How many times somethings is mentioned

[Bill_Pick]

Reread your post. It seems you said John 6 was symbolic just like the ‘cutting of hands’ ones were symbolic. BTW, if you think the ‘hands’ one is symbolic, why isn’t the bread and wine symbolic? 3 times, remember.

Dokimas, Lets just call all the Bible to be symbolic and then we well never have to have a debate LOL
What about Jesus was He wrong in picking Judas to lead the apostolic,I have never seen the word symbols in the bible but I,m not as smartas you,can you please do a search for me,see if you can find the word Literally for me

 

[greggy53]

One would certainly have to come to the conclusion that cannibalism was the requirement from Jesus in John 6. The Jews present who questioned Jesus certainly believed it and said so. When he had finished the multitude that had dillegently followed Jesus departed. One does not have to imagine that they too thought Jesus was talking cannibalism. He asked the remaining 12 if they too were scandalized by his behavior. No doubt the remaining 12 were puzzled, but they accepted what he said in faith. Jesus emphasized his position in John 6 clearly when repeatedly said “Verily, verily I tell you.” ; Which means “truthfully, truthfully I tell you”. How folks can twist this into metaphor amazes me. But our Lord did add that “Some of you believeth not”. . But Jesus did not leave us in the dark. Later at the last supper he made it very clear how we were to eat his flesh and drink his blood and St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians also states clearly that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord.

 

[Dokimas]

One would certainly have to come to the conclusion that cannibalism was the requirement from Jesus in John 6. The Jews present who questioned Jesus certainly believed it and said so. When he had finished the multitude that had dillegently followed Jesus departed. One does not have to imagine that they too thought Jesus was talking cannibalism. He asked the remaining 12 if they too were scandalized by his behavior. No doubt the remaining 12 were puzzled, but they accepted what he said in faith. Jesus emphasized his position in John 6 clearly when repeatedly said “Verily, verily I tell you.” ; Which means “truthfully, truthfully I tell you”. How folks can twist this into metaphor amazes me. But our Lord did add that “Some of you believeth not”. . But Jesus did not leave us in the dark. Later at the last supper he made it very clear how we were to eat his flesh and drink his blood and St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians also states clearly that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord.

I don’t remember Jesus asking the disciples if they were scandalized. I do remember Jesus asking the 12 if they were going to leave.​

I’m sure they were puzzled. However, they were with Jesus long enough they knew He spoke in mysteries. They didn’t understand the mystery yet, but they did know that Jesus had the words of eternal life.​

It’s not twisting to think it is metaphorical or symbolic. And it’s clear what ‘communion’ is for: remembrance.​

Did you comment about the 3 verses I posted above about cutting an offending hand off? Even though it was said literally, is it to be done literally?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Did you comment about the 3 verses I posted above about cutting an offending hand off? Even though it was said literally, is it to be done literally?

It contradicts his theory. You won’t get an answer. I’m still waiting on an answer from his since last October

 

[Loboto-Me]

I don’t remember Jesus asking the disciples if they were scandalized. I do remember Jesus asking the 12 if they were going to leave.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

 

[Dokimas]

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?

4624 σκανδαλιζω skandalizo skan-dal-id’-zo (“scandalize”)

from 4625; TDNT-7:339,1036; v

AV-offend 28, make to offend 2; 30

1. to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, metaph. to offend
   1a) to entice to sin
   1b) to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey
   1b1) to cause to fall away
   1b2) to be offended in one, i.e. to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority
   1b3) to cause one to judge unfavourably or unjustly of another
   1c) since one who stumbles or whose foot gets entangled feels annoyed
   1c1) to cause one displeasure at a thing
   1c2) to make indignant
   1c3) to be displeased, indignant

 

[greggy53]

I don’t remember Jesus asking the disciples if they were scandalized. I do remember Jesus asking the 12 if they were going to leave.

John 6, 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

Perhaps a difference in our translations?

