How many times somethings is mentioned

[Radical]

Does the teaching below sound like Christ would be ‘culling the herd’?

**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. **

These were disciples that left Him and walked with Him no more. He always explained ‘parables’ to the disciples.

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

There are a number of things you seem to be missing:

a) He may have explained parables to his disciples, but John 6 isn’t a parable or a collection of parables.

b) John 6 doesn’t indicate that he explained either his meaning to the disciples or that he explained a means of eating his flesh w/o actually gnawing into his flesh. Try as you might to ignore the fact, Christ didn’t explain his meaning (whether he was talking about a symbolical or a transubstantial eating). You need to chew on that reality.

c) From John 2: 18-22 ** 18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed thScripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. **

It seems that Christ’s metaphor wasn’t explained to his disciples on that occasion either and that it wasn’t until later that they figured it out.

d) From Luke 18: 31-34 ** 31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.” 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about. **

It seems that things weren’t always explained

e) In John 16 Christ stated Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
It seems that Christ’s time to speak plainly might not have come along until some time after John 6.

f) The author of John 6 appears to try and explain Christ’s failure to try to win back those who left by pointing out that no one can come to Christ w/o the Father’s assistance…and that is in line with “culling”.

 

[Dokimas]

If Jesus knew He was speaking metaphorically, why did he ask “Does this offend you?” Why would he think that he offended someone with a metapohor?

Please answer this question- Why did Jesus say" For My FLESH is TRUE food and My BLOOD is TRUE drink?" You keep passing over this question.

Peace,
T

If Jesus knew they took Him literally, He’d ask the question.​

Aren’t we to seek food for the soul which is more important than the food for the body? Food for the soul is TRUE food for the soul is eternal but the body is not.

Joh 6:55 "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

Lu 12:23 "Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

Joh 4:32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”

Joh 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

Joh 4:
13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,
14 “but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

 

[Dokimas]

Does the teaching below sound like Christ would be ‘culling the herd’?

**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. **

These were disciples that left Him and walked with Him no more. He always explained ‘parables’ to the disciples.

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

He explained His metaphors to His disciples. The rest were left to their misunderstanding.​

Jesus wants all saved but He said many are called but few are chosen. He knows our hearts and He knows when we give Him lip service like Esau did and when our hearts truly are open to His call.

 

[Dokimas]

I didn’t miss your point. I know what you are trying to say. What I am saying is that you are trying make into a metaphor what Jesus clearly said to take as literal truth. Jesus performed a miracle making five loaves of bread feed 5,000 people. Changing bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood is another miracle he performs for us. If you believe he performed the one for five thousand then you should also accept the other. How Jesus changes the substance of the bread and wine into his body and blood is a mystery (just like how he multiplied 5 loaves of bread to feed thousands) He he told us this is what happens, and then he showed us how to partake.

Of course Jesus could change the bread and wine into HIs Body and His Blood. That’s not my issue. It’s that He didn’t for lots of reasons.

 

[Dokimas]

A prayer i say when receiving the Eucharist.

God, as you come to me in material form, help me to come to you in spiritual form.
That my thoughts be pure, my intentions compassionate and my soul at rest. Amen.

Seems the motive behind this prayer is humility. It’s a wonderful prayer (and I’d say it too without the material form part).

 

[Dokimas]

There are a number of things you seem to be missing:

a) He may have explained parables to his disciples, but John 6 isn’t a parable or a collection of parables.

b) John 6 doesn’t indicate that he explained either his meaning to the disciples or that he explained a means of eating his flesh w/o actually gnawing into his flesh. Try as you might to ignore the fact, Christ didn’t explain his meaning (whether he was talking about a symbolical or a transubstantial eating). You need to chew on that reality.

c) From John 2: 18-22 ** 18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed thScripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. **

It seems that Christ’s metaphor wasn’t explained to his disciples on that occasion either and that it wasn’t until later that they figured it out.

d) From Luke 18: 31-34 ** 31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.” 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about. **

It seems that things weren’t always explained

e) In John 16 Christ stated Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
It seems that Christ’s time to speak plainly might not have come along until some time after John 6.

f) The author of John 6 appears to try and explain Christ’s failure to try to win back those who left by pointing out that no one can come to Christ w/o the Father’s assistance…and that is in line with “culling”.

Seems you made this issue clearer. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are a number of things you seem to be missing:

a) He may have explained parables to his disciples, but John 6 isn’t a parable or a collection of parables.

b) John 6 doesn’t indicate that he explained either his meaning to the disciples or that he explained a means of eating his flesh w/o actually gnawing into his flesh. Try as you might to ignore the fact, Christ didn’t explain his meaning (whether he was talking about a symbolical or a transubstantial eating). You need to chew on that reality.

