John 6 and what Jesus was saying to his disciples

Why are the priests sitting around in the Church when they could be putting all the Catholic hospitals out of business ?
Jesus could do it, he gave his disciples the ability to do it. Where did this authority go ? I mean, in theory, this laying on of hands should still be just as effective as it once was.

Why do I get the impression that a modern day Jesus would be making a big enough hit to raise the attention of the government and healthcare business ?


..

 

I see Felicity is now conveniently ignoring this post. Christians create whatever reality they like, then defend it to the hilt. I think they should all read Michael Shermer's books, starting perhaps with Why People Believe Weird Things.

 

Obviously, from Christ's death on the Cross we can learn that God sees suffering as beneficial in some cases. And as I said, Jesus didn't heal every sick person in the world he came into contact with.

 

Felicity that intepretation is wrong on so many levels it is hard to even no where to start.

1st what Jesus was talking about here in wasn't communion. What he was talking about was the fact that we are not saved based on merit but upon Christ's coming sacrifice upoin the cross. They weren't a bit confused. They knew exactly what he meant. They simply weren't willing to accept salvation as a gift. This is why Christ also says, If you are unable to accept the kindom of heaven as a little child you can't recieve it at all. And the diffeence between children and adults is how they recieve a gift. Little children immediately accept a gift and take it to heart, adults are too busy looking for strings. In short these disciples that fell away did not fall away because of gnorance but because of pride.

 

What would you like me to respond to? The New Testament is a collection of books/letters that are individual texts. You apparently want something that is not relevant to the type of literature. The Bible was compiled years after the individual texts were written. If you look at it as a single text, the John citation I gave you applies. If you see it as disconnected texts, of course a book isn't going to say something about another text that isn't even canonical at the time it was written. What is it you want?

 

I certainly agree pride plays a major role in refusal of Jesus' words and the gift of his Sacrifice.

 

Well how come we all aren't healing and raising the dead, then? LOL.

Yes, there are different types of priesthoods. There is the Liturgical priesthood, which are the Ordained, and then there is the priesthood of all Christians. That is not disputed. Protestants and Catholics both believe in the priesthood of believers--we were discussing Liturgical priests.

I'm saying our nature craves that. Totally non-religious people go to therapists to talk out their issues, look for sounding boards, want validation from peers...Part of the gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is that need to find the humility to say your sin out loud, face it, and to hear we are forgiven. God can and will forgive sincere repentance, but the Sacrament is a gift.

 

Christ's 7 I ams recorded in the Book of John:
“I am the bread of life;
"I am the light of the world"
“I am the door of the sheep”
“I am the good shepherd”
“I am the resurrection and the life”
“I am the way and the truth and the life”
“I am the true vine”
He was also the Lamb. This does not mean that he is a loaf of bread, or a lamb, a grape vine or olive tree.

Regarding Peter:
At one point Christ called him Satan. Why? Because Peter was still under his Pharisee mind, just like the rest of the disciples, who thought that Christ was going to come as a conquering hero, not as a victim. Only Mary Magdalene understood Christ's mission.

Look how despondent they were about Christ being arrested, tortured, and crucified. They did not comprehend the situation until Christ visited them after the Crucifiction.

Another thing about Peter: When Christ said "upon this Rock, I build My Church" , He was pointing to Himself as the Rock, not Peter.

Now His last supper: It has been said, "Eat & drink this till I come." He did come, and He was barbequing fish & bread for them and they ate with Him. Then He came again with His Roman Army to destroy the old obsolete Babylon of Pharisee Jerusalem, as He said He would.

 

Yes. That is the reality of it. The booklet of John refers to itself, as is clearly indicated in the language in which it was originally penned. The author referred to it with the diminutive term biblion, most certainly not referring to the big "book" of the bible we have today. Yet you quoted John to me as evidence that the bible was self-referencing in response to my original assertion that it is not.

How, then, can your assertion that

actually be true? The bible never references itself. It can't, unless its editors inserted a note during the process of compiling the volume. As far as anyone knows, though, this was not done. Thus, "the bible" in no way "explicitly states that it is not [the sole authority on matters of faith and morals]." If Christians choose to interpret the bible as such, there is nothing in the bible to argue against doing so, just as there is nothing in it to argue the other way. The texts of the bible are bible-agnostic

 

In a Protestant interpretation the hard teaching in John 6 would be that the Messiah’s role is to sacrifice his flesh and blood for us, so that we may be redeemed. Jesus did indeed die a very literal death. When I recently talked about the crucifixion with a Muslim friend of mine he certainly found that hard teaching.

