John 6 -- full of symbolism.

[BobRyan]

Someone recently posted this

Yeah Jesus said Door, and vine. And those same disciples didn't say
"Well how is it he is a door!?" or "How can this man be a plant!?"

Because it was OBVIOUS symbolism. But when John 6 rolls around there could be no symbolism no metaphor.

Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

===============================================================

Now notice what John does with that symbol of bread.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 6
30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
(Just when some folks want to claim that Jesus came to abolish all that the Father had spoken in scripture)

The symbol of manna - bread coming down out of heaven is used by John.

========================================================

Deut 8
2 You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
...
16 In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.


Moses said that the spiritual lesson was that "Man does not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

=================================== back to John 6

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

What is it that literally came down out of heaven? ?? -- "bread"??
Shall we repeat the too-literal mistake of the disciples in Matt 16 on the subject of bread?

42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 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.”

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.”

Repeatedly stated that Jesus is the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Not "I will one day in the future be bread and one day in the future you will need to eat this bread to have eternal life... but not now... no absolutely not now"

Rather Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

And yet Catholics will continue to claim their Eucharist is the literal body of Christ.

 

[utilyan]

Well I certainly want to hear how you folks arrive to your understanding on what biblical grounds if any or under what system are things declared Symbolic or True, physical or spiritual.

I want a focus on the word Trogo. Gnaw, munch, to eat like a Lion or bear its prey.
What is your study of this word.

What would it mean to GNAW and MUNCH like an animal on the Holy Spirit?

Micah 3

2“You who hate good and love evil,
Who tear off their skin from them
And their flesh from their bones,

3Who eat the flesh of my people,
Strip off their skin from them,
Break their bones
And chop them up as for the pot
And as meat in a kettle.”

^ this verse proves that Jewish metaphorical understanding of eating someone was a violent thing almost combative.

Taking it symbolically would be like Jesus saying they have to beat him up.

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. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.



Here you have Trogon, "eats" which is Munch, Gnaw, like an animal.

Then you have alēthēs or aléthós, for the word "TRUE".


alethes Definition: unconcealed, true, true in fact, worthy of credit, truthful.

alethos Definition: truly, really, certainly, surely.



In the same chapter when Jews ate of the manna in the desert, phago is the word they used. That's to eat.


The disciples say HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

You never hear them prior complain HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A DOOR? or HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A PLANT? The metaphor is obvious. None of the disicples stomped off......THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY IS A DOOR! or There is no way this guy is a PLANT!

Symbolism was EASILY acceptable to disciples.


If symbolism was expressed in John 6, it would have easily been accepted if not awkwardly for having a meaning already set like Micah 3:3




No not this time. This time they were stunned and troubled.

HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

The response given by Jesus is not , Guys im just being symbolic. instead:

WHAT IF YOU WERE TO SEE ME ACEND TO HEAVEN?


Would you guys say well Jesus only rose to heaven symbolicly.



Jesus did this sort of thing before.

When challenged by pharisees to whether he can really forgive sins, he replies with miracle to the cripple man pick up your mat and leave.

Jesus really does forgive sins.

Here the challenge is CAN WE REALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, he replies with miracle rising to heaven.

Jesus really does gives us his body and blood to eat and drink.

 

[Adonia]

Well I certainly want to hear how you folks arrive to your understanding on what biblical grounds if any or under what system are things declared Symbolic or True, physical or spiritual.

I want a focus on the word Trogo. Gnaw, munch, to eat like a Lion or bear its prey.
What is your study of this word.

What would it mean to GNAW and MUNCH like an animal on the Holy Spirit?

Micah 3

2“You who hate good and love evil,
Who tear off their skin from them
And their flesh from their bones,

3Who eat the flesh of my people,
Strip off their skin from them,
Break their bones
And chop them up as for the pot
And as meat in a kettle.”

^ this verse proves that Jewish metaphorical understanding of eating someone was a violent thing almost combative.

Taking it symbolically would be like Jesus saying they have to beat him up.

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. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.



Here you have Trogon, "eats" which is Munch, Gnaw, like an animal.

