Why did He let them walk away?

[Mickey]

**MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN **
“[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”

-“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.

​

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

What does “inwardly rejecting” mean–is it the same as “self-delusion”? You point out that believing in the message of the cross is “pure and simple”. I have had many conversations with my Protestant mother on this specific thing–that Protestants think Catholics put too many “clauses” and “have tos” and that we make it so “complicated”. What is your real reason for not believing “My flesh is TRUE food; my blood is TRUE drink”? If anything is simple–THAT is it. Is it really so hard to take Jesus at His word?

If Jesus was speaking literally, then yes, I would take Him at His literal word. But it seems very obvious to me He was not. Not when He begins metaphorically with “I am the bread of life” in 6:35 and ends with “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” in 6:63.

Again–what does this mean? How does one experience “full assurance of their salvation”? What does it look like? Or how exactly does it came across to the faithful person so they know they are assured and not just thinking they are? Is it a feeling? Please explain.

Assurance of salvation is never based on feelings, but Scriptural facts. Now those facts can produce the “feelings” one gets when one is totally assured of something, i.e., comfort, joy, peace, etc. (see Rom. 5:1). But the assurance itself is objective, based on immutable, divinely revealed Biblical facts. But to be honest with you, Felicity, as long as you keep redefining “eternal life,” and you yourself refuse to take God’s word literally concerning faith in His Son and the believer’s eternal inheritance in Him, then I’m afraid not even His written Word can be a comfort to you in that area.

 

[Mickey]

**St. Fulbert of Chartres (d. 1028) **
“It is the same flesh, the one assumed from the Virgin, and the other consecrated from material and virginal creature; it is one and the same artist, namely the Spirit, who by invisible action transforms it into the substance of true flesh. It is not the symbol of an empty mystery, but the true body of Christ built by the Holy Spirit.”

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

Although, that still doesn’t take you off the hook. You’re still held responsible for accurately handling the Word of truth.

I don’t think I am on any sort of ‘hook’. I did not make up the words in John. I use Christ’s own words in my belief. I do not need to change them to make them any more believable (the eat vs believe substitution). His saying is hard to believe, but there is enough in the Scriptures to make the Catholic claim of the Eucharist reasonable. The question I still have is why this is so hard … there is Scriptural support for the Catholic claim, it is not a ludicrous claim. So I still ask why would not Christ give us His body and blood to eat. Is it not physically possible?

The hook belongs to those who believe the words Christ spoke cannot be. Christ could have used any verb in His discourse but He chose to say eat and drink.

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

I don’t think I am on any sort of ‘hook’. I did not make up the words in John. I use Christ’s own words in my belief. I do not need to change them to make them any more believable (the eat vs believe substitution). His saying is hard to believe, but there is enough in the Scriptures to make the Catholic claim of the Eucharist reasonable. The question I still have is why this is so hard … there is Scriptural support for the Catholic claim, it is not a ludicrous claim. So I still ask why would not Christ give us His body and blood to eat. Is it not physically possible?

The hook belongs to those who believe the words Christ spoke cannot be. Christ could have used any verb in His discourse but He chose to say eat and drink.

Amen ncgolf! And may I add this from Sacred Scripture:

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

(2 Tim 4:1-4)
​

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

If Jesus was speaking literally, then yes, I would take Him at His literal word. But it seems very obvious to me He was not. Not when He begins metaphorically with “I am the bread of life” in 6:35 and ends with “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” in 6:63.

Stone…if you don’t get the “both/and” thing at this point—I give up—you are obstinately clinging to your narrow “metaphor” and failing to grasp the fullness of that metaphor. I think that is sad and I hope some day your eyes will be opened.

Felicity:

What does “inwardly rejecting” mean–is it the same as “self-delusion”?

You never answered this question–what is the difference?

Assurance of salvation is never based on feelings, but Scriptural facts.

So you are assured that you are saved because the Bible says so? Where does it say “Stone is saved” in the Bible? If it doesn’t name you–how can there be “facts” that assure the individual is saved, rather than deluding himself?

Now those facts can produce the “feelings” one gets when one is totally assured of something, i.e., comfort, joy, peace, etc. (see Rom. 5:1).

