Apologetics for the Masses #452 - A Facebook Conversation w/a Former Catholic (Part 4)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

The last part of my Facebook conversation with ex-Catholic, Jim Anderson, who, of course, knows everything there is to know about Catholic teaching and is out there to save us poor, ignorant, Hell-bound Catholics from the horrible eternal fate that awaits us.

Introduction

     This week's newsletter will be the last one that recounts my Facebook conversation with Jim Anderson, an exceedingly anti-Catholic ex-Catholic. In this one, I'm going to focus on his response (or lack thereof) to my questions about John 6:51, which were in my last newsletter, and which I asked over and over again and which, as you will see, he tripped all over himself trying to simultaneously answer and not answer. This shows how terribly difficult it is for a Protestant to be able to respond to those two simple questions in a logically, and scripturally, consistent manner.
     There were other things said in our conversation, but I'm leaving most of that out because he just gets too drawn out and makes some fairly ridiculous statements about what the Bible says and what the Church teaches that have nothing to do with my questions about John 6:51. Maybe I'll revisit those parts of the conversation one day, but for now I just want to focus on his complete inability to provide a rational answer to those two little questions about John 6:51.
     I am going to start off this discussion here by pulling a couple of quotes that pertain to John 6:51 out of the some of the nonsense he was posting and then pick up my comments from there. I am not going to put a lot of commentary in here as the conversation is a bit extended and my replies to him don't really need a lot of explanation.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Jim Anderson - Comments on John 6:51
You can't literally eat Jesus. No one has ever taught that.

Bread doesn't turn into God. Not a single apostle ever thought so. You miss the semitic idiom, and apparently either didn't look up Ez 3:1-3, Jer 15:16 and Ps 119:103 or ignored them because you understood the idiom.

How does Jesus tell us to be saved, the only possible way to be saved, John? The answer is to believe in Him. Deeply, fully, totally. That's what "eat my flesh" means.

John Martignoni
     No, Jim, you haven't answered much of anything. How can you even pretend to say such a thing? The topic is John 6:51 - please answer either yes or no when asked, and then feel free to explain/clarify your answer as much as you would like.
     a) Jesus says the following in John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Yes or no?
     b) Jesus also says, in John 6:51, that this bread which, if anyone eats they will live forever, is His flesh which He will "give for the life of the world". Yes or no?
     c) You stated that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross. Yes or no?
     d) You also stated that the flesh on the Cross was His real flesh. Yes or no?
     e) So, when Jesus says the bread He wants us to eat is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world, you contend He is telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world. Yes or no?
     f) So, the question for you is: Is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world that He wants us to eat to have eternal life, His real flesh...or His symbolic flesh? Which one? It can't be both.
     g) "Not a single apostle ever thought [bread could turn into God]." Really?! Does the Bible say that? If so, please give me book, chapter, and verse. If not, then please tell me how you know that?
     h) If Jesus was using a semitic idiom in John 6:51 (and following) as you claim, how come you, a non-Semite, are able to recognize that 2000 years after the fact; yet, none of the many actual Semites who were present that day - including Jesus' own disciples - who heard Him use that supposed semitic idiom...why did none of them understand that He was indeed using a semitic idiom?

My Comments
     He has admitted that in John 6:51, when Jesus says the bread He is going to give us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world, that Jesus is talking about the flesh He will give on the Cross. And, he has further admitted that the flesh Jesus gave on the Cross was His real flesh, not His symbolic flesh. But, when I point out the implications of his answers to those two questions - that Jesus is saying we must eat His real flesh that He gave on the Cross for the life of the world - that's when he starts going all over the place, as you will see below.
     Keep in mind as you read through his posts, what he said: "How does Jesus tell us to be saved, the only possible way to be saved, John? The answer is to believe in Him. Deeply, fully, totally. That's what "eat my flesh" means." According to Jim, "eat my flesh" = "believe in Him".

