Jesus Explains His Parables in Private

[Randy_Carson]

Have you ever noticed what the scriptures say about Jesus explaining the parables to his disciples (the Twelve) in private?

“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, ‘The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”’" (Mark 4:10-12)

“With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.” (Mark 4:33-34)

“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’ He replied, ‘The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.” But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.’” (Matthew 13:10-17)

Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” (Matthew 13:36)

Have you ever noticed that Jesus did not explain his teaching about His body and His blood in John 6 in any way other than its literal meaning? He did not turn to the Twelve and say, “Let me tell you what I was really trying to say to them…” No, He turned to them and said, “Do you want to leave also because of this ‘hard teaching’ about my flesh and blood?” They were so stunned that the best Peter could come up with was, “Where else will we go? We believe you have the words of eternal life.” This was not a bold declaration of “No problem, Jesus. We knew what you were trying to say, and we’re cool with it. Those folks who left were clueless.”

If he was speaking metaphorically, why didn’t any of the Gospel writers provide us, their readers, with the insight that He was speaking of his words as being “food”?

They certainly explained all the other parables for us…

 

[water]

Have you ever noticed that Jesus did not explain his teaching about His body and His blood in John 6 in any way other than its literal meaning? **He did not turn to the Twelve and say, “Let me tell you what I was really trying to say to them…” No, He turned to them and said, “Do you want to leave also because of this ‘hard teaching’ about my flesh and blood?” **They were so stunned that the best Peter could come up with was, “Where else will we go? We believe you have the words of eternal life.” This was not a bold declaration of “No problem, Jesus. We knew what you were trying to say, and we’re cool with it. Those folks who left were clueless.”

If he was speaking metaphorically, why didn’t any of the Gospel writers provide us, their readers, with the insight that He was speaking of his words as being “food”?

They certainly explained all the other parables for us…

Thanks for thinking of this. I had never thought about this and it does make sense that He meant It was His Body.

If we believe the Word is food for our soul and the Word becomes flesh, we shouldn’t be having problem believing that His flesh is also the food for our soul. One might say 'why do you need to take the Eucharist - a ‘physical’ food - for our soul. The Body and Blood of Jesus is not just a any body- He had touched many people with His ‘physical’ hands and they were saved from sins and diseases. The Eucharist is doing the same thing for us.

 

[BrianH]

There are no parables in John’s gospel Randy.

There are no parables in St. John’s Gospel.
newadvent.org/cathen/11460a.htm

 

[BrianH]

If he was speaking metaphorically, why didn’t any of the Gospel writers provide us, their readers, with the insight that He was speaking of his words as being “food”?

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:41 ¶ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

 

[BrianH]

From Jason’s website;
members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm
I have edited some for content to reflect my view.

Actually, there are some problems with the Catholic interpretation of John 6. In verse 35, Jesus identifies what the “eating and drinking” are. They represent coming to Him and believing in Him. Trusting in Christ eliminates a person’s hunger and thirst. Throughout John 6, statements about faith in Christ are interspersed with the statements about “eating and drinking” (verses 29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64). As Jesus often did, He was using an analogy to illustrate a point. In this case, He was illustrating a true faith, a faith that involves a person coming to Christ, believing in Him, and then never hungering or thirsting again as a result. This is why Jesus told people that He is the bread of life, and that they are responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said these things before the Last Supper. People were just as responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood before the eucharist was instituted as they were after.

Not only does the Catholic interpretation of John 6 miss the theme of the passage, but it also rests on some bad assumptions. Did Jesus really let the people in John 6:66 leave Him without a clarification of what He meant? No, He didn’t. In verses 35 and 63, Jesus reveals that He isn’t referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. If some who heard Him missed or forgot what He was saying in those verses, that was a problem with them, not with Jesus.

It’s also possible, of course, that they did think Jesus was referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. Does it follow, then, that Jesus would have tried to keep those people from leaving Him if He really wasn’t referring to actual eating and drinking? No, it doesn’t. He knew that these people had never really believed in Him (John 6:64). **And contrary to what Catholic apologists suggest, Jesus didn’t always clarify His teachings to those who rejected Him. **In Matthew 13:10-17, Jesus explains that He purposely kept some people from understanding what He was teaching. In John 2:19-22, Jesus refers to His body as a “temple”, which many people misunderstood as a reference to the actual temple in Jerusalem. He didn’t explain to these people what He really meant. We read in Mark 14:56-59 that some people, long after Jesus had made the statement in John 2:19, were still thinking that He had referred to the actual temple in Jerusalem. And in John 21:22-23, we read of another instance of Jesus saying something that was misunderstood by some people, with the misunderstanding leading to the false conclusion that the apostle John wouldn’t die. Yet, Jesus didn’t clarify the statement. It was John who clarified it decades later in his gospel. (Any suggestion that John didn’t clarify chapter 6 in his gospel only begs the question. How do Catholics know that passages such as John 6:35 and 6:63 aren’t clarifications of what Jesus meant?) When Catholic apologists claim that it would be unprecedented for Jesus not to further clarify His message to the people in John 6:66, if He wasn’t referring to actual eating and drinking, they’re mistaken. He could have been following the same pattern we see in Matthew 13:10-17, John 2:19-22, and John 21:22-23

