Today's Gospel from John 6: 1-15

Johan

Well-known member
The other interpretation makes it look like Jesus is tricking the others into leaving by deliberately misleading them.
Maybe that is actually what happened, although I would of course not use the word "misleading." Rather, He concealed the truth from them, just like He spoke to the people in parables so that the mysteries of the Kingdom would not be revealed to them. John 6:65 clearly indicates that their unbelief was due to the fact that the Father had not enabled them to come to Him.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Maybe that is actually what happened, although I would of course not use the word "misleading." Rather, He concealed the truth from them, just like He spoke to the people in parables so that the mysteries of the Kingdom would not be revealed to them. John 6:65 clearly indicates that their unbelief was due to the fact that the Father had not enabled them to come to Him.
Or maybe they kept their minds and eyes closed to the truth.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
And I say that it sounds very symbolic. Just like the expression "bread of life" is figurative. Just like the expression "born again" is figurative. Just like the expression "living water" is figurative. Just like expression "true vine" is figurative. And so on.
All these other instances of figurative speech are unlike the one in John 6. In all these other instances, it was obvious to all that it was figurative. No one questioned if Jesus meant he was truly a door or a vine, or if the water was alive like other living things. In no other instance did Jesus "clarify" the meaning of what he said in a way that doubled down on the literal reality, using terms like "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." and "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." In John 6 Jesus says the same thing in at least seven different ways. That's a lot of emphasis on the literal sense of what he said. In no other instance of figurative speech will you find such challenges to the literal sense and such repeated emphasis on the literal sense by Jesus. Citing unrelated instances of figurative speech has no bearing on whether John 6 is figurative.

Jesus never expected anyone to jump up and literally eat Him.
Not right then and there, no. The fulfillment came at the last supper when Jesus showed them exactly how they were to eat his body by making the bread into his body. Jesus says at the last supper "Take and eat; this is my body.

Only the fools who thought it was literal went away
It is your unsupported assumption that only the ones that went away took him literally. You have no proof that the disciples did not also take him literally. It is not supported in Scripture.

Jesus is a vine which we must stay attached to. Symbolic. Jesus is the door we must pass through. Symbolic. So much symbolism is used.
See above where I explained how these uses of symbolism were different from the verses we are discussing.

again, why did He use parables?
John 6 is not a parable. A parable is a story, like "There once was a rich man who....."

It does not mean eat the literal book and you will taste Jesus. It is symbolic.
Citing other instances of symbolic speech does not prove this speech was symbolic, as explained above.

try got questions regarding those verses (and others in jn 6). it goes into other verses that might help. got questions
The analysis of this unnamed author has the same problem as yours in what it leaves out and ignores.
 

mica

Well-known member
... It is your unsupported assumption that only the ones that went away took him literally. You have no proof that the disciples did not also take him literally. It is not supported in Scripture.
no, scripture tells me. read what is written, not what the RCC tells you it says.

you are the one believing what your unsupported assumptions are telling you, those that you have learned from the RCC.

what does it say that His close group did do?


The analysis of this unnamed author has the same problem as yours in what it leaves out and ignores.
it leaves out and ignores the false teachings of the RCC men. yes, Christians do believe His word and turn from / ignore teachings of the RCC.

you ignore what it actually does say. Understanding comes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that makes all the difference in this world and into eternity. That guidance is given to those who are born again.

scripture tells us that His truth is hidden from those who don't believe.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
what does it say that His close group did do?
It says they believed him. It does not say they realized he was speaking figuratively.

it leaves out and ignores the false teachings...
No, what it leaves out is some of the Scripture verses that point to Jesus speaking literally, which should always be the default anyway, unless it is completely obvious that he is speaking figuratively.

scripture tells us that His truth is hidden from those who don't believe.
His truth being hidden is different from misrepresenting His truth, which is what you are accusing Jesus of doing - misrepresenting his own truth so as o mislead some of them.
 

mica

Well-known member
It says they believed him. It does not say they realized he was speaking figuratively.
it doesn't need to, nor did they need to say those specific words. They knew Who He was, they trusted in Him and His word. That's what believers in Him do. There is much in scripture I don't know or understand but I believe in Him and believe that His word is His truth even if I don't know it or understand it. i often 'shelf ' verses when I don't understand them. Another day, more reading another verse and the Holy Spirit will all come together and bring that understanding to me.

What it does say is -

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


Why didn't Peter say 'we'll go check that with the Pharisees'?

