The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lefillegal1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 56543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

John 6:53
"Jesus said to them, "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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.""

The catholics teach that Jesus was indicating the beginning of the Lord's supper, where the catholics partake of Jesus's literal flesh and blood, even though it looks like bread and wine. Transubstantiation.

support: "when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation"however disturbing"becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, "eating." However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ"s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning "to chew on" or to "gnaw on""as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.
Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples. Instead, what does Jesus do?"
"...our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn"t say, "Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically." Rather, he says to them, "Will you also go away?" (v. 67). This most profound question from our Lord echoes down through the centuries, calling all followers of Christ in a similar fashion. With St. Peter, those who hear the voice of the Shepherd respond: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (v. 68)."

Jesus was known to clear up difficult teachings with the apostles when he was alone with them. here, though, after the jews clearly understood him literally, and left, he just asked the apostles if they wanted to leave too.

so how do you respond to that, and to the Greek uses of the word "eat"? and overall, how do you respond?
lefillegal1

Con

Id like to thank my opponent for this debate. All translations I use will come from the KJV. Now on to the debate.

"so how do you respond to that, and to the Greek uses of the word "eat"? and overall, how do you respond?"

I dont have to respond because Jesus himself responded to your questions. Ill use scripture to explain. As far as "the Greek use of the word ""eat"", again ill use scripture to point out what Jesus meant by the word "eat" vs. your interpretation of what is meant.
First lets clear some misconceptions you mentioned.

"Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples."

Why? Not that he wouldnt clear it up but why "now"? And why do you say he wasnt speaking symbolically? Lets turn back to

Matthew 13:9 "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that hello hath. 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:"

These versus reflect how Jesus spoke to anyone(including the Jews) who, it was not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. While you may not "hear" or "see" the symbolism in John 6:50-58 it is present. To find the symbolism lets go back to

John 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. 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

Here we see Jesus establishing symbolism. Moving on to

John 6:28 "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not."

More symbolism which, the jews did not comprehend. Continue to

John 6:41 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 6:48 I am that bread of life. 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 6:51 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. 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

Even disciples did not understand the symbolism! But...

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Jesus does indeed explain the symbolism. More on that later.

"Instead, what does Jesus do?""...our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn"t say, "Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically." Rather, he says to them, "Will you also go away?" (v. 67)."

... unlike the timeline you constructed, jesus explains the symbolism BEFORE John 6:67 "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?"
Now to adress the symbolism invovled look to

Matthew 4:3 "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Here we find that man can eat/live off of bread AND Gods word. Combine that with

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

And

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Now it can be clear that Jesus was referring to life using bread as a symbol. And how is bread absorbed? By eating it! But how are words absorbed? Ever hear the phrase "eat/swallow your words"? Just asking. The way to absorb words is to hear/listen.
Faith comes by hearing, hearing the words of God.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the best con argued was that con argued that, perhaps, Jesus was setting up the the situation towards a metaphor, by referring to eating bread, being bread, being meat etc. we can't know based just on the language leading up to it. we have to read the language itself, and consider the after events.
for all we know, jesus was just setting the stage for teaching that we must actually eat his flesh.

con says we don't need to really care that Jesus changed into a more graphic use of the word "eat" the more he talked about it. why wouldn't we care about it? it certainty makes the catholic position sound better. otherwise, he had no reason to change tenses like that.

and con sites another passage that says that Jesus spoke in parables to allow people to be talked right over their head, if that is what the Spirit wills. but that only explains a possibility. we have in actuality the people leaving Jesus cause they understood him literally. given he said "will ye go away also" to the disciples, it makes it look like the subtext is "this is the teaching. do you want to go too?" it would be more to read into it that the apostles understood him figuratively so they decided to stay. the best argument from con, would be to say they didn't understand him, but might in the future, and all they know is they know he is the messiah. but this argument is weak, cause it ignores that their impression was that he was talking literally. so how do we take something other than what they thought?
lefillegal1

Con

"the best con argued was that con argued that, perhaps, Jesus was setting up the the situation towards a metaphor, by referring to eating bread, being bread, being meat etc. we can't know based just on the language leading up to it. we have to read the language itself, and consider the after events."

To keep things in CONTEXT, one must consider ALL language. This would INCLUDE, the verses in question, ALONG WITH the previous AND following verses.

