Why didn't Jesus do the same thing in John 6...

[joe370]

Many times, when Jesus’ followers did not understand, Jesus clarified, until they did understand. For example:

Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up…Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t Jesus do the same thing in John 6, if in fact He was only speaking in metaphor as most non-Catholics believe?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It doesn’t seem to be a teachable moment but one that would be able to be discerned later. This took place near the Passover one year before the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist so explaining it would involve the context of a future event. Even then it would take the Passion and Resurrection to explain it.

It takes the Holy Spirit to have faith in such a deep spiritual truth, mere explanation fails… as is evident with those who have a detailed explanation from our Church and still want to walk away saying “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”.

 

[Radical]

Many times, when Jesus’ followers did not understand, Jesus clarified, until they did understand. For example:

Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up…Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t Jesus do the same thing in John 6, if in fact He was only speaking in metaphor as most non-Catholics believe?

The repeated asking of this question in these forums has moved past ridiculous. Do this for me Joe370:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

Without doing that, you are merely sitting on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones…oblivious to the shattering glass behind you.

To answer your question…(yet again) I would say that it is b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

 

[joe370]

Radical

;7140688]The repeated asking of this question in these forums has moved past ridiculous. Do this for me Joe370:

No one has ever answered the question, and that is why I keep asking the question. Your response does not satisfactorily answer my question.

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

He did offer the fullness of truth to His church leaders on Pentecost, and that is why His church has been teaching and believing that the bread and wine truly becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood. All doubts were removed once the holy spirit descended upon Jesus’ apostles. Perhaps you could answer my question, unless of course, you don’t want to?

Without doing that, you are merely sitting on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones…oblivious to the shattering glass behind you.

To answer your question…(yet again) I would say that **it is b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back…
**

I laid down my stone and answered your question; your move friend. Yet again, most protestants don’t agree with you. From a protestant perspective, which claims that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like:

I am speaking in metaphor or symbolically??? That is the point of this thread. Why didn’t He simply clarify as He did at other times???

If this subject is too ridiculous for you, simply ignore me.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7141311]

He did offer the fullness of truth to His church leaders on Pentecost, and that is why His church has been teaching and believing that the bread and wine **truly becomes **Jesus’ flesh and blood. All doubts were removed once the holy spirit descended upon Jesus’ apostles. Perhaps you could answer my question, unless of course, you don’t want to?

Hi Joe,
Just picking at knits for a second, because you and I agree on the real presence. I’m no language expert, but did Christ imply that the bread and wine becomes His body and blood? He says only that the bread and wine IS His body and blood.

I laid down my stone and answered your question; your move friend. Yet again, most protestants don’t agree with you. From a protestant perspective, which claims that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like:

I am speaking in metaphor or symbolically??? That is the point of this thread. Why didn’t He simply clarify as He did at other times???

Or, in keeping with His metephoric language (“I am the door”, etc), He could have said, “I am the bread and wine for you to eat and drink”.
Just a thought.
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

The repeated asking of this question in these forums has moved past ridiculous. Do this for me Joe370:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

Without doing that, you are merely sitting on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones…oblivious to the shattering glass behind you.

To answer your question…(yet again) I would say that it is b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

Speaking of sittig on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones,nothing you have asked either is new and the church has dealt with your absurdities long before you even existed.How about reading some history and less of your novelties?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Joe,
Just picking at knits for a second, because you and I agree on the real presence. I’m no language expert, but did Christ imply that the bread and wine becomes His body and blood? He says only that the bread and wine IS His body and blood.

Or, in keeping with His metephoric language (“I am the door”, etc), He could have said, “I am the bread and wine for you to eat and drink”.
Just a thought.
Jon

But does he place his hands on the door or even the vine and bless them? Big difference.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Just picking at knits for a second, because you and I agree on the real presence. I’m no language expert, but did Christ imply that the bread and wine becomes

His body and blood? He says only that the bread and wine IS His body and blood.

Good point Jon. However, we know that it was just mere bread and wine prior to the blessing - right? It certainly seems like Jesus would have used the word symbol when the grumblers were grumbling, if in fact that was what He really meant, you know. It certainly seems like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul would have used it too.

Or, in keeping with His metephoric language (“I am the door”, etc), He could have said, “I am the bread and wine for you to eat and drink”.
Just a thought.
Jon

Wouldn’t the following suffice:

I am the bread of life.

Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. **I am the living bread **that came down from heaven. **If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." **

What never made any sense to me was why Jesus let the grumblers walk away if in fact He was speaking in metaphor. Why didn’t He simply clarify like He did here:

Do you not yet understand,

and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up…**Then they understood **that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[JonNC]

But does he place his hands on the door or even the vine and bless them? Big difference.