I’m sure they were puzzled. However, they were with Jesus long enough they knew He spoke in mysteries. They didn’t understand the mystery yet, but they did know that Jesus had the words of eternal life.​

It’s not twisting to think it is metaphorical or symbolic. And it’s clear what ‘communion’ is for: remembrance.​

Did you comment about the 3 verses I posted above about cutting an offending hand off? Even though it was said literally, is it to be done literally?

Matthew 5, 29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Does Jesus say “Truthfully, truthfully I tell you.” ? Does he repeat it, and emphasize it over and over? The metaphor here is clear as we can see that the Disciples did not take it literally either. Taken in context and with the reactions of those around Jesus there is no way one can logically say that he was speaking metaphorically in John 6. What about St Paul? Was he speaking metaphorically when he told us that those who eat and drink unworthily of the Lords supper are guilty of the Lord’s body and blood? That is a pretty strong reprimand for violating a metaphor.

 

[Dokimas]

John 6, 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

Perhaps a difference in our translations?

Matthew 5, 29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Does Jesus say “Truthfully, truthfully I tell you.” ? Does he repeat it, and emphasize it over and over? The metaphor here is clear as we can see that the Disciples did not take it literally either. Taken in context and with the reactions of those around Jesus there is no way one can logically say that he was speaking metaphorically in John 6. What about St Paul? Was he speaking metaphorically when he told us that those who eat and drink unworthily of the Lords supper are guilty of the Lord’s body and blood? That is a pretty strong reprimand for violating a metaphor.

What did the ‘metaphor’ stand for? The broken Body and shed Blood of Jesus. What it stands for that gets degraded by eating and drinking unworthily. Either way, metaphor or literal, it is the shed Blood and boken Body of Jesus that is at stake here.​

BTW, twice in Matthew (chts 5 & 18) Jesus speaks of the offending body part being eliminated. Also you missed my point. It was Bill that said Jesus must have been literal because He mention His Blood and Body in the bread and wine 3 or more times. I should him the 3 times the scripture mentions the offending hand and ask, according to the point of the OP, should a person literally cut off his or her hand?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill, those verses were from the New King James Version.​

I’m still waiting to hear from you as to whether or not you think Jesus intended you to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin? It is mentioned 3 times and you know what you said about ‘3 times’ mention, don’t you?

I have NEVER post any verse from the KJB,I,m Catholic and use a Catholic Bible

 

[greggy53]

What did the ‘metaphor’ stand for? The broken Body and shed Blood of Jesus. What it stands for that gets degraded by eating and drinking unworthily. Either way, metaphor or literal, it is the shed Blood and boken Body of Jesus that is at stake here.

Perhaps I could see your point of view if St Paul had said it was “degrading” as you put it, or even sinful. But, he states that one partaking unworthily is “guilty of the body and blood of Christ”……in other words guilty of his murder! That is quite a charge if the communion rite is only a memorial. Indeed St Paul reminds us here that in partaking of this sacrament we become one mystical body with Christ. That it is much more than just a memorial, and his dire warning to partake worthily then makes much more sense.

Cor 1:10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

-BTW, twice in Matthew (chts 5 & 18) Jesus speaks of the offending body part being eliminated. Also you missed my point. It was Bill that said Jesus must have been literal because He mention His Blood and Body in the bread and wine 3 or more times. I should him the 3 times the scripture mentions the offending hand and ask, according to the point of the OP, should a person literally cut off his or her hand?

I didn’t miss your point about the repetition I just didn’t comment on it. I believe that what Jesus said in John 6 should be taken literally not because of how many times he said it (although that is significant), but because he said it should be taken literally. The Jews and all of the followers around him took it literally and so should we. St Paul said we should take it literally to the point of being guilty of Christ’s murder if we don’t!
Aside from the repetition issue the cutting off of the hand was not meant nor was it taken literally by any of the Disciples, so I don’t think it’s a good comparison

 

[Dokimas]

Perhaps I could see your point of view if St Paul had said it was “degrading” as you put it, or even sinful. But, he states that one partaking unworthily is “guilty of the body and blood of Christ”……in other words guilty of his murder! That is quite a charge if the communion rite is only a memorial. Indeed St Paul reminds us here that in partaking of this sacrament we become one mystical body with Christ. That it is much more than just a memorial, and his dire warning to partake worthily then makes much more sense.