"for all we know, jesus was just setting the stage for teaching that we must actually eat his flesh."

Here again, is where CONTEXT plays an important role. Without looking at the previous verses... "John 6:24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? 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. 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." ... you could conclude anything you want, but it wouldnt be in CONTEXT with what Jesus was speaking of. In fact, as we read on, we find that the people took Jesus words out of CONTEXT. All along, Jesus, being aware of this fact, tried his best to keep them in CONTEXT. Look at
John 6:27 "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."
Here we see Jesus setting the CONTEXT. Specifically stating a clear difference between "meat". Obviously, there are two types of "meat". Still, the people chose to acknowledge only one of the two types. Moving on to
John 6:32 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."
Here we find "bread" and "true bread". One is bread which sustains the flesh, the other gives life. Reading on to
John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not."
How quick was CONTEXT lost? Have the people lost it? Or do they not believe? It appears that the CONTEXT is still in tact but the people would not believe. Reading ahead to
John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven."
Clearly the Jews refused to believe the "CONTEXT" Jesus spoke of, and supplied their own. Ahead to
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 6:48 I am that bread of life. 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 6:51 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. 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Again we have the Jews refusing the CONTEXT of Jesus' words. Jesus had already explained what "true" meat/bread was, but ignoring his explanation also meant supplying their own definitions of "meat/bread". Which would logically lead them to conclude he was speaking literally eating his flesh. This comes about because the Jews FIRST reject HIS concept of "meat/bread". Had they accepted it, they would have understood the CONTEXT Jesus was speaking in.

"con says we don't need to really care that Jesus changed into a more graphic use of the word "eat" the more he talked about it. why wouldn't we care about it? it certainty makes the catholic position sound better. otherwise, he had no reason to change tenses like that."

He changed the words not the tense of a.word. Once again CONTEXT. Context allows for the use of many DIFFERENT word to convey the SAME meaning/train of thought.

"and con sites another passage that says that Jesus spoke in parables to allow people to be talked right over their head, if that is what the Spirit wills. but that only explains a possibility. we have in actuality the people leaving Jesus cause they understood him literally."
Isnt that how parables/metaphores work? Do you pay attention to the literal words of a parable, or do you consider its CONTEXT?

"given he said "will ye go away also" to the disciples, it makes it look like the subtext is "this is the teaching. do you want to go too?"

CONTEXT comes before subtext. A.subtext exist within the CONTEXT. It can only be used to confirm CONTEXT. The disciples may have rejected this but Jesus only asked "the twelve" apostles will they go ALSO. More on this later.

"it would be more to read into apostles understood him figuratively so they decided to stay. the best argument from con, would be to say they didn't understand him, but might in the future, and all they know is they know he is the messiah."

Its not wrong to read what scripture says. But keep CONTEXT in mind. Lets read
John 6:66 "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?"
We can discern that "the disciples" did not understand the CONTEXT, while "the apostles" did. Jesus asks, will you, which understand my CONTEXT, leave also? How do we as readers know that they understood him figuratively? We know because they answered figuratively. Notice Peter's response in
John 6:68 "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
Here Simon Peter mentions no bread. Or does he? Jesus has just given a speech, in which he states that 1. There are two different breads/meats. 2. That one of these "breads/meats" is the "true" bread/meat, leaving the other to be a false/substitute. 3. The true bread/meat gives eternal life. 4. He is the "true" bread/meat. Had any of the apostles been confused on this concept, then peter would not have understood to answer back with "thou has the words of eternal life."

"but this argument is weak, cause it ignores that their impression was that he was talking literally. so how do we take something other than what they thought?"

As I have just shown, they knew he was not talking literally, They never had the impression he was speaking literally, they, like many times before, knew he spoke in parables. The problem was, this was a parable not easily deciphered. Yet with Jesus help in
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
it became all to clear to the apostles which bread Jesus spoke of, AND understanding that concept they knew to "believe" was to "eat".
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con argues it's all about context, but my only real point is that the same context could lead a person to believe he was being literal.

con doesnt really address the fact that Jesus changed the usage of the word eat to a more graphic word. he just rants in response about some issues of taking things in context. but he doesn't address the issue. why would Jesus change the words to make himself look like he's being more forceful, being literal etc... unless he was being literal? we can look before and after the passages in question etc and look for context, but i dont see how any of that really answers why he would get more intense like that.

