John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

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?