It appears you are relying on semantics in that ‘metaphorically’ is ‘symbolically’, or what is spoken in a ‘parable’. Christ did not ‘cull the herd’ as you called it. He asked them if it offended them and when they walked away and walked with Him no more, He turned to the Apostles and asked, ‘will you go away also?’

It seems that things weren’t always explained

Then Mark’s verse is a contradiction to the rest of scriptures? Let me ask you this. If scriptures means ALL have sinned and come short…does this mean ALL, including Mary? If it does, why doesn’t Mark’s verse of ALL things were explained to His disciples hold true?

What you’re also saying, that places scriptures in contradiction with each other in my honest opinion is, the Father wanted the ‘herd culled’. The passage I provided states, ‘Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.’ Not one sheep is to be lost if it can be found. A simple explanation of any metaphor, parable, or symbolism could have corrected all His disciples from leaving Him and walking with Him no more.

Now it appears we have a difference in interpretation. I choose to give authority to the Church Christ built and you choose to follow a private interpretation. Show me where you have received that authority, from scriptures. Show me where your interpretation can be taken, with assurance, to be correct over all other interpretations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He explained His metaphors to His disciples. The rest were left to their misunderstanding.​

Jesus wants all saved but He said many are called but few are chosen. He knows our hearts and He knows when we give Him lip service like Esau did and when our hearts truly are open to His call.

Mark states ALL things were explained to His disciples. John tells us that His disciples left Him and walked with Him no more, not ‘the rest’. Now which author has made a mistake?

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

**Joh 6:66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. **

 

[Dokimas]

Mark states ALL things were explained to His disciples. John tells us that His disciples left Him and walked with Him no more, not ‘the rest’. Now which author has made a mistake?

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

Joh 6:66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

Note the word many (highlighted) not ALL. There were different groups that followed Jesus and, I suspect, those that followed Jesus were called disciples (until they stopped following).​

There were the 12; the 70; the 120; and the 500; and then there were most like more, the ones that stopped following.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Note the word many (highlighted) not ALL. There were different groups that followed Jesus and, I suspect, those that followed Jesus were called disciples (until they stopped following).​

There were the 12; the 70; the 120; and the 500; and then there were most like more, the ones that stopped following.

Irregardless of the number, these were disciples, to which all things were explained as told by Mark, yet this ‘many’ did not receive an explanation of any ‘metaphor’, ‘parable’, or ‘symbolism’. In fact, Christ turned to the others and asked, ‘Will you go away also?’

Now if it was the Father’s will, that no sheep be lost, why would Christ allow ‘many’ of His disciples leave if an explanation would have prevented them from leaving the flock? There was no ‘culling the herd’, in my honest opinion. Christ let them go because they did not believe the teaching, as He explained it to them.

 

[Dokimas]

Irregardless of the number, these were disciples, to which all things were explained as told by Mark, yet this ‘many’ did not receive an explanation of any ‘metaphor’, ‘parable’, or ‘symbolism’. In fact, Christ turned to the others and asked, ‘Will you go away also?’

Now if it was the Father’s will, that no sheep be lost, why would Christ allow ‘many’ of His disciples leave if an explanation would have prevented them from leaving the flock? There was no ‘culling the herd’, in my honest opinion. Christ let them go because they did not believe the teaching, as He explained it to them.

Do you have evidence that the disciples mentioned by Mark WEREN’T the 12 but had to include all of the hundreds or more disciples?​

My point, He turned to a MUCH smaller #, most likely the ones He explained all the parables to.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you have evidence that the disciples mentioned by Mark WEREN’T the 12 but had to include all of the hundreds or more disciples?​

My point, He turned to a MUCH smaller #, most likely the ones He explained all the parables to.

That still doesn’t address why He let some disciples leave, the flock, and walk with Him no more, which doesn’t seem to be the Father’s will that no ONE sheep be lost. If it had been only the 12, why didn’t Mark, inspired by God, write it that way? Instead, we see John included ALL disciples by showing Christ turned to the others and asked, ‘Will you go away also?’

Christ asked them early on if that which He said scandalized them. Christ repeats His teaching several times and qualifies it with, ‘For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.’ This was His explanation of His teaching. This is what they couldn’t believe.

 

[Dokimas]

That still doesn’t address why He let some disciples leave, the flock, and walk with Him no more, which doesn’t seem to be the Father’s will that no ONE sheep be lost. If it had been only the 12, why didn’t Mark, inspired by God, write it that way? Instead, we see John included ALL disciples by showing Christ turned to the others and asked, ‘Will you go away also?’