Then you have alēthēs or aléthós, for the word "TRUE".


alethes Definition: unconcealed, true, true in fact, worthy of credit, truthful.

alethos Definition: truly, really, certainly, surely.



In the same chapter when Jews ate of the manna in the desert, phago is the word they used. That's to eat.


The disciples say HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

You never hear them prior complain HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A DOOR? or HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A PLANT? The metaphor is obvious. None of the disicples stomped off......THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY IS A DOOR! or There is no way this guy is a PLANT!

Symbolism was EASILY acceptable to disciples.


If symbolism was expressed in John 6, it would have easily been accepted if not awkwardly for having a meaning already set like Micah 3:3




No not this time. This time they were stunned and troubled.

HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

The response given by Jesus is not , Guys im just being symbolic. instead:

WHAT IF YOU WERE TO SEE ME ACEND TO HEAVEN?


Would you guys say well Jesus only rose to heaven symbolicly.



Jesus did this sort of thing before.

When challenged by pharisees to whether he can really forgive sins, he replies with miracle to the cripple man pick up your mat and leave.

Jesus really does forgive sins.

Here the challenge is CAN WE REALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, he replies with miracle rising to heaven.

Jesus really does gives us his body and blood to eat and drink.

Yes, yes, please answer utilyan my friends, did Jesus rise to heaven symbolically? Was his "virgin" birth symbolic too? His many miracles - just a sleight of hand perhaps? Maybe he was given a drug to simulate a symbolic death and he spent 3 days in a fully stocked man cave?

 

[BobRyan]

Someone recently posted this

Yeah Jesus said Door, and vine. And those same disciples didn't say
"Well how is it he is a door!?" or "How can this man be a plant!?"

Because it was OBVIOUS symbolism. But when John 6 rolls around there could be no symbolism no metaphor.

Notice that the faith-full disciples "assumed no symbolism" in Matt 16.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(some interesting rebuking for those who took him too literally on that symbol of bread)

===============================================================

Now notice what John does with that symbol of bread.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 6
30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
(Just when some folks want to claim that Jesus came to abolish all that the Father had spoken in scripture)

The symbol of manna - bread coming down out of heaven is used by John.

========================================================

Deut 8
2 You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
...
16 In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.


Moses said that the spiritual lesson was that "Man does not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

=================================== back to John 6

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

What is it that literally came down out of heaven? ?? -- "bread"??
Shall we repeat the too-literal mistake of the disciples in Matt 16 on the subject of bread?

42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 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.”

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.”

Repeatedly stated that Jesus is the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

Not "I will one day in the future be bread and one day in the future you will need to eat this bread to have eternal life... but not now... no absolutely not now"

Rather Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Well I certainly want to hear how you folks arrive to your understanding on what biblical grounds if any or under what system are things declared Symbolic or True, physical or spiritual.

I want a focus on the word Trogo. Gnaw, munch, to eat like a Lion or bear

I think you miss the whole point of the thread by refusing to look at the texts given to illustrate the point.

I gave two examples for literal vs symbolic.

The symbol of bread in Matt 16 -- for the 'teaching' of the Jewish leaders.
The symbol of bread in John 6 "I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven".

Now you claim to be in utter confusion - wishing to take them literally with no symbolism at all.

Fine ... then some folks think Christ was literal bread floating down out of the sky and they think that the disciples were not supposed to buy bread from the Pharisees.

Others think Christ is using the symbol of manna to empasize the same point about teaching and "My Words are spirit and are life" as was done in Deut 8... so also in John 6. The same with the symbol for "teaching" in Matt 16.

Now you want this to be the line drawn ... the point where we differ.

You take Christ to be literal bread falling down out of the sky. Whereas i see it as a symbol that fits Deut 8 ... John 1 and John 6. The symbol of the WORD that became flesh and dwelt among us. A fact that was already true in John 6 -- hence nobody ever bites Christ - not in John 6... not ever.

I don't mind having this be the line drawn -- where we differ.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, yes, please answer utilyan my friends, did Jesus rise to heaven symbolically? Was his "virgin" birth symbolic too? His many miracles - just a sleight of hand perhaps? Maybe he was given a drug to simulate a symbolic death and he spent 3 days in a fully stocked man cave?

