Featured John 6 -- full of symbolism.

[snipped]
You equate a feeding of the populace with the Last Supper's bread Jesus broke and gave to the disciples to eat.

You equate "the twelve" chosen disciples with "the Jews" the reprobates.

You equate and identify the Jews who did not leave Jesus because they were a pestering nuisance, with the Disciples' leaving of Jesus because according to the Scriptures they had to.

But [snipped] contemptuously you SEVERAL times stress <<His flesh>> while there is no difference between "bread" and "flesh" without the Article.

 

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

What part of this scripture you don't understand?


The teaching that bread is symbolic for teaching was made so very clear that the disciples who understood it................BRING IT UP as an issue.

They were fighting over this!!

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Are you saying all the JEWS were reprobates?

Someone explain how exactly is this argument going here. Since scripture can't be obvious enough with “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”


One side is saying this right? “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

What's the other side of the argument saying?



Who do you guys sound like? is this you----> “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”


Symbolically Every time I open a door Jesus is freeing thousands of sinners. Symbolically. Who can argue against that? You can't! its just a done deal. its "Symbolic."

It merely conveys meaning.

 

Rather, he was rebuking them for not understanding figurative language when it is used, but not so figurative that it becomes totally ridiculous and superstitious as the RCC would put forth.

Consider other scripture where Christ uses symbolism and explains himself.

Mark 4:2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mark 4:11 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:
Mark 4:12 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.

Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
--Perhaps the Catholics don't understand what Jesus says for the reason given in verse 12.
For it seems that:
They see, and do not perceive,
They hear, and do not understand. And the understanding seems to be a blatant refusal to understand, as in "I will believe the Catechism no matter what, even if you prove it to be wrong!"

 

John 6

51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”


Are you saying Jesus COMMANDED them to eat his FLESH and then right after tells them it is pointless to do it?


He never says "MY FLESH is SPIRIT". he says : "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"

He never says he who eats my spirit, He does say he who eats my flesh.


Something done spiritually never meant symbolically or of a lesser reality.


You say the ones who take him literally left.....brilliant.

No one is going to LEAVE because they expected to Eat Jesus FOR REAL and were told no its just spiritual.
None of them said aww shucks I don't get to nibble his feet, guess i'm leaving.

Instead they would have gotten RELIEF he was being symbolic.
They wanted him to be symbolic that's the reason for leaving!

 

That's the whole point, he always explains himself when symbolic. In john 6 they WANTED HIM to be symbolic.

John 4

31Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” 34Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

^no disciple here said oh heck with this he is being spiritual.....im leaving!


1 Corinthians 10

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Your answer? You tell us NO all the time, can you say it here?

We already answered YES it is and Absolutely. I can't hear you.....what's your answer?




1 Corinthians 11

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.



Discerning is a powerful word, That is recognizing. Its not contemplating although contemplating may help discern. Its perceiving with eyes, distinguishing. separating.


He's not saying hey think about his body and wonder about it. He's saying you better see it.

Those who don't recognize the bread and wine for what it is, eat and drink to damnation.

Let me rephrase:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
.
What did this guy do wrong? This example of someone who eats and drinks to damnation what did he do wrong with the bread and wine?

 

You are wasting your time in trying to sway these rejectionists with the truth about this issue. They have gone their own way on this and many other biblical issues and only upon their meeting of the Lord in the next world will they see the error of their ways.

 

I am saying that there is not a sane man among them, not among the disciples at least, that expected to eat his flesh. Only unsaved fools would believe such stupidity. But then they have a reason for they are steeped in paganism which leads them to believe that even such things as water can wash away sins. Such superstitions! The Hindus baptize themselves in the polluted waters of the Ganges River to this day thinking its "holy" waters will away their sins. The RCC has a practice that is no different.

The Bible says:
1Co 2:14 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.
--The "natural man" is the unsaved man. He does not receive or understand the things of the Spirit of God. Naturally, the unsaved, both of the first and twenty-first century cannot understand the Word of God, and thus John 6 remains a mystery to them to this day.

