Why did He let them walk away?

[michaelp]

mtr01:

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,

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.

Hey mtr,

You miss the primary thrust of the article. What he is saying is that the context of John chapter six is the biggest determining factor of what “eating flesh and drinking blood” mean. It is not either/or. Next most important is the context and language of John in general. Therefore, this is a metaphor which sybolizes belief. This is clear in the context of both John 6 and the entire johaninne corpus. Stone has already adequetely and convincingly shown how the context suggests a metaphor of belief.

He who comes to me will never thirst
He who believes in me will never hunger

Coming to Christ refers to thirsting which, in context, is drinking his blood.
Believing in Christ refers to hungering which, in context, is eating his flesh.

Therefore, the metaphor is clearly set up. That is unless you want to say that the context itself has two different types of eating and drinking.

Belief is the key of the immediate context and the entire Gospel of John. Literally eating and drinking His blood is neither the context of John 6 (which does not mention nor allude to the Eucharist) nor the entire Gospel (which does not record it), nor the entire johaninne corpus (in which John never mentions or alludes to it). Yet you want to say that it refers to a literal interpretation of the Eucharist. The chances are slim.

But the elephant in the room still remains. John does not even include the last supper discourse even though 1/4 of the entire Gospel is devoted to the upper room. He dileberately skips over it. Until this is answered, any talk about John 6 referring to the necessity of salvation coming to a literal adherence to the eating and drinking the body and blood of God is, in my opinion, not worthy. John does not even record the event that you say John 6 references and you say it is necessary to bring about eternal life.

But truly friends, what is this worth. You all are bound to the interpretation of your Magisterium. It is one of the few passages that it has interpreted. Do I really think you all are considering these arguments? Do I really think that you CAN consider these arguments? No. It it really worth this? Maybe . . .

Have a good day all and thanks for the great discussion. I am really enjoying this.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

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

Tricks?? I am just trying to keep you sain. You have alot of fire in your blood!!

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

It means to approach your intellectual persuits without an agenda that drives the discussion and your thought process. It is letting the evidence speak rather than your preunderstandings alone. It is willing to learn and to change accordingly.

And before you say that I am not willing to change, let me stop you. I am willing to accept the real presence of the Eucharist. I have no reasons why I should not. Protestants are not absolutely bound to the dictates of outsourced theology. I really and truly have no problem with the real presence if it were taught. I would change my belief accordingly.

I follow by the dictum that “The paletability of a doctrine does not determine it veracity.” Even if eating and drinking the blood of Christ seems (name removed by moderator)aletable (pun!), this would not stop me from accepting it. Hell is (name removed by moderator)aletable, yet I accept it.

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.

Evidence?

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

You can put it pejoratively or in an attractive wrapping. Let me try: “We submit to the authority of another because we are sinful and would distort the truth if left to our own.” Another way of saying the same thing–outsourcing of theology. Are you not like others on this forum proud that you had over controls of your beliefs to another?

Insulting.

Are you not proud that you defer to the Magisterium?

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.

Real disagreements do not have to be taken as insults.

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.

OK, and what is the difference in this statement and me saying that you outsource your theology?

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

If I have ever taken a “jab,” it has never called your eternal destiny into question. You and I may have our thoughts about each other (I, frankly, have no opinion about your destiny based on our conversations–nor can I), but stating those comment in such a way as to judge another’s position before God is not the best way to discuss issues. It is ad hom.

Oh…You have a

nice day too, Michael…

Once again, Felicity, please understand that the disagreements are real, but this does not mean that we cannot be civil with one another. Let us continue this conversation in a kind manner refraining from letting our emotions get the best of us.

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

:crying:

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?)

I am not sure what you mean. I am just dealing with the text and the theological message of John in general. But I do believe in unconditional election if that is what you are asking. But my belief in this doctrine does not have anything to do with the issue at hand does it?

Hope that you are doing well.

Michael

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

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?

