John 6 more consistent with Catholic interpretation

I want you to notice the difference between my presentation and Pro's presentation. I went through the whole of John 6, explaining as I went along so that you could see Jesus' flow of thought and see how each part of his discourse was connected with the next part, and how it shed light on the interpretation. Pro merely talking about one small part of John 6 without explaining how it fit into the broader context of John 6, and how it fit into Jesus' whole argument. Remember that the resolution for the debate is that John 6 is more consistent with a Catholic interpretation. Even if it had been just about the small part of John 6, we needed the rest of the context in order to understand it. From the very beginning of the bread of life discourse, Jesus was talking about belief in him for eternal life. He explained that the reason some came to him, believing, and others didn't, is because some people were given to him by the Father, and some weren't. Some are drawn to the Father, and some aren't. The Father granted some to believe but not others. Jesus repeats this point three times in the bread of life discourse. So the passage is clearly about belief in Jesus. Pro didn't talk about any of that. So why talk about eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood if it's really about believing? Well, that's explained at the very beginning of the discourse. Remember what Jesus said. The crowd found him the day after they were all miraculously fed, and Jesus told them the reason they came looking for him was not because they had seen a miracle and therefore believed in Jesus, but because they were fed, and they were hoping to get some more food. Think about that. Their aim was to get tangible food, like bread. Jesus was trying to point them, not to perishable bread, but to himself. So naturally, he compared himself to bread. Just as in John 4 when he contrasted the water in the well with living water that springs into eternal life, so also in John 6, Jesus contrasted real bread with the living bread from heaven that leads to eternal life, namely, himself. Jesus wasn't talking about literal water or literal bread. He was talking about himself as the source of eternal life. He used water as a metaphor in John 4 because the woman went to the well seeking water, and he used bread as a metaphor in John 6 because the crowd sought out Jesus because they wanted some bread. The entire New Testament witnesses that we gain eternal life by believing in Jesus. There is nowhere in the New Testament where it says that to have eternal life, we should eat Jesus. Rather, it says to have eternal life, we must place our faith in Jesus, believing in him, etc. We know that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when telling the crowd they must eat him to have eternal life because he says the exact same thing about believing in him. John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life; and I myself will raise him up on the last day." John 6:47 "Truly truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life." John 6:54 "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." It is clear when comparing these verses that "believe in me" and "eat my flesh" mean the same thing because each one of them is said to lead to eternal life, and those who do them will be raised up on the last day. I brought up four problems with the Catholic interpretation that Pro said little about. 1. It destroyed the flow of thought in the passage since he'd be talking one minute about belief in him for eternal life, then talking instead about eating him for eternal life. Pro said it actually strengths the flow of thought, but she didn't demonstrate it. She didn't even discuss the rest of Jesus' discourse to show us how her interpretation fits Jesus flow of thought. 2. If eternal life can be had merely be eating Jesus, then all the statements about believing in Jesus for eternal life are nonsense. An atheist could eat Jesus. 3. Catholics take Jesus' claim at the last supper that "This is my body" turned the bread into the flesh of Jesus. However, in John 6, Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." If they take that just as literally, it would follow Jesus himself turned into a loaf of bread. But no Catholic thinks Jesus literally turned into a loaf of bread while giving the bread of life discourse. He was clearly not being literal! 4. Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but he said nothing about turning bread into flesh or wine into blood during the discourse, so there is no way to get the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation from John 6. If you took Jesus literally, you'd be left with the impression that you were supposed to butcher him and eat him. So the passage doesn't support the Catholic view even if taken literally. Pro attempts to reconcile believing in Jesus for eternal life with eating Jesus for eternal life by claiming that what we are to believe is Jesus' teaching that we should eat his flesh. Think about that for a minute. To be consistent, that means every place in the New Testament where it says those who believe in Jesus have eternal life really means that those who believe that they should eat Jesus (and do so) will have eternal life. So that's the gospel--that those who eat Jesus will have eternal life. You could just plug "eat Jesus" into John 3:16, and that's what Pro is advocating. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son to eat so that whosoever eats him will not perish but have eternal life." Pro claims that when Jesus asked his disciples whether they would also leave, he was implying that the crowd left because of his teaching, and he wanted to know if the disciples would, too. This doesn't fit the explanation Jesus gave himself for why the crowd left. The reason they left is because they could not believe in Jesus, and the reason they could not believe in Jesus is because the Father did not grant it. When Jesus asked them whether they would leave, too, Peter's response was to say that he believed in Jesus. And notice that he when he expressed belief in Jesus, he expressed belief that Jesus was the holy one of God. Pro claims that I admitted nobody understood Jesus, but I argued just the opposite. Peter clearly understood Jesus, which is why he expressed belief in Jesus as his explanation for not walking away. Pro repeats her claim that a more graphic word for "eat" implies a literal eating. I don't see how. If "eat" means "believe," and Jesus wanted to emphasize the depth of faith that one must have in him, it stands to reason that he'd say "chew," like we might ask somebody to chew on our words. We say "chew" to emphasize that we want people to REALLY think about what we're saying. Pro seems to hang much on the fact that the crowd misunderstood Jesus, and Jesus didn't bother to explain himself. But there was no need to. Jesus explained that they cannot believe in him because it had not been granted by the Father. All that the Father gives to Jesus WILL believe in him, so those not believing in him were not given to him by the Father and therefore are unable to believe in Jesus. In Luke 8:10-11, Jesus said to his disciples, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." In other words, Jesus didn't always intend his audience to understand him. He spoke cryptically on purpose so they wouldn't. It shouldn't surprise us that he would do the same thing in John 6, especially considering the fact that he explains WHY they are unable to believe in him in this same passage. Jesus had no intention of getting those people to believe in him because he knew they couldn't. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.