So you are saying that if Christ is not taken to be literal bread falling out of the sky - then for sure one cannot believe in the literal virgin birth?

Are you serious about that???

 

[Adonia]

So you are saying that if Christ is not taken to be literal bread falling out of the sky - then for sure one cannot believe in the literal virgin birth?

Are you serious about that???

My concern is Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, not the bread that falls from the sky. In that context you are correct, it is pure symbolism with it falling from the sky, the manna from God that we all need. This is brought out in the end though with the real deal - his real presence in the Holy Eucharist.

But that is what I can never understand with you folks. You have faith in the virgin birth, but have no faith in the Real Presence????? This is completely mindboggling if you ask me.

 

[BobRyan]

My concern is Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, not the bread that falls from the sky.

Certainly we all see the need to avoid certain details in John 6 if one is going to argue that there is no symbolism in the chapter. I think we can all see that.

In that context you are correct, it is pure symbolism with it falling from the sky, the manna from God that we all need.

True.

But more than that "I AM BREAD" is also symbolism. Nobody saw Christ in John 6 as a loaf of bread any more than a wooden door in John 10. I think we all agree with that as well.

This is brought out in the end though with the real deal - his real presence in the Holy Eucharist.

But that is what I can never understand with you folks. You have faith in the virgin birth, but have no faith in the Real Presence????? This is completely mindboggling if you ask me.

Here again you suffer from a bias that is not quite as objective as you may have at first hoped.

"WE" believe in the "REAL presence" -

"Where two or three are gathered in My Name - THERE I AM" Matt 18:20

"27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col 2:17

"no longer I who live but CHRIST that lives in me" Gal 2:29

Through the Spirit of Christ - Christ is present in us - "the REAL presence'

But we do not believe Christ was a loaf of bread in John 6.
We do not believe Christ was a piece of bread floating down out of the sky.
We do not believe any of his faithFUL followers said they thought they should bite him -- only the faithLESS ones in John 6 said any such thing.
We do not believe anyone can rightly claim to 'confect the body, soul, blood and divinity' of God --- not even of God the Son nor of some part of Him.

 

[utilyan]

I want someone to look at the word trogo. Gnaw and Munch.

What does it mean to "rip my body apart" spiritually?


Jesus demanding loyalty commitment faith was never anything new.

He was the way, "How can this man be a road?"
The light "how can this man be a candle?"

The disciples don't leave nor question symbolism.

Matthew 16, It is CLEAR to the disciples after the feeding of thousands, when talking about bread and Pharisees he is being symbolic.


Making it obvious the only grounds to Challenge "“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”"

Would be only understood as literally.


Matthew 16

12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The disciples understand its not really "bread" its the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

John 6

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


Everyone understood its just symbolic, Pharisees teaching, Jesus being a door, light, even his own teaching.

Then when Jesus graphically tells them they must eat his body and blood because it is true food and true drink, they slam the breaks and state

“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

This time he is being literal. All his disciples leave him.

There is nothing symbolically MORE outrageous to his claim then things he stated before. Whats the difference the key difference that would spark the disciples to grumble and leave NOW rather then before?

What is more outrageous this time is that he is being LITERAL. Even the disciples who clearly understand symbolism now challenge :
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”


Jesus response you guys think its not possible? what If you were to see me rise to heaven would you still say its impossible?

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?

The very corner stone of what the disciples don't believe is the literal. As Matthew 16 points out they already understand symbolic and did not leave then. But now they had to question this new miracle.
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Well I certainly want to hear how you folks arrive to your understanding on what biblical grounds if any or under what system are things declared Symbolic or True, physical or spiritual.

I want a focus on the word Trogo. Gnaw, munch, to eat like a Lion or bear its prey.
What is your study of this word.

What would it mean to GNAW and MUNCH like an animal on the Holy Spirit?

Micah 3

2“You who hate good and love evil,
Who tear off their skin from them
And their flesh from their bones,

3Who eat the flesh of my people,
Strip off their skin from them,
Break their bones
And chop them up as for the pot
And as meat in a kettle.”

^ this verse proves that Jewish metaphorical understanding of eating someone was a violent thing almost combative.

