Pages

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Candy's specific look at John 6

Let's take a closer look at Candy's notes:


verse 35 To partake of the bread of heaven - one must come unto Jesus. He is that spiritual bread that feeds our souls. He is that living water that satisfies our spirits. If we partake of the bread and drink of Jesus, our souls will never thirst or hunger again. 

These verses are specifically:
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

I suppose Candy would be shocked to learn that there is a very popular contemporary Catholic Hymn that Catholics sing regularly that comes directly from these verses!!!
In fact it is one of my favorites and I find it to be very, very moving.



See verses 51 and 54. This cannot be referring to any Communion, Eucharist, or Mass - else, one would never have to eat or drink food again, after partaking of the "host" and wine. (Talk about saving money on groceries, if this were the case.)

I don't grasp her logic here. Obviously the Early Church Fathers, and the apostles realized that he was not talking about groceries! Catholics today understand that partaking in the Eucharist is mainly a spiritual food.


verse 40 This is the Gospel. This message is repeated over and over and over again, all over the Bible. Jesus wants it to be clear, that the will of God is that we partake of the bread of life, by believing on Jesus.

40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Obviously Catholics have no problem with vs. 40. And because we BELIEVE in the Son, we do what He tells us to do in the rest of the chapter, which is to eat his body and drink his blood!

verse 42 This is a logical fallacy, called "Genetic Fallacy." This is when people dismiss what someone says, because of who that person is, where they came from, or because of actions of that person in the past. This doesn't change that what the person is stating at that very moment may be the absolute truth. Of course, in Jesus' case, He is not the son of Joseph. Joseph and Mary were the "adoptive" parents of Jesus while on this earth. Jesus’ Father is God. Notice how Jesus doesn't waste time correcting the wrong assumptions of the people. He stays with His point, and continues on with what's important.

Um...Mary was not an "adoptive" parent. Jesus was conceived and grew in her womb and he was "Born of a virgin" which is scriptural. I challenge Candy or any of her followers to find a single verse that describes Mary as "adoptive."

verse 45 Thus, those who really are seeking out the truth will come to Jesus.

I have no problem with that verse although I think how that happens can be somewhat of a mystery (although call me a cynic -I have a hard time believing it happens every weekend in a Meeze room!)

verse 48 Verse 47, again tells us that everlasting life is through Jesus. Verse 48 again makes the point that He is the bread of life. If we believe on Him (verse 47) then we have partaken of the bread of life - and our souls will be filled.

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life. 47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.

I note that there is a problem here for Candy and she never addresses it. How does one "partake" of the bread? I suspect that her answer includes some sort of vague rhetoric about believing and spirituality. But these verses are very, very graphic that Jesus is discussing actual eating and digesting. And she addresses it not, because she understands it not.

verse 49 God provided physical bread from heaven, when he provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet, the Israelites chose not to believe on God, so they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, until all of the unbelievers died. Then, the children of the unbelievers got to finally enter the promised land. The manna was a physical food. It kept them alive physically, but not spiritually. They died spiritually, when they chose not to believe God.

Read my prior article for a full explanation of how the Eucharist is prefigured throughout the Old Testament.

verse 50 Yet, if one believes on Jesus, then he is partaking of that spiritual bread of life, and though his body may die, the person them self will not. Their body will sleep in the grave, and the soul and spirit of that person will go to God, until the day of resurrection.


verses 52-53 Many of the people were not listening to what Jesus was saying, so they thought that they had to literally eat and drink Jesus. Their minds were still on the free bread they received earlier. Remember verse 26, our key verse? Reread verse 26, then go down and reread verse 42. These people weren't listening to Jesus. They wanted to eat some free bread. They dismissed what Jesus was saying about everlasting life, so they didn't understand what Jesus meant when He said he is the "bread of life."

The one who is not listening here is Candy. Jesus DID SAY THAT THEY HAD TO LITERALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD!!! That is LITERALLY WHAT HE SAYS:

53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

and because they did not understand that He was speaking of His mystical resurrected body in the Eucharist they left. THEY LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT CANDY DOES! They thought he this was a reference to cannibalism. I submit that if Candy had been with that group of disciples with her current understanding, she would have agreed with them, and she would have left too.




verse 56 We partake of the bread of life, via believing on Jesus (see verses 40 and 47, where Jesus explained this). We partake of the blood of Jesus via accepting His death on the cross.

I called it! A paragraph of vague gobbeldy gook wrapped around scriptural feel-good talk that totally takes the focus of what is actually happening in these verses.

The rest of her take is pretty much summed up in my prior article.  Candy's explanation has to go through many gyrations which are only necessary if you are trying to find a way to avoid the correct Catholic interpretation.  Jesus said "
55
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
.  What Candy presents is a way of wiggling past what He Actually Said. 

But what is key in this passage, and what is one of the key points that solidifies the Eucharist for me and why I WILL ALWAYS BE CATHOLIC is this:  The word "Spirit"  IS NEVER used as a synonym with "symbol."  Ever.  Jesus is not saying here that this is symbolic!  If He were it would be a complete departure from how that is used anywhere else in scripture! 

And I have yet to read a non-Catholic Apologist, explain that away.  So it is not surprising that Candy is unable to do so as well.







AddThis Social Bookmark Button

5 comments:

Perplexity said...

OK, I am not overly bible literate. But, this is her so called gifted interpretation?

Adoptive? Where did that come from? What mindset comes up with that? Seriously. Jesus was BORN of a virgin - BORN. What part of that is not understandable? What part of that is open to interpretation, especially from someone who claims to be an ideal Christian?

I am honestly and truly amazed that she professes the bible to be the inerrant, literal Word of God and that we are not to add to, or take away from, it - yet that is exactly what she at every turn.

Kelly said...

Going back to the Nestorian heresy that I've mentioned before, she could mean that Mary was only the mother of his human nature, but not his divine nature. She would not be considered Theotokos or God-bearer, but Christotokos, Christ-bearer.

If you want, I can dig up that blog post. I need to go read some bedtime stories right now.

Tracy said...

You did a nice job covering this Elena:)

JMN said...

It looks like Candy has revised her "adoptive mother" stance regarding Mary- it is now eliminated from her notes of verse 42.

Elena said...

Yea well, she "never" reads here or at any of her other fan sites - so she says. Anyway Candy wrote:

"I didn't explain it very clearly, and some people got confused. That was not at all my intention."

How condescending. We didn't get confused dear - we just read what you actually wrote. Sounds like you were the one who was confused.