Why did He let them walk away?

[st_felicity]

PICKING LITERAL INTERPRETATION: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40). (You apply a narrow literal interpretation to this passage, focusing only on “believing” and conclude there is no meaning in the part of the passage that says one must also “behold” the Son.)

OWN CONCLUSION: Possessing eternal life is not conditioned on our accepting it, but on our believing in Christ. (You conclude that one does not need to accept Christ’s gift in order to receive it—I actually don’t think you really believe that…???)

OWN CONCLUSION: John’s Gospel account is replete with the words “believe” and “eternal life.” You should read it with those words in mind. Very enlightening, indeed. (You focus on those words and ignore the others such as “eat my flesh…drink my blood…believe my words…do as I say…” You conclude your focus is the only correct—while Catholics conclude BOTH are correct)

OWN CONCLUSION: 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. (Clearly here you pick the figurative interpretation over the literal and don’t even bother to deny it’s your own conclusion)

The Catholic Church is so often accused of being “extra-Biblical” and twisting the Bible to fit the Doctrine—but as I have just demonstrated above—that is exactly what you are doing…YOU decide what is “figurative”—YOU decide what is “literal”—YOU conclude what should be interpreted per YOUR OWN criteria—YOU pick what passage supports what scripture—YOU choose in what context the passages should be read—YOU conclude that the Bible interprets itself—but WHO concluded what books are Sacred Scripture? Who is the one being “extra-Biblical” here? I believe it is obvious it is YOU.

*
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.*

Where has the Catholic Church—in ANY of it’s Dogma—turned it’s back on the cross? Do not disparage our faith without FACTS!

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

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:…

*No, Felicity, He attended that predetermined meeting at the cross 2000 years ago…He took upon Himself your and my sins…died in our stead…divine forgiveness…divine inheritance… The cosmic alarm went off…Moses lifted up the serpent…Son of Man was lifted up (on the cross…believes in Him may IN HIM have eternal life" (Jn. 3:14-14). *

Thank-you for the sermon…do you really believe I (or any other serious Catholic) don’t KNOW all of that? (small caveat: “The assurance of salvation and eternal life for all true believers is a vacant cross and an empty tomb”—we take issue with the “assurance” part). Why do you keep persisting with the obvious? Is it that your argument lacks teeth so more words make it look like you are saying something new? HAVE MERCY!!! **BOTH / AND!!! **

---

The point here is how you are going to deny “my flesh is TRUE food”? not that Christ died on the cross for all of our sins so that we may be redeemed—ALL SERIOUS CATHOLICS BELIEVE THAT**—AND—**THEY BELIEVE HIS FLESH IS TRUE FOOD—not because the CHURCH says so—but because JESUS said so IN NO TRICKY, VAGUE, EASILY MISCONSTRUED WAY—“My flesh is TRUE food”! Where is the guile in that?

The disciples that left thought that was what He was saying—“you will TRULY have to eat my flesh—and they were disgusted and left Him. Jesus allowed them the choice to believe his TRUE words or not. It was no “test” to prove to everyone who had greater faith—IT WAS TRUTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD!—That is why Jesus expanded His statement and said, “and if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before” (paraphrased) will you still NOT believe???

It is right there staring you in the face—you must chose whether you believe the words of JESUS or your own spin on His guileless words. THAT’S IT—there is nothing else to it. He spoke of the Cross and He Spoke of His sacrifice and he IS the Paschal Lamb and just as the Jews ATE their sacrifice and the manna from heaven—we EAT His Flesh—BECAUSE **“HE” **TOLD US TO!!!

(sorry about all the caps—I feel passionately about this…it is meant for emphasis, not to convey any anger—although I must admit to a bit of exasperation—we keep covering the same ground and you keep refusing to acknowledge that our beliefs are very similar except for what I consider to be additional depth to Christ’s words that you deny)

 

[st_felicity]

ote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

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

You never answered this question–what is the difference?

Quote:

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?

ARE YOU TRYING TO IGNORE THIS?

 

[st_felicity]

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.