It is indeed, and that’s the point I am trying to make. The language of the accounts of the Last Supper is different than the other metaphores, where He says " I am the …". At the Last Supper, He says, “I am this”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7141944]Hey Jon…
Good point Jon. However, we know that it was just mere bread and wine prior to the blessing - right? It certainly seems like Jesus would have used the word symbol when the grumblers were grumbling, if in fact that was what He really meant, you know. It certainly seems like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul would have used it too.

Yes, I agree. My point about “becomes” and “is” was referring to the mystery of the real presence, and whether or not we need to be careful in using the term “becomes”. Certainly there is a change, as He says so. That, to me, is the wonderful, beautiful mystery of the great gift which is the Eucharist.

What never made any sense to me was why Jesus let the grumblers walk away if in fact He was speaking in metaphor. Why didn’t He simply clarify like He did here:

I suspect He knew that His words and actions in the upper room would sufficiently explain what He meant.

Jon

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Many times, when Jesus’ followers did not understand, Jesus clarified, until they did understand. For example:

Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up…Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t Jesus do the same thing in John 6, if in fact He was only speaking in metaphor as most non-Catholics believe?

No less than seven times Jesus said to believe in Him and be raised to eternal life while discoursing with the Jews in John 6. John tells us that Jesus knew who would believe and who would not. Since the disciples that left did not believe in Him and He knew it, why would He explain anything to them? Was His repeated proclamation to believe in Him and be saved not clear enough?

 

[Nicea325]

No less than seven times Jesus said to believe in Him and be raised to eternal life while discoursing with the Jews in John 6. John tells us that Jesus knew who would believe and who would not. Since the disciples that left did not believe in Him and He knew it, why would He explain anything to them? Was His repeated proclamation to believe in Him and be saved not clear enough?

Okay,but do you believe Jesus spoke symbolically about the Eucharist?

 

[Radical]

No one has ever answered the question, and that is why I keep asking the question. Your response does not satisfactorily answer my question.

It isn’t surprising that you do not find my answer satisfying…given your commitment to being dissatisfied with anything not Catholic. I can’t change your bias, but I can at least demonstrate your use of a double standard.

He did offer the fullness of truth to His church leaders on Pentecost,…

So your answer is that he didn’t offer the fullness of the truth (re the manner of eating not involving cannibalism) that day to the disciples who walked away…but he clarified his meaning some time later to an entirely different group. So here is that double standard that I am talking about. It is (in your mind) just fine for Christ not to clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic eating that day, but it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain the meaning of his metaphor that day? By Pentecost, the metaphor had become clear for the loyal disciples in that, by that time, they had seen when and how Christ gave his flesh for the life of the world.

… and that is why His church has been teaching and believing that the bread and wine truly becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood.

only a part of his church has taught that notion…and the percentage is getting smaller all the time

I laid down my stone and answered your question; your move friend. Yet again, most protestants don’t agree with you.

really, apart from that fraction of Lutherans and Anglicans who adhere to a real bodily presence, where are these protestants that disagree with me? …I dare say that it is a lot easier for me to find Catholics who disagree with you than it is for you to find protestants that disagree with me.

From a protestant perspective, which claims that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like:

I am speaking in metaphor or symbolically???

I see that you have picked up that stone called “double standard” yet again…Again, ask yourself this question: From a Catholic perspective, which thinks that Jesus was speaking of an unknown miraculous manner of eating, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like:

“Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic.”

That is the point of this thread. Why didn’t He simply clarify as He did at other times???

Back at you,…Why didn’t he clarify that day that transubstantiation was involved? I have provided my answer, and it is:

** b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.**

Now you tried to answer my question which was:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

…but you, for some unknown reason, started talking about Pentecost. You want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of his metaphor in John 6. I provided an answer to that question. I want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating (that you think he was talking about) in John 6 ** on that day** …You dodged that question. Try again.

If this subject is too ridiculous for you, simply ignore me.

We’ll see how it goes. The ridiculousness does not come merely from the question. I think that it would be entirely appropriate for a non-Christian to wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity. The ridiculousness comes from your obliviousness to the double standard that you employ. You want to know :

a) Why didn’t Jesus clarify his meaning in John 6, if He was only speaking in metaphor?; or

b) Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am speaking symbolically.”?

…but you have offered no answer whatsoever to the same questions when they are applied to your view and stated as:

c) Why didn’t Jesus clarify his meaning in John 6, if He was only speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating?; or

d) Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating.”?

PS…You may wish to adopt my answer…it would work for you and it would work in answer to the agnostic too…but then you would have to be satisfied with the answer (as it relates to your question) and that would sure stink, now wouldn’t it?

