How many times somethings is mentioned

[greggy53]

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

They heard his words of life, and chose not to believe…John 6, .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.

Jesus who is all knowing knows who will believe what he says and who will not. That doesn’t mean that they do not have a free will to choose. Salvation is offered to them as well. You either accept what Jesus told us and believe …or you don’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

…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?

Christ spoke truth and wasn’t trying to make it attractive to the carnal view. He gave the teaching, then knowing they grumbled He asked them if it scandalized them. Remember , Christ said, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.’ That was weighing what He taught them with the carnal view, while those who accepted His teaching weighed it with the spiritual view.

Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

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?

amen

Paul did not learn everything directly from Christ. Paul was sent to the Church Christ built, where he was instructed.

Ok, are we to assume there is a contradiction of scriptures? Mark stated He explained all things to the disciples.

The verses you provide, are prior to the explanations.

While I do appreciate the response, I’d like to point out that you failed to address other requests in my posts. For your convenience, I am reposting those requests below.

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.

 

[greggy53]

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’.

Yes, this is the predestination Heresy the Calvin started a few hunderd years ago. Your name is either written in the lambs book of life or it is not. There is nothing, no choice you can make of your own. This is where the “Once saved always saved” mentality springs from.

 

[Dokimas]

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

If you’re going to take that tone, I’ll ask you if you’ve cut off your hand or pocked out your eye? If not, you have no good grounds to ask me that question the way you did!!!

 

[Dokimas]

They heard his words of life, and chose not to believe…John 6, .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.

Jesus who is all knowing knows who will believe what he says and who will not. That doesn’t mean that they do not have a free will to choose. Salvation is offered to them as well. You either accept what Jesus told us and believe …or you don’t.

I agree. What do these statements of yours have to do with what I said in responce to someone’s comment?

 

[greggy53]

…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?

Jesus explained it as well as they could understand in John 6….He then demonstrated it to them on Holy Thursday at the first sacrifice of the Mass.

…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?

amen

Mark 4, 31 It is as a grain of mustard seed: which when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that are in the earth: 32 And when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches, so that the birds of the air may dwell under the shadow thereof. 33 And with many such parables, he spoke to them the word, according as they were able to hear. 34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

As able as they were to understand…

 

[greggy53]

I agree. What do these statements of yours have to do with what I said in responce to someone’s comment?

You said Jesus did not “go after the goats”…He did, and he said he did.

Matthew 9:13 2
Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.
Mark 2:17
Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.
Luke 5:32
I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.

 

[Dokimas]

You said Jesus did not “go after the goats”…He did, and he said he did.

Matthew 9:13 2
Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.
Mark 2:17
Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.
Luke 5:32
I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.

Did Jesus go after those in question in John 6? If not, then call the what you want (goats seem to fit, IMO; ex-disciples works too, IMO).

 

[Radical]

Jesus explained it as well as they could understand in John 6….He then demonstrated it to them on Holy Thursday at the first sacrifice of the Mass.

As able as they were to understand…

Where in John 6 does it specify that he explained it to the level of their ability? So how is it that his disciples wouldn’t have been able to grasp transubstantiation and you can?..are you somehow more intelligent or more empowered by the Spirit?..more attuned to greek philosophy perhaps?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where in John 6 does it specify that he explained it to the level of their ability?

That’s speculation and appears to be for the reason of fitting scriptures to a theology. Where does it specify He didn’t explain it to the level of their ability? He asked the, ‘Does this scandalize you?’

 

[Dokimas]

That’s speculation and appears to be for the reason of fitting scriptures to a theology. Where does it specify He didn’t explain it to the level of their ability? He asked the, ‘Does this scandalize you?’

Come on; be fair. Turn your statement and question to your position. Where does it say He did explain to their level of understanding? What is there to understand if Jesus spoke literally? If He was literal, we still don’t understand how. We’d still be in their, inability to understand. The only thing that needed to be understood is if it was metaphorical, IMO.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Come on; be fair. Turn your statement and question to your position. Where does it say He did explain to their level of understanding? What is there to understand if Jesus spoke literally? If He was literal, we still don’t understand how. We’d still be in their, inability to understand. The only thing that needed to be understood is if it was metaphorical, IMO.

That’s my point. Jesus spoke literally and didn’t have to explain anything. They understood and rejected the teaching.

This is what I consider to be part of the double standard some Protestants hold Catholics too. The Bible doesn’t specifically say baptize infants, so it is forbidden. Now, the Bible doesn’t specifically say he explained something above their level of understanding, so they didn’t understand it because the teaching must have been above their ability to understand?

It was not metaphorical, a parable or symbolic. It was for real. It was an explanation in itself. There was nothing to explain. They didn’t believe and He let them walk as non-believers. He tried, but thinking in the flesh, which profited them nothing, they rejected His words. The Apostles, thinking spiritually, believed and stayed with Him.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s my point. Jesus spoke literally and didn’t have to explain anything. They understood and rejected the teaching.

This is what I consider to be part of the double standard some Protestants hold Catholics too. The Bible doesn’t specifically say baptize infants, so it is forbidden. Now, the Bible doesn’t specifically say he explained something above their level of understanding, so they didn’t understand it because the teaching must have been above their ability to understand?

It was not metaphorical, a parable or symbolic. It was for real. It was an explanation in itself. There was nothing to explain. They didn’t believe and He let them walk as non-believers. He tried, but thinking in the flesh, which profited them nothing, they rejected His words. The Apostles, thinking spiritually, believed and stayed with Him.