Jim Anderson
     John 6:51, and of course we consider it in the context of the entire chapter, and indeed the whole book (not neglecting what could be the key point of John's book here, John 20:31).
     If you could now go start and read the whole chapter again, carefully, and we can start copying at verse 47, the close context: "47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”"
     Jesus had just made the initial statement: "“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. " Note that there is nothing in this verse about literally eating Him, but a clear statement on believing.
     The Jews had just said that Moses gave them manna from heaven. Jesus corrected them and told them that it had come down from heaven, from God. He then made the comparison between manna and Himself. Both came from heaven (a point that the Jews didn't accept about Jesus, of course) but Jesus is the "living bread", and anyone who comes to Him will not hunger (comes to Jesus, not eat) and whoever believes in Him will not thirst (believes, not eats literally). So what do we have as the key point: come to the Son and believe.
     That point is reiterated throughout. But what do we find in verse 37? "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." The doctrines of election and the perseverance of the saints. And verse 40 again " For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”" As you may know "look on" in the original Greek carries a close scrutiny, a serious examination, not a casual glance. Look to Jesus, and believe.
     So let's get to the next section, comparing the manna with Jesus. The manna was real food from heaven, but did not satisfy except temporarily. The spiritual food that is Jesus satisfied eternally. Now we come to the several statements that bring the same message: verse 47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life."
     Whoever believes......(wholly and truly in Jesus Christ) will have eternal life, and then the metaphor of "eating", which of course is consistent with the whole chapter, and the entire gospel account of John, and the whole bible. Take Jesus into your soul, your life. Give up what you have in the world for Him (John 11:14-15, 1 John 5:5), believe in Him. Believe that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Christ, the Messiah (Matt 16:18, Acts 2:36, John 20:31). Repent and believe, the gospel message (Mark 1:15).
     John 6:51 merely reinforces the theme of the entire chapter, contrasting the physical manna with the spiritual Jesus, both sent from heaven, but only one truly "feeds". And THAT word, "feed", you know from John 21:15-19. Was Jesus talking about physical eating there? Of course not.
     It is noteworthy that every single apostle understood the metaphor, and yet the unbelieving Jews did not. And yet Jesus didn't explain the metaphor, did He? He frequently did not explain His figures of speech (parables, metaphors). Why not? Jesus explained in Matthew 13:10-16. Words to take very seriously.

John Martignoni
     You simply cannot answer the questions I'm asking you can you? That should tell you something about your theology that it is so weak it can't answer some very simple yes and no Bible questions from a Catholic! Answer the questions 1) a) - 1) f) above! Are you unable to do so, or simply unwilling to do so? I don't want to hear your non-authoritative, fallible opinion of what John 6 means. I reject it! And you have absolutely no authority to bind me to your fallible interpretation. And here's why I reject your fallible interpretation:
     1) Did the Israelites physically or symbolically eat the manna - the bread - which came down from Heaven? They physically ate it.
     2) The metaphor - the Jewish idiom - of eating someone's flesh always and everywhere in the Old Testament had a negative connotation. It meant destruction, death, violence, conquest. So, if Jesus is indeed using that metaphor, it doesn't mean you must "believe in Him" to have eternal life, it means you must destroy me - do violence to me - conquer me, in order to have eternal life.
     3) Where, pray tell, does the Bible say that "every single apostle understood the metaphor?" You just made that up! Sorry, but it says the exact opposite!!! Jesus turns to Peter, knowing that Peter doesn't understand what He was saying and says, "Will you also go away?" Why would He ask Peter that if He knew Peter understood what He was saying? That would be a ridiculous question to ask. And, from Peter's response, it is obvious that He doesn't have a clue what Jesus is talking about, however, He knows that Jesus has the "words of eternal life," so he is not leaving Him.
     4) And you are quite wrong - Jesus pretty much everywhere explains his parables and metaphors to the Apostles...but He didn't explain anything to them here in John 6:51-58. Why? Because He wasn't speaking in parables or metaphors. Tell me where else it was that Jesus didn't explain something He was saying to His disciples?
     5) As a teacher, Jesus, according to you, must have been pretty crappy. I mean, He lets many of His disciples walk away over a misunderstanding - at least, according to you. A misunderstanding that He caused. That's a pretty pathetic thing for a teacher to do.
     6) Oh, so you, a 21st-century Gentile, are able to "easily" discern that Jesus is using a Jewish idiom here in this passage, yet the Jewish leaders and the majority of Jesus' own disciples (all Jewish), were unable to understand the Jewish idiom that you say Jesus was using? Really?! But, again, you discerned the wrong Jewish idiom. You discerned the one about eating someone's words as opposed to the one about eating someone's flesh - two completely different idioms. If you get that wrong, how can you be so sure of everything else you say?
     7) Finally, if you will not answer questions 1) a) - 1) e), even though when you asked me for a yes or no I gave it to you, how about just answering 1) f)? "Is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world that He wants us to eat to have eternal life, His real flesh...or His symbolic flesh? Which one? It can't be both."