 

[Radical]

Speaking of sittig on the porch of a glass house and throwing stones,nothing you have asked either is new and the church has dealt with your absurdities long before you even existed.

well if they have been dealt with so thoroughly and you are so well versed in those historical answers then this should be an easy challenge for you…please answer questions (c) and (d) from my post to Joe370 above…they are (for your ease of reference):

c) Why didn’t Jesus clarify his meaning in John 6, if He was only speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating?; or

d) Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating.”?

Once you have come up with an answer that you and Joe370 find satisfactory…then explain to me why I can’t avail myself of that same sort of answer to use in answer to Joe370’s question.

 

[flyonthewall]

Many times, when Jesus’ followers did not understand, Jesus clarified, until they did understand. For example:

Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up…Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t Jesus do the same thing in John 6, if in fact He was only speaking in metaphor as most non-Catholics believe?

I believe the reason is in that same chapter - I beleive the audience he was speaking to, not all but a lot, were being intentionally obtuse, and this was a weeding out moment.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Jesus then tried to explain again:

48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

In Matthew 13 He was asked why He spoke in parables. He answered:

11 … and said unto them, Because it is given unto you(the 12 Apostles) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

The Jewish religion and traditions were full of symbolism and metaphors, and those He was speaking to chose to play word games, and were obviously not ready to hear what He had to say.
Just like our expression today, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”, the people He was speaking to at that time, could not hear the message because of the words.

That is my 2 cents anyway.

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical thanks for sticking around.

It isn’t surprising that you do not find my answer satisfying…given your commitment to being dissatisfied with anything not Catholic. I can’t change your bias, but I can at least demonstrate your use of a double standard.

I, as a former non-catholic am committed to finding the truth, and if that truth agrees with your interpretation, then I will be the first to say: I was wrong. I have no biases. I will try really hard to see things from your perspective.

Quote:
So your answer is that he didn’t offer the fullness of the truth (re the manner of eating not involving cannibalism) that day to the disciples who walked away…but he clarified his meaning some time later to an entirely different group.

Even the the apostles did not have a firm grasp of Jesus’ word in John 6 - agreed, just as they did not have a firm grasp on a lot of things until the day of Pentecost? I believe that all was made crystal clear to the apostles on Pentecost, who then proceeded, via the guidance of the HS, to share those truths with everyone.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Quote:
So here is that double standard that I am talking about. It is (in your mind) just fine for Christ not to clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic eating that day, but it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain the meaning of his metaphor that day? By Pentecost, the metaphor had become clear for the loyal disciples in that, by that time, they had seen when and how Christ gave his flesh for the life of the world.

I too wonder why Jesus Christ on that particular day, did not clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic nature. I agree with you regarding that. My point is: why didn’t Jesus simply clarify (as He does at other times) - and tell them that He was merely speaking in metaphor? It’s just a real simple question without any double standard. You gave me your answer and I tried to embrace it but it makes no sense to me.

Quote:
… and that is why His church has been teaching and believing that the bread and wine truly becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood.
only a part of his church has taught that notion…and the percentage is getting smaller all the time

For 1500 years this was taught by the CC and the EOC even though some folks within these 2 churches have doubt it. I agree with you regarding the fact that many more people within the CC as well as non-Catholics, are doubting this teaching, but that doesn’t mean that they are right. If Jesus’ church, from Pentecost on, had been teaching the symbolic interpretation then, without doubt I would agree with you, but that is not the case.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

really, apart from that fraction of Lutherans and Anglicans who adhere to a real bodily presence, where are these protestants that disagree with me? …I dare say that it is a lot easier for me to find Catholics who disagree with you than it is for you to find protestants that disagree with me.

Most protestants believe that Jesus was speaking in metaphor: this is a symbol of my body. They don’t believe that Jesus’ flesh is true food or that Jesus’ blood is true drink. If this is what you believe then they do in fact agree with you. My bad…

I see that you have picked up that stone called “double standard” yet again…Again, ask yourself this question: From a Catholic perspective, which thinks that Jesus was speaking of an unknown miraculous manner of eating, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like: “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic.”

I agree with you; that would have been helpful. However, Jesus did say:

"Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.

Why didn’t he clarify that day that transubstantiation was involved?

Why Jesus did not say, that day, “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic,” I do not know. However, it was made clear on Pentecost, otherwise Jesus’ church would not have taught it in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century…I should see the early church leaders believing and teaching what you believe regarding the Eucharist if in fact you are correct. The idea that the CC and EOC were teaching heretically for 1500 years, until Calvin and company came along and saved the day is silly.

b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

Jesus said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, but first they must know the truth and willfully reject the truth. All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am speaking symbolically, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself.

 

[joe370]

Now you tried to answer my question which was:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

He did, through His church, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. If he didn’t, no one in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries would have embraced the teachings of the present day CC, but I can find no one in the early church that disbelieved this notion. No one in the early church agrees with you. Did the holy spirit misguide Jesus’ early church as early as the 1st and 2nd century? Jesus never used the word transubstantiation. Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Seems like a valid question to me. Why didn’t Jesus simply tell them that his words were symbolic? Instead He tells them that His words are spirit and life.

