks already posted by Felicity, I have one observation as well (based on my previous post). If, as you claim through the article you linked, our Lord was instituting this novel “positive” metaphoric use of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”, you are still left with the dilemma I have posted many times. As the author of the article you linked concedes,

…then this would be an unprecedented *positive *use of those terms. Of course this objection assumes that Jesus would be constrained by past usage—that there could be no first time positive use of these terms unless there had been a positive precedent. This, of course, is fallacious reasoning. It very well could be the case that eating flesh and drinking blood in John 6 are the first positive uses of these metaphors.

Now if this is the “first positive uses of these metaphors”, as the author claims, he is trapped into culmning our Lord. What this position really means (as I previously posted) is that Jesus let the disciples walk away to their own damnation based on this entirely new use of a metaphor (one they would not have been familiar with, since it is the first time it is being used), without explaining to them the new use. In other words, this position implicitly accuses our Lord of being deliberately misleading. And we all know, that is not of God. Hence, those who would posit the “metaphorical interpretation” of John 6 are still in a bind from which they cannot free themselves.

 

[st_felicity]

… you should probebly calm down…I suggest that if you want to continue to converse in these type of conversations, you develop some thick skin

Old tricks…thanks for the “sincere” advice…and again–setting parameters of the discussion

This was an issue brought up concerning because I complemented someone for being intellectually honest and people got offended

. You still haven’t said exactly what “intellectually honest” means…

I have made no accusations concerning your judgement other than saying that we will all (me included) stand before God alone.

What is this then? --If intellectually honest means that you are reasonable and objective on judging all comments–including your own–then no wonder you admire it in others, it is a skill you lack.

Yes, the Magisterium must be taken into perspective because it is just another interpretation to which respect needs to be given, but that is all–just another interpretation. Once people realize this, they no longer need to outsource their theology.

Accusing those who rely on the One True Church of being mindless drones…

but in the end, people need to make up their own mind based on the evidence, not outright submission to one

authority. Accusing those who rely on the One True Church of placing one portion of Divine Revelation above the other two–and ignoring that it is clear Doctrine that God is the sole authority.

You are not even free to disagree or have any free thoughts against the conclusions of the Magisterium, are you? If not, you are outsourcing your theology.

Again–Accusing Catholics of being mindless drones in service of the Queen Bee–the Pope

legitimacy of that oursource

Assuming the conclusion–you are not correct, sir.

as worthy of your blind allegience

Insulting.

even when there are other dare I say more valid options out there.?

Because YOU think so/say so…fine go and have at those “options”. But please refrain from insults couched in rhetoric and then having the audacity to deny it. Obviously you fail to SEE a lot of things. That is why I would choose the Majesterium–protected by God from error–over your “interpretations” any day.

You return with the accusation that my day before God is in jeapordy.

Yeah–well, I couldn’t help myself–it was a jab. Are you saying this wasn’t a jab from you?

you and I will stand before God alone, not with any teachers to point fingers at.

Thanks and have a good day Felicity

Oh…You have a nice day too, Michael…

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/29/29_3_13.gif

**Back to the topic…**Doesn’t your answer for “why Jesus let them go” suggest predestination and an undue burden of unraveling a difficult metaphor? (One with not literal reality behind it?)

 

[st_felicity]

mj330:

Hi felicity,
I can give you the Protestant perpective, although I may not agree with it. It was symbolic that those who believe in Christ would ‘feed’ on Him and get their sustenance from Him. Secondly, John 6 may have foreshadowed the Last Supper, which foreshadowed the Cross. Best I can do

Thanks for jumping in…did you see the summary above of the three questions(post #110)?–is that accurate in your opinion?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

What this position really means (as I previously posted) is that Jesus let the disciples walk away to their own damnation based on this entirely new use of a metaphor (one they would not have been familiar with, since it is the first time it is being used), without explaining to them the new use. In other words, this position implicitly accuses our Lord of being deliberately misleading. And we all know, that is not of God.

It is very touching that people have started to use the term ‘figurative’ instead of ‘symbolic’ for that which is the opposite of ‘literal.’

The author(s) of this dubious article have simply dropped the term ‘metaphor’ into it and then equivocated on that term. This is not good enough. It is not good scholarship for one thing. People can’t just go making up their own definitions (arbitrarily). If they do then they merely make a case against their own credibility.

I have posted at length (supra) on the definition and etymology of the term ‘metaphor.’ Metaphor is not about things which are unreal. Metaphor is about transferring the reality inherent in one thing to a second thing. (My explanation for brevity here)

It would help immensely if people stopped misusing the term ‘metaphor.’

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Metaphor. A comparison which imaginatively identifies one thing with another dissimilar thing, and transfers or ascribes to the first thing (the tenor or idea) some of the qualities of the second (the vehicle or image). Unlike a simile or analogy, metaphor asserts that one thing is another thing, not just that one is like another. Very frequently [but not always] a metaphor is invoked by the to be verb.

1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora “a transfer,” especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. “a carrying over,” from metapherein “transfer, carry over,” from meta- “over, across” (see meta-) + pherein “to carry, bear” (etamonline.com).

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

Metaphor is not about things which are unreal. Metaphor is about transferring the reality inherent in one thing to a second thing. (My explanation for brevity here)

It would help immensely if people stopped misusing the term ‘metaphor.’

Oh…let em use it…It may be the closest some will get to the Truth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Oh…let em use it…It may be the closest some will get to the Truth.

Nah. Sorry, it isn’t good enough. Close doesn’t cut it, particularly when some people are making claims to scholarship.