My Comments
     This is like shooting fish in a barrel. He tries to claim that Jesus never explained His parables and metaphors? He's always explaining things to His disciples, although not necessarily to the general public. But, not in John 6. How come? Because it wasn't a parable or a metaphor. This guy is simply making stuff up as he goes along. Which is what a lot of the folks you have discussions with do as well. Call them on it! "Where in the Bible does it say...?" should be the number one Catholic question.

Jim Anderson
     I will help you out here. You asked " f)? "Is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world that He wants us to eat to have eternal life, His real flesh...or His symbolic flesh? Which one? It can't be both." He actually gave "His flesh", meaning He died on the cross, for the sins of those chosen by God for salvation. We "eat" Him by believing. We cannot of course literally "eat His flesh". That is as twisted an interpretation of scripture as is possible. Hope this helps.

John S. Martignoni
     What a joke! You want it both ways, don't you!? In John 6:51, when Jesus says that the bread He wants us to eat, which will allow us to live forever, which is His flesh, is He talking about His real flesh in this verse or His symbolic flesh? One...or...the...other, Jim. Can't be both.

My Comments
     It takes him all of two sentences to contradict himself. According to Jim, the bread which Jesus will give for the life of the world is indeed His real flesh that He gave on the Cross, but that same bread which He gives us to eat is really His symbolic flesh that we must eat. Which, of course, simply means we must believe in Him. It's real and symbolic all at the same time. Talk about Orwellian double speak...

Jim Anderson
     Is Jesus a slab of wood on hinges (John 10:7)? In other words, is your hermeneutic consistent?   You are aware, I presume of the 7 distinct "I am" statements of Jesus in the book of John, right? I see you're not getting it. Do you want some sermons on this to help you? I ask sincerely since I will assume you are a fellow Christian.

John S. Martignoni
     And, in which of those "I am" statements, Jim, did Jesus' listeners say, "How can He be a door?" "How can He be a vine?" "How can he be a gate?" Zero! All who heard Him understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, didn't they? But, not in John 6...
     Plus, you are aware that for several of those statements you cite, He also said, "I am speaking in figures," right? I.e., He literally said He was speaking figuratively. You do know that, right?
     But, the main point here is, that I see you keep trying to avoid actually answering the question, Jim - doesn't that tell you anything about the weakness of your position? The weakness of your theology? The contradictions of your theology?
     YOU KEEP REFUSING TO GIVE DIRECT ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS!!! John 6:51 - Is it speaking of Jesus' real flesh that He is going to give us to eat for eternal life, Jim, or His symbolic flesh? Which one is John 6:51 specifically referring to?! It has to be one or the other.
    Jesus is telling us that He wants to give us bread to eat and that this bread is actually His flesh. So, are you going to answer the question or not, Jimmy? Are you going to answer any of my questions, or not? Here it is for, what...the 5th time?
     John 6:51 - In this verse, is Jesus speaking of His real flesh that He is going to give us to eat for eternal life, Jim, or His symbolic flesh? Which one is John 6:51 specifically referring to?! It has to be one or the other.