I could be totally certain of something and just flat out be wrong.

Try this scenario on for size: The most important meeting of your LIFE is at 6:15 AM tomorrow morning. You need to get up early to get ready and make it on time–YOU CANNOT BE LATE there will be no second meeting if you fail to show up. You set the alarm clock for 5:30 AM–plenty of time to get ready before the meeting… You are so certain that you will be awakened the next morning that you lie down and drift blissfully off to sleep–dreaming of the most excellent meeting that will take place tomorrow morn. The next morning your eyes flutter awake to the tune of lovely Spring birdies chirping outside your window, the sun is streaming in warming your face that’s strange–it’s so bright for so early in the morning…You turn and focus on the digital numbers blaring the horrific news– It’s 7:00!!! Aghast, you scramble to see what went wrong–Oops! you set the alarm for 5:30 PM. Too bad for you–you missed the important meeting…:nope: :crying: But you were so assured that the alarm would go off–you slept so comfortably–HOW did this happen? You were CERTAIN! The FACTS didn’t support the FEELINGS!

But to be honest with you, Felicity, as long as you keep redefining “eternal life,”

huh??? where?

and you yourself refuse to take God’s word literally concerning faith in His Son and the believer’s eternal inheritance in Him,

double huh??? I agree that there is an eternal inheritance–but you must accept the Truth. What are you talking about? False claims about what I said is helpful in what way?

then I’m afraid not even His written Word can be a comfort to you in that area.

I am comforted by His written word–but I will be “saved” by the LIVING Word!

 

[st_felicity]

oops…there I go again with the analogies…my apologies if the alarm clock story confused anyone!

 

[mercygate]

SPOKENWORD:

He let them walk away because they were only seeing in the natural and Jesus was speaking supernatural. Its impossable to see the supernatural in the natural. Cannot be done and Jesus knew it. God Bless

Spoken like a true Catholic, Spokes!

SPOKES: “seeing in the natural” = “the flesh [as opposed to “my flesh”] is of no avail.”

SPOKES: “impossible to see the supernatural in the natural” = “It is the spirit that gives life.”

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

Scripture states that God has given TO the Church Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints and building up the body of Christ unto maturity (Eph. 4:11-16). The contradiction of terms is to say the Church was given to the body when in fact they’re one and the same. The Church is the body, the body is the Church.

But the Church is, and we are nothing without the gift of Christ himself, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which hold the Church in life. Is it a Fundamentalist attribute that something must be EITHER one thing OR another? Synthesis, multi-level significance, and mystical theology just don’t seem acceptable in that paradigm.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Stone:

If Jesus was speaking literally, then yes, I would take Him at His literal word. But it seems very obvious to me He was not. Not when He begins metaphorically with “I am the bread of life” in 6:35 and ends with “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” in 6:63.

Assurance of salvation is never based on feelings, but Scriptural facts. Now those facts can produce the “feelings” one gets when one is totally assured of something, i.e., comfort, joy, peace, etc. (see Rom. 5:1). But the assurance itself is objective, based on immutable, divinely revealed Biblical facts. But to be honest with you, Felicity, as long as you keep redefining “eternal life,” and you yourself refuse to take God’s word literally concerning faith in His Son and the believer’s eternal inheritance in Him, then I’m afraid not even His written Word can be a comfort to you in that area.

Hey, but doesn’t the bread of life discourse actually end with verse 58? Have a look at verse 59: “These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” so that means that Jesus said verese 60 and on after the Bread of life discourse.

The word spirit is nowhere used in the Bible to mean “symbolic”. I mean, isn’t the spiritual just as real as the material?

Isn’t verse 63 where Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man with the spiritual or faith-filled man? This sems to tie in with 1st Corinthians 2:14-3:4…

 

[mtr01]

Wow, I see much has gone on in this thread since I’ve been away. And I’ll add that nothing’s changed either. I’ll just make one observation now, because I’m tired. Actually, let me preface by saying I don’t really know when the denial of the True Presence of Christ became doctrine in non-Catholic circles. Even Luther believed in it. I just find it strange that people justify their denial by essentially claiming that all Christians for over 1500 years were wrong. As Mickey has so amply demonstrated, the True and Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be dated back to the earliest Church Fathers.