No, what it leaves out is some of the Scripture verses that point to Jesus speaking literally, which should always be the default anyway, unless it is completely obvious that he is speaking figuratively.
you mean verses that you think (were taught by the RCC) are literal.

His truth being hidden is different from misrepresenting His truth, which is what you are accusing Jesus of doing - misrepresenting his own truth so as o mislead some of them.
catholics are the ones who misrepresent His truth, as they've been taught to do by the RCC.

again, why was it that He taught in parables?

do a bible search on the word hidden and see what verses come up.

If you desire in your heart to know His truth then He will provide a way for that to happen.

That is exactly what the RCC does and its followers then do the same.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
it doesn't need to, nor did they need to say those specific words. They knew Who He was, they trusted in Him and His word. That's what believers in Him do. There is much in scripture I don't know or understand but I believe in Him and believe that His word is His truth even if I don't know it or understand it. i often 'shelf ' verses when I don't understand them. Another day, more reading another verse and the Holy Spirit will all come together and bring that understanding to me.
These verses are not that hard to understand, if you accept that Jesus meant exactly what he said. If gets complicated only if you assume it was symbolic, and then you have to decide what it is symbolic of.


What it does say is -

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


Why didn't Peter say 'we'll go check that with the Pharisees'?
None of this proves Jesus was not speaking literally.

again, why was it that He taught in parables?
This was not a parable, but if you would like to offer and answer this question, maybe you can show how it is relevant to this discussion.

do a bible search on the word hidden and see what verses come up.
If you have a verse that you think supports your view that this speech was only figurative, go ahead and cite them.
 

balshan

Well-known member
All these other instances of figurative speech are unlike the one in John 6. In all these other instances, it was obvious to all that it was figurative. No one questioned if Jesus meant he was truly a door or a vine, or if the water was alive like other living things. In no other instance did Jesus "clarify" the meaning of what he said in a way that doubled down on the literal reality, using terms like "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." and "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." In John 6 Jesus says the same thing in at least seven different ways. That's a lot of emphasis on the literal sense of what he said. In no other instance of figurative speech will you find such challenges to the literal sense and such repeated emphasis on the literal sense by Jesus. Citing unrelated instances of figurative speech has no bearing on whether John 6 is figurative.


Not right then and there, no. The fulfillment came at the last supper when Jesus showed them exactly how they were to eat his body by making the bread into his body. Jesus says at the last supper "Take and eat; this is my body.


It is your unsupported assumption that only the ones that went away took him literally. You have no proof that the disciples did not also take him literally. It is not supported in Scripture.


See above where I explained how these uses of symbolism were different from the verses we are discussing.


John 6 is not a parable. A parable is a story, like "There once was a rich man who....."


Citing other instances of symbolic speech does not prove this speech was symbolic, as explained above.


The analysis of this unnamed author has the same problem as yours in what it leaves out and ignores.
As I said they did not literally jump up and eat, therefore, it is symbolic. You are making it into something it isn't. Of course the show of symbolic language in other cases shows that it is symbolic. You just want to ignore the fact that Jesus used symbolic language because it does not suit the false teachings of your institution.
 

mica

Well-known member
...

This was not a parable, but if you would like to offer and answer this question, maybe you can show how it is relevant to this discussion.
...
no, nor did I say it was, you jumped to that conclusion. Why not just answer the question? most catholics here can't answer the majority of questions. Why is that? you tell us why that is.

He used parables so that some would not understand. He had HIS reasons. If you'll check in Matthew, Mark and Luke you'll also find times He said some things the apostles didn't understand. there'll be a vs following that says something like - they did not understand / they knew not what He said or these words were hid from them. He had HIS reasons. It was not yet time for them to know.

Why do catholics doubt His every word? or twist and pervert what He does say?

Is that believing in Him, Who He is and what He says?

Why don't catholics read and believe the words He actually does say?
 