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Here was an opportunity for Jesus to tell them that His words are merely symbolic, but instead he says:

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Quote:
…but you, for some unknown reason, started talking about Pentecost.

That is because Jesus said:

*"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
*

And that occurred on Pentecost - right?

Quote:
You want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of his metaphor in John 6. I provided an answer to that question.

Which is: b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

So, Jesus, knowing that they were not called by the Father, deprived them of truth? I am trying to see things from your perspective, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus would have at least given them a fighting chance by saying something like, I am only speaking in metaphor, if in fact that was what he meant. However, you do raise a good point as to why Jesus, on that day, did not explain what he meant regarding the miraculous nature of His words.

Quote:
I want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating (that you think he was talking about) in John 6 on that day …You dodged that question. Try again.

Again, I don’t know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating, on that particular day?

Quote:
I think that it would be entirely appropriate for a non-Christian to wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity. The ridiculousness comes from your obliviousness to the double standard that you employ. Y

I don’t mind you calling me oblivious, but don’t tell me that I am employing a double standard. You said:

I think that it would be entirely appropriate for a non-Christian to wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity, but you are okay with God not telling the grumblers that his words are symbolic. Certainly those non-Christians would wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity since the 16th century reformation, regarding the symbolic interpretation??? However, I do not believe that you are employing a double standard for you provided an answer that you believe sufficiently addresses the matter. It just makes no sense to me. I tried to drink it in but no dice.

Radical, show me an example of this teaching dividing Christianity, prior to the 16th century reformation? Even most of the reformers believed in the true presence…

Your answer is, b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back, and again, that makes no sense to me. Jesus, who is a loving God, would have still revealed to them the truth, if in fact he was speaking in metaphor.

Why didn’t Jesus clarify his meaning in John 6, if He was only speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating?; or d) Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating.”?

Again, I don’t know why Jesus did not clarify on that particular day. I am not gonna make something up.

Quote:
PS…You may wish to adopt my answer…it would work for you and it would work in answer to the agnostic too…but then you would have to be satisfied with the answer (as it relates to your question) and that would sure stink, now wouldn’t it?

I cannot adopt your answer because your answer implies that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the metaphor, and I can’t believe He would do that - sorry.

I enjoyed our dialogue friend.

 

[joe370]

Hey flyonthewall…

I believe the reason is in that same chapter - I beleive the audience he was speaking to, not all but a lot, were being intentionally obtuse, and this was a weeding out moment.

They don’t appear to be acting intentionally obtuse. They were avid followers up to that point, but become horribly troubled when hearing what Jesus had to say in John 6.

It’s your contention that, even though Jesus was speaking in metaphor he chose to intentionally deprive them of this metaphorical truth???

In Matthew 13 He was asked why He spoke in parables. He answered:
Quote:
11 … and said unto them, Because it is given unto you(the 12 Apostles) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
The Jewish religion and traditions were full of symbolism and metaphors, and those He was speaking to chose to play word games, and were obviously not ready to hear what He had to say.
Just like our expression today, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”, the people He was speaking to at that time, could not hear the message because of the words.

That is my 2 cents anyway.

So, you believe that Jesus was speaking in parable in John 6 like He was in Matthew 13??? Your answer would certainly seem like a reasonable one if in fact Jesus was employing a parable, for the simple fact that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, as was the case in Matthew 13, were not given to them:

*The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. *

However, Jesus is clearly not employing the aid of parables in John 6. In the end the apostles did not walk away; they believed that the words just spoken in John 6 were the words of eternal life even though Jesus did not tell them that His words were symbolic. Why not at least tell the apostles, when they were all alone, that He was speaking figuratively or using parables and then explain the parable as He did in Matthew 13??? After all Jesus did say to the apostles:

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

I think you could have been on to something if in fact Jesus was speaking in parable in John 6, but one would have to wonder why Jesus’ fledgling church, right off the bat, believed what the EOC and the CCC teach and believe today? No one believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically, regarding the Eucharist, for the first one thousand years of Christianity. That’s whole lot of people on the wrong path. Even the disciples of the apostles and their successors, etc. etc…believed what the CC believes today, regarding the Eucharist. Did the holy spirit fail to guide Jesus’ church into all truth right from the word go???

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I should see the early church leaders believing and teaching what you believe regarding the Eucharist if in fact you are correct…

If he didn’t, no one in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries would have embraced the teachings of the present day CC, but I can find no one in the early church that disbelieved this notion. No one in the early church agrees with you.

What about Clement of Alexandria? He taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the bread of life discourse. Are you familiar with this?