Do the isbelievers actually think they’re smarter than the Fathers? Do they think they know more, even though the Fathers can claim as their techers the Apostles themselves? It really makes no sense to me that people would go to the lengths they do to read back their novel theology into the scriptures, which are the same scriptures the Late Fathers also had. Really, why should Catholics abandon 2000 years of belief to some Johnny-come-lately theology? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Try this scenario on for size: The most important meeting of your LIFE is at 6:15 AM tomorrow morning. You need to get up early to get ready and make it on time–YOU CANNOT BE LATE there will be no second meeting if you fail to show up. You set the alarm clock for 5:30 AM–plenty of time to get ready before the meeting… You are so certain that you will be awakened the next morning that you lie down and drift blissfully off to sleep–dreaming of the most excellent meeting that will take place tomorrow morn. The next morning your eyes flutter awake to the tune of lovely Spring birdies chirping outside your window, the sun is streaming in warming your face that’s strange–it’s so bright for so early in the morning…You turn and focus on the digital numbers blaring the horrific news–It’s 7:00!!! Aghast, you scramble to see what went wrong–Oops! you set the alarm for 5:30 PM. Too bad for you–you missed the important meeting…But you were so assured that the alarm would go off–you slept so comfortably–HOW did this happen? You were CERTAIN! The FACTS didn’t support the FEELINGS!

Your analogy is rooted in a Catholic mentality, not a Biblical one. An un-Biblical mentality that denies the fact that Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself the full burden of man’s redemption. A religious mentality that turns its back to the cross and the Gospel message, and lays that responsibility back on to the shoulders of men. It fails to comprehend the full significance of the cross.

Oh there was a meeting all right, but it didn’t involve me or you. It was a meeting between God the Father and God the Son, the unblemished Lamb, Jesus Christ. And neither of them were late:

1TIM. 2:3-6 "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."

The true believer’s assurance rests in the historical and Biblical fact that Christ did show up at the meeting and at proper time, though under great stress and strain, as demonstrated on the Mt. of Olives where He said praying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39); yet obediently He was there.

No, Felicity, He attended that predetermined meeting at the cross 2000 years ago, and there in this space/time continuum, as an actual, recorded historical event in human history, He took upon Himself your and my sins (ALL of them) and, as our Substitute took the penalty for them, died in our stead, so that all who would put their faith in Him, i.e., what He accomplished there on the cross for them (6:51), would receive, according to sovereign grace, divine forgiveness of ALL sins and His resurrected LIFE (eternal) as a divine inheritance. This is what Jesus meant in John six when He said" For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (6:55). As the life of the manna was transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness, so His life (given over for death, but subsequently resurrected) is transferred to those who believe in Him.

The assurance of salvation and eternal life for all true believers is a vacant cross and an empty tomb. The cosmic alarm went off, Jesus kept His divine appointment as our Substitute, and “as Moses lifted up the serpent (bronze, signifying judgment) in the wilderness, even so the Son of Man was lifted up (on the cross, taking our judgment in our stead); that whoever believes in Him may IN HIM have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-14).

 

[Stone]

Mercygate:

But the Church is, and we are nothing without the gift of Christ himself, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which hold the Church in life. Is it a Fundamentalist attribute that something must be EITHER one thing OR another? Synthesis, multi-level significance, and mystical theology just don’t seem acceptable in that paradigm

To the Biblicist, divine revelation is what matters. And we find this in the literal, written Word of God. We understand the “mysteries” revealed there, but cannot accept “mystical theology,” where the reader applies so many multi-levels of interpretation that the written Word of God no longer holds any real significance and means whatever the reader wants it to mean.

 

[Stone]

2Rollin'Stoned:

Hey, but doesn’t the bread of life discourse actually end with verse 58?

No. The whole chapter is germane to His moraphorical words. The subject doesn’t change until 7:1 where it starts out by saying, “And after these things…”

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

To the Biblicist, divine revelation is what matters. And we find this in the literal, written Word of God. We understand the “mysteries” revealed there, but cannot accept “mystical theology,” where the reader applies so many multi-levels of interpretation that the written Word of God no longer holds any real significance and means whatever the reader wants it to mean.