Jim Anderson
     Your question was clearly answered. I cannot help it if you don't like the answer and want a different one. So, according to you, when Jesus said "I am the door", He was using a metaphor, but when He said "I am the bread of life", He was speaking literally? Your hermeneutic is inconsistent and therefore flawed.
     John, you are of course trolling at this point, but there is a serious point to be made with Jesus' metaphor. The apostles always understood it to be a metaphor, and not a single one ever taught that anyone should literally eat Jesus. Not one.
     And you believe that since some people objected to Jesus telling them to eat His flesh, and may have taken it hyper literally, that Jesus was seriously telling them to eat His flesh. What do we know about those people, John, in John 6? The ones who walked away?
     We see the answer in John 6:63-65, as well as Jesus' reiteration of His teaching of divine election. They were unbelievers, and didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ. That's why they couldn't understand the metaphor. Jesus often didn't explain His figures of speech. Why was that? He gives the answer to His apostles in Matthew 13:10-16. The unbelievers, who are lost, are hardened and unable to understand. The unbelieving, lost Jews thought Jesus was speaking literally about eating His flesh, so they left.
     The apostles fully understood. They were drawn by the Father, and born of Him and thus able to believe. See 1 John 5:1, ,where in the Greek language of the original, the meaning is so clear that anyone who believes has first been born of God, meaning born again. Jesus taught this to Nicodemus.
     Which group are you in, the one that includes the apostles, who knew it was a metaphor and believed in Jesus as the Christ, or the unbelieving Jews, who seriously thought Jesus wanted them to engage in eating human flesh?

John Martignoni
     No, Jim, the question hasn't been answered. None of my questions have been answered. You have walked all around the answer, but you haven't actually answered it. You have given me your own, private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of John 6 and elsewhere, yet you have not actually answered my questions. And, by the way, I reject your private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations as being the interpretations of one who has scales covering his eyes and operates under no authority except his own.
     But, before I ask those questions...AGAIN!...I wish to respond to your very flawed exegesis. First and foremost, it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jewish people, including Jesus' own disciples, could not understand a Jewish idiom because they didn't believe in Jesus. What an absurd statement. Furthermore, where does the Bible tell us that, Jimmy? Where?! Nowhere! You just made that up out of thin air.
     Secondly, John 2:11, "This, the first of His signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples BELIEVED in Him." The Word of God says Jesus' disciples believed in Him. The Word of Jimmy says, "Jesus' disciples didn't believe in Him." Yes, there were "some" who didn't believe, but that leaves "many" who did believe. And, it was "many" that walked away. According to you, all except the Apostles walked away. (Again, though, the Bible doesn't say that.)
     Furthermore, please give me another instance in Scripture where Jesus did not explain what He was saying to His own disciples? Book, chapter, and verse? Where? In fact, He pretty much always explained Himself to His disciples. Why? Because to His disciples, "It has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven." Not just to the Apostles, but to the disciples.
     And, where, pray tell, does the Word of God - not the Word of Jimmy - say that the Apostles fully understood what Jesus was saying in John 6:51-58? Where?! Again, you are just making things up out of thin air.
     And, no, my hermeneutic is not flawed. How did the Apostles and everyone else react when Jesus said, "I am the door?" Did they ask, "How can this man be a door?" Uhmm...no. Did they walk away from Him? Uhmm...no. In other words, everyone around Him when He said that knew it to be a metaphor. And, by the way, doesn't Scripture say, in John 10, "This FIGURE Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what He was saying?" Scripture tells us He was speaking figuratively, Jimmy...did you not read that part? And, at the Last Supper, where Jesus uses some more of your "I am" verses, what does the Bible say? "The hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures!" Again, He was speaking figuratively. But, not so in John 6. So, no, Jim...your hermeneutic is the one that is flawed - incredibly flawed! That is evidenced by your refusal to even attempt to give a direct answer to my questions.
     Now, let's try this one more time. The last time. If, in your next post, you do not, at the very beginning of the post, give direct answers to these very direct questions, then you will be "raptured" from this page:
     1) a) Jesus says the following in John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Yes or no?
     b) Jesus also says, in John 6:51, that this bread which, if anyone eats they will live forever, is His flesh which He will "give for the life of the world". Yes or no?
     c) You stated that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross. Yes or no?
     d) You also stated that the flesh on the Cross was His real flesh. Yes or no?
     e) So, when Jesus says the bread He wants us to eat is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world, you contend He is telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world. Yes or no?
     f) So, to sum up: John 6:51 - Is it speaking of Jesus' real flesh that He is going to give us to eat for eternal life, Jim, or His symbolic flesh? Which one is John 6:51 specifically referring to?! It has to be one or the other.

