How many times somethings is mentioned

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

Chewing and gnawing could be a metaphore for meditating.​

Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!​

Can we see the Lord? Not yet but we can see what He does; we can ‘see’ in terms of understanding.​

Same as taste; are we to take God into our physical mouth or are we to ‘taste’ in a metaphorical way?

Ta`am- a primitive root; to taste; figuratively, to perceive:–X but, perceive, taste.
Agreed, in Psalm 34:8 you would normatively apply the word taste metaphorically, after all the book of Psalm is a poetic book. However, I myself literally taste and see that the Lord is good and I am blessed for trusting in Him!

I don’t question the fact that there are many words, verses, and phrases in Holy Scripture that are meant to be taken strictly metaphorically. However, I know our Lord when spoke literally when he gnawing or chewing His body. Also, speaking literally when He commanded that we eat His body (under the species of bread) and drink His blood (under the species of wine) in Holy Communion.

Jesus says He is the bread from heaven…They question, how can this be?..Jesus says Stop murmuring, Amen Amen if you believe in Him you will have everlasting life…He is the bread…Eat this bread which is His flesh…They question, how can He give us His flesh?..He says Amen, Amen unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you don’t have life…Whoever CHEWS My flesh and drinks his blood has eternal like and will be raised on the last day…My flesh is TRULY food, My blood is TRULY drink…If you CHEW My flesh, drink My blood you dwell in Me and I in you…I live in the Father; if you CHEW ME, I live in you…If you CHEW this bread you shall live forever…His disciples say this is hard saying…Jesus KNEW they were murmur, asks if this offend them? He knew some would not BELIEVE Him…Some left and DID NOT follow Him any longer…

I. If the disciples thought He was speaking metaphorically why ask how He could give them His flesh? Why did they say this was a hard saying? Why did they leave and not come back?
2. Why would Jesus change the from eat to a more graphic word chew? And tell them His flesh is TRULY food and His blood is TRULY drink, not metaphorically,especially after they question Him about giving His flesh to eat?
3. Jesus knew some would not believe, why did He not explain that He was only speaking metaphorically? Why did he not call back His disciple or go after them when they left?

Peace,
T

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The bread literally becomes the Body of Christ. Does that means the bread becomes the CC which you think is the Body of Christ?

Is your Church made of bread? It’s just as sincere as your question, if your question is genuinely sincere.

Matthew 16 specifically addresses Christ buiding His Church. All of the Gospel writers give us examples of the Eucharist. Paul writes about the dangers of not receiving the body and blood of Christ worthily. He wrote that letter to a Church to correct their celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Dokimas]

Unite My Will in black; Doki in color.

I. If the disciples thought He was speaking metaphorically why ask how He could give them His flesh? When He said it, I don’t think they thought it was metaphoric. Why did they say this was a hard saying? Because it was a hard ‘to understand’ saying. Why did they leave and not come back? Peter said it was because Jesus had the Words of Life. They knew they were with the correct Person even though they didn’t always understand what was literal and what was metaphorical.

1. Why would Jesus change the from eat to a more graphic word chew? And tell them His flesh is TRULY food and His blood is TRULY drink, not metaphorically,especially after they question Him about giving His flesh to eat? Maybe His reason was similar to the difference between pictures of the crucifixion: one shows a clothed Jesus, no blood, no wounds; another shows all the gore of the real time space happening of the Flesh of Jesus torn open with all the tares from the thorns and the nail holes in His rists and feet. Eating vs gnawing is glamor vs gore.
2. Jesus knew some would not believe, why did He not explain that He was only speaking metaphorically? He often weeded out true believers from those ‘giving lip service’ using 'hard sayings. Example: Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham believe God was literally calling him to kill his son. God was not expecting him to kill his son. Which one of us if God toldus to kill one of our children would keep following Him thrusting Him for the outcome? ** Why did he not call back His disciple or go after them when they left? ** God draws nus, not chases. He wants us to exercise faith, which is initially based on sight but goes far beyond our ‘sight’ or ability to understand.

 

[Dokimas]

Is your Church made of bread? It’s just as sincere as your question, if your question is genuinely sincere.