Johan

Well-known member
All these other instances of figurative speech are unlike the one in John 6. In all these other instances, it was obvious to all that it was figurative.
Quite the opposite. John repeatedly brings up examples of people appearing foolish because they took Jesus literally, although it should have been apparent to them that He was talking figuratively:
  • The Jews misunderstanding what Jesus referenced by "this temple" (John 2:19–21).
  • Nicodemus misunderstanding the expression "born again" (John 3:4).
  • The Samaritan woman misunderstanding the nature of the "living water" (John 4:15).
  • The disciples misunderstanding the nature of the food that Jesus had to eat (John 4:33).
In no other instance did Jesus "clarify" the meaning of what he said in a way that doubled down on the literal reality, using terms like "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." and "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." In John 6 Jesus says the same thing in at least seven different ways.
The presence of the expression "very truly" (ἀμὴν ἀμήν, "amen amen") does not by itself imply that Jesus was talking non-figuratively. He used this expression three times in His dialog with Nicodemus while discussing the figurative expression "born again." Neither does the word "real" (ἀληθής, "true") by itself imply a non-figurative sense. He used this word to make a contrast to the manna, which in a literal sense was indeed "real" (rather than imaginary) food. The actual reason why He used the word "real/true" was to underline that "eating" His flesh would produce eternal, rather than temporal, life.
That's a lot of emphasis on the literal sense of what he said. In no other instance of figurative speech will you find such challenges to the literal sense and such repeated emphasis on the literal sense by Jesus.
It should be obvious to everyone why they challenged the literal interpretation since it entailed cannibalism. And cannibalism is a no-no in virtually every civilized culture, not only in Judaism. It would actually have been more shocking if they would not have reacted with consternation. It is a natural reaction to a gruesome metaphor. But no, Jesus did not insist on a literal meaning—He merely repeated and reinforced what He had just said. And the believing disciples did not queue up to chew on his arms and legs, or to drink His blood.
Citing unrelated instances of figurative speech has no bearing on whether John 6 is figurative.
I agree in principle, but no one can deny that figurative speech was more or less His mode of speaking—to the extent that the disciples expressed relief when He eventually spoke to them literally. John 6 is situated in a context brimful of figurative speech.

Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech." (John 16:29)
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Well-known member
As I said they did not literally jump up and eat, therefore, it is symbolic.
Your logic is faulty because it assumes that the only way Jesus could have been literal is if the disciples jumped up and eat him right then and there. They waited for him to reveal exactly how they were to eat his body. The disciples have great respect for Jesus, so they would not have jumped to their own conclusions and done what you said, even if they did take Jesus at his word.


You are making it into something it isn't.
And you are denying what Jesus said by assuming it was symbolic, when Jesus never indicated it was symbolic. In fact he did the opposite.

Of course the show of symbolic language in other cases shows that it is symbolic.
Nonsense. Just because one speech is symbolic that does not mean every speech is symbolic.

You just want to ignore the fact that Jesus used symbolic language..
No, I acknowledge that Jesus used symbolic language, but not in this instance.

He used parables so that some would not understand. He had HIS reasons.
I agree that some did not understand. But I doubt that was the only reason Jesus used parables. There are also these:

* to make truth relevant and practical
* to captivate people's attention
* to enable his audience to retain his message
* to expose his enemies' wrong motives
* to fulfill prophesy
* to reveal truth
* to conceal truth

This last one is the one you are probably thinking applies to John 6. It might if John 6 were a parable. But it isn't.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Your logic is faulty because it assumes that the only way Jesus could have been literal is if the disciples jumped up and eat him right then and there. They waited for him to reveal exactly how they were to eat his body. The disciples have great respect for Jesus, so they would not have jumped to their own conclusions and done what you said, even if they did take Jesus at his word.



And you are denying what Jesus said by assuming it was symbolic, when Jesus never indicated it was symbolic. In fact he did the opposite.


Nonsense. Just because one speech is symbolic that does not mean every speech is symbolic.


No, I acknowledge that Jesus used symbolic language, but not in this instance.


I agree that some did not understand. But I doubt that was the only reason Jesus used parables. There are also these:

* to make truth relevant and practical
* to captivate people's attention
* to enable his audience to retain his message
* to expose his enemies' wrong motives
* to fulfill prophesy
* to reveal truth
* to conceal truth

This last one is the one you are probably thinking applies to John 6. It might if John 6 were a parable. But it isn't.
No your logic is faulty.
 

Johan

Well-known member
Your logic is faulty because it assumes that the only way Jesus could have been literal is if the disciples jumped up and eat him right then and there. They waited for him to reveal exactly how they were to eat his body.
How they were to eat His body? Like rare, medium rare, medium, medium well, or well-done? If you think that what I just wrote sounds vulgar or even disgusting, it only goes to show how vulgar and even disgusting the literal interpretation is.
 