Jim Anderson

     Your questions have been answered, but since you don't think so, here you are again.
     1) a) "Jesus says the following in John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Yes or no?" John, if you open your bible to John 6, you can read this text there.
     b) "Jesus also says, in John 6:51, that this bread which, if anyone eats they will live forever, is His flesh which He will "give for the life of the world". Yes or no?" John, if you open your bible to John 6, you can read this text there.
     c) "You stated that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross. Yes or no?" Jesus gave His human life for the life of the world, yes. That's what "flesh" means in that text, yes.
     d) "You also stated that the flesh on the Cross was His real flesh. Yes or no?" Yes, Jesus had a human body (still does) on the cross, and so when He died on the cross, He was in possession of His human body.
     e) "So, when Jesus says the bread He wants us to eat is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world, you contend He is telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world. Yes or no?" Jesus is saying in this text that we must believe in Him totally, using a not uncommon metaphor that all the saved believers understood, and still do, and yet all the nonbelievers took hyperliterally and rejected. So yes, if we follow the entire New Testament, and actually the Old Testament as well, we see the over one hundred prophecies concerning the messiah. We see the many statements of Jesus leading up to His sacrifice on the cross, where He told His apostles that He would be killed (one example is Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:34).
     When we look at the consistent teaching of Jesus and the apostles throughout the New Testament, we see a consistent gospel message, repent and believe (in Christ). Consistent. Believe wholly and truly, which is far, far, far more than simply believing that Jesus was a guy, or even that He is God. More than that.
     f) So, to sum up: John 6:51 - Is it speaking of Jesus' real flesh that He is going to give us to eat for eternal life, Jim, or His symbolic flesh? Which one is John 6:51 specifically referring to?! It has to be one or the other." Yes, John 6:51 is a symbolic statement in the sense that of course we cannot literally eat the body of Jesus, which is at the right hand of the Father in heaven (Hebrews 1:3), and will be with Him until He comes again, in the same way that He left (Acts 1:11). And Matthew 24 warns us of those who claim falsely that Jesus has come again.

My Comments
     Here is a summary of what Jim Anderson is saying in regard to John 6:51: When Jesus speaks of the bread we must eat in order to live forever, the bread He is referring to is His real flesh that He gave on the Cross, which, when He says for us to eat this bread - which is His real flesh that He gave on the Cross - that means He is telling us that the bread we are to eat is actually His symbolic flesh.
     Make sense? Of course not. In John 6:51, the bread Jesus is speaking of is either His real flesh, or His symbolic flesh, it can't be both. That is why the two original questions I asked him about John 6:51 are impossible for him to answer in a way that is consistent with his Protestant theology. Will he ever have a moment of clarity on that? Who knows?

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter