Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The hard saying in Jn 6,

D46 said:
OK...I'm your huckleberry! I think everyone here knows what the word "eat" means. :roll: How absurd to think that any man using witchcraft, sorcery, or divination of any style could call the King of Glory from Heaven and contain him in a cracker...nonesense paganism and definitely not Christian.
First things first, the priest does not call down Christ from Heaven on his own power-- you are absolutely correct that no witchcraft (forbidden in Catholicism), sorcery (also forbidden in Catholicism), or divination (not that this is possible outside of God) could call down Jesus Christ. No, it's not magic, it is the power and glory of the Holy Spirit that changes ordinary bread and wine to the flesh and blood of He who was Crucified.

Another question arises also, D46, why then did Christ let the disciples (FOLLOWERS of Him) walk away (cf. John 6:66) if they were merely confused--why didn't He correct them?

Lastly, if you are merely afraid of the length of phatcatholic's post, you could post your rebuttal in snippets as you have the time. I'd really be interested to know how you could interpret the Lord's words so symbolically when the text itself rejects this? Did you read phat's post? Jesus is our Pascal Lamb (cf. 1 Cor 5:7)... have you so quickly forgotten that the pashal lamb HAD to be eaten (Exodus 12:8, 11)-- it was a divine command, just as it is in John 6.
 
D46 said:
phatcatholic said:
D46..............was a point-by-point rebuttal too much to ask for? maybe so, but i want to wait and see if anyone takes me up on it before i respond to ur post.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

I have no further interest in this...no response required. Watch out for the hair and toe nails!!
alrighty................anyone else?
 
Vic said:
phatcatholic said:
alrighty................anyone else?
Yeah:


All this talk about eating is making me... hungry. :-D
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst."

:smt023
 
I'm realizing more and more that chatting with Catholics on this subject is a big waste of time - they will not and cannot budge for their salvation is dependent upon this unscriptural doctrine.

They will or cannot budge for their conscience is in bonadage to an instution not the scriptures.

They have to adhere to Roman doctrine and cannot deviate one jot nor tittle for if they do they are in danger of being cursed by their own church.

Scripture means nothing to them- their authority lies in the church's interpretation for they have been conditioned to believe the "common" man cannot understand the scriptures on their own which is one of the most evil teaching is ever devised by fallen man.

I feel foolish for even trying - I will stick with justification only and even that is almost a waste of time based upon the above reasons but at least the subject matter of justification is worth discussing though I can only quote the scriptures and have to leave the work up to the Spirit.

I've said it a hundred times - unless a man is regenerated then discusing spiritual things (other than the gospel) is a waste of time. One day I will listen to my own preaching here regarding....

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And....

2 Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

I'm out - God bless :-?
 
So I guess that means you won't be giving a rebuttal to phat's post either, AV? :sad

Again I repeat, Paul laid down anathemas ("let them be cursed") in the Bible. It's a scriptural thing. The Catholic Church is just following the example of St. Paul.

Anyhow, sorry you're out too, AV, it would've been interesting to read the replies to phat's post.
 
They have to adhere to Roman doctrine and cannot deviate one jot nor tittle for if they do they are in danger of being cursed by their own church.

This statement shows your lack of real experience and understanding, i.e. ignorance if you don't mind me saying so, of Catholicism AV. I know so many people in the Catholic Church today who dissent from it's teachings. On rare occasion someone who is in the public eye gets some sort of discipline for it (kinda like the man living with his father's wife in 1 Cor 5). I know many people who don't go to Mass any more. One criticism I have of parishes is that they don't go out knocking on these people's door as often as they should to win them back. Look at the editorials in local Church papers if you don't think one can dissent in the Catholic Church today. At least from what I have seen of our Bishop his approach is not to win them over with his authority (which he could excercise) but to win them over with teaching and gentleness over time. The face you paint of Catholicism is simply nothing like the experience I have lived in my lifetime. You have many misconceptions that you need to be open to correcting even if you are not open to the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ set upon this earth to spread his Gospel. Prejudice even if it is against those who we think are wrong is wrong. It is bearing false witness.