That depends on what you mean by hell. I certainly would say that there is no place as Hell as medieval people like Hieronymus Bosch imagined it. I believe that it is hell to be separated from God. But I trust that eventually God will see to it that all of us are able to overcome this separation, because He is indeed the good shepherd.

Yes, that’s part of the reasoning. From my point of view it’s probably well meant, but very condescending to say the least. But as I said: while I don’t share the official Catholic reasoning here, I can accept that this reasoning holds truth for you and that you must act upon it. And it would be far from me to want to desecrate what is holy to you in the Eucharist.

I hope you will accept though that others also must act upon their conscience even if it brings them into conflict with the authority of what you probably regard as the one true Church. According to Thomas Aquinus disobeying one’s conscience is in itself sinful. Or as your current Pope has once put it:
“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.” (Joseph Ratzinger, in Ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Doctrine of Vatican II, vol V, p 134.)

It saddens me that following his conscience got Gotthold Hasenhüttl suspended from Catholic Priesthood. He couldn’t repent and promise never to invite to an open communion again, because he felt that that this would mean to denigrate Protestants to second-class Christians and to abuse the holy Eucharist as a tool for dissociation rather than to seek unity in Christ in it:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word092603.htm

 

Yes I do, just like Protestant strongly believe in themselves and that the Catholic church is all wrong and they are right even though they can not proof they are right nor can they proof they follow and practice the true church of Jesus Christ all they have done is create division, confusion and distortion.

 

The Bible is an anthology--a unified whole. They are the inspired texts collected together into a single unit. That's how John can refer to the Bible. It IS a part of a unified whole.

 

I don't believe that the Catholic church is all wrong... rather that there is also merit in Protestant teachings. But, you have made it clear what you believe.

 

There was no Bible at the time John lived.

 

In any of those 6 + others, did Jesus go on and drive home his "metaphor" in the way he did concerning the bread of life discourse? ANYWHERE? Think about it...
He was born in BETHLEHEM (meaning house of Bread)
He was laid in a MANGER (a food trough)
At the beginning of John Jesus is called "the LAMB of God" absolutely referring to the Paschal Lamb of Exodos. What did the Israelites have to do with that Lamb? Shed it's blood and EAT it--all of it.
Ex 12:
[5] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
[6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
[7] Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
[8] They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.


Paul tells us about Christ our Paschal Lamb in Corinthians:

1 Cor. 5
[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
[8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

We "celebrate" the "festival" with Christ, our "Paschal Lamb" whose blood was shed so that you might "have life in you" IF you accept the sacrifice and what Jesus taught in "sincerity and truth."


The Bread of Life Discourse is certainly both metaphorical AND literal. It is the explanation of much of the prefigurement in the OT and culminates at the Last Supper.

In the OT, what was in the Ark of the Covenant? The tablets of the 10 Commandments (Jesus is the Word of God), The staff of Aaron (Jesus was resurrected, just as Aaron's staff bloomed), A jar of the manna (Jesus is the Bread of Life).

Melchizedek (meaning King of Righteousness, as Jesus is righteousness), who is the King of Salem (Salem means peace--Jesus is the King of Peace), and "priest of god Most High (Jesus is Christianity's High Priest of God Most High) and offers Bread and Wine as a blessing. See Hebrews 5
[8] Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
[9] and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
[10] being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.
[11] About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

Where do you get that from? Dan Brown?

That is true; Christ's mission was revealed in an unfolding manner.

You were there? LOL... Then why did he change Peter's name to "Rock" (Cephas) from his given name Simon?

 

Where in John 6 did Jesus talk about dying? He didn't--he talked of eating and living forever! Do you think the disciples that walked away did not understand Jesus to be LITERALLY saying they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

I agree that Hell is complete separation from God, but the idea it is not eternal is contrary to what the Bible clearly states and all of Christendom (until very recently) has professed.

That is appreciated.

 

You are very good at stating the obvious, Margot. What is your point, however?

 

lol True. This is why I don't recognize an "ordained" priest with anymore authority than an ordained "minister," though knowledge varies of course.

Peter being "Ordained" I take it ? Now it is a matter of seminary , huh ?

To each his own.