Here is another translation of the same verse that makes it a bit clearer:
(GW) A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the teachings of God's Spirit. He thinks they're nonsense. He can't understand them because a person must be spiritual to evaluate them.
--The Magesterium is not composed (and was not composed) of spiritual men. Find the actual writers of the present Catechism. Who were they? What kind of men were they? They were not "super spiritual" men. They were sinners, ungodly men. The Catechism is full of errors and contradictions. It is not an inspired document.

He doesn't have to say it. He spoke in symbolic language when flesh did not mean spirit, which even here shows your confusion. The flesh refers to the body of Christ, symbolic of his body, which in the future would be put to death for the sins of all mankind. Check with 1Cor.11, where Paul so clearly and concisely explains that to us.
All of his words are spirit and life, but only to those who believe on them.
They are death and condemnation to those who reject them.

It is centered around belief, faith.

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 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.

Who shall live forever? He had already taught them this truth many times, and now is reinforcing it:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
--Here are three times that he has said that when one believes ON HIM, then he has everlasting life. And this is all before John 6. It didn't come through eating flesh/bread.

He told them plainly "I am that bread from heaven," and now he refers to his body. Why can't you make that connection. His disciples could. Paul did. Read 1Cor.11.

You don't take the metaphor as it should be taken.
Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
--Twice Jesus said, "I am the door." Did this door come with stained glass windows on the side; did it have a peep-hole so one could see who is coming? What were the door knobs like?
Are you literal enough?
Or are you sane enough to realize it is a metaphor just as "flesh and blood" are a metaphor in John 6?

If they understood that to eat his flesh and drink his blood was to believe on Him, and to believe on Him was to be his disciple, and He to be their Rabbi, Master, and LORD, then the cost would have been too much for them to bear.
They expected a coming King, not a suffering servant for a Messiah. This is not the one they wanted to follow. He had disappointed them. To follow him would mean to suffer and that did not appeal to the average person, therefore many turned back.

John 6:60
(GW) When many of Jesus' disciples heard him, they said, "What he says is hard to accept. Who wants to listen to him anymore?"
--His doctrine was too difficult to follow, as was his life.

oh 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.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

The doctrine was too difficult. The life was too difficult. Many just followed him for miracles, for want of bread. It wouldn't be that way.

The conclusion makes this entire episode very evident:
Joh 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

They accepted him by faith and followed him by faith. Faith is the cornerstone of the entire passage. Faith or belief in Christ and his words gave to them eternal life. The flesh and blood were merely symbolic of it.

 

In I Corinthians 11 Paul was addressing the manner in which they were treating the lord's supper. To them it became a moment of greed, over indulgence, and division. While they called what they were doing the Lord's supper they were not in fact doing that due to the behavior they were engaging in. Paul said "1 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat." Paul then goes on to justify this claim by listing the poor behaviors that had corrupted the Lord's Supper. Paul then goes on to say, in this context, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." In other words it was the behavior that he listed is what is being referenced when he says "in an unworthy manner".

Paul goes on to elaborate just how to conduct themselves in a "worthy" manner at the end of that chapter when he says "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another,if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home so that when you come together it will not be for judgment."

Be careful of context. The Lords Supper is about confessing Jesus death and how we identify with that as well as remembering what He has done for us. There is nothing literal about the bread and the juice. That is absurd.

1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

 

"The Catechism is full of errors and contradictions."

Well then it should be a piece of cake to show me a few, so that I may better understand.


See what I am pointing out is suppose the disciples after being bombarded with symbolic metaphors previously with greater claims then can be squeezed out of John 6 would have had a problem they would have left already.

In other words whatever symbolic meaning you can pull out of John 6 was not at all worth leaving, especially when compared to previous claims by Jesus Christ.


The clear obstacle is How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Rather then "How can this man symbolically give us his flesh to eat" or "how can this man give us his SPIRIT to eat"

Even if you were present there you simply would say, well guys he is just being symbolic.