Because what He presented was in direct response to what the crowd challenged Him with in 6:30-31. What do “vine and branches,” “grafting into Him” (which is not what Rom. 11 is about), “adoption,” or “the union of husband and wife” have to do with their ancestors eating manna in the wilderness? THINK CONTEXT. What He said was not only relevant to the subject at hand but absolutely brilliant. I am so sorry you fail to understand His amazing wisdom and what He reveals in that stirring chapter regarding *Himself *as the Bread of Life.

What does BREAD have to do with Salvation–except that God set it up that way since Malcheizedec (sp?)

Actually, salvation has everything to do with life. Fallen man needs a source of eternal life outside himself. Jesus, through His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross became that only Source. As bread is a source of life for mankind, even so Jesus, the true “Bread of life,” is our only source for eternal life. His body would be sacrificed as a sin-offering and His blood shed for our forgiveness and the propitiation of God’s offended holiness because of sin. But it is the resurrected life of the glorified Messiah that is transferred to those who believe in Him (see Eph. 2:4-7; Col. 3:1-4). Figuratively speaking bread and salvation have a whole lot in common. Both are about supplying life. Jesus thought so. How is it you don’t?

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

Christ’s “life food” was His constant union with the Father. He then compares His relationship with the Father with those who come to Him - who believe in Him: “so He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me” (6:57). This is spiritual language, not literal. You really don’t grasp it?

The Scriptural revelation of Christ as the Bread of life that came down out of heaven doesn’t find its significance, nor its fulfillment, in looking forward to the institution of the Lord’s Supper (remember, John doesn’t even record it), but in looking backward to the first chapter of John’s Gospel account where it’s written, “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This was another way of saying that when Christ came into the world God created a whole new humanity, grafted on to the old by a miraculous conception through the virgin birth. The Apostle Paul sheds more light on this truth in his teaching that through the miracle of the incarnation God the Son became a new “Federal Head,” i.e., the “second Man” (1 Cor. 15:47), the “Last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. Rom. 5:12-21), for the divine purpose that all men born spiritually dead in Adam may, through faith in the “Last Adam,” Jesus Christ, be “born again” and His resurrected life (not His crucified body) be transferred to them at the time of personal belief in Him (Jn. 3:3:3;16-18;34-36; 5:21,24,26,40; 6:29,35,40,47,51,63).

John begins his Gospel account with “In Him was life; and the life was the light of men” (Jn. 1:4). His Gospel account (conspicuously different from the other three) begins with this amazing revelation and continually builds upon it. John chapter six reveals Jesus as the “Bread of life,” the source of eternal life for all men, dead in Adam who, in turning to Him by faith receive His LIFE (see 2 Cor. 5:17). If you think it’s all about the Eucharist and feeding on His literal, sacrificed body and blood you’ve not only missed the significance of chapter six, but everything before it, going back to chapter one, and dare I say the Epistles as well (especially Pauline). But most of all the true significance of His bodily resurrection to new life.

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

His flesh and blood, His actual corporeal existance, was to be given for the life of the world. Ironically, His death would actually produce LIFE. The believer’s “faith walk” in what Christ accomplished through that sacrifice, once for all, is the believer’s “true food.” The cross is the grounds by which God graciously gives life eternal to all who trust in the Son (Jn. 3:14-18). And every true believer is now IN the resurrected and ascended Christ “who is our life.” Spiritually speaking, He is our true food (see Col. 3:1-4):

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stone:

I am so sorry you fail to understand His amazing wisdom and what He reveals in that stirring chapter regarding *Himself *as the Bread of Life.

Wow. That’s pretty condescending and … well … confusing.

Stone:

As bread is a source of life for mankind, even so Jesus, the true “Bread of life,” is our only source for eternal life.

As?

‘As’ implies a simile. You have arbitrarily attributed a simile to the text.

Stone:

Figuratively speaking bread and salvation have a whole lot in common. Both are about supplying life.

Now an analogy?

Stone:

Jesus thought so. How is it you don’t?

Wow. Condescending again. Is this a central feature of your hermenutic?