Taking it symbolically would be like Jesus saying they have to beat him up.

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. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.



Here you have Trogon, "eats" which is Munch, Gnaw, like an animal.

Then you have alēthēs or aléthós, for the word "TRUE".


alethes Definition: unconcealed, true, true in fact, worthy of credit, truthful.

alethos Definition: truly, really, certainly, surely.



In the same chapter when Jews ate of the manna in the desert, phago is the word they used. That's to eat.


The disciples say HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

You never hear them prior complain HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A DOOR? or HOW CAN THIS MAN BE A PLANT? The metaphor is obvious. None of the disicples stomped off......THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY IS A DOOR! or There is no way this guy is a PLANT!

Symbolism was EASILY acceptable to disciples.


If symbolism was expressed in John 6, it would have easily been accepted if not awkwardly for having a meaning already set like Micah 3:3




No not this time. This time they were stunned and troubled.

HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?

The response given by Jesus is not , Guys im just being symbolic. instead:

WHAT IF YOU WERE TO SEE ME ACEND TO HEAVEN?


Would you guys say well Jesus only rose to heaven symbolicly.



Jesus did this sort of thing before.

When challenged by pharisees to whether he can really forgive sins, he replies with miracle to the cripple man pick up your mat and leave.

Jesus really does forgive sins.

Here the challenge is CAN WE REALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, he replies with miracle rising to heaven.

Jesus really does gives us his body and blood to eat and drink.

Blaspheming Roman Catholic anti-Christ! That I ever thought you couldn't be one, you loathsome hypocrite.

 

[Adonia]

Blaspheming Roman Catholic anti-Christ! That I ever thought you couldn't be one, you loathsome hypocrite.

And here we go again, right back to the blaspheming charge. Look, if there is any blaspheming that is going on it is yours because of your constant denunciations of us about this issue. Everything that happens in the way we worship with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist is because God and the Holy Spirit are intimately involved. Why you would even take the chance of being on the wrong side of the Holy Spirit is beyond me.

We would do well to always remember Gamaliel the Jewish Elder who said: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5: 38-39)

 

[BobRyan]

I want someone to look at the word trogo. Gnaw and Munch.

And how about the much-to-be-avoided word "bread" in Matt 16??

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

How about the much to be avoided -- "bread that CAME down out of heaven"???

John 6
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

When your fellow Catholic Adonia responds to this specific point he is quick to admit it is symbolic.

It is not just a Bible detail that "only Protestants would notice".

Deny-all is not the great solution some would have imagined to themselves.

Ezekiel 3
Then He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” 2 So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. 3 He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.
4 Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them.

 

[utilyan]

And how about the much-to-be-avoided word "bread" in Matt 16??

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

How about the much to be avoided -- "bread that CAME down out of heaven"???

John 6
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

When your fellow Catholic Adonia responds to this specific point he is quick to admit it is symbolic.

It is not just a Bible detail that "only Protestants would notice".

Deny-all is not the great solution some would have imagined to themselves.

It works perfectly. Clearly bread is symbolic to teaching. The disciples themselves understood.

"Then they understood"

These same disciples are the ones who leave, they challenge “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”.

Because this time they understood he wasn't being symbolic.

 

[BobRyan]

The disciples don't leave nor question symbolism.

Matthew 16, It is CLEAR to the disciples after the feeding of thousands, when talking about bread and Pharisees he is being symbolic.

Making it obvious the only grounds to Challenge "“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”"
Would be only understood as literally.

Matthew 16
12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The disciples understand its not really "bread" its the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

you are not even close on Matt 16 when you claim the disciples were not at all confused about the symbolism -- and we all know it.

5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ smacks down the Disciples for being so literal -- so slow to appreciate when a symbol is being used.

Your whole argument is that this could not ever happen!!

 

[BobRyan]

It works perfectly. Clearly bread is symbolic to teaching. The disciples themselves understood.

"Then they understood"

"THEN" they understood - where "Then" is ... after being smacked down for not getting the symbol at all

 

[utilyan]

"THEN" they understood - where "Then" is ... after being smacked down for not getting the symbol at all

Correct.

Which is why they would not say “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”.
UNLESS he was being Literal.

And in john 6 Jesus doesn't "smack them down" for being literal.

He would have!!!! Mathew 16 isn't the only place Jesus corrects them. He always corrected them.

But not in john 6, Instead he repeats himself OVER AND OVER.

To the point he even says his ascension to heaven points to how truly one must eat his body and drink his blood.


The same guys who have understanding of symbolism, the direct students and first followers of Jesus Christ still manage to blurt out......."How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”.

Jesus didn't say "NO I'm not talking about TRULY eating me."

Instead Jesus says “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."


The DISCIPLES wanted him to be symbolic!!

That's why they said, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”.
and when he doesn't say ...............YEAH I'm just being symbolic.



The disciples say : “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”


What is so difficult about his symbolic Matthew 16 "bread" teaching? NOTHING, after all it was symbolic. And how is it any different "symbolically" in john 6 or all the dozen times Jesus calls himself the way , door, vine ect.

You just proved that matthew 16 there is NOTHING scandalous about being symbolically bread food to be eaten.

Its NOTHING there is no scandal whatsoever.

But when John 6 rolls around? OH NO, they weren't going to have it and they left.

Had he been symbolic none would have left because it was NOTHING NEW just like Matthew 16.

Listen to the responses of the Jews.


41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?

^Jesus came down from heaven "symbolically"?

"How can this man give us His flesh to eat"

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



Jesus has said symbolic stuff pertaining to himself previously and through out and ALL Christians 99% have no problem with his symbolic stuff. With stuff 10 times more amazing pertaining to his divinity and teaching then John 6.

I've never heard anyone say shepherd....Jesus can't be shepherd!

Nothing difficult about it.

What sets John 6 apart as being troublesome, is the same reason YOU CANT HANDLE IT.

MANY LEFT.

 

[DHK]

My concern is Jesus in the Holy Eucharist,

You (later on) speak of blasphemy. The above is blasphemous. Jesus is not and never was in any "so-called Eucharist." In fact you won't find the word "Eucharist" in the Bible, not in the OT, nor in the NT. It is an invention of man; an invention of the RCC. Thus it is blasphemous, insulting to God.

But consider the word "blasphemy"

| Definition of Blasphemy by...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemyCached
great disrespect shown to God or to something holy. : something said or done that is disrespectful to God.

--Great disrespect shown to God, as all RCC theology does. The doctrine of transubstantiation shows disrespect, and insult to God, and therefore is blasphemous.
Christ is not in a fictitious "Eucharist!" Absurd!

not the bread that falls from the sky.

The bread that fell from heaven was real bread. You can read about in Exodus chapter 16, but be sure to to read carefully verse four:
Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
--The manna is bread, real bread. God did not send parts of Christ to the earth; he sent bread; just a simple carbohydrate and that is all--not a body, not Christ.

In that context you are correct, it is pure symbolism with it falling from the sky, the manna from God that we all need. This is brought out in the end though with the real deal - his real presence in the Holy Eucharist.

As with any other book the Bible is not hard to understand when read with simple common sense.
If, (and I did say IF), I were to call you a "nut case" what would you think?
I am being literal (as I usually am) perhaps you would assume that I am saying that you are an actual case of nuts--good food for the squirrels.
Perhaps I am using a figure of speech or an idiom which simply means "you are crazy."
Perhaps I am using symbolism, or perhaps I am just using one of many other definitions:

• nuts adjective

• nuts interjection

• nut noun

• nut verb

• nuts

• go nuts phrase

• nuts to butts phrase

• nuts about/over phrase

• drive someone nuts phrase

• from soup to nuts phrase

• cola nut noun

• hard nut noun

• pine nut noun

• wing nut noun

• betel nut noun

• brazil nut noun

• cashew noun

• ginger nut noun

• monkey nut noun

• tough nut noun

• butterfly nut noun

• pistachio noun

• the nuts and bolts (of something) phrase

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/?q=nuts&s=1

Neither English or Greek is hard to understand. One reads the context and the book, and uses common sense to discern the meaning. It is obvious that Christ never offered a chunk of flesh to his disciples that they may eat of it. And no one that was there thought or even imagined that he was offering his actual flesh. To make a blasphemous doctrine out of such scripture is horrid.

But that is what I can never understand with you folks. You have faith in the virgin birth, but have no faith in the Real Presence????? This is completely mindboggling if you ask me.

What is the "real presence"? Perhaps you are the one that doesn't know the real presence? The "real presence" is not in a piece of bread. That is superstition.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
--It is Christ that lives in me. Ever since I was born again by His Spirit he has made His presence
There is no spiritual presence inside bread. But Christ, by the power of His Holy Spirit comes and indwells those that believe on Him. That was the doctrine that was so difficult on so many that turned back.

NOTE: I don't hate anyone, including you. I detest the doctrine that prevents people from going to heaven and instead directs them toward the pathway of hell. That is what I detest, and that is the RCC doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

you are not even close on Matt 16 when you claim the disciples were not at all confused about the symbolism -- and we all know it.

5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ smacks down the Disciples for being so literal -- so slow to appreciate when a symbol is being used.

Your whole argument is that this could not ever happen!!

Correct.

Jesus utterly destroys their attempt to take him too literally - they are the faithFUL disciples in Matt 16 getting smacked down. The same faithFUL disciples that in John 6 - do NOT SAY "how can he give us his flesh to eat" BUT INSTEAD say "you HAVE the WORDS of LIFE" right after Jesus said "EATING LITERAL FLESH is WORTHLESS.. MY WORDS are Spirit and are LIFE".

(I think this is where I am supposed to post -- "you can't handle it")

 

[utilyan]

5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ smacks down the Disciples for being so literal -- so slow to appreciate when a symbol is being used.

Your whole argument is that this could not ever happen!!




Jesus utterly destroys their attempt to take him too literally - they are the faithFUL disciples in Matt 16 getting smacked down. The same faithFUL disciples that in John 6 - do NOT SAY "how can he give us his flesh to eat" BUT INSTEAD say "you HAVE the WORDS of LIFE" right after Jesus said "EATING LITERAL FLESH is WORTHLESS.. MY WORDS are Spirit and are LIFE".

(I think this is where I am supposed to post -- "you can't handle it")

"Christ smacks down the Disciples for being so literal -- so slow to appreciate when a symbol is being used."

Absolutely

No scandal when Jesus said its symbolic in matthew 16. Everyone is on the same page they all understood.

And soon after in John 6

"How can this man give us His flesh to eat" The disciples understand he Is not being literal any more.


And Jesus does NOT smack down anyone, INSTEAD he repeats himself and overly emphasizing himself.


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

They would not argued if it was symbolic. Because Jesus already claimed "crazier" thing prior to this.

Example JOHN 2

“Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”




You already established in Matthew 16 Eating the bread of Pharisees is taking in their teaching and symbolicly eating the body and blood of Jesus is what? Believing him? faith? accepting the teaching. You can fill the blank with anything you want.

And I'm saying those grounds are not the grounds for the disciples who left their families qualified in every way as disciples of Christ to leave.


Jesus call himself the life, the light, son of God.


John 5 even the chapter prior....

21“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.


He's already claimed divinity and expecting the same HONOR given to the Father.


No one leaves. why? There is nothing scandalous about it.


Look we all agree here Jesus Is God. Look we all agree he is the way the life. Just like his disciples.

And LOOK we finally disagree, Jesus is being literal.

Who are you?

This is you BOB >>>>>"How can this man give us His flesh to eat"

We didn't ask that , that's YOUR PEOPLE.^

You know as matter of fact I do not question. I took it on face value what Christ said.

The disciples that left WANTED HIM to be symbolic.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It works perfectly. Clearly bread is symbolic to teaching. The disciples themselves understood.

"Then they understood"

These same disciples are the ones who leave, they challenge “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”.

Because this time they understood he wasn't being symbolic.

If <<clearly bread is symbolic to teaching>>, then clearly "his flesh to eat"", <is symbolic to teaching>.

If your lying is good enough for you, it's bad enough for Jesus' followers to understand themselves. You nearly caught me ... " IF IT WERE POSSIBLE" my Master said.