Matthew 16 specifically addresses Christ buiding His Church. All of the Gospel writers give us examples of the Eucharist. Paul writes about the dangers of not receiving the body and blood of Christ worthily. He wrote that letter to a Church to correct their celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Good point. No my church is not made of bread, nor is yours. In the same way, the bread of communion does not turn into the actual, literal Body of Christ. Thank you for helping me make a good valid point.​

Remember: the Body of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ, correct?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good point. No my church is not made of bread, nor is yours. In the same way, the bread of communion does not turn into the actual, literal Body of Christ. Thank you for helping me make a good valid point.​

Remember: the Body of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ, correct?

Please try to refrain from twisting what I say to make it seem to support another theology. It’s not an honest form of discussion and is taken as an ad hominem purely intended to inflame.

You know very well that the Apostles referred to the Church as the body of Christ. You also know very well Christ took bread, broke it and told His Apostles to eat it, it was His body. This teaching was recorded by all the Gospel authors. Paul wrote the clarifications of the ‘Lord’s Supper’, the Eucharist, in his letter to the Corinthians, and we know he was not telling them to eat their Church. It was a letter to the Church with specific instructions on the bread and chalice, which he called the blood and body of Christ.

 

[Dokimas]

[SIGN]Good point. No my church is not made of bread, nor is yours. In the same way, the bread of communion does not turn into the actual, literal Body of Christ. Thank you for helping me make a good valid point.​

Remember: the Body of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ, correct? [/SIGN]

Please try to refrain from twisting what I say to make it seem to support another theology. It’s not an honest form of discussion and is taken as an ad hominem purely intended to inflame.

You know very well that the Apostles referred to the Church as the body of Christ. You also know very well Christ took bread, broke it and told His Apostles to eat it, it was His body. This teaching was recorded by all the Gospel authors. Paul wrote the clarifications of the ‘Lord’s Supper’, the Eucharist, in his letter to the Corinthians, and we know he was not telling them to eat their Church. It was a letter to the Church with specific instructions on the bread and chalice, which he called the blood and body of Christ.

Did you not twist what I said to ask me if my church was made of bread? If not, then you were making a good point. I took you point and applied it to the original reason I asked the question.​

And, BTW, I called you several times on twisting what I’ve said. Funny you now call me on it. Not fun is it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

[SIGN]Good point. No my church is not made of bread, nor is yours. In the same way, the bread of communion does not turn into the actual, literal Body of Christ. Thank you for helping me make a good valid point.​

Remember: the Body of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ, correct? [/SIGN]

Did you not twist what I said to ask me if my church was made of bread? If not, then you were making a good point. I took you point and applied it to the original reason I asked the question.​

And, BTW, I called you several times on twisting what I’ve said. Funny you now call me on it. Not fun is it?

You were the one to ask if Body of Christ was bread and, in my opinion, you are taking liberties with ‘literal’ and ‘symbolic’ to invalidate a Catholic teaching, to assert your own interpretation over any interpretation we offer. Even when I’ve offered you interpretations in the past, you chose to continue asserting it was a contradiction of scriptures. It’s just too much to think some can simply state they understand it is an interpretation, even if they disagree with the interpretation. The discussion loses it’s honesty in cases like that.

I’ve seen other threads, with other posters who also claim to read an anti-Catholic sentiment in some of your posts. So, I realize it’s not just me.

 

[Dokimas]

You were the one to ask if Body of Christ was bread and, in my opinion, you are taking liberties with ‘literal’ and ‘symbolic’ to invalidate a Catholic teaching, to assert your own interpretation over any interpretation we offer. Even when I’ve offered you interpretations in the past, you chose to continue asserting it was a contradiction of scriptures. It’s just too much to think some can simply state they understand it is an interpretation, even if they disagree with the interpretation. The discussion loses it’s honesty in cases like that.

I’ve seen other threads, with other posters who also claim to read an anti-Catholic sentiment in some of your posts. So, I realize it’s not just me.

Look, ProdicalSon, as I’ve pointed out before, you make it seem I’m anti-catholic because I understand the Bible in a different way you do.​

You have a right to your understanding, don’t I have a right to mine? You have a right to continue to tell us about your understanding, don’t I have the same right? You have the right to continue with your interpretation, don’t I have the right to continue with my understanding? I can’t make you see what I’m saying, don’t I have the right to continue seeing things as I do even if it’s different than the way you see them?