My point exactly…Yet ANOTHER decision YOU are making on HOW one interprets…You wrote this while I was preparing to post this…

Felicity:

The Catholic Church is so often accused of being “extra-Biblical” and twisting the Bible to fit the Doctrine—but as I have just demonstrated above—that is exactly what you are doing…YOU decide what is “figurative”—YOU decide what is “literal”—YOU conclude what should be interpreted per YOUR OWN criteria—YOU pick what passage supports what scripture—YOU choose in what context the passages should be read—YOU conclude that the Bible interprets itself—but WHO concluded what books are Sacred Scripture? Who is the one being “extra-Biblical” here? I believe it is obvious it is YOU.

 

[Mickey]

st_felicity:

It is right there staring you in the face—you must chose whether you believe the words of JESUS or your own spin on His guileless words. THAT’S IT—there is nothing else to it. He spoke of the Cross and He Spoke of His sacrifice and he IS the Paschal Lamb and just as the Jews ATE their sacrifice and the manna from heaven—we EAT His Flesh—BECAUSE **“HE” **TOLD US TO!!!

That’s it in a nutshell felicity! It is quite plain to see.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif

 

[Mickey]

What we must understand, is that all protestant scholars will say that Catholics have the interpretation of John 6 completely wrong. They will also claim that every protestant thoelogian, without exception, is aware of this mistaken exegesis.

Of course they say this!!! If any of these protestant scholars and theologians had recognized that their conclusions were wrong–If any of these protestant scholars and theologians had come to the realization that their reformed theology was flawed–they would now be members of the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

It’s not too late! Many walk away, but some return. Few are chosen. The gate is narrow. **DON’T WALK AWAY! :crying: **

 

[unworthysinner]

St. felicity:

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)

Was that the sound of the book of I John being ripped from the Bible?

I John 5:4-13(Douay-Rheims Version)

4 For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son.

11 And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. 13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[st_felicity]

unworthysinner:

Was that the sound of the book of I John being ripped from the Bible?

Would you please clarify…I’m not sure what you are saying/asking in reference to my words that you quoted.

 

[Genesis315]

Was that the sound of the book of I John being ripped from the Bible?

Protestants shouldn’t really accuse people of ripping out books from the Bible, in my humble opinion. You’re lucky ol’ Mr. Luther didn’t have his way and do more damage than he did.

 

[st_felicity]

It appears Genesis thinks you mean to say that I am wrong concerning the lack of Biblical evidence for how one knows he is “saved”…and since you’ve not clarified yet…

I’d like to point out that 1John addresses an unnamed herasy that obviously questioned the full integration of the trinity–kind of a “Know Jesus, Know God–No Jesus, No God” letter to a community. So his focus is on “knowing”. However, no where does the letter say we are **assured **of heaven by belief in Jesus–but it does say in 4:17 that we may have confidence…

There is a distinction between these two words. I KNOW (I’m confident) that I am in the right church and I KNOW (I’m confident)at this stage of my life if I should die that in his mercy God will permit me to heaven–but I do not KNOW (I am not **assured **of) what my future holds and that at the hour of my death that I will still be in a state that is open to God’s mercy. I cannot KNOW (be assured) God will do anything because that is claiming that God MUST do something for me and I would never presume to tell God what he MUST do.

 

[unworthysinner]

st_felicity:

It appears Genesis thinks you mean to say that I am wrong concerning the lack of Biblical evidence for how one knows he is “saved”…and since you’ve not clarified yet…
I’d like to point out that 1John addresses an unnamed herasy that obviously questioned the full integration of the trinity–kind of a “Know Jesus, Know God–No Jesus, No God” letter to a community. So his focus is on “knowing”.

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

However, no where does the letter say we are **assured **of heaven by belief in Jesus

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

I cannot KNOW (be assured) God will do anything because that is claiming that God MUST do something for me and I would never presume to tell God what he MUST do.

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[Church_Militant]

unworthysinner:

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

Gee… I know…but that does not say assured… in fact… I don’t recall the word assured being used anywhere in the NT. I just thought of that.

It’s real easy to pluck one verse or passage out of the context of the entire Bible and/or NT and present it as a proof text.