 

[Philthy]

Brian -

Good pick up on the parable issue 'though I dont think it really strengthens your position much. Jesus also took time to explain “non-parabolic” teachings, like “Beware of the leaven of the pharisees”.
Furthermore, you havent even begun to explain why Christ would unnecessarily complicate a very simple idea you claim he wished to convey: I am God and whoever believes in me lives eternally. Why do we need to introduce bread and eating and life into this discussion? I realize he was responding to the request for a sign like the bread from Heaven, but He certainly didnt need to be so confusing. It makes no sense IF what you claim is true.
In addition, how do we explain the predominance of ECFs supporting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you suppose they came from the church of people who walked away and followed him no more during the Bread of Life discourse? Again, it makes no sense if what you claim is true.
Also, do you have any explanation why Christ said,“Whoever SEES THE SON and believes…has eternal life”? How do you understand that?
Lastly, in quoting the verses from John 6 which you quoted, you certainly didnt exclude a literal interpretation of parts of John 6, all you did was support some of it being symbolic. Catholics are OK with some of John 6 being seen as symbolic, but not to the exclusion of any of it being literal.

 

[BrianH]

Furthermore, you havent even begun to explain why Christ would unnecessarily complicate a very simple idea you claim he wished to convey: I am God and whoever believes in me lives eternally. Why do we need to introduce bread and eating and life into this discussion? It makes no sense IF what you claim is true.

John’s gospel IS rather complicated Plithy, I dont know of serious Christian thinkers who would contend otherwise. If you are referring to Mark’s gospel, I would agree. But Lord, John’s Gospel? Very complicated.

In addition, how do we explain the predominance of ECFs supporting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you suppose they came from the church of people who walked away and followed him no more during the Bread of Life discourse? Again, it makes no sense if what you claim is true.

I would contend the belief in the Real Presence is a logical continuation of a complicated teaching. Educated Christians STILL argue about what this means Plithy and we have the gospels sitting on our laps or on the screeen RIGHT in front of us!

Also, do you have any explanation why Christ said,“Whoever SEES THE SON and believes…has eternal life”? How do you understand that?

Sure good question. First of all, if the Catholic position is that everyone who literally sees Christ(the host I assume) and believes in him has eternal life, that is inconsistent. Not everyone who sees Christ and believes has eternal life. That would be a rather strange OSAS based upon visual confirmation of the host. Instead, lets look at what he does say:

For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want. 39 And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them to eternal life at the last day. 40 For it is my Father’s will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life-that I should raise them at the last day."

It seems like “see” is spiritual. I cannot imagine a LITERAL way that matches anyones interpretation without a full onslaught on mental gymnastics.

Lastly, in quoting the verses from John 6 which you quoted, you certainly didnt exclude a literal interpretation of parts of John 6, all you did was support some of it being symbolic. Catholics are OK with some of John 6 being seen as symbolic, but not to the exclusion of any of it being literal.

Yes, I understand that.

 

[runandsew]

Not only does the Catholic interpretation of John 6 miss the theme of the passage, but it also rests on some bad assumptions. Did Jesus really let the people in John 6:66 leave Him without a clarification of what He meant? No, He didn’t. In verses 35 and 63, Jesus reveals that He isn’t referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. If some who heard Him missed or forgot what He was saying in those verses, that was a problem with them, not with Jesus. .

Brian,
Your interpretation doesn’t square with all the writings of the early church fathers.
They all write about a real presence, not a symbolic presence.
It seems to me that you can not seperate the Gosple accounts of the last supper, and the bread of life discourse.

If it is true that John wrote last, then it is possible that he would have been clarifing what Jesus meant by saying “eat this, for this is my body”.

Plus, I had provided post which showed that a commentary from the ignatius study bible which was written by scott hahn or steve currie, which he says that it can be both a spiritual meaning of coming to believe in Jesus, plus a physical meaning which is eating the body of Christ.