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

Unite My Will in black; Doki in color.

I. If the disciples thought He was speaking metaphorically why ask how He could give them His flesh? When He said it, I don’t think they thought it was metaphoric. Why did they say this was a hard saying? Because it was a hard ‘to understand’ saying.So, at this point they knew it was literal? Why did they leave and not come back? Peter said it was because Jesus had the Words of Life.This was Peter’s anwser for the twelve. Why did the other’s not come back? **They knew they were with the correct Person even though they didn’t always understand what was literal and what was metaphorical.**So, the twelve weren’t sure if the teaching was literal?
2. Why would Jesus change the from eat to a more graphic word chew? And tell them His flesh is TRULY food and His blood is TRULY drink, not metaphorically,especially after they question Him about giving His flesh to eat? **Maybe His reason was similar to the difference between pictures of the crucifixion: one shows a clothed Jesus, no blood, no wounds; another shows all the gore of the real time space happening of the Flesh of Jesus torn open with all the tares from the thorns and the nail holes in His rists and feet. Eating vs gnawing is glamor vs gore.**Do you mean gore vs. glamor? Why do you think this? What about TRULY MY flesh, TRULY My blood?

1. Jesus knew some would not believe, why did He not explain that He was only speaking metaphorically? **He often weeded out true believers from those ‘giving lip service’ using 'hard sayings. Do you think Jesus would purposely mislead them to test their faith?Example: Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham believe God was literally calling him to kill his son. God was not expecting him to kill his son. Which one of us if God toldus to kill one of our children would keep following Him thrusting Him for the outcome? Why did he not call back His disciple or go after them when they left? ** God draws nus, not chases. He wants us to exercise faith, which is initially based on sight but goes far beyond our ‘sight’ or ability to understand.

I don’t think Jesus would let people walk away over a misunderstanding of a teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Look, ProdicalSon, as I’ve pointed out before, you make it seem I’m anti-catholic because I understand the Bible in a different way you do.​

You have a right to your understanding, don’t I have a right to mine? You have a right to continue to tell us about your understanding, don’t I have the same right? You have the right to continue with your interpretation, don’t I have the right to continue with my understanding? I can’t make you see what I’m saying, don’t I have the right to continue seeing things as I do even if it’s different than the way you see them?

I’m supposed to accept that you ‘understand the Bible in a different way’, but when I take time to articulate an interpretation, providing the scriptures, you can say it’s a contradiction to scriptures? There seems to be a double-standard you wish to impose on discussions. To be a contradiction to scriptures, it has to be clearly written and a practice clearly opposes those scriptures.

Take your post and read it to yourself, as if I wrote it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think Jesus would let people walk away over a misunderstanding of a teaching.

It seems to contradict Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18, doesn’t it?

**Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and goeth to seek that which is gone astray?
Mat 18:13 And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray.
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. **

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

He wants us to exercise faith, which is initially based on sight but goes far beyond our ‘sight’ or ability to understand.

AMEN. God does want us to exercise faith and obedience. Just because we don’t understand Truth, can’t comprehend Truth, or choose not to believe Truth, does not make Truth untrue or unreal. Our GREAT inablility in understanding is one of the many dangers of self-interpertation of scripture. And only through God’s GREAT wisdom does he give us the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Peace,
T

 

[greggy53]

The bread literally becomes the Body of Christ. Does that means the bread becomes the CC which you think is the Body of Christ?

Like St Paul said: " For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."
We didn’t write it. If you have a problem with God’s word take it up with him.

 

[Dokimas]

Unite: If the disciples thought He was speaking metaphorically why ask how He could give them His flesh?

Doki: When He said it, I don’t think they thought it was metaphoric. Why did they say this was a hard saying? Because it was a hard ‘to understand’ saying.

Unite: So, at this point they knew it was literal?
Doki: Seems everone thought Jesus was literal. Disciple, if I’m correct, fully understood at a later date.

Unite: Why did they leave and not come back?
Doki: Many leave and don’t come back because they don’t understand.

I don’t think Jesus would let people walk away over a misunderstanding of a teaching.