Cor 1:10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

I didn’t miss your point about the repetition I just didn’t comment on it. I believe that what Jesus said in John 6 should be taken literally not because of how many times he said it (although that is significant), but because he said it should be taken literally. The Jews and all of the followers around him took it literally and so should we. St Paul said we should take it literally to the point of being guilty of Christ’s murder if we don’t!
Aside from the repetition issue the cutting off of the hand was not meant nor was it taken literally by any of the Disciples, so I don’t think it’s a good comparison

I’m guilty of the murder of Jesus; my sin put Him on that Cross. However, I wouldn’t call it murder. Jesus willing accepted the punishment as unjust as it was. He did it out of love.​

Where did Jesus say He should be taken literally on this issue? Those disciples that left Jesus thought is was literal, no doubt. That doesn’t mean Jesus meant it literally.​

Where did Paul say we should understand the words of Jesus literally? I remember Paul quoting Jesus.​

I agree the hand thing wasn’t meant to be literal but to illustrate how sinful sin is. An eye or hand can’t cause us to sin anyway, they only obey our hearts.​

I don’t have any evidence that the first apostles (and/or the disciples that stayed with Jesus) took Jesus literally (the Last Supper/bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus).

 

[Dokimas]

Cor 1:10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

I’m sure you meant 1 Corinthians 10:16,17

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.​

To take this literal let’s see what happens:

1. The cup (of wine) is literally the Blood of Christ (verse 16)
2. The bread is literally the Body of Christ (verse 16)
3. We are literally bread. (verse 17)

Don’t we have to follow the illustration to its conclusion? Actually these verses make my point, seems to me, that as we are figuratively bread, so the wine being the Blood and the bread being the Body is figurative.

 

[Dokimas]

I have NEVER post any verse from the KJB,I,m Catholic and use a Catholic Bible

Bill, I NEVER said you used the NKJV. I answered your question as to what version I used. I used the NKJV.

 

[greggy53]

I’m guilty of the murder of Jesus; my sin put Him on that Cross. However, I wouldn’t call it murder. Jesus willing accepted the punishment as unjust as it was. He did it out of love.

Yes our Lord laid his life down willingly, but he didn’t force anyone to whip and torture him either. Humans have a free will and they could have set him free, so yes it was murder.

Where did Jesus say He should be taken literally on this issue? Those disciples that left Jesus thought is was literal, no doubt. That doesn’t mean Jesus meant it literally. .

Right here:
John 6, 54 Then Jesus said to them: *Amen, amen *I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Note: “Amen, Amen” means “truthfully, truthfully”

And here Again:
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

And here again:
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink *indeed. *

“Indeed” means “I’m not kidding folks.”

And here again
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And here once more again:
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

When we read how those who were around him reacted when he said this horrible thing. Then we see that they too understood his meaning, and were shocked! I spent several years in different Protestant evangelical Churches and no one could ever convince me that Jesus didn’t say what he said in John 6. Metaphor is all that the Protestant can come up with and it just doesn’t wash with what Jesus said over and over… The Catholic Church is the only one that gives a logical and truthful interpretation of this.

Where did Paul say we should understand the words of Jesus literally? I remember Paul quoting Jesus. .

I just quoted it before. Here it is again.
1st Cor 10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread

…. He asks the Corinthians: ”Is it not the chalice the communion of the blood of Christ? And The bread… “Is it not the partaking of the body of our Lord?”

No hint of a metaphor here either.

I agree the hand thing wasn’t meant to be literal but to illustrate how sinful sin is. An eye or hand can’t cause us to sin anyway, they only obey our hearts.​

I don’t have any evidence that the first apostles (and/or the disciples that stayed with Jesus) took Jesus literally (the Last Supper/bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus).