US, if this makes you all warm and fuzzy and comfortable.fine and good…but I prefer the truths that are presented in the whole context of the NT on this topic. I have no problems and worries about my salvation and no other knowlegeable Catholic would either since we believe that God has mercy on us and asks that we believe in His son and trust in Him.

You don’t want it that way…Fine…

YOU need to stop hijacking this thread with all this off topic discussion. Try to be considerate of those of us that are discussing something else altogether.

Time to get back on topic people, don’t ya think??
Pax vobiscum,

 

[unworthysinner]

I would never presume to tell God what he MUST do.

Please don’t lecture on focusing on a verse out of context. You made the claim that the book of I John was written not to inform believers that they can know they have eternal life, here and now, but that it was to fight some heresy about the trinity. The trinity is mentioned earlier in the passage, but they are the ones that testify to the truth mentioned and quoted in v. 13. The reason John states, is the one I highlighted.

Getting back to the topic at hand, being the Eucharist I would suppose. Now I’d ask you to step into a non-Catholics shoes for a second. Your above statement that you would never presume to tell God what He MUST do. A non-Catholic could get the impression that is exactly what is done by Catholic priests in the Eucharist, that they have the power to call the risen Christ out of heaven into a piece of bread to be eaten, not once but, over and over and over and over(daily in many places). Isn’t this, being intellictually honest, presuming to tell God(Christ) what He MUST do?

 

[Church_Militant]

unworthysinner:

Please don’t lecture on focusing on a verse out of context. You made the claim that the book of I John was written not to inform believers that they can know they have eternal life, here and now, but that it was to fight some heresy about the trinity. The trinity is mentioned earlier in the passage, but they are the ones that testify to the truth mentioned and quoted in v. 13. The reason John states, is the one I highlighted.

Getting back to the topic at hand, being the Eucharist I would suppose. Now I’d ask you to step into a non-Catholics shoes for a second. Your above statement that you would never presume to tell God what He MUST do. A non-Catholic could get the impression that is exactly what is done by Catholic priests in the Eucharist, that they have the power to call the risen Christ out of heaven into a piece of bread to be eaten, not once but, over and over and over and over(daily in many places). Is this, being intellictually honest, presuming to tell God(Christ) what He MUST do?

You just can’t let it go can ya… Look this is not a platform for your endless evangelism. You have heard our answers to your “questions” and you choose to reject them. You don’t wanna discuss…you want to preach… Cut us a break…huh?
And I’ll thank you not to mock the Eucharist with your rhetoric.

 

[stargazer257]

I have a question on this topic that I could use some help on and this thread appears to have enough traffic to yield some good responses.

I have been “discussing” John 6 with a Baptist at work. He said that the diciples, being Jewish, walked away because Jesus was “proclaiming he was God and they couldn’t accept that,” not the literal interpretation of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (which I had already shown could only be taken literally, that is, by anyone who is open minded and reads the scripture with pure intention).

Anyone heard that one before? A defense? It’s new to me.

God Bless,

SG257

 

[Church_Militant]

SG257,
Your friend has chosen to put his own spin on this passage and there is probably nothing much that you can say to change his mind. It’s sort of like a theological defense mechanism.

Sometimes, (so long as they don’t persist in bugging you about it) it’s just best to let it drop. I would. The rest is just a matter for prayer.

If you want some good materials , here’s some sites:
amm.org/chss/chss.htm
biblechristiansociety.com/
catholicapologetics.com/
saint-mike.org/cse/default.asp
catholicity.com/

Pax vobiscum,

 

[stargazer257]

Thanks for the resources. He keeps popping his head in to chat so maybe some seeds are being planted. I may not see them bloom, but I’ll keep praying!

SG257

 

[st_felicity]

unworthysinner:

Please don’t lecture on focusing on a verse out of context. You made the claim that the book of I John was written not to inform believers that they can know they have eternal life, here and now, but that it was to fight some heresy about the trinity. The trinity is mentioned earlier in the passage, but they are the ones that testify to the truth mentioned and quoted in v. 13. The reason John states, is the one I highlighted.

