Why did He let them walk away?

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

michaelp:

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

I guess if this satifies you, it is a sufficient answer for you. But I think that you may be sidestepping the true difficulty. I don’t think that a simple “so what? do what Christ says” will satify most people trying to understand the text. It does not touch upon the issue of why John did not include the last supper discourse when according to your view John 6 is a reference to that event, even though John 6 does not mention the event and it had not occured as of yet.

Thanks for asking the question “Why did He let them walk away?” and inviting me to contribute to this thread. I don’t think we are going to be able to do much more, but I do think that it will serve as a valuable resource for others who are struggling with the issue.

Have a good Sunday Felicity,

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

st_felicity:

I guess if this satifies you, it is a sufficient answer for you

. But I think that you may be sidestepping the true difficulty. I don’t think that a simple “so what? do what Christ says” will satify most people trying to understand the text. It does not touch upon the issue of why John did not include the last supper discourse when according to your view John 6 is a reference to that event, even though John 6 does not mention the event and it had not occured as of yet.

Thanks for asking the question “Why did He let them walk away?” and inviting me to contribute to this thread. I don’t think we are going to be able to do much more, but I do think that it will serve as a valuable resource for others who are struggling with the issue.

Have a good Sunday Felicity,

Michael
So you aren’t going to take a stab at what “commandment” he is referring to? In context–It can’t be simply be “believe in Him” it refers to “something” specific that He “spoke.”

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, …And I know that his commandment is eternal life.

So…What is it?

And are you also unwilling to consider the reference at the Last Supper that Judas was revealed in the eating of the bread unworthily?

You say there is an elephant in the room–what makes you think it’s gone by your simply sweeping it under the rug with a dismissive post that accuses me of sidestepping–when in fact, isn’t that exactly what you are doing?

 

[st_felicity]

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

I think the point was to a degree we all are “unbelievers” because we do not have perfect faith.

Michael, it seems your whole argument against the Catholic assertion that Jesus’ words in John 6–specifically, “My flesh is TRUE food, my blood is TRUE drink” is in fact exactly that–His flesh and blood are to be eaten and drunk–is that Jesus did not mean it literally that way since John failed to record the specific words (in the other three gospels, mind you) “this is my body, this is my blood” in the Last Supper discourse.

That alone is your determiner. You do not give credence to Christ’s assertive repetition in John 6. You do not give credence to the Early Church’s practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass–you still insist that John–though an Apostle and obviously practicing his faith–did not believe in it since it is not in his gospel. You do not give credence to Ignatius, John’s student–who could not be more clear about the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You do not give credence to evidence that suggests that the metaphor you so want it to be would–if truly ONLY a metaphor–make no sense in the context of Christ’s message. Instead, you rather stick to your own comfortable reading and cling to that ONE fact–John never specifically conveys “this is my body” in the Last Supper discourse. Okay…you can do that…you have free will…

 

[st_felicity]

One last thing…

John 19:28
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, 12 Jesus said, “I thirst.” 29 There was a vessel filled with common wine. 13 So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. 30 14 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

The Isrealites spread the blood of the Paschal lamb on their doorposts with hyssop. Yet another reference to blood and wine.

He bore ALL of our sin–and He thirsted. What quenched His thirst there on Calvery? What was His last act? He drank The Blood of the Lamb.

 

[michaelp]

Thanks Felicity, I appreciate the conversation. Have a great day,

Michael

 

[Stone]

Ani lbi:

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

How do you figure I was consdescending? I simpy asked him how he didn’t agree with Jesus in comparing 'bread" with “life.” And what is it in what I wrote that you found confusing?

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

Nothing arbitrary about it. If you fail to see the “simile” between the Person of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross on man’s behalf “as” the divine “Bread” or “life source” given by God for all fallen humanity, dead in trespasses and sins (see vs. 51), then you fail, utterly, to comprehend what Jesus says of Himself at the very start: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (vs. 35).

Obviously He is not speaking literally, as you contend, or else once you partake of the Eucharist (to which you apply His statement), then from that point on you would NEVER again have the need to hydrate your body nor provide it nourishment with physical food.

