Bread of life Discourse

[dairygirl4u2c]

--In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory--
Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.

--"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."--
This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.

How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.

I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..

This is more abridged, but maybe this interpretation will help you better understand Jesus' words.
[quote]Jesus exclaimed. "You aren't here to discover the truth about me, but because you saw those loaves appear and you ate your fill. And now you're just looking for more of the same. Listen to me! Don't seek after the food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life. This is the kind of bread, of which a man may eat and not die, that the Son of Man can give you if you but ask."

"Then, sir!" they said. "By all means, give us some of this bread!" Jesus replied: "I'm still not sure you understand what I'm telling you. To begin with, it wasn't Moses but my Father who gave your forefathers the manna in the desert. And even though they ate their fill of it, they eventually died. But now God has sent you the true bread from heaven, and anyone who eats of it will live forever."

And he said: "I am that living bread that came down from heaven to give life to the world! I haven't come to do my will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is his will: he who comes to me - and no one can come to me unless the Father draws him - and he who believes in me will never be hungry or thirsty again!" At this, some Pharisees in the congregation began to grumble about Jesus among themselves: "Here he goes again, saying: 'I came down from heaven'."

"Stop your grumbling," Jesus said. "Soon enough, you'll see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before. And then, just as I live because I feed on the living Father who sent me, so will the one who feeds on me live because of me. For this bread of which I speak is my body, which I will give for the life of the world. This is the real food and drink you should be seeking: my flesh and blood. For whoever eats and drinks of it remains in me, and I in him. And I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will have no part of the life to come."

On hearing this, the Pharisees raised their voices in sharp protest: "This man's asking us to eat his flesh! How can he say such a thing?" And even many of Jesus' disciples said, "This is a hard teaching! Who can accept it?" Aware that some of his disciples were repelled by what he had said, Jesus asked them: "Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.

Then Jesus turned and asked the Twelve: "Don't you want to leave too?" Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? We know you're the Holy One of God, and believe that what you've just said are the words of eternal life." Jesus nodded. "This is what I was getting at when I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. All that the Father gives me will come. And, because he has given them to me, whoever comes I will never drive away."
[/quote]

We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think this whole argument is silly. The only ones who insist that the bible is proof in itself for their interpretation are always the extreme ones. Most catholics will say that the bible gives a strong indication, but cannot be relied on, which indicates that they're being reasonable and to insist otherwise is not. I am not saying that the Catholic interpretation is unreasonable, it is reasonble. I know I'm not the normal fundy and all, but they're the extreme ones anyway who'll argue with you. Others will just say follow the spirit whatever you think it means and maybe insist their interpretation is correct, but not because of a logical deduction.

The argument is misplaced. Catholics tend to think the early church proves their interpretation and prots usually ignore them. As catholcis, the best thing you cna do is start to debate early interpretations. You'll see that perhaps there are many ways to interpret the early chruch, and perhaps will insist that you can defend your position and maybe that it's the most orthodox, enought said. But if you do this, ou have nbot proved your position, you've only defended it as possible. Rignt now most of you do not realize this is what will happen to you hen studying and arguing a knowledgeable prot, but it is. If you dont beleive me, start up a thread and answer all of my questions. If you cannot, then you do not understand early chruch enough to make definitive statements like you think you can. Of course, I can draw up all kinds of silly questions. The point will be whether they're just silly random or actually relevant questions. This is where interpretation will come in, and where poeople can judge for themselves.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 07:00 PM'] Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.


We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's. [/quote]
Yes, and I've thought of this interpretation before, but it falls flat. Those who reject this statement include Judas, who very obviously was one of those who opted for crucifying Him. We are all guilty of Jesus' death, but that has nothing to do with what He is saying. As I said, those who stay with Him after this statement are the apostles, led by St. Peter. They agreed with Him in this statement (whether they understood completely or not). It would then be very contradictory for them to be the people who opposed the crucifiction. Likewise, those who rejected this statement by Christ are those who went for His crucifiction. They would have been rejecting the idea of beating Him, but then opting for beating Him later on. Such an interpretation would mean complete reversal of opinions about Jesus over the course of His ministry, which is not a notion supported by the Gospels. Opinions of Jesus remain steady the whole time.