Now if the writings of the early church fathers reflect teachings which were passed down to them from the Apostles, and the Apostles learned from Jesus, then it is possible that they learned about these things when Jesus explained things in private, not in public.

 

[BrianH]

If it is true that John wrote last, then it is possible that he would have been clarifing what Jesus meant by saying “eat this, for this is my body”.

You think? What in John’s gospel do you see that he had access to Matthew, Luke, and Mark?

 

[Spirithound]

You think? What in John’s gospel do you see that he had access to Matthew, Luke, and Mark?

Basically because it’s so different. John didn’t include the stuff that’s in the first 3 because people already had it.

 

[BrianH]

Basically because it’s so different. John didn’t include the stuff that’s in the first 3 because people already had it.

Spirithound, there are volumes written on this discussing the textual relationship between the synoptics and John. While there are some scholars which propose John’s having access to these other three, there are obviously more who do not. Regardless, I would contend the differences are more than John simply adding material people were not familiar with or did not have. From this site, you can find many of the similarities and differences, and then the contradictions between the synoptics and John.

**Material found only in the Fourth Gospel (John), not in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) **
Prologue (1:1-18)
“Signs,” beginning with the Wedding at Cana (2:1-12)
Dialogue with Nicodemus (2:23-3:21)
Jesus and/or his Disciples Baptize People (3:22-26; 4:1-2)
Samaritan Woman at the Well (4:1-42)
Jesus Heals a Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-18)
New Details at the Feeding of the 5000 (6:1b, 3-6, 8-9, 12b, 14-15)
Bread of Life Discourse (6:22-65)
[Woman caught in Adultery (7:53-8:11) - added later]
Jesus Gives Sight to a Man Born Blind (9:1-41)
Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead (11:1-44)
Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet (13:1-20)
“Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” (13:23-25; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:7, 20-24; cf. 18:15-16?)
Last Supper Discourses, incl. “Paraclete” & “Vine and Branches” (13:31-16:33)
Great Prayer of Jesus (17:1-26)
New Details at the Trial before Pilate (18:28-19:16)
New Details at the Crucifixion (19:20-24, 26-28, 30-37, 39)
First Resurrection Appearance to Mary Magdalene alone (20:11-18; cf. Matt 28:9)
Resurrection Appearance to Thomas (20:24-29)
Another Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias/Galilee; Dialogue between Jesus & Peter (21:1-25; cf. Luke 5:1-11)
First and Second Endings to John’s Gospel (20:30-31; 21:24-25)

**2) Material familiar from the Synoptics but not found in John **

No Infancy Narrative (but see John 1:14 - “the Word became flesh”)
No Childhood Episodes (but see 1:12; 13:33; 21:5 - believers called “children”)
No Baptism of Jesus (but see 1:19-34 - John testifies about Jesus)
No Temptation in the Desert (but see 8:44; 13:2, 27 - the role of Satan & the Devil)
No Calls to Repentance (but see 1:29; 5:14; 9:41; 15:22; 20:23 - on sin and forgiveness)
No Sermon on the Mount or Beatitudes (but see 13:17; 20:29 - Jesus calls believers blessed)
No Lord’s Prayer (but see 17:1-26 - the Great Prayer of Jesus)
No List of “Twelve Apostles” (but see 13:16 - messengers; 1:35-51; 6:67-71; 20:24; 21:2 - disciples; “the Twelve”)
No Mission of the Disciples during Jesus’ Lifetime (but see 13:20; 14:12; 20:21 - risen Jesus sends them out)
No Parables (but see 10:6; 15:1-8; 16:25, 29 - a few “figures of speech”)
No “Kingdom of God” Teaching (except 3:3-5; cf. 1:49; 6:15; 12:13-15; 18:33-39 - Jesus’ role as “King of Israel”)
No Ethical Teachings (except 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; cf. 14:21-24 - “Love One Another” and “Love Jesus/God”)
No Exorcisms (but see 7:20; 8:48-52; 10:19-21 - Jesus accused of having a “demon”)
No Transfiguration Story (but see 1:45; 3:14; 5:45-47; 9:28-29 - Jesus associated with Moses)
No Passion Predictions (but see 5:18; 11:50-53 & 18:14; 12:24-25, 32-33; 18:31-32 - talk of Jesus’ death)
No Institution of Eucharist at the Last Supper (but see 6:22-59; 13:1-20 - Bread of Life discourse; Washing of Feet)
No Predictions of Jesus’ Return (except 14:3; 21:22-23 - Jesus will “come again” or “come”)
No Ascension Narrative (but see 3:13; 6:62; 20:17 - Jesus talks about descending and ascending)

catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm
Please pay special attention to the material that is different, ie contradicting.
BH

 

[MarcoPolo]

What in John’s gospel do you see that he had access to Matthew, Luke, and Mark?