Did God mislead Abraham?​

People are mislead by their own misunderstandings, not by God’s intent. Jesus said He spoke in parables because the understanding was not for all but for those He chose to understand.

 

[Dokimas]

AMEN. God does want us to exercise faith and obedience. Just because we don’t understand Truth, can’t comprehend Truth, or choose not to believe Truth, does not make Truth untrue or unreal. Our GREAT inablility in understanding is one of the many dangers of self-interpertation of scripture. And only through God’s GREAT wisdom does he give us the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Peace,
T

I don’t believe in self interpretation either. I also don’t think just because any church says they are the correct church with all the correct understandings doesn’t make it so. That’s self-serving, IMO.

 

[greggy53]

I don’t think Jesus would let people walk away over a misunderstanding of a teaching.

Yes, John 6 gets pretty touchy with our Protestant brethren. Like the commission our Lord gave St Peter in Mathew they constantly strive to change the meaning and or import of our Lords words to fit their own beliefs. I suspect they need the scriptures to say what they do not say not so much because it makes theological or grammatical sense, but in order to justify their rebellion against the Church .

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

Unite: If the disciples thought He was speaking metaphorically why ask how He could give them His flesh?

Doki: When He said it, I don’t think they thought it was metaphoric. Why did they say this was a hard saying? Because it was a hard ‘to understand’ saying.

Unite: So, at this point they knew it was literal?
Doki: Seems everone thought Jesus was literal. Disciple, if I’m correct, fully understood at a later date. Please explain, fully understood what?

Unite: Why did they leave and not come back?
Doki: Many leave and don’t come back because they don’t understand.

Did God mislead Abraham?No, but God did clarify. Why not Christ, if there was a misunderstanding?​

People are mislead by their own misunderstandings, not by God’s intent. Jesus said He spoke in parables because the understanding was not for all but for those He chose to understand.

But is doesn’t say they misunderstood, He knew some didn’t beleve. So, if you agree they thought it was a literally teaching, it was the literal teaching they didn’t believe. If they thought it was a metephor, as you assert then they wouldn’t have left in the first place.

 

[Dokimas]

AMEN. God does want us to exercise faith and obedience. Just because we don’t understand Truth, can’t comprehend Truth, or choose not to believe Truth, does not make Truth untrue or unreal. Our GREAT inablility in understanding is one of the many dangers of self-interpertation of scripture. And only through God’s GREAT wisdom does he give us the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Peace,
T

I don’t believe in self interpretation either. I also don’t think just because any church says they are the correct church with all the correct understandings doesn’t make it so. That’s self-serving, IMO.​

Here’s a problem we have in this discussion.

From your point of view, if I understand anything that is different than the CC teachings I wrong — end of discussion, no room for any more real meaningful discussion unless I want to change my mind and become a catholic. You (the CC) is way up there; I’m lowly, way down here. Everything is a big deal with my beliefs of no importance.

From my point of view, if you have a different understanding (the understanding of the CC) then I DON’T think you are wrong becasue I’m correct. I understand one or both of us could be wrong, I know I don’t know or understand all things so you (the CC) could have the correct understanding. Discussion continues with us being equals, you’re lacking nothing nor am I. According to Romans 14 one of us may be weaker members as far as belief is concerned. No big deal.

 

[Dokimas]

But is doesn’t say they misunderstood, He knew some didn’t beleve. So, if you agree they thought it was a literally teaching, it was the literal teaching they didn’t believe. If they thought it was a metephor, as you assert then they wouldn’t have left in the first place.

When did God clarify for Abraham? Not until the knife was on the way down. Those that left Jesus left way too early to understand.​

They wanted no part of having to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. They believed what He said was true and rejected that if they were to continue following Him. Those that decided that, even thought they did not understand how they could eat His Flesh or drink His Blood, they knew they must stay with Him for He had the Words of Life, they understood Jesus’ meaning later. Faith acted upon results in ‘seeing’.

 

[Dokimas]

Like St Paul said: " For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."
We didn’t write it. If you have a problem with God’s word take it up with him.

You missed my point. I think ProdicalSon understood me. I KNOW, the best I can know anything, that Paul called us bread. Is that literal bread so that me, being little, I’m just a crumb? Or was that metaphorical bread? I believe the second as I believe Jesus used metaphors for communion, too.