[quote]This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.[/quote]

First off, "this is My Body" was said at the Last Supper, well after the "spirit and life" part. When He said the "spirit and life" part, it is important to notice that the people didn't all go, "oh, okay, He's being metaphorical." No...they didn't understand it the way you do...they still rejected it as being "a hard teaching."

[quote]How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.[/quote]

So far, I have seen no straw man fallacy. I have seen people arguing against you. Perhaps some people may be misinterpreting your point, but their arguments are still quite valid.

[quote]I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..[/quote]

The Bible does prove that He was speaking literally, as we have shown. You've made no points which can argue against that, but only accuse us of straw man fallacies (which is in itself an ad hominem attack). How about you try reading the Bible for itself instead of having an agenda. I tried to prove to myself that the Real Presence wasn't real, too...and when I abandoned my agenda, I found "words of spirit and life."

[quote]We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's.[/quote]

Except for a few flaws in that argument:

1. The people loved His parables before, except for the Pharisees and other such parties with agendas (I see a pattern here with agendas). It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.

2. They rejected it because it was a "hard teaching." Parables are generally soft stories used to show ideas. If this was a parable (and it wasn't), then the truth it was intended to show was still so strong that it was rejected in its entirety by almost all of Jesus' disciples.

3. The language of the Bread of Life Discourse does not suggest a parable.

Now my question is why do you try so hard to say that the Bible doesn't prove it, but that Tradition can be used to prove it. It sounds to me like you don't want to "rock the boat" to such an extend that you are willing to agree with Protestants that it's not biblical, but then explain the Catholic faith with "well, those silly Catholics have tradition." This creates a compromise in their minds...they don't have to face the truth of the Real Presence if they don't want to, because "it's not biblical" and Catholics are written of as having a "right to believe it because it's Tradition", which most Protestants are not willing to take on, but to concede to Catholics as an "agree to disagree" point of faith.

...but then, that's just my theory of your motives, based on my own experience.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 06:00 PM'] --In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory--
Is the beating thing symbolic or the only option other than eat? Either way, it's not self contradictory. Jesus was talking generally about people. Unless Jesus was beaten andcrucified by the people, they would have no life in them. Remember, we're all guilty of Jesus' death! Don't forget that. Remembering this will allow you to realize that we're all guilty of eating and drinking or beating etc Jesus. Also, there are more interpretations for symbolism than actually beating Jesus. This is if you go for this interpretation where eat and drink mean to believe etc.

--"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."--
This is my body. You must understand that this is my body which is given for you is a figure of speech that you must realize my body will be crucified. He's not saying it doesn't mean anything! He's saying you have to understand it spiritually.

How about less strawmen and face the actual arguments? Everyone seems to generally prefer their opponents' weakest arguments. Face the actual arguments.

I think that if you do this, you'll have no choice but to admit that you can't rely on the bible to interpret for sure what it means. As catholics you'll go to early church, that's commendable not that I'm saying it's not. But anyway..

This is more abridged, but maybe this interpretation will help you better understand Jesus' words.


We say he was using people's earthly understanding and briding it with a greater understanding using a figurative parable. They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.
You'll say he was using their early understanding and as a means to bridge to a literal interpreation. That's just your interpretation as much as another interpretation is anyone else's. [/quote]
To be quite truthful, I can't follow your argument here.

Since when does "eat" mean the same thing as "beat"?

This "argument" is total nonsense.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 06:00 PM'] --"this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."-- [/quote]
John 6:63 - [quote]"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."[/quote]
This can also be taken as you cannot understand why you must eat my body because you think worldly, but it is only by faith you can understand why. He did not say "my flesh profits nothing" because certainly Jesus' flesh is not worthless. To say that only the spirit of Christ brings profit and not his flesh is to split the natures of Christ and to say one is more important than the other. Jesus is one. He wanted to be fully available to us - Body, blood, soul, and divinity.

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay forget the beat thing. i admit it's weak. also i was mixing my points and being confusing anyway. but there are other interpretations.

first if you're misinterpreting or ignoring my points, it's like a strawman because you're creating something that i'm not saying. also if i'm saying that you're doing this, that is not an ad hominem because i'm not using that as a way to win my argumet, i have other argumentation. i say it to point out that you are doing this. but anyway i admit it's not much of a stawman. but you're not allowing for other interpretations and simply saying other interpretations cannot be but giving no reasons.