balshan

Well-known member
How they were to eat His body? Like rare, medium rare, medium, medium well, or well-done? If you think that what I just wrote sounds vulgar or even disgusting, it only goes to show how vulgar and even disgusting the literal interpretation is.
Exactly and it would break the commandments which would mean Jesus was a false teacher.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Quite the opposite. John repeatedly brings up examples of people appearing foolish because they took Jesus literally, although it should have been apparent to them that He was talking figuratively:
  • The Jews misunderstanding what Jesus' referenced by "this temple" (John 2:19–21).
  • Nicodemus misunderstanding the expression "born again" (John 3:4).
  • The Samarian woman misunderstanding the nature of the "living water" (John 4:15).
  • The disciples misunderstanding the nature of the food that Jesus had to eat (John 4:33).
Excellent point. But let me respond by saying in every one of these cases, Jesus did not double down on misleading words. When they misunderstood "this temple", Jesus did not say "Verily, I really do mean this very structure of stone." When Nicodemus misunderstood "born again" Jesus did not say "Yes, I really do mean that one come out of the womb of their mother a second time." When the Samaritan woman misunderstood "living water", Jesus said nothing more, but immediately changed the subject, asking about her husband. And when the disciples misunderstood the nature of the food Jesus had to eat, Jesus immediately clarified the symbolic nature of this phrase by saying "my food is to do the will of Him who sent me". In none of these cases did Jesus amplify the misunderstanding by stating it again in misleading words in seven other ways. So we still have a unique feature of this supposed figurative speech to cast doubt on it being figurative. But I must say, I am very impressed by your knowledge of Scripture, to come up with those four examples so quickly!

The presence of the expression "very truly" (ἀμὴν ἀμήν, "amen amen") does not by itself imply that Jesus was talking non-figuratively. He used this expression three times in His dialog with Nicodemus while discussing the figurative expression "born again."

However, when he repeated "very truly", he changed the words to clarify to Nicodemus that he meant born of water and of spirit -that is, something different from the normal childbirth. John 6 still stand alone.

It should be obvious to everyone why they challenged the literal interpretation since it entailed cannibalism.
I agree. But if faith is Jesus is strong enough, they could still believe. And to the extent that the disciples understood Jesus (which was probably not very well) they were willing to wait and see how Jesus was going to make this seemingly impossible thing a reality. And he did, at the last supper, where he repeated the same claim - "this is my body".
but no one can deny that figurative speech was more or less His mode of speaking—to the extent that the disciples expressed relief when He eventually spoke to them literally.
That is true, but when there is no verse describing how Jesus "spoke literally" about "eat my body" in a way that negated the literal interpretation of John 6.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
How they were to eat His body? Like rare, medium rare, medium, medium well, or well-done? If you think that what I just wrote sounds vulgar or even disgusting, it only goes to show how vulgar and even disgusting the literal interpretation is.
It is vulgar if one assumes how it is to be carried out. But when Jesus revealed exactly how it could be carried out in a way that was not vulgar, at the last supper, they found out.
 

balshan

Well-known member
It is vulgar if one assumes how it is to be carried out. But when Jesus revealed exactly how it could be carried out in a way that was not vulgar, at the last supper, they found out.
Yes didn't that is you making a false connection which you complained about in a response to my post. It was symbolic in both passages. It is vulgar if literal. Jesus would not want believers to break God's commandments which a literal translation would do. Jesus is righteous, not a wolf.
 

Nic

Well-known member
What I find ironic in this thread is the side that insists on the allegorical method of interpretation and the one one insisting on a literal interpretation have momentarily seemingly exchanged for one another's hermeneutic. Actually the Catholic poster has 4 ways to interpret scripture.
 

mica

Well-known member
These verses are not that hard to understand, if you accept that Jesus meant exactly what he said. If gets complicated only if you assume it was symbolic, and then you have to decide what it is symbolic of.
right and that's why I believe those verses, because I do know He meant what He said - and why. That comes with a heart that is His and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the lamb under the OC became physical food, under the NC the LAMB becomes our spiritual food - 24/7. He is always with me, I have continual contact with Him, I spiritually feed on His love, His sacrifice for me, His forgiveness, His promises, His gifts and I continually feed on His word. He is spiritual food for those who are His.

The communion bread is a REMEMBRANCE of His sacrifice that made it possible for my heart to be changed by God making Christ my Lord and Savior, to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and to become part of His family, His church for eternity.

The bread represents His broken body on the cross and the wine represents His shed blood. They are not His actual body and blood.

It's a remembrance, not a reenactment of His sacrifice for us.

The problem comes for anyone who takes those verses literally. That means they do not understand that it is spiritual food, which shows that they have not experienced the rebirth.


None of this proves Jesus was not speaking literally.

This was not a parable, but if you would like to offer and answer this question, maybe you can show how it is relevant to this discussion.

If you have a verse that you think supports your view that this speech was only figurative, go ahead and cite them.
I did. you don't believe those verses from God's word either.
 
Top