Stone:

Christ’s “life food” was His constant union with the Father. He then compares His relationship with the Father with those who come to Him - who believe in Him: “so He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me” (6:57). This is spiritual language, not literal. You really don’t grasp it?

Really.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Stone has already adequetely and convincingly shown how the context suggests a metaphor of belief.

He who comes to me will never thirst

He who believes in me will never hunger My Bible has it the other way around…

Therefore, the metaphor is clearly set up. That is unless you want to say that the context itself has two different types of eating and drinking…Belief is the key of the immediate context and the entire Gospel of John.

For about the GA-jillionth time…Catholics don’t disagree with Protestants on this point–can we stop going over it? There are many layers to this discourse. Do you insist on sticking here because to go elsewhere will require that intellectual honesty you’re so keen to toss about?

Literally eating and drinking His blood is neither the context of John 6

It must–in some way…disciples LEFT over it–you even said so yourself…so somehow, in what Jesus said in John6, some people got the idea Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.

But the elephant in the room still remains. John does not even include the last supper discourse even though 1/4 of the entire Gospel is devoted to the upper room. He dileberately skips over it. Until this is answered, any talk about John 6 referring to the necessity of salvation coming to a literal adherence to the eating and drinking the body and blood of God is, in my opinion, not worthy. John does not even record the event that you say John 6 references and you say it is necessary to bring about eternal life.

You conveniently dismiss all other possible readings than your own–please go back and check out the posts I made on THE WORD–the Sacrifice of the Mass was already in practice–you even admitted it. So what if John doesn’t have the “this is my body” portion–does it not have Judas exposed in the eating of the bread–unworthily? John is so clear that we are to LISTEN and DO as God says. THAT is his point.

For instance…What is the “commandment” Jesus refers to in this verse? Ch. 12

Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day,

49

because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.

50

And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me."

What commandment is given in John?** **

EAT MY FLESH. DRINK MY BLOOD.

But truly friends, what is this worth. You all are bound to the interpretation of your Magisterium.

Yeah…we meat-robots only claim it makes sense because the Mothership tells us so. Could it be that the Mothership is right?

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:
I am willing to accept the real presence of the Eucharist. The Real Presence of CHRIST in the Eucharist? If so, you should be Catholic–because only His priests can confect His presence and you’re missing out on that special communion every Sunday.

if it were taught.

OH Darn…I guess you don’t believe it is taught…at least taught by the Bible alone…to blazes with the Early Church, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium!!!

outsourced theology…blind allegiance… You can put it pejoratively or in an attractive wrapping. Let me try: “We submit to the authority of another because we are sinful and would distort the truth if left to our own.” Another way of saying the same thing–outsourcing of theology. Are you not like others on this forum proud that you had over controls of your beliefs to another?

You really don’t see how this is insulting?

Real disagreements do not have to be taken as insults.

Loaded language like “outsourcing” and “blind allegiance” is insulting…Please be “intellectually honest” about that.

But I do believe in unconditional election if that is what you are asking. But my belief in this doctrine does not have anything to do with the issue at hand does it?

Yes. It does–some of us believe that God has given us free will–not that our existence is simply a matter of either being “in” or “out”. This explains how you can fathom Jesus letting people walk away ignorantly condemning themselves to damnation. They weren’t elect. That’s nice and tidy, but very nihilistic.

 

[Stone]

They moved it to the SCRIPTURE section!

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

My Bible has it the other way around…

For about the GA-jillionth time…Catholics don’t disagree with Protestants on this point–can we stop going over it? There are many layers to this discourse. Do you insist on sticking here because to go elsewhere will require that intellectual honesty you’re so keen to toss about?

But that is the very point. Just as Jesus was not speaking literally when He said “A man must be born again” or “I have bread that you don’t know of” or “Destroy this temple and I will raise it in three day” so it is the same with this statement in John. The authorial context (which includes what type of Jesus’ statements John chose to record), immediate context (belief=eating), and the broader context of the Johaninne corpus all say "Don’t take Christ literally). If those who misunderstood John were reading His writings later, I suppose that they would understand that they should not have taken Christ literally. But this was not the reason why they walked away. Christ, as I have demonstated, often spoke in ways that only the faithful could understand. Those that did not believe in Him, never understood. And those that did not believe in Him did not get any explaination.