--"Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.--

i know this doesn't read like this in the bible. but you can interpret it in this way.

--I tried to prove to myself that the Real Presence wasn't real, too...and when I abandoned my agenda, I found "words of spirit and life."--
you need to explain this. if you "found" that the real presence is "proved" by this, then i'd think you had an agenda. this verse very much could be the explanation that says he was not speaking literally.

--It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.--
notice what you said here is exactly what i said:
--They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.--

again, you say his spiritual message was that he was being literal but in a non carnal flesh canibal sense. we say that he was just tying the loaves parable to himself. we both agree they weren't concerned wit hspiritual babble. you're assuming that after jesus explained taht he was talking figuratively they walked away because they thought he was being literal. that's not what we think. they walked away because they did not want to follow the spiritual babble that they must follow him by believing in him.


also, what i'm getting at with the early church is to expose the ignorance most catholics have about the early church and the real presence. it was a pervasive belief, yes. you can point to all the quotes at catholic.com and others who believed in it. but you probably can't answer questions about where the real presence or not belief was held in all christian cities, or at least prove it beyond simply saying that everyone believed it. maybe it can be done, i've not seen it. i've seen thigns suggesting that not all believed in it necessarily. i also have other points and questions that would expose more.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 15 2005, 08:39 PM'] --"Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you are not about my actual flesh, but about the Spirit of God and the everlasting life that only the Spirit can give." Even after this explanation, however, many of his disciples went back to their homes and - from this time on - no longer followed him.--

i know this doesn't read like this in the bible. but you can interpret it in this way. [/quote]
Yes but you can also interpret it to say "Does this offend you also? These words I've spoken to you cannot be understood by them because they do not rely on the spirit of God to understand but rather their own flesh (humanity)"

[philothea]

Two thoughts:

First, obviously having Jesus -- who is God -- existing in this world as edible pieces of (apparent) bread and drinkable (apparent) wine is an [i]extremely weird[/i] idea. Right? We may be used to it, but if you imagine hearing about it for the first time -- it's very hard to believe. I cannot imagine a person, much less a whole bunch of people who suddenly thought that this extremely bizzare transubstatiation thing was real.

Unless, of course, they were told on very, very good authority that it [i]was[/i] real.

Second: You don't get many devout Catholics even considering the "get together and have some snacks while you remember me" interpretation of the last supper and bread of life discourse. That's because if you go to a mass, or adoration, or benediction with an open heart and mind, it is, for many of us, overwhelmingly obvious that Jesus is present. It was obvious to me as an unbaptized agnostic eight-year-old, sitting in an ugly modern church.

Getting nitpicky about words is ridiculous. If God wants His people to understand something, He'll make it clear enough. We understand, and have done so for a long time.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 15 2005, 09:39 PM'] you need to explain this. if you "found" that the real presence is "proved" by this, then i'd think you had an agenda. this verse very much could be the explanation that says he was not speaking literally. [/quote]
This verse could never be taken that way, as I've pointed out. It would mean major inconsistencies. My agenda was to disprove the Real Presence...or at least prove that it wasn't Bible-based...it didn't work. I saw the light and had a change of heart.

[quote]--It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things.--
notice what you said here is exactly what i said:
--They did not want to follow someone only for some spiritual babble, they were concerned with earthly concerns.--[/quote]

Actually, I said that they [b]did[/b] want spiritual "babble" (although it's far from babble), whereas you said they didn't. Then I asserted that it's ridiculous to claim that they weren't, because it's obvious from the Gospels that they were.

[quote]we both agree they weren't concerned wit hspiritual babble.[/quote]

No, we don't.

[quote]you're assuming that after jesus explained taht he was talking figuratively they walked away because they thought he was being literal. that's not what we think. they walked away because they did not want to follow the spiritual babble that they must follow him by believing in him. [/quote]

No, I'm saying that He never explained that He was talking figuratively in the first place.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[QUOTE]Actually, I said that they did want spiritual "babble[/QUOTE]
again you said it yourself:
[QUOTE]It makes no sense that they would reject it [i]because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things[/i].[/QUOTE]
You must be talking about another point or just in this sense they didn't want spiritual battle. I think explanation is needed since you did say that at least in a sense. I can sorta see how if your read your quote in a different way, you might mean it makes no sense what I just said about htem being concerned with earthly things and not spiritual babble. But it's poorly worded that I'm not sure if this is what you meant, so you should explain because it does appear to say that you said that, yes?