I know this mind control and domination and threats by the magesterium is an easy explanation for you but it has no basis in fact. Fear is not the reason I stay Catholic. Sorry.
 
unfortunately, people do in fact leave the Catholic Church, which of itself shows that being Catholic is hardly a robotic endeavor. minds can in fact be changed. if this were not so, why even engage in debate? even if two people in a debate leave the conversation still affirmed in their own belief, they have still learned much about alternate views, which can be helpful. so, i feel that debate is always a worthwhile endeavor. plus, while u may never change the minds of those who post here regularly, there are always lurkers who are making up their minds about things. we help them by presenting both sides of an issue. whenever i feel discouraged in debate, i always think about the lurkers and that gives me reason to press on.

just food for thought. i'd rather we not speak a whole lot more about it, since this train of thought has no bearing on the topic of the Eucharist. maybe someone will respond to this post? if not, i suppose that is ok too. we'll leave the reader to decide if anything should be read into the silence.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
 
bbas 64 said:
Good Day all

My first OP here :angel:

The question has been raised in an other thread as it refers to Jn 6, and the hard saying. It is often followed up by "why did Jesus let them leave" this is typical line of questions based on a misunderstanding of the text.

I thought I would address it here.

Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Joh 6:53 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.
Joh 6:54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
Joh 6:59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Joh 6:63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
The reson they left was the verse 65.
Augustine Notes:
The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What means "are spirit and life"? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? "They are spirit and life." Hast thou understood carnally? So also "are they spirit and life," but are not so to thee.
7. "But," saith He, "there are some among you that believe not." He said not There are some among you that understand not; but He told the cause why they understand not "There are some among you that believe not," and therefore they understand not, because they believe not. For the prophet has said, "If ye believe not, ye shall not understand." We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding. For he who adheres not resists; he that resists believes not. And how can he that resists be quickened? He is an adversary to the ray of light by which he should be penetrated: he turns not away his eye, but shuts his mind. "There are," then, "some who believe not." Let them believe and open, let them open and be illumined. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed, and who should betray Him." For Judas also was there. Some indeed, were offended; but he remained to watch his opportunity, not to understand. And because he remained for that purpose, the Lord kept not silence concerning him. He described him not by name, but neither was He silent about him; that all might fear though only one should perish. But after He spoke, and distinguished those that believe from those that believe not, He clearly showed the cause why they believed not.
"Therefore I said unto you," saith He, "that no man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father." Hence to believe is also given to us; for certainly to believe is something. And if it is something great, rejoice that thou hast believed, yet be not lifted up; for "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" 8. "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him." Went back, but after Satan, not after Christ. For our Lord Christ once addressed Peter as Satan, rather because he wished to precede his Lord, and to give counsel that He should not die, He who had come to die, that we might not die for ever; and He says to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." He did not drive him back to go after Satan, and so called him Satan; but He made him go behind Himself, that by walking after his Lord he should not be a Satan. But these went back in the same manner as the apostle says of certain women: "For some are turned back after Satan." They walked not further with Him. Behold, cut off from the body, for perhaps they were not in the body, they have lost life. They must be reckoned among the unbelieving, notwithstanding they were called disciples. Not a few, but "many went back." This happened, it may be, for our consolation. For sometimes it happens that a man may declare the truth, and that what he says may not be understood, and so they that hear it are offended and go away. Now the man regrets that he had spoken that truth, and he says to himself, "I ought not to have spoken so, I ought not to have said this." Behold; it happened to the Lord: He spoke, and lost many; He remained with few. But yet He was not troubled, because He knew from the beginning who they were that believed and that believed not. If it happen to us, we are sorely perplexed. Let us find comfort in the Lord, and yet let us speak words with prudence.
The ones that left misunderstood the nature of the statement in verse,58 becasue they were unbelivers and could not understand. Thus in there misunderstanding, caused by unbelief that was a "hard saying".
But they did not leave till after verse 65 was spoken, that indeed is a hard saying many fall over it today "No man can" people do not like thier inability to come. They tend to think in error that they are free... that is Jn 8 sorry wrong text.
Gill Notes:
[quote:aa0cf]
said, this is an hard saying; or it is to be objected to; so ayvq, "an hard thing", the word here used in the Syriac version, and yle awh hvq, "it is to me a hard thing", are phrases used to express an objection in the Talmudic writings, where they are often met with: or it is difficult to be understood and received; so hvqh rbdh, "an hard saying", or "an hard cause", is a cause difficult to be tried and determined, Exo_18:26, and is used of that which seems incredible and absurd, and is surprising and unaccountable: so it is said (z), that
For His Glory alone!!
Bill[/quote:aa0cf]

With all that's been posted in this thread, the point is missed, the op remains untouch...really.