**Matthew 13:13-16 **13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: Although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand. 14 And concerning them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘You will listen carefully yet will never understand, you will look closely yet will never comprehend. 15 For the heart of this people has become dull; they are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ 16 "But your eyes are blessed because they see, and your ears because they hear.

Unbelievers never understand what He was talking about. You are saying that these people DID understand. But John goes to great lengths to show that this is not the case.

It must–in some way…disciples LEFT over it–you even said so yourself…so somehow, in what Jesus said in John6, some people

got the idea Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.

That is right. But they had only been following Christ for one day. They did not know anything about Him or the way that he typically taught as mentioned above. To the reader of John, it should be clear that He is not speaking literally.

Christ let them leave just like He let the Pharisees believe that He was literally going to destroy the temple and rebuild it. Why did he let them believe that???

You conveniently dismiss all other possible readings than your own–please go back and check out the posts I made on THE WORD–the Sacrifice of the Mass was already in practice–you even admitted it. So what if John doesn’t have the “this is my body” portion–does it not have Judas exposed in the eating of the bread–unworthily? John is so clear that we are to LISTEN and DO as God says. THAT is his point.

I have and it makes no sense. The Lord’s supper was already being practiced, yes. But so was the preaching of the Gospel. So was belief in Christ.

You fail to realize that John was not writting to believers, but unbelievers.

**John 20:30-31 **30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Notice that the you refers to unbelievers, not those who were already practicing the Eucharist. So to John’s target audience, they would NOT have been practicing the Eucharist. And if it was essential, it would have been recorded.

Why wasn’t it recorded if John was writting to unbelievers???

Michael

 

[michaelp]

The Real Presence of CHRIST in the Eucharist? If so, you should be Catholic–because only His priests can confect His presence and you’re missing out on that special communion every Sunday.

Why would I automatically have to accept the legitimacy of “Holy Orders” of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a non sequitor. I could be a protestant and accept the real presence as taught in Scripture. But this is a different issue.

OH Darn…I guess you don’t believe it is taught…at least taught by the Bible alone…to blazes with the Early Church, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium!!!

I would agree that the Magisterium teaches the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. We are currently talking about whether or not the Bible teaches it. Church history would take another thread.

You really don’t see how this is insulting?

Are you not proud that you submit the decisions of you intellect to the Magisterium. I have had many conversations with people on this forum who would gladly concede to this point.

Loaded language like “outsourcing” and “blind allegiance” is insulting…Please be “intellectually honest” about that.

How is it loaded. Some people are proud of blind faith. Outsourcing my be pejorative, but the system itself is demeaning to me. I don’t know how to speak graciously about a system that denies people ability to think for themselves.

Yes. It does–some of us believe that God has given us free will–not that our existence is simply a matter of either being “in” or “out”. This explains how you can fathom Jesus letting people walk away ignorantly condemning themselves to damnation. They weren’t elect. That’s nice and tidy, but very nihilistic.

Well, this is CERTIANLY the subject of a different debate.

Have a good day.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Hey mtr,

You miss the primary thrust of the article. What he is saying is that the context of John chapter six is the biggest determining factor of what “eating flesh and drinking blood” mean. It is not either/or. Next most important is the context and language of John in general. Therefore, this is a metaphor which sybolizes belief. This is clear in the context of both John 6 and the entire johaninne corpus. Stone has already adequetely and convincingly shown how the context suggests a metaphor of belief.

He who comes to me will never thirst
He who believes in me will never hunger

Coming to Christ refers to thirsting which, in context, is drinking his blood.
Believing in Christ refers to hungering which, in context, is eating his flesh.

Therefore, the metaphor is clearly set up. That is unless you want to say that the context itself has two different types of eating and drinking.