[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying that He never explained that He was talking figuratively in the first place.[/QUOTE]
how does the "spirit and life" thing not act as a possible disclaimer to what he just said? I think it has something to do with the supposed inconsistencies you found?
[QUOTE]This verse could never be taken that way, as I've pointed out. It would mean major inconsistencies.[/QUOTE]
You have not shown any inconsistencies with this interpreation of believing in him.
[QUOTE]1. The people loved His parables before, except for the Pharisees and other such parties with agendas (I see a pattern here with agendas). It makes no sense that they would reject it because they weren't looking for "spiritual babble" but for earthy things. [/QUOTE]
His parables did not include believing in him and stuff. Maybe you should provide the parables that you claim so closely relate to believing in him to the point that they are analougous to your point.

[QUOTE]2. They rejected it because it was a "hard teaching." Parables are generally soft stories used to show ideas. If this was a parable (and it wasn't), then the truth it was intended to show was still so strong that it was rejected in its entirety by almost all of Jesus' disciples.

Those who believed stayed and those who did not, did not stay. Those who did not stay were concerned with getting their bellies full and such, not the spiritual babble of believing in him if he was claiming there's more than getting bellies full.

[QUOTE]Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [/QUOTE]

also note here before his "parable":
[QUOTE]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.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? [/QUOTE]
This is harder core evidence that they werethinking carnally. Before he even said anything in the parable he made that slight referecne to what we interpret as his death on the cross. I think at this point, you'd have to agree they were jumping to conclusions based on just what was said and not thinking spiritually.

Also, when they said, this saying is hard, who can accept it? they were continuing to interpret literally because they had a literal earthly undersatnding of everything. They couldn't see to look at the parable spritually being drawnn from the loaves to himself. And they didn't see to look spiritually at something more than getting bellies full when he explained that he was talking figuratively.

[QUOTE]3. The language of the Bread of Life Discourse does not suggest a parable.[/QUOTE]
I agree that if he used stronger wording in the orginal language, (I assume this is what you mean by wording) then it'd appear to be literal. But not necessarily.


Please refute this:
[QUOTE]Those who believed stayed and those who did not, did not stay. Those who did not stay were concerned with getting their bellies full and such, not the spiritual babble of believing in him if he was claiming there's more than getting bellies full.

Also, when they said, this saying is hard, who can accept it? they were interpreting literally because they had a literal earthly undersatnding of everything. They couldn't see to look at the parable spritually being drawnn from the loaves to himself. And they didn't see to look spiritually at something more than getting bellies full when he explained that he was talking figuratively.[/QUOTE]
Is the stronger wording thing your trump card?

Edited May 16, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 

Jhn 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 

Jhn 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.  [/quote]


Also, this is what I was refering to earlier to Bro Adam and them. Not the door thing like I said. Here Jesus says something and doesn't clarify it to those who walk away. So *if* they did walk away because they did not understand, this passage indicates that Jesus would not have been prone to necessarily correct them.

Edited May 16, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[urbo42]

The Greek is pretty amazing to read, there are at least two verbs for eating. One is a regular eating, but the one used in John 6:53 is to gnaw on the flesh. How awesome is that?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Also, this is what I was refering to earlier to Bro Adam and them. Not the door thing like I said. Here Jesus says something and doesn't clarify it to those who walk away. So *if* they did walk away because they did not understand, this passage indicates that Jesus would not have been prone to necessarily correct them. [/quote]
So the Jews thought he was crazy and Jesus didn't correct them. Also notice that his disciples did not know until after he died what he was talking about.

Same might be said about the John 6 parable.

Keeping in mind that this is if they walked away not knowing what Jesus really meant. This is another argument than the one I am currently making mind you.

[Socrates]

Dairy, you've provided no arguments against the real presence. All your "interpretations" are quite a stretch and really are quite differenct from what it actually says in the Bible (which supports the Real Presence).

You have no evidence that the Real Presence was not what is beleived in by the Early Church. The fact that the Real Presence was never denied by Christians until after the Protestant revolt should tell you something. If a certain belief has been held by the Church as far back as we can trace, the burden of proof is on thise who would assert that contrary beleif was originally held. You've got no evidence.