I rarely feel the need to confess out loud to another,perhaps this is one of my strengths but I don't disagree with the logic if someone feels the need to confess out loud to another.

 

OH! I see what you are saying...well, for the Christian, it is a collection of Inspired texts. Granted, the authority of the texts accepted canonically rests in the hands of an authoritative priesthood (as all of Salvation History has from the Tribes of Israel on). However, if one accepts that authority, then what was a scattered collection of religious texts becomes an Inspired unified whole. --Inspired by a God who knows all time and therefore, John certainly CAN refer to the Bible as a whole--since it is a collected text Inspired in time by a God outside of time. It is a message from God in and of itself both inside and outside of time. If you don't buy into the God idea, then I can see how you might perceive the bible as fragmented texts that have interesting "coincidences" or literary influences. My thread, however, presumes a certain authority in the Biblical texts--whatever the Christian flavor.

 

No, actually, Priests are "discerned" --it isn't simply a career choice, it is a vocation.

I wonder if you tried it, that you might not discover a touching humility that comes in bearing open the truth of oneself out loud to an animate ear.

If you think about it--the twelve step process is much like Reconciliation--and we all seem to be "addicted" to sin.

 

Right,but they need to go to seminary or they couldn't be priests, am I wrong about this ?

Oh I don't doubt that I would feel a touching humility as you say,maybe more than I prefer. This 'additional' humility wouldn't be the humility of my sins though,or the guilt associated with them, but rather the result of confessing to another judgmental soul,you see ? If it were truly God sitting on the other side of the booth, I would have no problem with it but unfortunately we both know that priests are only human and this violates my privacy.

 

Well...technically.... That's how it's done, but in fact, one discerns priesthood and the bishop invites one to ordination. Seminary is not "required" but it is fitting for the period of discernment.

What do you mean, "more than [you] prefer?" Should we not be entirely free from shame before God? Why would it be more shameful to stand before a man?

Also, we don't confess to the priest; we confess to Jesus. Also, we are not forgiven by the priest; we are forgiven by Jesus.

Are you aware of the "seal of the confessional?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_and_the_Catholic_Church

 

I googled this question Felicity and from what I have read on a number of links is that there is indeed educational requirments to become a priest.

(wiki)

Like comparing standing before God naked and standing before a priest naked. Ask yourself that question and you will know the difference.

Unfortunately the priest has a mind of his own and I know that.

Yes

 

Again, the bible didn't exist when John wrote. Neither did he choose to use a word that would indicate anything so grand as the compiled Holy Bible. You are ignoring the obvious to carry on a delusion because it serves your agenda.

It's also silly to call the bible a unified whole. It has taken some mighty creative "interpretation" to try and make it all fit together, and still it doesn't entirely.

Just compare the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke.. There are clear differences that are, in the end, irreconcilable. For easy reference: http://errancy.org/nativity.html

 

Again: I don’t mean to devaluate your personal reading of this text and the spiritual meaning it holds for you. But to me the imagery of a person’s flesh being eaten and his blood being drunk clearly points to that person’s death/ the sacrifice of his life. So in my interpretation the text clearly anticipates not only the last supper but also the following crucifixion/the salvation via the blood of Christ. I don't need to read the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation into John 6 to be duly thankful for this sacrifice and to feel unity with Christ and my fellow Christians in the Eucharist.

In fact I think the idea of eternal hell is contrary to what the Bible clearly states. We can start throwing bible-verses at each other now. I’d start with Romans 14:11. However: I suspect this little contest would just end up in a draw between clashing interpretations, so this question too will remain an issue of faith.

My faith informs me that God loves us as His children, has endless mercy, is almighty and send Christ to the world to save all of us. I would not question Christ’s ability to finish His job of reconciling all mankind with God. Thus I don’t believe in eternal condemnation.

You are clearly wrong though to assume that the idea of universalism is a new idea within Christianity. In fact it’s rather old, much older than Augustine’s idea of eternal hell: http://www.christianuniversalist.org/articles/salvationconspiracy.html

To me rather sad explanations of why the idea of eternal hell became so popular within the church is that it served an institution that unfortunately had developed very earthly interests to hold power via fear and that it plays into our human lust for revenge against those who trespassed against us. Rather than submitting to this lust, we ought to forgive each other so that we may be forgiven. And rather than serving the Lord out of petty fear we ought to serve Him out of love.