Belief is the key of the immediate context and the entire Gospel of John. Literally eating and drinking His blood is neither the context of John 6 (which does not mention nor allude to the Eucharist) nor the entire Gospel (which does not record it), nor the entire johaninne corpus (in which John never mentions or alludes to it). Yet you want to say that it refers to a literal interpretation of the Eucharist. The chances are slim.

But the elephant in the room still remains. John does not even include the last supper discourse even though 1/4 of the entire Gospel is devoted to the upper room. He dileberately skips over it. Until this is answered, any talk about John 6 referring to the necessity of salvation coming to a literal adherence to the eating and drinking the body and blood of God is, in my opinion, not worthy. John does not even record the event that you say John 6 references and you say it is necessary to bring about eternal life.

But truly friends, what is this worth. You all are bound to the interpretation of your Magisterium. It is one of the few passages that it has interpreted. Do I really think you all are considering these arguments? Do I really think that you CAN consider these arguments? No. It it really worth this? Maybe . . .

Have a good day all and thanks for the great discussion. I am really enjoying this.

Michael

Michael, I admire your tenacity with this argument you put forth, especially in light of the fact that Ani clearly showed the flaw in your use of these "parallels. Furthermore, none of what you posted adresses the inherent problem with this interpretation (which I posted previously). No matter what new “metaphor” you claim our Lord was introducing, the fact is that it is the first time it was ever used, and that the disciples had never heard it before. Therefore, your interpretation logically makes Jesus into a deceiver.

Furthermore, you disregard the plain and simple fact that the disciples did take Him literally, or else they wouldn’t have exclaimed, “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” Unless, of course, you are claiming that they were speaking “metaphorically” as well. Remember, this is the only time it is recorded that His disiples left Him. He spoke figuratively (or symbolically, or metaphorically, allegorically, whatever term you want to use) many times in his parables, and there were many hard sayings in those parables. Yet no one ever left Him because of it. What does that tell you?

 

[michaelp]

Michael, I admire your tenacity with this argument you put forth, especially in light of the fact that Ani clearly showed the flaw in your use of these "parallels. Furthermore, none of what you posted adresses the inherent problem with this interpretation (which I posted previously). No matter what new “metaphor” you claim our Lord was introducing, the fact is that it is the first time it was ever used, and that the disciples had never heard it before. Therefore, your interpretation logically makes Jesus into a deceiver.

This entirely misunderstands the Lord’s didactic style. He was in the buisness of introducing new metaphors. And John is the primary writer who records them.

Let me ask you this: Who before Christ used the metaphor of tearing down a temple and rebuilding it? Who before Christ introduced the metaphor of being born again? No one. That is the point. This is the way Christ taught. The context always tells us what Christ was speaking of. And contrary to what you believe, eating Christ’s blood is equated to belief in the same context. There is no suggestion that it means anything other than this.

Furthermore, you disregard the plain and simple fact that the disciples did take Him literally, or else they wouldn’t have exclaimed, “how can he give us his flesh to eat?”

Of course. In John we see unbelievers always taking Christ literally when they should not have and therefore stumbling.

Did the pharisee take Christ literally when He said that He was going to destroy the temple? Yes. Where they wrong to? I will let you answer that.

Unless, of course, you are claiming that they were speaking “metaphorically” as well. Remember, this is the only time it is recorded that His disiples left Him.

They were never really with Him. Just as the pharisees were never really with him. John says that Christ was not intrusting himself to anyone.

He spoke figuratively (or symbolically, or metaphorically, allegorically, whatever term you want to use) many times in his parables, and there were many hard sayings in those parables. Yet no one ever left Him because of it. What does that tell you?

You miss the point. No one ever took the parables literally since they were parables. In John, however, there is not one parable recorded. Christ is seen speaking in esoteric language that no one gets and everyone misunderstands. It is a primary theme of the Gospel.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

This entirely misunderstands the Lord’s didactic style. He was in the buisness of introducing new metaphors. And John is the primary writer who records them.