Well the Church certainly does both in and out of the scriptures. We know that the early Church taught the real presence and the sacramental nature of communion and has never faltered since.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes our Lord laid his life down willingly, but he didn’t force anyone to whip and torture him either. Humans have a free will and they could have set him free, so yes it was murder.

Right here:
John 6, 54 Then Jesus said to them: *Amen, amen *I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Note: “Amen, Amen” means “truthfully, truthfully”

And here Again:
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

And here again:
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink *indeed. *

“Indeed” means “I’m not kidding folks.”

And here again
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

And here once more again:
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

When we read how those who were around him reacted when he said this horrible thing. Then we see that they too understood his meaning, and were shocked! I spent several years in different Protestant evangelical Churches and no one could ever convince me that Jesus didn’t say what he said in John 6. Metaphor is all that the Protestant can come up with and it just doesn’t wash with what Jesus said over and over… The Catholic Church is the only one that gives a logical and truthful interpretation of this.

I just quoted it before. Here it is again.
1st Cor 10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread

…. He asks the Corinthians: ”Is it not the chalice the communion of the blood of Christ? And The bread… “Is it not the partaking of the body of our Lord?”

No hint of a metaphor here either.

Well the Church certainly does both in and out of the scriptures. We know that the early Church taught the real presence and the sacramental nature of communion and has never faltered since.

You quoted again where Jesus made the statements in question but you didn’t show here He said to take Him literally.​

I also wrote out 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 but you neglected to comment on my whole response to you about literal bread. Care to do so? The hint of metaphor is there and I made comment about that.

 

[greggy53]

I’m sure you meant 1 Corinthians 10:16,17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? .

And that is exactly what I quoted…Are you saying I said something else?

17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
To take this literal let’s see what happens:

1. The cup (of wine) is literally the Blood of Christ (verse 16)
2. The bread is literally the Body of Christ (verse 16)
3. We are literally bread. (verse 17)
   Don’t we have to follow the illustration to its conclusion? Actually these verses make my point, seems to me, that as we are figuratively bread, so the wine being the Blood and the bread being the Body is figurative.

When we partake we become one in the mystical body of Christ; Nothing figurative about that!

 

[greggy53]

You quoted again where Jesus made the statements in question but you didn’t show here He said to take Him literally…

I most certainly just did. If you refuse to see, or accept it that’s fine with me, but don’t say I didn’t show it to you. I could ask what makes you think he didn’t really mean it when he said “Truthfully, Truthfully I tell you.”? Or, “my flesh is meat indeed.” by what reasoning wouldn’t you take those two statements literally?

-I also wrote out 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 but you neglected to comment on my whole response to you about literal bread. Care to do so? The hint of metaphor is there and I made comment about that.

I responded to your post as soon as I saw it…Don’t be so impatient some of us are old and slow.

 

[Dokimas]

I most certainly just did. If you refuse to see, or accept it that’s fine with me, but don’t say I didn’t show it to you. I could ask what makes you think he didn’t really mean it when he said “Truthfully, Truthfully I tell you.”? Or, “my flesh is meat indeed.” by what reasoning wouldn’t you take those two statements literally?

I responded to your post as soon as I saw it…Don’t be so impatient some of us are old and slow.

Because eating human flesh is morally wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

I responded to your post as soon as I saw it…Don’t be so impatient some of us are old and slow.

Not impatient at all. I’m referring to your prompt response that didn’t seem to make comment on us being bread (literally) in the context of what’s been said in 1 Corinthians 10:16,17.

Here it again:

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? .
17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
To take this literal let’s see what happens:

1. The cup (of wine) is literally the Blood of Christ (verse 16)
2. The bread is literally the Body of Christ (verse 16)
3. We are literally bread. (verse 17)
   Don’t we have to follow the illustration to its conclusion? Actually these verses make my point, seems to me, that as we are figuratively bread, so the wine being the Blood and the bread being the Body is figurative.

 

[greggy53]

Because eating human flesh is morally wrong.

So you just refuse to believe he said what he said because you don’t like what he said?