We see in v. 28 the people asking, 'what is the work I need to do' and Christ tells them in v. 29 'the work is God's and that work is belief.' Plain and simple. Belief is a work and that work belongs to God.

Those who miss understand what Christ is teaching in John 6 are not of God that is why they can't understand the teaching.

Jm
 
Good Day all

With all that's been posted in this thread, the point is missed, the op remains untouch...really.

We see in v. 28 the people asking, 'what is the work I need to do' and Christ tells them in v. 29 'the work is God's and that work is belief.' Plain and simple. Belief is a work and that work belongs to God.

Those who miss understand what Christ is teaching in John 6 are not of God that is why they can't understand the teaching.

Jm

JM,

You engage in the rhetoric of false dichotomy, either/or here. The reality of the Eucharist is not contrary to the neccessity of believing in Christ and that he saves. The two go hand in hand. The Euchrist is not an automatic salvation pill for anyone but something that requires our ascent for God to work in our hearts through it. It specifically depends on our believe, opening up our hearts, wills, and minds to the love of God poured out on us. V.28 and 29 do not trup later passages in which Christ makes the reality of what he is saying clear. It goes hand in hand. We will fully acknowledge that John 6 is about believing. Triple AMEN. Beleiving in what is the question. On this board we have a hodge podge of contradictory Protestant beliefs of which you are but one voice of the many.


Mark.13
[21] And then if any one says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or `Look, there he is!' do not believe it.

There is no unity among those you say are in union with you. But you look at the differences between the posts of the Catholics on this thread on theology and there is not a hairs difference.

Eph.4
[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,

I can trace Catholic Eucharistic theology back 2000 years. That's a pretty constant steady wind. Did you know that shortly after the beginning of the reformation a book was written called "200 Interpretations of This is My Body"? I am not making this up. :o

Blessings
 
On Saturday I read Orwell’s Animal Farm, the posts I keep reading sound like the bleating of the sheep in the story, where they can’t the same thing over and over until all protest is quiet.

I don’t think so, you use the false logic of the allegorizer, who tries to give a passage two meanings when only one can be had.

v. 9-14 Christ feeds 5000, this is physical.
v. 26 Christ tells us why the people followed him and it was for the free meal, this is physical.
v. 27 Christ tells them not to be concerned with that which “perisheth.â€Â
v. 28 They ask what can they do, what works can they perform.
v. 29 Christ tells them the work is performed by God.
v. 30-31 These people ignore what Christ just said concerning the physical, and again are looking for a meal, they want more signs.
v. 32 Christ corrects them again by telling them it was God and not Moses that gave them manna…
etc., etc., so on and so on.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Romans 8

And why is it they did not hear the teaching of Christ Jesus? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. John 8
 
JM said:
I don’t think so, you use the false logic of the allegorizer, who tries to give a passage two meanings when only one can be had.


I have to thank you JM. You have presented me with another interpretation of John 6 I've never run accross. I also relish such "new" insights, though we know from Eccelsiasties that there is nothing new under the sun. What comes to mind is "look here, here is Christ". Sorry, I can't follow your personal interpretation dude. I know you mean well.


Do you have something against allegory? Does Jesus use the "false logic of the allegorizer" when he allegorically interprets the story of Jonah's three days in the belly of a whale as allegory for his three days in the tomb. Is Jesus making a mistake in giving one passage two meanings.

Is Paul wrong to allegorically interpret noah's version with regard to baptism? Granted allegory can get carried away but the funny thing is that you are being allegorical youself. To eat flesh is the literal of believe? No I think that would be allegorical. The fact of the matter is that I do think that in some sense your allegory is valid. But the problem is that you ignore the literal inspite of the great amount of evidence when Jesus says "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you.". What is the literal JM? Cannabalism. Well actually Catholicism doesn't take this literally either since the flesh we consume in the Eucharist is the sacramental flesh such that it is not like taking a bite out of a man's arm. Rather, Christ is present to us in a form which we cannot percieve, yet it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This of course is supported by the Greek. The word tranlated "eat flesh" is trogon which means to gnaw or chew rather than simply eat, 'phagon'. Why does Jesus use the more literal word here JM. Why not phago if he is just talking in a figurative manner? (don't misunderstand me. On one level he is) Quite odd.

The rest of your post didn't do anything for me either. Sorry.