Have you read all of 1John–it’s a short book, how about it? John is trying to help a community “remain in the Son and the Father” (2:24). If one KNOWS–now and eternally–that they HAVE eternal life and are assured of heaven–why must John write the letter helping them “remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame at his coming.” (2:28)? Don’t tell me you haven’t taken that passage out of context–it is out of context of the book 1John itself let alone out of context with the whole New Testament. Read the whole book–it’s only 5 chapters long.

Here, I’ll post it three times (like you did) so I’m sure you understand…

1John 2:28 “remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame at his coming.”

1John 2:28 “remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame at his coming.”

1John 2:28 “remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame at his coming.”

A non-Catholic could get the impression that is exactly what is done by Catholic priests in the Eucharist, that they have the power to call the risen Christ out of heaven into a piece of bread to be eaten, not once but, over and over and over and over(daily in many places). Isn’t this, being intellictually honest, presuming to tell God(Christ) what He MUST do?

Doing as God commanded is telling Him what He must do?

It is clear you don’t know much about Catholicism. First, the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered daily in MOST places–for instance, at my small parish it’s offered every weekday, twice on Saturday and three times on Sunday (and that is not including any weddings or funerals!). and Second, the Sacrifice of the Mass is not done over and over and over–it is THE SAME sacrifice on calvery 2000 yrs ago. That’s a whole different thread too.

What is it with Protestants and the phrase “intellectually honest”? It’s like a label and it is clearly projection–You be “intellectually honest” and read all of 1John and admit you don’t know thing one about authentic Catholic belief or practice!

 

[mercygate]

unworthysinner:

Your above statement that you would never presume to tell God what He MUST do. A non-Catholic could get the impression that is exactly what is done by Catholic priests in the Eucharist, that they have the power to call the risen Christ out of heaven into a piece of bread to be eaten, not once but, over and over and over and over(daily in many places). Isn’t this, being intellictually honest, presuming to tell God(Christ) what He MUST do?

Then that non-Catholic would not be aware that Jesus himself has said to “do this in remembrance of me” and “this IS my body” and “I am with you always.” It’s really not complicated. Nor is it dishonest. Nor is it telling God what he must do, but doing what God has told us we must do to have eternal life: "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54) For a Catholic, part of “believing” is to do what he has told us to do.

Moreover, that non-Catholic would seem to understand that the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Jesus again and again when, in fact, it is a mystical participation in the one Sacrifice of Calvary.

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

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

Of course this is my own conclusion. It’s suppose to be. Why shouldn’t it be? Do you think the Scriptures were written only for church clerics?

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40). (You apply a narrow literal interpretation to this passage, focusing only on “believing” and conclude there is no meaning in the part of the passage that says one must also “behold” the Son.)Yes, I apply a literal interpretation to this passage. The text does not indicate otherwise. As for the word “behold,” are you under the impression that only those who actually see Christ physically have eternal life? Don’t you understand what it means to “behold” Him with the eyes of faith? Do you recall what Jesus said to Thomas who constantly doubted even the testimonies of those who physically saw the Lord after His resurrection from the dead?

"Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (Jn. 20:28-29).

Or what your own Pope wrote:

“…that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 1:7-9). Note: The “outcome,” i.e., salvation, is not some future even but immediately upon believing in Him. It’s their faith that is being tested, i.e., refined, not their salvation.

In John 6:47 Jesus clearly says: “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes HAS eternal life.”

(You conclude that one does not need to accept Christ’s gift in order to receive it-I actually don’t think you really believe that…???)But I do believe that. Where in the Bible does it say one must “accept” eternal life in order to have it? Eternal life is GIVEN to all who receive (by faith) Jesus Christ. Can you show me where it states that I must “accept” the gift of eternal life before I can have it?

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?I can’t believe you actually said this. You’re getting the books confused. The Bible is not the *“Lamb’s Book of Life” *which lists, by name, all the saved (Rev. 21:27). The purpose of the Bible is to reveal the whole plan of God’s redemption through Jesus Christ. It reveals HOW one is redeemed (through faith), not the list of those who are. But the names of those who have put their trust in Christ alone are for sure listed in "THE LAMB’S Book of life. I know without a doubt my name is there. I have trusted in Christ alone.