Let me ask you this: Who before Christ used the metaphor of tearing down a temple and rebuilding it? Who before Christ introduced the metaphor of being born again? No one. That is the point. This is the way Christ taught. The context always tells us what Christ was speaking of. And contrary to what you believe, eating Christ’s blood is equated to belief in the same context. There is no suggestion that it means anything other than this.

Michael, Michael, Michael :nope:

Don’t you see the main difference between the examples you cited and John 6? Where is there scriptural evidence that “tearing down the temple” was a metaphor for something else? Where is there scriptural evidence that “being born again” was a metaphor for anything else? While it may be true that no one had ever used these particular metaphors before, it is not true of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”. Thus the problem remains.

These were not new “metaphors”, they were already well established. Your argument is that he introduced a novel use to an old “metaphor”, not that he introduced a brand new one (as pertains to John 6). Once again, your interpretation requires the logical conclusion that our Lord, by introducing this novel use and not telling anyone, let people walk off to their damnation by being deliberately deceitful. You cannot get around this no matter how hard you try to justify your personal interpretation of John 6.

michaelp:

Of course. In John we see unbelievers always taking Christ literally when they should not have and therefore stumbling.

Did the pharisee take Christ literally when He said that He was going to destroy the temple? Yes. Where they wrong to? I will let you answer that.

Again, this is irrelevant. You are talking about unbelievers. However, in John 6, those that left him were his disciples.

michaelp:

They were never really with Him. Just as the pharisees were never really with him. John says that Christ was not intrusting himself to anyone.

That awfully convenient. “His disciples weren’t really with him, but followed him anyway”.

michaelp:

You miss the point. No one ever took the parables literally since they were parables. In John, however, there is not one parable recorded. Christ is seen speaking in esoteric language that no one gets and everyone misunderstands. It is a primary theme of the Gospel.

Michael

You missed my point completely. If Christ was so clearly speaking “metaphorically”, why would anyone leave over a hard “metaphoric” statement?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

You missed my point completely. If Christ was so clearly speaking “metaphorically”, why would anyone leave over a hard “metaphoric” statement?

I am just not getting through. The pastor frequently misuses words for which he has no understanding. And then persists. And then after persisting, persists again. It’s a pattern. Metaphorically here does not mean fictitiously.

1. Jesus transferred himself into what he was saying.
2. The disciples ‘got it.’
3. The disciples wanted something other than what they were getting. That is, they did not value what Jesus was giving them.
4. Because of (3), they left. They did not leave because they did not get it. They totally got it. They totally understood what was going on. They grokked it fully. They dug it. They kenned it. They tuned in and turned off. They clued in and copped out.

This transference is metaphor. Not metaphor in the way yall have been tossing around carelessly. Not metaphor meaning fictitious. Metaphor meaning one real thing is transferred into a second real thing. Metaphor meaning real Jesus is transferred at this particular time into his real words and at later points in time into real bread.

So the long and short of it:

Jesus goes where the bread is. So completely does Jesus go where the bread is that there is no more bread, only Jesus.

It’s not a symbol.
It’s not an allegory.
It’s not a simile.
I’ts not an allusion.
It’s not a conceit.
It’s not a euphemism.
It’s not fictitious.

It’s R E A L .

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Mike…it’s Mike!
So…you’re saying that that “you” could not be believers as wll? So what do you do with all those who are believers and say to Our Lord. “crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief.” (Mark 9:23b)
I would have to say that you are wrong…both Biblically and from my own personal experience.

(anyone else out there have similar experiences?)
Pax vobiscum,

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

Don’t you see the main difference between the examples you cited and John 6? Where is there scriptural evidence that “tearing down the temple” was a metaphor for something else? Where is there scriptural evidence that “being born again” was a metaphor for anything else? While it may be true that no one had ever used these particular metaphors before, it is not true of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”. Thus the problem remains.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Once again, your interpretation requires the logical conclusion that our Lord, by introducing this novel use and not telling anyone, let people walk off to their damnation by being deliberately deceitful.

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.

Again, this is irrelevant. You are talking about unbelievers. However, in John 6, those that left him were his disciples.