Peace.
 
JM said:
On Saturday I read Orwell’s Animal Farm, the posts I keep reading sound like the bleating of the sheep in the story, where they can’t the same thing over and over until all protest is quiet.
you are certainly entitled to your opinion, although it hardly proves much.


I don’t think so, you use the false logic of the allegorizer, who tries to give a passage two meanings when only one can be had.
that remains to be seen....


v. 9-14 Christ feeds 5000, this is physical.
v. 26 Christ tells us why the people followed him and it was for the free meal, this is physical.
v. 27 Christ tells them not to be concerned with that which “perisheth.â€Â
v. 28 They ask what can they do, what works can they perform.
v. 29 Christ tells them the work is performed by God.
v. 30-31 These people ignore what Christ just said concerning the physical, and again are looking for a meal, they want more signs.
v. 32 Christ corrects them again by telling them it was God and not Moses that gave them manna…
etc., etc., so on and so on.
i'm not sure how this refutes anything we've said so far. actually, i wish you would have kept going instead of cutting it short. you see, i can believe everything you just said about those verses and still hold that Jesus is speaking literally in John 6:48-59. i basically said the same thing in the first two paragraphs from this post (have you read it yet?).

the thing is, Jesus can't just bust right out and say, "you must eat my flesh." he must prepare them for this message. first, they have to believe that he is the Savior. he helps them by performing miracles: "...these very works which I am doing bear me witness that the Father has sent me" (John 5:36). next, he will perform a miracle, one that will point to what he ultimately requires of them. you'll see in the post i linked to that one of my main themes is that, from the beginning of John 6, Jesus is gradually demanding a greater and greater act of faith on behalf of the people.

So, his miracle is to mutiply the loaves and the fishes, which is a profound forshadowing of the Eucharistic banquet. He uses words of institution like those used in the Lasst Supper (cf. Mt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24). also, just as this miracle provided food for a great multitude of people, Jesus will give Himself as food for the world (John 6:33). this is seen not only in the large number of people who are fed, but also in the twelve baskets that are left over --the number 12 being a common symbol for his people, the Church (12 tribes, 12 apostles, 12 judges in heaven, the 144,000, or 12x12x1000). It is necessary that they see him feed many people, b/c that is what he will do, and that is what he wants them to believe in.

but, as you rightly say, they are interested only in what he can give them on a physical level. Jesus, therefore, is quick to tell them that what they must have faith in is how he can and will feed them on a spiritual level:

26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

...and that if they do not believe in him they simply will not be able receive it:

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

yet even still, they refuse to believe:

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."
42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

later on, after all the murmuring and disputing, Jesus will remind them that it is because they did not believe he was the Messiah sent down from heaven that they were not able to be faithful to his words, altho they were hard to hear.


For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Romans 8

And why is it they did not hear the teaching of Christ Jesus? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. John 8
amen! that is exactly my point. Jesus expresses the very same sentiment found in the verses you provided as his reason for why they were having so much trouble:

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

from the Navarre commentary:
  • Jesus says that we cannot accept this mystery if we think of it in too human a way, in other words, by just seeking to indulge our senses or having too earthbound a view of things. Only someone who listens to his words and receives them as God's revelation, which is "spirit and life", is in a position to accept them.
hopefully you see now why we believe what we do. John 6:51 is the climax of the chapter, and we see the verses beginning with the end of chapter 5 as leading up to this amazing message. thus, nothing in vs. 9-32, which you cited, does anything to contradict what we believe, and those verses are actually quite important to the overall message: that belief in Jesus Christ must lead to participation in the Eucharistic banquet.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
 
JM said:
And the sheep said, "four legs good, two leges bad, four legs good two legs bad."

:lol:

I've never heard this "joke" before but if it means what I think it means we are saying four legs good, too legs good.
 
when someone gives a thorough defense of what they believe, and you dismiss it with something like this:

JM said:
And the sheep said, "four legs good, two leges bad, four legs good two legs bad."

:lol:

....it is very telling
 
This is all beginning to sound like a Saturday Night news cast between Jane Curtain and Chevy Chase!! :-D Keep it up...this is most entertaining!!
 
D46 said:
This is all beginning to sound like a Saturday Night news cast between Jane Curtain and Chevy Chase!! :-D Keep it up...this is most entertaining!!
haha, sorry, that season of SNL was before my time :)
 
Back
Top