John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

"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".