Christ asked them early on if that which He said scandalized them. Christ repeats His teaching several times and qualifies it with, ‘For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.’ This was His explanation of His teaching. This is what they couldn’t believe.

He knew their hearts weren’t really after Him. He doesn’t chase He draws.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He knew their hearts weren’t really after Him. He doesn’t chase He draws.

But He tells us of the Shepherd who goes after the lost sheep, as it was according to the Father’s will?

Wasn’t Him coming to earth, in the flesh, chasing those who were lost?

Peter denied Him, 3 times, yet He came back to Peter and set Him back on course. Wasn’t this ‘chasing’?

Thomas doubted, but Christ had him place his fingers in His wounds. Again, wasn’t this ‘chasing’?

John is clear. Christ repeats the teaching over and over, with no mention of any symbolism. It was for real. He was going to become the ‘new’ sacrificial lamb, of the new and everlasting covenant. Those He taught understood the sacrificial lamb must be eaten with the old covenant.

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.
In the garden, our Lord prayed to the father to let this cup be passed from Him, if it was the Father’s will. Matthew 22:44 tells us that Christ prayed this 3 times. What cup was Christ praying be passed from Him? Was it the 4th cup that closed the Passover meal, which was fulfilled with the Lord’s Supper.

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

 

[Dokimas]

But He tells us of the Shepherd who goes after the lost sheep, as it was according to the Father’s will?

Wasn’t Him coming to earth, in the flesh, chasing those who were lost?

Peter denied Him, 3 times, yet He came back to Peter and set Him back on course. Wasn’t this ‘chasing’?

Thomas doubted, but Christ had him place his fingers in His wounds. Again, wasn’t this ‘chasing’?

QUOTE]​

Remember there are to be sheep and goats. He goes after sheep, not goats. (A goat chooses to be a goat.)​

The rest of your post is filled with wonderful verses and thoughts. I just think you come to a wrong conclusion, as you well know.

 

[greggy53]

Remember there are to be sheep and goats. He goes after sheep, not goats. (A goat chooses to be a goat.) .

The scriptures tell us that Jesus came to redeem the world.
John 3,16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Jesus came to redeem the entire world. We all make a free choice, but you are wrong God “goes after” everyone. It is up to us to freely accept or reject his salvation. It is not predestined by God that any should perish.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The scriptures tell us that Jesus came to redeem the world.
John 3,16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Jesus came to redeem the entire world. We all make a free choice, but you are wrong God “goes after” everyone. It is up to us to freely accept or reject his salvation. It is not predestined by God that any should perish.

It seems some have deemed those disciples to have been goats from the beginning. Goats and sheep will not be divided until judgment, in my honest opinion. While we live, we all have an opportunity to be called a ‘sheep’.

 

[Radical]

Now if it was the Father’s will, that no sheep be lost, why would Christ allow ‘many’ of His disciples leave if an explanation would have prevented them from leaving the flock? There was no ‘culling the herd’, in my honest opinion.

…and in our honest opinion, there was a culling. Have I missed it, or have you provided an explanation as to why Christ didn’t explain that he was talking about eating transubstantiated bread and not cannibalism? Surely eating transubstantiated bread is a more attractive thing than cannibalism and so, that explanation would have prevented some from leaving the flock. So why didn’t Christ provide it?

Mark states ALL things were explained to His disciples.

hmmm…If his disciples knew all things why did Paul only know in part? Why does Mark 9:32 state “But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.” …or Luke 9:45 state “But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.” …or Luke 18:34 state “The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.” …or John 12:16 state “At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.”…or John 13:12, or John 16:18 or John 20:9…where in the world (or in scripture for that matter) do you get the idea that Jesus always made sure that his disciples understood his teaching?

Dokimas:

I just think you come to a wrong conclusion, as you well know.

amen

 

[Dokimas]

The scriptures tell us that Jesus came to redeem the world.
John 3,16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

The above is very very true.

Jesus came to redeem the entire world. We all make a free choice, but you are wrong God “goes after” everyone. It is up to us to freely accept or reject his salvation. It is not predestined by God that any should perish.

Did Jesus ‘run’ after those that rejected Him for His saying in John 6?

 

[greggy53]

Of course Jesus could change the bread and wine into HIs Body and His Blood. That’s not my issue. It’s that He didn’t for lots of reasons.

Apparently it is…What reasons do you have other than chosing not to take our Jesus at his word?