Literal except in the case of “This is my body.” Except in the case of “whose sins you forgive . . .” Except in the case of "upon this rock . . . You’ve completely lost me.

 

[Genesis315]

Don’t forget “My flesh is true food.”

 

[Stone]

mercygate:

Literal except in the case of “This is my body.” Except in the case of “whose sins you forgive . . .” Except in the case of "upon this rock . . . You’ve completely lost me.

A literal interpretation of Scripture accepts symbols and figures of speech (metaphors), but even those must refer to something definite, not subject to “multi-levels” of interpretation and various mystical meanings, in order to conform the Scriptures to their own preconceived, religious notions.

 

[mtr01]

Stone:

Your analogy is rooted in a Catholic mentality, not a Biblical one. An un-Biblical mentality that denies the fact that Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself the full burden of man’s redemption. A religious mentality that turns its back to the cross and the Gospel message, and lays that responsibility back on to the shoulders of men. It fails to comprehend the full significance of the cross.

Wow, you really, really don’t understand the first thing about the Catholic Church.

Stone:

The assurance of salvation and eternal life for all true believers is a vacant cross and an empty tomb. The cosmic alarm went off, Jesus kept His divine appointment as our Substitute, and “as Moses lifted up the serpent (bronze, signifying judgment) in the wilderness, even so the Son of Man was lifted up (on the cross, taking our judgment in our stead); that whoever believes in Him may IN HIM have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-14).

May have eternal life, **not **“will automatically have eternal life by saying a sinner’s prayer, making an alter call, or simply confessing Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.”

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

A literal interpretation of Scripture accepts symbols and figures of speech (metaphors), but even those must refer to something definite, not subject to “multi-levels” of interpretation and various mystical meanings, in order to conform the Scriptures to their own preconceived, religious notions.

We look at it as a way of entering more deeply into the profound mysteries of Scripture, especially when there are apparent contradictions between one text and another or when the “plain” text (e.g., "gnaw my flesh) doesn’t make sense to the practical mind:

From** The Catechism of the Catholic Church: **

**115 **According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. (emphasis added)

 

[st_felicity]

*
Your analogy is rooted in a Catholic mentality, not a Biblical one. *

Of course Catholic—which*** IS*** BIBLICAL!!! You don’t pick and choose what you read literally and figuratively (and never the twain shall meet!) based on what does or doesn’t fit your OWN COMFORTABLE theology! Just because you conclude it is so does not necessarily make something BIBLICAL FACT—it is your OWN conclusions. Examples of your “picking and choosing and own conclusions—from this page of posts ONLY…(all the blue words are from your posts on this page and they are in order as you stated them.)

PICKING LITERAL INTERPRETATION: In other words, those who eat and drink don’t get it, they’re the ones who HAVE it. Those who have HIS LIFE within them HAVE (as a possession) eternal life. (You choose to read the word “have” in relation to eternal life in its most literal and narrow sense. However, you put into your interpretation that once you “have it” you cannot lose it—that is your own conclusion.)

OWN CONCLUSION: If they were never actually saved then they were inwardly trusting in their own works, their own righteousness; and in that case, rejected Christ and never did actually experience a full assurance of their salvation. (the whole idea of “assurance” is actually “UN” biblical and if I must, I will cite them.)

OWN CONCLUSION: People know themselves. (IN REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION “how does one KNOW he is “saved”?) (this is so vague—and has no Biblical foundation)

CHOOSING FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION: And Christ knew which of the disciples that followed Him did not believe in Him. That’s why He said what He did and allowed them to leave. (You conclude that is the REASON He let them go without correction—that he already knew—and that is based on assuming that Jesus was speaking only figuratively in Jn. 6)

OWN CONCLUSION: But if what is said in Jn. 6 is not interpreted elsewhere, then one must rely upon the immediate context, the entire document (the Gospel account of John), and what is revealed (or not revealed) elsewhere in His written Word relating to the subject. (You choose to ignore 1 Cor. as noted several places on this thread—and you choose to ignore the last supper discourses in the other 3 Gospels)

OWN CONCLUSION: I believe Jn. six interprets itself. (I think this is obviously your own conclusion)

CONTINUED…