Has this been your experience? Is it the experience of every Catholic who believes the way you do? I know Catholics eat meals just as I do. To what purpose then do you eat meals and drink fluids if the Eucharist provides you with ALL the fluid and nourishment your body ever needs (a conclusion based on your consistent commitment to literalness)? Why do drink if you’re NEVER thirsty, or eat if you’re NEVER hungry?

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Thanks Felicity, I appreciate the conversation. Have a great day,
Michael

So is that a no…?

In case anyone missed it–since you flipped to a new page with this stunning reply…

So you aren’t going to take a stab at what “commandment” he is referring to? In context–It can’t be simply be “believe in Him” it refers to “something” specific that He “spoke.”

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, …And I know that his commandment is eternal life.

So…What is it?

And are you also unwilling to consider the reference at the Last Supper that Judas was revealed in the eating of the bread unworthily?

You say there is an elephant in the room–what makes you think it’s gone by your simply sweeping it under the rug with a dismissive post that accuses me of sidestepping–when in fact, isn’t that exactly what you are doing?

---

Michael, it seems your whole argument against the Catholic assertion that Jesus’ words in John 6–specifically, “My flesh is TRUE food, my blood is TRUE drink” is in fact exactly that–His flesh and blood are to be eaten and drunk–is that Jesus did not mean it literally that way since John failed to record the specific words (in the other three gospels, mind you) “this is my body, this is my blood” in the Last Supper discourse.

That alone is your determiner. You do not give credence to Christ’s assertive repetition in John 6. You do not give credence to the Early Church’s practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass–you still insist that John–though an Apostle and obviously practicing his faith–did not believe in it since it is not in his gospel. You do not give credence to Ignatius, John’s student–who could not be more clear about the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You do not give credence to evidence that suggests that the metaphor you so want it to be would–if truly ONLY a metaphor–make no sense in the context of Christ’s message. Instead, you rather stick to your own comfortable reading and cling to that ONE fact–John never specifically conveys “this is my body” in the Last Supper discourse. Okay…you can do that…you have free will…

 

[Church_Militant]

One of the biggest problems that I have with n-Cs rejecting the Eucharist is that you pretty much insist on ripping all the passages that apply to this topic all out of context and fail to even consider that they apply to the same topic.
John 6 is not the only passage that deals with this, and in context of each other it makes (IMO) the tightest of possible cases. I will always disagree that Jesus is speaking figuratively (or whatever) in His bread of life discourse. I mean when the Son of God tells me that unless I eat His flesh and drink His blood I will have no life in me…I don’t have to be a theologian to get the message loud and clear, especially when a big bunch of His disciples bail on Him at that statement and because of it…to the point where Jesus turns to His chosen twelve and asks if they want to bail too. I disagree that they understood Him to means something different than the rest…there’s no inference of that at all in this passage…not a bit. The fact that he reiterated His meaning six (6) times as the people questioned and murmered just drives the point home all the more. I submit that those who reject the Eucharist do so for the same reasons that the Jews and faithless disciples did…they simply don’t want to.

Worse still is the way that n-Cs attempt to ignore the clearly Eucharistic statements of St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 11-23-30.

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep."

Now most Prots are good to go on verses 23-26 here but they never in my life among them preached the rest of this passage. My opinion is that it’s just far too Eucharistic and is best left to another sermon at which point they can happily pull it from context and discuss it while they bash Catholic doctrine from their pulpits. This too I have personally been witness to.

In other threads I have posited my logical discussion of the fact that it is impossible to become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a symbol of them:

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if that body and blood of the Lord is not really there? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this:http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? Because Karl Keating is not really present in that symbol, is he?

This statement by St. Paul proves that the early church already celebrated the Eucharist and knew it to be a repetative participatory miracle, even as we do today. The dire gravity of verses 29 and 30 make it clear that they knew it really was the miraculous presence of Our Risen Lord.

Even the early church’s enemies understood this: One roman officer described Christians this way; “They eat their god and drown their children.” :irish1:
Pax vobiscum,

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Obviously He is not speaking literally, as you contend, or else once you partake of the Eucharist (to which you apply His statement), then from that point on you would NEVER again have the need to hydrate your body nor provide it nourishment with physical food.

What aren’t you getting here…It’s not either/or it’s both/and…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stone:

How do you figure I was consdescending?

Your tone. Your diction. You have choices about how you speak. You chose a condescending tone and words such as ‘fail.’

