Communion is just a symbol!

[Lenten_ashes]

What verse?

Matthew 16:18

Corresponding verses Matt 16:19 , Matthew 18:18, Matt 28:20 and Acts 9:4

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Pr,

Exactly my point. Jesus knew the non believers would take it literally and leave.

The question is why did the others stay ? I doubt they stayed understanding literal.

Scripture is explicit only in this . Those that stayed believed Christ had the words of eternal life, with no explicitness on literal /symbolic etc… Those that departed did not, and were tripped finally by some of His words. At best you can only say the unbelievers took it literally.

Blessings

Good day, Ben.

How can we honestly draw such a conclusion when they seemed to be rather confused about everything and in need of correction?

Matthew 16:5-9New International Version (NIV)

The Yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

Pax

 

[benhur]

And he let them misunderstand him?

Hi Pr,

The same thing that melts was hardens clay. It is not the Heats fault for the clay.

Free will?

Apparently Christ explained enough for some to say, “We believe in you, and you have the words of eternal life”.

Isn’t then their rejection of him actually the fault of Jesus?

This is an old argument, like sin and sin nature, and the eating at the Garden is His fault.

Do you see what you have to embrace in order to reject the Catholic view on this?

Pretty sure the CC asks/requires for me to believe in real presence, but not the reasons for disbelief in the “many” disciples of John 6.

Blessings

PS. Jesus wants all to be saved. yet He speaks in parables due to ears and eyes that see and hear, but not see and hear spiritual truths. For that one must be called of the Father, be born again, of the Spirit, which is how chapter 6 ends.

 

[benhur]

Good day, Ben.

How can we honestly draw such a conclusion when they seemed to be rather confused about everything and in need of correction?

Pax

Hi La,

Not sure but the “they” of Matt and the “many” in John 6 are not the same.

There is a difference in not understanding but still believing (the apostles), and not believing and thus not understanding (the “many”). Two groups of "disciples’’.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Although the disciples didn’t understand at first they fully understood it some time later at the Last Supper.

and maybe even later than that.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

and maybe even later than that.

Right, Pentecost.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Not sure but the “they” of Matt and the “many” in John 6 are not the same.

There is a difference in not understanding but still believing (the apostles), and not believing and thus not understanding (the “many”). Two groups of "disciples’’.

Blessings

Greetings!!

I think the apostles obviously had a propensity to take things literally, just as we see in Matthew 16:5-9 So it stands to reason that they took him literally in John 6 as well. But unlike the others(other group you refer to) They don’t leave because they realize this Man, Jesus, speaks in parables and in ways they don’t always understand.

We see at some points later in the gospel where the apostles eyes are opened and they come to full understanding.

Luke 24:30-31New International Version (NIV)

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight

And that’s a very interesting passage, BTW. Bread breaking and knowledge of the truth simultaneously occurring.

Pax

 

[benhur]

And that’s a very interesting passage, BTW. Bread breaking and knowledge of the truth simultaneously occurring.

Pax

Hi La,

Not sure to make anything of it, “eyes opening” and “communion”. Normally eyes have been opened much before and then comes the 'Thanksgiving".

In this discourse some say God cause both the "not seeing’’ and “seeing”.

The text has the sequence of first teaching from Writ, then stopping (being still) and breaking bread, supping, then eyes opened.

Some do suggest that they finally got a look at His hands as the bread was broken and passed, and saw the nail marks.

Anyways, I am sure Cleopas and company will always remember that breaking of bread and the “seeing”.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Pr,

The same thing that melts was hardens clay. It is not the Heats fault for the clay.

Free will?

Could you please answer the question?

It is your belief that Jesus let the folks leave him, to their own destruction, even though they misunderstood him?

 

[PRmerger]

PS. Jesus wants all to be saved. yet He speaks in parables due to ears and eyes that see and hear, but not see and hear spiritual truths. For that one must be called of the Father, be born again, of the Spirit, which is how chapter 6 ends.

But not everything was a parable, right?

So when he said he would die and rise, he meant it…literally, right?

He wasn’t speaking in this case “in parables due to ears and heyes that see and hear, but not see and hear spiritual truths”, right?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi La,

Not sure to make anything of it, “eyes opening” and “communion”. Normally eyes have been opened much before and then comes the 'Thanksgiving".

In this discourse some say God cause both the "not seeing’’ and “seeing”.

The text has the sequence of first teaching from Writ, then stopping (being still) and breaking bread, supping, then eyes opened.