This is a strange notion. Why would it be far fetched that John would not know what other Gospel writers wrote? John knew Peter. Paul knew Peter. Paul knew Luke. Same for Mark. Why would John not know the writings of these other Gospel writers?

Please pay special attention to the material that is different, ie contradicting.
BH

The link you provided says “contrasts” not that the Gospels are “contradicting.” In looking over the material differences, I don’t see how any contradict, first of all because the left column has no references…and most times John gets more specific when the others are general. So what? As to dates and such, a different form of measuring could have been used as well.

I would recommend for further discussion that you isolate one or two of the supposed contradictions…reference those passages…and start a new thread! I think you will find much interest in the subject.

 

[BrianH]

This is a strange notion. Why would it be far fetched that John would not know what other Gospel writers wrote? John knew Peter. Paul knew Peter. Paul knew Luke. Same for Mark. Why would John not know the writings of these other Gospel writers?

The link you provided says “contrasts” not that the Gospels are “contradicting.” In looking over the material differences, I don’t see how any contradict, first of all because the left column has no references…and most times John gets more specific when the others are general. So what? As to dates and such, a different form of measuring could have been used as well.

I would recommend for further discussion that you isolate one or two of the supposed contradictions…reference those passages…and start a new thread! I think you will find much interest in the subject.

I would rather clean the garage then debate biblical inerrancy. No way, this is not a Baptist board, been there, done that.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Brian -

Thanks for taking the time to respond

John’s gospel IS rather complicated Plithy, I dont know of serious Christian thinkers who would contend otherwise. If you are referring to Mark’s gospel, I would agree. But Lord, John’s Gospel? Very complicated.

The fact that it is complicated does not make the problem of your interpretation go away, so I will assume that you have no explanation as to why - IF what you propose is true - Christ intentionally made a simple teaching so complicated…

brian:

I would contend the belief in the Real Presence is a logical continuation of a complicated teaching. Educated Christians STILL argue about what this means Plithy and we have the gospels sitting on our laps or on the screeen RIGHT in front of us!

A logical interpretation of a complicated teaching, possibly, but it didnt necessarily come FROM the gospels - they were not universally in the Church at the time some of the ECFs (Ignatious) wrote on the real presence. You seem to assume that the beliefs of the early Church were formed from Scripture, when, in fact, they were purely apostolic. That is a major problem in your analysis.

brian:

Sure good question. First of all, **if **the Catholic position is that everyone who literally sees Christ(the host I assume) and believes in him has eternal life, that is inconsistent.

Inconsistent with what, exactly? Please be careful to articulate what, exactly, Christ’s words are “inconsistent” with and why we should not, therefore, reject reject the inconsistency (rather than rejecting Christs words).

Brian:

Not everyone who sees Christ and believes has eternal life. That would be a rather strange OSAS based upon visual confirmation of the host.

Why, exactly, is it strange to say that one who sees AND believes has eternal life. I dont understand why it is strange and I reject your characterization of it as such without at least an attempt at justification.

BrianH:

Instead, lets look at what he does say:
It seems like “see” is spiritual. I cannot imagine a LITERAL way that matches anyones interpretation without a full onslaught on mental gymnastics.

I disagree that “see” is spiritual. I think you mean to say that it is “symbolic”, but I disagree with that also! There are some very simple explanations I think, but I want to know exactly WHY you cant imagine a literal interpretation - so I can understand your position better. Otherwise we are simply trading eisegesis and that is pointless, no?

BrianH:

Yes, I understand that.

That seems odd, then, because if you understand that the Catholic position embraces both the symbolic and the literal one would expect that you would argue to specifically EXCLUDE the literal interpretation rather than argue simply in favor of elements of symbolic interpretation which we both agree upon.

 

[BrianH]

The fact that it is complicated does not make the problem of your interpretation go away, so I will assume that you have no explanation as to why - IF what you propose is true - Christ intentionally made a simple teaching so complicated…

I cannot help you. John is complicated. A relevent verse comes to mind from Matthew.

Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. - Matthew 13:10-11

A logical interpretation of a complicated teaching, possibly, but it didnt necessarily come FROM the gospels - they were not universally in the Church at the time some of the ECFs (Ignatious) wrote on the real presence. You seem to assume that the beliefs of the early Church were formed from Scripture,
I do, LOL, I think not!!
Unless one looks at the role of the Hebrew Bible.
Did this come from my statement about the gospels?
I THOUGHT I was showing that even WITH the gospels right in front of us, as opposed to the fact they DID NOT, we still had disagreement.

when, in fact, they were purely apostolic. That is a major

problem in your analysis.
You have misunderstood my analysis, which is not so different from any scholar I have read on the subject, albeit not presented as well of course.

Inconsistent with what, exactly? Please be careful to articulate what, exactly, Christ’s words

are “inconsistent” with and why we should not, therefore, reject reject the inconsistency (rather than rejecting Christs words).
Do you believe that everyone who sees Christ has eternal life? That is what the verse says so a simple yes or no would suffice. Inconsistent with Catholic theology of course! Unless you are saying that everyone who sees Jesus(ie the host) and believes has eternal life. That is not your position is it?
This has become frustrating, please follow what I am saying Plithy, whether you disagree with it or not!!

COLOR=navy]Why, exactly, is it strange to say that one who sees AND believes has eternal life

.
SImply because I do not know of ANYONE who interprets this literally. Do you believe that everyone who sees Christ and believes gets eternal life??

I disagree that “see” is spiritual. I think you mean to say that it is “symbolic”, but I disagree with that also!

I meant what I said.

There are some very simple explanations I think, but I want to know exactly WHY you cant imagine a literal interpretation - so I can understand your position better.

If you are contending that everyone who sees the host has eternal life or everyone who saw Jesus and believed has eternal life, of course we would disagree.

That seems odd, then, because if you understand that the Catholic position embraces both the symbolic and the literal one would expect that you would argue to specifically EXCLUDE the literal interpretation rather than argue simply in favor of elements of symbolic interpretation which we both agree upon.

Oh brother…
I am not arguing as you feel I should??
I give up.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would rather clean the garage then debate biblical inerrancy.

Then I would suggest not bringing up the subject of “contradicting” Scripture passages.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Brian -

Im sorry if some of my last post exasperated you - I didnt mean to!

Did this come from my statement about the gospels?
I THOUGHT I was showing that even WITH the gospels right in front of us, as opposed to the fact they DID NOT, we still had disagreement.

Sorry - I misunderstood your point. We agree that the teaching of the RP of Christ precedes Scripture. Im not sure why we would expect Scripture to be clearer than the oral teaching, however…

Brian:

Do you believe that everyone who sees Christ has eternal life?
No - only everyone who sees him and believes. Do you have a problem with that? Why?
That is what the verse says so a simple yes or no would suffice.

Sees AND believes - I give it an unambiguous YES!!! Why shouldnt I take Christ at his word? Do you believe it contradicts another essential of the faith somehow?

Brian:

Inconsistent with Catholic theology of course!

I dont see the inconsistency that you do. Care to share it?

Brian:

Unless you are saying that everyone who sees Jesus(ie the host) and believes has eternal life.

Certainly everyone who sees the Son AND believes has eternal life - again, I have no good reason to doubt it. I’m not sure that I would extend that phrase to include the Eucharist as well, however.

BrianH:

That is not your position is it?
This has become frustrating, please follow what I am saying Plithy, whether you disagree with it or not!!

I will try - honest. I asked you why you felt the verse contradicts your faith but you havent articulated why so I am left guessing. I would be happy to share my beliefs with you, but I was also interested in hearing about your own. In particular, I wanted to know why you feel you MUST reject a very simple statement by Christ which does not seem symbolic at all.

Brian:

SImply because I do not know of ANYONE who interprets this literally. Do you believe that everyone who sees Christ and believes gets eternal life??..

I do.

Brian:

If you are contending that everyone who …saw Jesus and believed has eternal life, of course we would disagree.

Would you mind telling me WHY you cannot reconcile the statement with your faith - why we must disagree? My guess is that you and He are thinking differently about “eternal life”, but I dont really know because you havent simply said why you feel a literal interpretation of the statement must be rejected.

Brian:

Oh brother…
I am not arguing as you feel I should??
I give up.

I didnt mean to offend you, and I am not saying that you should argue the way I want you to. I was simply expressing my opinion - it doesnt mean it is correct - Im not that proud. Don’t give up - Im not trying to frustrate you Im simply trying to exchange ideas.
I am not judging you…

Phil

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are no parables in John’s gospel Randy.

It seems that link to New Advent just says that John’s gospel does not use the Greek word for parable. However, by New Advent’s definition of using earthly situations to describe heavenly ones, John 10:1-6 qualifies as a parable. The NAB footnote for verse 6 even notes that a different word for parable is used, but the “idea is similar.”