con makes a huge leap in arguing that the apostles show they understood him figurateively just by the fact Peter says they wont leave cause they beleive he has the words of eternal life. it's possible they understood him literally. the best con argument would be that they didn't undertand... but were convinced to stay no matter what. (and from a con perspective, would later understand he was being figurative). these arguemnts aside from what con argues makes more sense because the CONTEXT was clear that Jesus merely asked 'will you go too?'. the underlying message being 'these guys dont like any of this, what about you?'. it's more a focus on staying firm in the way things are even if people leave, and the way things are seemed to be issues regarding literal eating etc.
lefillegal1

Con

Context con"text\k"n-tekst\noun 1":"the"parts"of a"discourse"that surround"a"word"or"passage"and can throw"light"on its"meaning 2":"the"interrelated"conditions in which"something"exists"or"occurs": environment,"setting"

Discourse dis"course\dis-krs, dis-;\noun 1"archaic":"the"capacity"of"orderly thought"or"procedure":"rationality 2":"verbal"interchange"of"ideas; especially":"conversation 3 a":"formal"and"orderly"and"usually extended"expression"of"thought"on a subject"b":"connected"speech"or"writing"c":"a"linguistic"unit"(as a conversation"or a"story)"larger"than a"sentence 4"obsolete":"social"familiarity 5":"a"mode"of"organizing"knowledge,ideas, or"experience"that"is"rooted"in language"and its"concrete"contexts (as"history"or"institutions)"
Merriam Webster's Dictionary

"con argues it's all about context, but my only real point is that the same context could lead a person to believe he was being literal."

Wrong. Context clears up the use of ambiguous words/meanings. To say "context" can lead to two seperate meanings goes against its very definition. Regardless if my opponent doesnt understand this concept, one look at
John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
shows that Jesus revealed what this discourse was "really" about. It was about "obtaining everlasting/eternal life".
Jesus also reveals that, all one has to do is believe. If, like my opponent, we were to ignore context, how could we explain this verse, and its placement/appearance in the discourse? The fact that it is in the discourse lends to its importance. Otherwise, as my opponent claims, Jesus SHOULD have used a more graphic words, instead of ones which appear to be totally out of subject. To be consistent with my opponent's reasoning, this verse has no place in the discourse. One has to ask, if this were true why did Peter's answer address eternal life, and not "eating"? My opponent claims The Apostles were perplexed and just went with it. Jesus would have known if they were still confused, but they weren't and we know this because
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
you cant believe a statement you're confused about. You either, understand it and believe it(or not), or dont understand it and wonder. Notice Jesus states they dont believe, not that they dont understand.

"con doesnt really address the fact that Jesus changed the usage of the word eat to a more graphic word. he just rants in response about some issues of taking things in context. but he doesn't address the issue. why would Jesus change the words to make himself look like he's being more forceful, being literal etc... unless he was being literal? we can look before and after the passages in question etc and look for context, but i dont see how any of that really answers why he would get more intense like that."

Thats because you are ignoring the context, and need an alternative explanation for the increasing intensity in Jesus' vernacular.

"con makes a huge leap in arguing that the apostles show they understood him figurateively just by the fact Peter says they wont leave cause they beleive he has the words of eternal life. it's possible they understood him literally."

I believe I've shown why its not possible.

"the best con argument would be that they didn't undertand... but were convinced to stay no matter what. (and from a con perspective, would later understand he was being figurative)."

I addressed this already but would like to add this was never my stance.

"these arguemnts aside from what con argues makes more sense because the CONTEXT was clear that Jesus merely asked 'will you go too?'."

Seriously? Merely asked? Without CONTEXT, who would the "too" be referring to?

"the underlying message being 'these guys dont like any of this, what about you?'."

Actually its more like, 'you who now understand, will also leave?' Why would Jesus underlying message be 'these guys dont like any of this, what about you?', when he already knows, for a fact, who doesnt.

"it's more a focus on staying firm in the way things are even if people leave, and the way things are seemed to be issues regarding literal eating etc."

What??? Stay firm on literal eating, even if people leave, because thats the way things are? Thats a new dispensation indeed. Or am I taking your words out of CONTEXT?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.