Some do suggest that they finally got a look at His hands as the bread was broken and passed, and saw the nail marks.

Anyways, I am sure Cleopas and company will always remember that breaking of bread and the “seeing”.

Blessings

Maybe Cl(e)opas and his friend could have gotten a vague recollection of Jesus breaking the bread at one instance. Or Jesus could have said “This is my body,” and they could have remembered that if they witnessed the Last Supper from a distance.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Not sure to make anything of it, “eyes opening” and “communion”. Normally eyes have been opened much before and then comes the 'Thanksgiving".

In this discourse some say God cause both the "not seeing’’ and “seeing”.

The text has the sequence of first teaching from Writ, then stopping (being still) and breaking bread, supping, then eyes opened.

Some do suggest that they finally got a look at His hands as the bread was broken and passed, and saw the nail marks.

Anyways, I am sure Cleopas and company will always remember that breaking of bread and the “seeing”.

Blessings

That’s a good point.

 

[benhur]

But not everything was a parable, right?

So when he said he would die and rise, he meant it…literally, right?

He wasn’t speaking in this case “in parables due to ears and heyes that see and hear, but not see and hear spiritual truths”, right?

HI Pr,

In this case He was speaking truth in hyperbole, in my opinion. Do not think we "gnaw’’ on His flesh at communion. For sure the ears heard but did not hear in this case.

Blessings

 

[SJacob7]

Could you please answer the question?

It is your belief that Jesus let the folks leave him, to their own destruction, even though they misunderstood him?

I would like to chime in, as I think was stated in an earlier post, Jesus didn’t always correct people if they didn’t understand His saying. As an example:

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

The Jews believed he was talking about a physical temple and not a spiritual one. He never corrected or explained it to them. So again, just because He didn’t correct them or explain it to them doesn’t mean it was literal.

 

[benhur]

Could you please answer the question?

It is your belief that Jesus let the folks leave him, to their own destruction, even though they misunderstood him?

Hi Pr,

OK, piece by piece.

“It is your belief that Jesus let the folks leave him”-Yes, that is what is recorded.

“to their own destruction”- Well I thought this is beyond our expertise, who is saved or not (not withstanding sainthood process) . They most certainly had to leave following Him for wrong purposes before they could follow Him for right purposes, which they may have later on. I mean where did you think the first 3000 Pentecost saved folk came from, and daily after that ?

But yes, Jesus does let people leave Him, to their own destruction.

“even though they misunderstood him?”- This the crux of your question, would Christ withhold information, teaching, on purpose and is misunderstanding forgivable or not, our responsibility or not.

First, we are told “wisdom cries out from the rooftops” yet He indeed spoke in parables at times, and He knows His audience. *The purpose is transformation goaded by some information
*.

Actually, did they misunderstand Him? 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 ?

I say they misunderstood because* they did not believe *Jesus and Messianic agenda, even itinerary. Jesus said they did not believe *from the beginning" *of their discipleship. They were not truly acting upon the call from God. They were responsible for their unbelief, for their "misunderstanding’’.

So no, it is not my belief that Christ let believing disciples depart over a “misunderstanding”. He let false, unbelieving disciples, the ''many" depart.

“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.” John 6:64

Blessings

 

[Dorothy]

We “gnaw” at the consecrated Bread, which is the Risen, Glorious Christ,…Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[benhur]

We “gnaw” at the consecrated Bread, which is the Risen, Glorious Christ,…Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

HID,

I have seen people “eat” the Host, but not repeatedly bite and chew at it (gnaw), like a bone. “Eat” was not the word the Lord chose at last but “gnaw”.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I would like to chime in, as I think was stated in an earlier post, Jesus didn’t always correct people if they didn’t understand His saying. As an example:

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

The Jews believed he was talking about a physical temple and not a spiritual one. He never corrected or explained it to them. So again, just because He didn’t correct them or explain it to them doesn’t mean it was literal.

Correct, but that was a different audience; in regards to his actual followers,he seemed to want them to know what He was talking about.

Matthew 16:6-12Amplified Bible (AMP)

6 Jesus said to them, “Watch out and be on your guard against the [a]leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you still not understand or remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the [false] teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

HID,

I have seen people “eat” the Host, but not repeatedly bite and chew at it (gnaw), like a bone. “Eat” was not the word the Lord chose at last but “gnaw”.

Blessings

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

 

[PRmerger]

“even though they misunderstood him?”- This the crux of your question, would Christ withhold information, teaching, on purpose and is misunderstanding forgivable or not, our responsibility or not.

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?