So, IYO, there is NO chance they misunderstood and rejected vs the 12 misunderstood and continued to follow. Abraham misunderstood yet was willing to obey.​

Have I ever said infant baptism is forbidden? If I did, I’ll retract the statement. Instead, IMO, infant baptism does nothing for the baby and the child should choose to get baptized after they understand their need for the cleansing Blood of Jesus and repents.​

According to Romans 6 (at least I think its those first few verses there) Paul seems to make it symbolic.

 

[greggy53]

Did Jesus go after those in question in John 6? If not, then call the what you want (goats seem to fit, IMO; ex-disciples works too, IMO).

What would you expect Jesus do? Call after them… “Hey, where ya going guys?..I didn’t really mean what I said. I was just playing with your heads.” …?? But that is exactly what you are accusing our Lord of doing. You believe he was intentionally being deceptive in order to chase people away.

 

[greggy53]

Where in John 6 does it specify that he explained it to the level of their ability? So how is it that his disciples wouldn’t have been able to grasp transubstantiation and you can?..are you somehow more intelligent or more empowered by the Spirit?..more attuned to greek philosophy perhaps?

Right here:
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? 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.

When did I ever say I understood transubstantiation? The Church doesn’t fully understand it either. But we accept it because Jesus said it is what it is, and so did the Apostles. It’s called a miracle not unlike Jesus transforming 5 loaves of bread to feed 5, 000. Does anyone understand how that happened? Jesus did not leave the Apostles in the dark. He showed them how to partake of his flesh and blood the night before he was crucified. Like the first Christians we take our Lord at his word. We accept and believe.

Greek philosophy?? Where did that come from?? I take it you must be referring to Aristotle?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, IYO, there is NO chance they misunderstood and rejected vs the 12 misunderstood and continued to follow. Abraham misunderstood yet was willing to obey.​

Have I ever said infant baptism is forbidden? If I did, I’ll retract the statement. Instead, IMO, infant baptism does nothing for the baby and the child should choose to get baptized after they understand their need for the cleansing Blood of Jesus and repents.​

According to Romans 6 (at least I think its those first few verses there) Paul seems to make it symbolic.

They didn’t misunderstand it. Christ asked them if it scandalized them. They didn’t say, what do you mean Lord. They left Him and walked with Him no more.

If you go back abit in the passage, the Jews did ask, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Jesus specified the teaching to them.

**Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (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.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. **

The 12 also understood what He said, but they believed He was the Son of the living God and did not doubt His power to fulfill His teachings. Remember, they had witnessed many miracles by Christ.

Also realize, it was at the Last Supper that He showed them how they were going to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

**Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.
Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. **

In a previous post, I provided the Passover information and the Lord’s Supper, which demonstated the fulfillment, similarities and typology, of Passover with the Lord’s Supper.

 

[greggy53]

If you’re going to take that tone, I’ll ask you if you’ve cut off your hand or pocked out your eye? If not, you have no good grounds to ask me that question the way you did!!!

When you look at the reaction from everyone around Jesus when he said what he said in John 6 that they all believed he was speaking littlerally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
That is undeniable.

When Jesus spoke of cutting off an arm that offends no one freaked out and asked if he really meant they should do that. (Like the Jews did in John 6). The reaction of those around him tell us that they understood he was speaking figuratively, and making a serious point.

In your post you said: “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.”

I asked you what those reasons were. I’m sorry if you don’t like my tone, but I have never been one to pull my punches.

 

[Dokimas]

What would you expect Jesus do? Call after them… “Hey, where ya going guys?..I didn’t really mean what I said. I was just playing with your heads.” …?? But that is exactly what you are accusing our Lord of doing. You believe he was intentionally being deceptive in order to chase people away.

You said He did.

Originally Posted by greggy53
You said Jesus did not “go after the goats”…He did, and he said he did.

Matthew 9:13 2
Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.
Mark 2:17
Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.
Luke 5:32
I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.

 

[Dokimas]

They didn’t misunderstand it. Christ asked them if it scandalized them. They didn’t say, what do you mean Lord. They left Him and walked with Him no more.

If you go back abit in the passage, the Jews did ask, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Jesus specified the teaching to them.

**Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (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.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. **

The 12 also understood what He said, but they believed He was the Son of the living God and did not doubt His power to fulfill His teachings. Remember, they had witnessed many miracles by Christ.

Also realize, it was at the Last Supper that He showed them how they were going to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

**Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.
Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. **

In a previous post, I provided the Passover information and the Lord’s Supper, which demonstated the fulfillment, similarities and typology, of Passover with the Lord’s Supper.

I see your reasoning. I just don’t agree.

 

[Dokimas]

When you look at the reaction from everyone around Jesus when he said what he said in John 6 that they all believed he was speaking littlerally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
That is undeniable.

When Jesus spoke of cutting off an arm that offends no one freaked out and asked if he really meant they should do that. (Like the Jews did in John 6). The reaction of those around him tell us that they understood he was speaking figuratively, and making a serious point.

In your post you said: “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.”

I asked you what those reasons were. I’m sorry if you don’t like my tone, but I have never been one to pull my punches.

I agree all thought Jesus meant what He said to be literal. I’ve NEVER denied it (I may have mis written but I NEVER denied they believed).​

I have no problem with someone ‘throwing punches’; I don’t remember why I snipped back at you (I make enough responses and am getting older so I don’t sometimes remember specifics).​

If my memory serves me correctly, the OT forbad eating human flesh or drinking human blood.

Jesus told us why to take communion, in rememberance of Him (implies symbolism).

If it is the real presence, why don’t those who take His presence inside them die if they don’t do it worthily (the non-believer specifically). Uzzah was killed for touching the Arc of the Covenant.