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

You missed my point completely. If Christ was so clearly speaking “metaphorically”, why would anyone leave over a hard “metaphoric” statement?

Same reason he did with the Jews concerning the Temple.

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

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

Hi Mike…it’s Mike!
So…you’re saying that that “you” could not be believers as wll? So what do you do with all those who are believers and say to Our Lord. “crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief.” (Mark 9:23b)
I would have to say that you are wrong…both Biblically and from my own personal experience.

(anyone else out there have similar experiences?)
Pax vobiscum,

John’s primary audience was to unbelievers. This is clear as John provides a rare and explicit purpose statement for His Gospel.

**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.

He recorded the signs that He recorded to convince unbelievers of the truth of the Gospel. The “you” is unbelievers.

Now this does not mean that believers cannot recieve edification from the book anymore than we can recieve edification from John 3:16 since we already believe it (I am with you there!). But we must understand that John primary intent is to convince unbelievers that Christ is the Son of God so that they might have eternal life. This intent must guide our interpretation, not vice-versa.

Good to hear from you Mike. Hope that you and your family are doing well.

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Mike! Watch that condescension. :irish1: Your “tone” implies that we are all too stupid to recognize “circular logic” when IMO that is most often a tactic of those outside the church, particularly those who espouse something like sola scriptura.

If you feel that you are not getting anywhere there are only two options:

1. Acknowlege that Catholics know what they are talking about and are in fact correct about the Eucharist. (My own case and position.)
   or,
2. Acknowlege that you cannot convince knowlegeable Catholics that you are right and that we are wrong and pack it in on the topic of the Eucharist. (my recommendation to you…)
   Pax vobiscum,

 

[michaelp]

Mike! Watch that condescension. :irish1: Your “tone” implies that we are all too stupid to recognize “circular logic” when IMO that is most often a tactic of those outside the church, particularly those who espouse something like sola scriptura.

Mike, I truly was being sincere. There was no condenscention intended at all.

If you feel that you are not getting anywhere there are only two options:

1. Acknowlege that Catholics know what they are talking about and are in fact correct about the Eucharist. (My own case and position.)
   or,
2. Acknowlege that you cannot convince knowlegeable Catholics that you are right and that we are wrong and pack it in on the topic of the Eucharist. (my recommendation to you…)
   Pax vobiscum,

I opt for #3. We are all here seeking to better understand what we believe. I follow by the dictum, “In contrast, there is clarity.” Through the debate and the struggle, we can all be more well infomed no matter what our position is. Some may become stronger in their opinion, and some weaker. Such is the case with working through theological issues. One thing I do appreciate about everyone here is that they are to varying degrees willing to engage with opposing viewpoints. This I truly do admire. I admire this in you as well. And at the risk of sounding condenscending( ), I think you make a good Catholic as well.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Mike, I truly was being sincere. There was no condenscention intended at all.

I opt for #3. We are all here seeking to better understand what we believe. I follow by the dictum, “In contrast, there is clarity.” Through the debate and the struggle, we can all be more well infomed no matter what our position is. Some may become stronger in their opinion, and some weaker. Such is the case with working through theological issues. One thing I do appreciate about everyone here is that they are to varying degrees willing to engage with opposing viewpoints. This I truly do admire. I admire this in you as well. And at the risk of sounding condenscending( ), I think you make a good Catholic as well.

Michael

And there are those like me Who are not good at debating at all:nope: Even at that I am just as convinced of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as the rest of those Catholics

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

mtr01:

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?

l

What about this…? I guess you missed it since the elephant apparently blocked your view.

Felicity:

So what if John doesn’t have the “this is my body” portion–does it not have Judas exposed in the eating of the bread–unworthily?

John is so clear that we are to LISTEN and DO as God says. THAT is his point.

For instance…What is the** “commandment”** Jesus refers to in this verse? Ch. 12

Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day,

49

because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.

50

And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me."

What commandment is given in John?****

EAT MY FLESH. DRINK MY BLOOD.