Instead of explaining symbolism as previous symbolic issues are explained by Jesus, they argue over "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

We see they are debating an issue. And we already know they have previous knowledge of symbolic meaning. We see it with bread of the Pharisees, we see it with Jesus saying he already has food and drink john 4. All of which cause no scandal to leave.

But why do they leave here?

They debate on "how can this man give us his flesh to eat", that means some debating FOR his actually doing it.

Jesus responds to them argument with , "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."


How does the opposition respond?

“This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

We know symbolism isn't difficult at all. If it was they would have left prior to now, for Jesus saying the Pharisees bread, for Jesus having equal honor to God, for Jesus claiming to be a vine, a door, being the truth and the way.

But if he is not being symbolic, THEN there is a real shock. Then it could be understood why they would draw a line, then we can see that Jesus even senses the apostles themselves were troubled "are you going to leave too?"


Had the bible spelled it out as Jesus was being symbolic. I would accept it easily. Compared to symbolic stuff he has said before this is NOTHING.

And if this were the case, There would be no problem at all, no one would have left.

Instead it was a difficult statement:

"This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

Bottom line there is NOTHING difficult if it was symbolic. If we had some miracle verse appear to state John 6 is symbolic, AMEN not a problem for me, not a problem for anyone.

But since its not symbolic it was clear problem to many disciples AND STILL IS today.

 

Not every metaphor offends, such as: "I am the door." Many didn't leave at that point.

That is true. Some have greater and deeper meaning asking for greater sacrifice, such as this one.

Jesus had already explained what he said:
Joh 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Joh 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.
--Jesus is the bread of life. Partaking of him is believing on him. He made this very plain!!

Jesus is the living bread--eat of him and eating of him is believing on him! Read it!
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 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.

Then immediately, like a bunch of dunces, the sarcastic Pharisees say this:
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--He didn't say a word about his flesh. He was speaking about "living bread." He spoke of the manna from heaven. He spoke of believing on Him. Their conclusion was unwarranted and never made sense.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
As often happens, Jesus’ teaching was not understood (cf. Joh_2:20; Joh_3:4; Joh_4:15; Joh_6:32-34). A violent argument started in the crowd regarding what He meant. Their perception remained at a materialistic level. They wondered, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?
No, you are pointing out, rather, the difference between the saved and the unsaved. None of the true disciples, the apostles themselves, thought that way. They never thought he was offering his actual flesh. I doubt if anyone did. The statement was no doubt made in sarcasm.

Believer's Bible Commentary (William MacDonald) states:
6:52 The Jews were still thinking in terms of literal, physical bread and flesh. Their thoughts were unable to rise above the things of this life. They did not realize that the Lord Jesus was using physical things to teach spiritual truths. And so they asked among themselves how this mere Man could possibly give His flesh to be eaten by others. A parachute opens only after you jump out of the plane. Faith precedes sight and prepares your soul to understand, your heart to believe, your will to obey. All your questions of “How?” are answered by yielding to the authority of Christ, as Paul did when he cried, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

John MacArthur states:
quarreled. Once again the perplexity of the Jews indicates that they failed to understand the spiritual truth behind Jesus' illustration. Every time Jesus had given them a veiled saying or physical illustration, the Jews failed to see its spiritual significance (e.g., Joh_3:4; Joh_4:15). The Mosaic law prohibited the drinking of blood or the eating of meat with blood still in it (Lev_17:10-14; Deu_12:16; Act_15:29). The Jews, unable to go beyond the mere physical perspective, were perplexed and angered.

Bewildered, perplexed, angered, saying things in sarcasm, the unsaved could not understand the words of Jesus. The same is true today.

 

"--He didn't say a word about his flesh. He was speaking about "living bread.""

That's laughable.

Let me underline and bold.


52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”


Clearly Jesus is indicating his FLESH. And a clear connection with Bread.


Symbolically there is no scandal. Just like none left before. Your argument is like someone slaughtered and ate a cow in front of you, no problem. But later he decides to have a hamburger..........OH NO now your TRIGGERED!