Stone:

Nothing arbitrary about it.

Everything arbitrary about it.

Stone:

If you fail to see the “simile” between the Person of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross on man’s behalf “as” the divine “Bread” or “life source” given by God for all fallen humanity, dead in trespasses and sins

You attributed the simile. It’s not a simile. It’s the real thing.

(see vs. 51), then you fail, utterly, to comprehend what Jesus says of Himself at the very start: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (vs. 35).

You have ‘failed’ to demonstrate this. It is merely your opinion. Reiterated. Tautologized.

Stone:

Obviously He is not speaking literally, as you contend, or else once you partake of the Eucharist (to which you apply His statement), then from that point on you would NEVER again have the need to hydrate your body nor provide it nourishment with physical food.

Your attribution. Non sequitur. Temporality undemonstrated.

Stone:

Has this been your experience?

Relevance?

Stone:

Is it the experience of every Catholic who believes the way you do?

Relevance? Ad populum?

Stone:

I know Catholics eat meals just as I do. To what purpose then do you eat meals and drink fluids

This would have been a genuine question if you had left it at that. But you didn’t you added to it with an ‘if’ which then rendered it a rhetorical question one that neither asks nor gets an answer.

 

[st_felicity]

Church Militant:

The fact that he reiterated His meaning six (6) times as the people questioned and murmered just drives the point home all the more. I submit that those who reject the Eucharist do so for the same reasons that the Jews and faithless disciples did…they simply don’t want to.
,

Jesus said it 6 times and disciples still walked away…

In a moment of humility I realized–if the very WORD of GOD (times six!) isn’t sufficient evidence to assure an individual of His presence in the Eucharist—what makes me think I could ever explain it to such an one that does not want to hear it?

I apologize for beating the dead horse.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Church Militant:

I submit that those who reject the Eucharist do so for the same reasons that the Jews and faithless disciples did…they simply don’t want to.

I agree.

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

What aren’t you getting here…It’s not either/or it’s both/and…

Care to elaborate?

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Care to elaborate?

not really…go back and read the posts that addressed this a while back.

 

[st_felicity]

Ok, I help you. Granted, some of it is a bit complicated–but Ani is very thorough…Posts # 115, 116, 127, 162

Basically…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).

 

[Stone]

Ani Ibi:

Your tone. Your diction. You have choices about how you speak. You chose a condescending tone and words such as ‘fail.’

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

Everything arbitrary about it. – You attributed the simile. It’s not a simile. It’s the real thing. --You have ‘failed’ to demonstrate this. It is merely your opinion. Reiterated. Tautologized. – Your attribution. Non sequitur. Temporality undemonstrated. – Relevance? – Relevance? Ad populum? – This would have been a genuine question if you had left it at that. But you didn’t you added to it with an ‘if’ which then rendered it a rhetorical question one that neither asks nor gets an answer.

All the above curt responses are your way of avoiding having to give (if possible) an adequate answer. You’re not fooling anyone.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

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

No Stone–it is clear YOU have not read adequately…

…As I said, Ani is VERY thorough!

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Ok, I help you. Granted, some of it is a bit complicated–but Ani is very thorough…Posts # 115, 116, 127, 162

Basically…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).

Ok, so what does all of this have to do with the content of my post? If you claim Jesus is literally the “bread of life” (“true food”) and He is literally eaten via the miraculous transubstantiation of the host, then based on vs. 35 of chapter six you should never again be thirsty or hungry. What He says in verse 35 concerning Himself as the “bread of life” MUST necessarily convey to the transubstantiated “host,” as well. If you say it does not then how can you take vs. 54 literally?

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

No Stone–it is clear YOU have not read adequately…

…As I said, Ani is VERY thorough!

I read the posts you suggested. NONE of them address the issue. So, please, if you will, take the time to elaborate on your (“both…and”) response.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Ok, so what does all of this have to do with the content of my post? If you claim Jesus is literally the “bread of life” (“true food”) and He is literally eaten via the miraculous transubstantiation of the host, then based on vs. 35 of chapter six you should never again be thirsty or hungry. What He says in verse 35 concerning Himself as the “bread of life” MUST necessarily convey to the transubstantiated “host,” as well. If you say it does not then how can you take vs. 54 literally?

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps.