Communion is just a symbol!

[benhur]

Without all of the other circumlocutions you’ve added, could you please answer this?

You posed it, and I was ever-so-hopeful that you’d answer it, but I could not glean your position from the rest of your words.

So, again, what is your answer to the question on whether Jesus allowed folks to leave him even though he knew they were misunderstanding him?

Hi PR,

Yes. Jesus let the unbelievers go that misunderstood. Those that may have also misunderstood, or not understood, and that temporarily as known to Jesus, stayed on their own accord, by faith. Christ bent over backwards in trying to get such chosen of that generation to understand.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

So do you believe John 6 has any reference whatsoever to communion or is it just a spiritual experience, graces received from feasting on the Word?

Pax

Hi La,

yes to both

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

Yes. Jesus let the unbelievers go that misunderstood.

I am simply astonished that you could believe this.

A good teacher does this?

A good man?

No good teacher proclaims something, then doesn’t clarify if people leave him when they misunderstand him.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, did they misunderstand Him?

No! They understood him perfectly clearly. And that’s why they left.

No one leaves over a soft and squishy, “Eat my symbolic flesh”.

If they took it literally as you do, why did not Jesus explain transubstantiation to them, instead of letting them depart with the absurdity of gnawing at His flesh ?

This question makes no sense.

That’s like a Muslim, who doubts that Jesus actually rose from the dead saying, “Well if Jesus literally rose from the dead, why did not Jesus explain to the disciples that he would give them a Bible so they could read it and know what to believe?”

 

[benhur]

I am simply astonished that you could believe this.

A good teacher does this?

A good man?

No good teacher proclaims something, then doesn’t clarify if people leave him when they misunderstand him.

Hi Pr,

Apparently God has been a bad teacher since the Garden.

So casting pearls before swine has no application ?

Why clarify something if they are not going got believe it anyway ?

Again, the cross is what trips folks up, not method of remembrance. You can not explain in detail or in hindsight, one without the other.

Misunderstanding was the symptom, not the problem.

Blessings

PS- Again, you tell me , why did the “many” leave ? Did they fully understand "gnawing’’ ?

 

[benhur]

No! They understood him perfectly clearly. And that’s why they left.

Hi Pr,

Agree. They understood exactly what Christ wanted them to believe, to gnaw on His flesh. And if they understood Jesus, why would Jesus need to explain more. I mean I would have left Him also had I not believed in Him already.

No one leaves over a soft and squishy, “Eat my symbolic flesh”.

Correct that is not in the text. Nor is real presence in symbols mentioned.

This question makes no sense

It makes sense because if I insist on symbolic you think they would stay if only for Jesus explaining it. So if you insist that the “gnawing” was really eating symbols of bread and wine transubstantiated into His flesh and blood, then would they not stay if so explained? Seems like a logical question as yours.

Blessings

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi Pr,

Agree. They understood exactly what Christ wanted them to believe, to gnaw on His flesh. And if they understood Jesus, why would Jesus need to explain more. I mean I would have left Him also had I not believed in Him already.
Correct that is not in the text. Nor is real presence in symbols mentioned.
It makes sense because if I insist on symbolic you think they would stay if only for Jesus explaining it. So if you insist that the “gnawing” was really eating symbols of bread and wine transubstantiated into His flesh and blood, then would they not stay if so explained? Seems like a logical question as yours.

Blessings

After Pentecost, they all understood. Do we not have Paul saying eating Christ’s body unworthily will result in condemnation?

 

[benhur]

After Pentecost, they all understood. Do we not have Paul saying eating Christ’s body unworthily will result in condemnation?

Hi JB,

Yes after Pentecost they understood better.

Do we not have Christ saying he will no longer drink from the fruit of the vine (wine) after drinking His Blood of the new covenant at the Last Supper ?

Blessings

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi JB,

Yes after Pentecost they understood better.

Do we not have Christ saying he will no longer drink from the fruit of the vine (wine) after drinking His Blood of the new covenant at the Last Supper ?

Blessings

Indeed he in fact did drink wine when the Kingdom was fufilled.