Absurd.

the ones that left WANTED HIM to be symbolic and he just reaffirms over and over and over.

He even ends with hey ill do a miracle to PROVE this true, by ascending to heaven.

Who is going to prove that too? Those who can't believe he can be symbolic? Those who saw him forgive sins and even did it themselves.




61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?


Read it doesn't say Jesus was OBLIVIOUS to what the disciples were complaining about. That's what your saying he was, Guys I'm being symbolic would have been the response.

Instead he takes it to the next level, Does this cause you to stumble? “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?


When he rose from the dead was that just SYMBOLIC too?

 

<<HIS flesh>>>>> there is NO <<<<<<HIS>>. You, Utylian put it there as if you're God.

Thank you, Bob Ryan! God bless you

 

Thank you, DHK. God bless you

 

Praise God there still is some things Christians agree on.

 

This now is what "beguile you with enticing words", means.

The Lord's Supper,
Colossians 2
“12 While dead in your sins God who raised Christ from the dead forgave you all trespasses having quickened you together with Him. Nailing it to the cross and removing it altogether, Christ blotted out the damning law against us; and putting off and ruining the rulers and the authorities [of darkness 1:13], He publicly held them up to shame, triumphing over them in it. [If ye then be raised with Christ 3:1], THEN THEREFORE, don’t you let yourselves be judged and condemned by anyone (of the world 2:8, 20) in your eating and drinking or with regard to your eating and drinking of feast, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’—all which shadows forth what soon must be, the BODY and SUBSTANCE OF CHRIST!

Let no man not holding to the Head [but] puffed up by his fleshly mind, who conceitedly meddles in what he knows nothing about (the mystery which is Christ 1:28), with his pretentious humility and angelic worship beguile you (with enticing words 2:4) of your reward.

Because holding to the Head nourishment being ministered, all the Body (of Christ’s Own 1:18) by joints and bands [of faith 2:12 Hosea 11:4; peace Ephesians 4:3; and charity Colossians 3:14], and knit together (in love 2:2), will grow with the growth of God.

"Don't you let yourselves be judged by anyone in regard to your eating and drinking of Christ the Substance of Sabbaths' Feast either Lord's Supper of month's or Sabbaths' Feast, which are but the shadow of what imminently must come for you holding to the Head, the Body growing with the growth of God Christ being the Nourishment ministered.”

For Utylian, with feigned love, from GE,
Colossians 2
"18 Let no man not holding to the Head [but] puffed up by his fleshly mind, who conceitedly meddles in what he knows nothing about (the mystery which is Christ 1:28), with his pretentious humility and angelic worship beguile you (with enticing words 2:4) of your reward."

 

Half a truth is worse than full a lie.
Clearly Jesus is indicating his "flesh''="life"="sacrifice"="suffering"="death"="soul poured out" in clear connection with "Bread"="heareth My Word/s"="I say to you"="I bear witness"="The Truth"="everlasting Life"="resurrection of Life".

 

You're the liar again.
DHK pointed out that Jesus had not used the word 'flesh' before the Jews brought it up. And then after the Jews had corrupted his actual intentional meaning, Jesus proceeded to expose the falsity of the Jews' misinterpretation of his actual meaning, by giving his meaning for the word 'flesh' AS IN CONTRAST to / with the Jews' totally baseless and unprovoked twisting of his words / teaching / comparisons / metaphors / parables.

You are the Jew now, the Pharisee here; the liar, the Roman Catholic.

 

You are not replying to my post. You are ignoring it. Go back and reply to my post.
I will show you how wrong you are. I will use the same verse you used.

That's laughable.

Let me underline and bold.

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Clearly Jesus is indicating his FLESH.[/quote]
Clearly not! There is not one verse with the mention of the word "flesh" before this verse, not once. Now go and answer my post as you should have in the first place.

 

That doesn't matter. Jesus did not disagree.

He could have easily answered NO I am not talking about my flesh.

You are going to tell me what this means here:


55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.


He doesn't say eat my spirit.


Scratching out the verse doesn't make it go away.