Jesus was speaking plainly, John 6

JQ said,
That's completely irrelevant, since it was God who provided Ezekiel with all the details concerning what he should do and what he should say.

And it is God who explained the metaphor:
Ezekiel 5:1 And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair.  2 Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.  3 Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.  4 Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel.


5 Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.  6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.  7 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;


8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.

That's begging the question. Why should He have called "those guys" back?

Because an honest person would not allow people to make a decision based upon misunderstanding. And Jesus was nothing if not absolutely honest.

In fact, John 6:65 clearly indicates that those who went away in disbelief were not enabled by God to come to Him.

That is correct. They could not believe.

Elsewhere we read that Jesus spoke in parables so that the non-elect would not understand His message.

Elsewhere it says that Jesus spoke in parables to the unbelieving Jews, but He would explain them to the Apostles.

Mark 4:10-12
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

That's an argument from silence.

You are confused. You are the one claiming that Jesus was speaking symbolically. But there is no evidence that He was doing any such thing. The evidence points to the fact that He was speaking plainly:

John 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….

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Therefore, you are the one arguing from silence. I am arguing from what He said. You are arguing from what He didn't say.

There is no indication in that passage that His true disciples were offended by His words or that they took His words literally.

You are wrong. Amongst those who left were many true disciples. So says Scripture.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

One can use figurative language and still mean what one says, as in e.g. John 10:1ff and John 15:1ff.

And one can use explicit language as well. Its not a matter of what one can do, but of what Jesus actually did. He was speaking plainly.

Jesus meant what He said, John 6

JQ said,
Likewise, Ezekiel was commanded to take one third of his hair and beard and burn it in fire, take one third and strike it with the sword, and take the remaining third and let the wind scatter it. The interpretation of this symbolic act was to be presented as "This is Jerusalem". (Ezekiel 5:1ff)

Ezekiel is not God, is he? Jesus is God, isn't He?

If Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would have called these guys back and said, "Hey, guys, come on, I was speaking symbolically." 

John 6:60-66

King James Version (KJV)
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
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.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


But He didn't. And He didn't take the Apostles aside and say to them, "This is a symbol." No, He didn't. He said:

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

He said exactly what He meant.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God

After many well thought out discussions about the events on Holy Week, a Protestant objects:

There is no Biblical basis for two separate killings of two different lives (of the lamb and of Jesus) being one sacrifice.

Seriously?

Do you have any evidence from the early Church Fathers of this non-Biblical notion?

After all those well thought out postings of the Holy Week timeline, I can hardly believe that you say such a thing. But, ....

Ok. Let's go back to the Old Testament.

On Mt. Moriah, which would later be known as Golgotha, a father sacrificed his son in accordance with God's will.  

Genesis 22
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. ...

The son carried the wood for his execution, up the hill.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; ....

The son asked a question which was given a prophetic answer:

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Just when Fr. Abraham was about to give up his son's life:

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And the lamb of God was provided for the sacrifice:

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

This was the first foreshadowing of the Lamb of God's sacrifice on Golgotha.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Fast forward to the Passover where God said:

Exodus 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:....43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

Scripture ties this back to:

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

The confirmation that the Apostles understood that Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our Christian Passover are in these words:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

That also links the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, to the unleavened bread of the Eucharist. As well as these words:

John 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.

But that's another lesson. Suffice to say, Jesus is the Lamb of God who offered His life for the salvation of the world. Since Jesus is God, only His life would suffice:

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Does that help?

It is the Catholic Church which tells the faithful to eat of the Tree of Life

Lutero:
I vote that De Maria is quoting Scripture out of context and definitely reading into Scripture things that either don’t apply or do not exist. Let’s look at the first verse he posted.

Ok.

We read in Genesis 2:9 that the “tree of life” is a literal tree.

”And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

In Revelation 22:2, The “tree of life” appears again.

”In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ”

Even if Revelation 22 was a vision and was to be read metaphorically, there is no indication that the “tree of life” mentioned in Chapter 22 is Christ or Christ in the eucharist. There are no commentaries in either the New American, Douay-Rheims or the New Jerusalem Bibles that identify the “tree of life” in Revelation 22 is Christ nor Christ in the eucharist.

De Maria, is this the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and if so, where does it get it’s assertion that the “tree of life” in Revelation 22 is the eucharist?

The reason you don't understand the Scripture is explained by the Word of God:

1 Corinthians 2:14

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁴ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now, lets add to the verses which you provided, these which I offered previously:

Genesis 3:22

King James Version (KJV)
²² And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God has taken man from the Garden in order to prevent man from eating of the Tree of Life and living for ever.

Then Jesus comes and reverses that which Adam has done:

Romans 5:12

King James Version (KJV)
¹² Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And given us again, the food which will give us eternal life:

John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)
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.
And that is exactly what we do at the Eucharist. We "put forth our hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

And so it is confirmed in Rev 22:13
Revelation 22:14

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁴ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

We who keep the Commandments of God have the right to the Eucharist, the Tree of Life, whereof if we eat, God grants us eternal life.

Let’s look at the next verse De Maria presents as a proof text.

Ok.

We see that in Genesis 3:22, the “tree of life” is in reference to a literal tree and not Christ or Christ in the eucharist.

You see that. Or should I say, "YOU don't see Christ there." I was sure that Protestants also believed the adage, "in the Old Testament we find Christ concealed. In the New Testament, Christ is revealed."

The Tree of Life is a reference to Christ. It is a foreshadowing, a type, a symbol of Christ.

There are some who claim that the story Adam and Eve is to be understood in metaphor however, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold this view.

The Church teaches that Adam and Eve exists and that many elements of the story are metaphorical.

Finally, the third.

John 6:51
King James Version (KJV)
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The “tree of life” isn’t mentioned in John 6:51. I fail to see how John 6:51 is related to Genesis 3:22 and Revelation 22:14 in any way, shape or form. Jesus never said that He was the “tree of life”. He said he was the “bread of life.”

It takes spiritual discernment to see the connection. Eating of the Tree of Life results in eternal life. Eating of the Eucharistic Bread results in eternal life.

I do see one parallel between the devil told Eve about the tree of life and what Rome tells its faithful about the eucharist. In both accounts, a devil deceives mankind into believing a lie.

You are confused. It is the Protestants who, like the Serpent, tell the faithful to reject the Tree of Life and eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is the Catholic Church which tells the faithful to eat of the Tree of Life, in obedience to Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the Cross in order that we might have Him to offer to the Father

Lutero:

demaria,
Now it is YOU that is doing the offering of Christ.  Not taught in the NT or by the ECFs. Fabricated in the 3rd century.  YOU cannot offer Christ. Your praise OK. Yourself OK. But not Christ. His offering was once and for all and not to be repeated. Read Hebrews.

Its in Scripture. Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the Cross and transubstantiated the bread to His flesh in order that we might have Him to offer to the Father in "eucharistia" that is, in "thanksgiving".

Malachi 1:11

King James Version (KJV)
¹¹ For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name,and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Leviticus 7:11-15

King James Version (KJV)
¹¹ And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the Lord.
¹² If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.
¹³ Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
¹⁴ And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
¹⁵ And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Sincerely,

De Maria