Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

[distracted]

its like all questions about the Real Presence they can’t or will not have a answer

you had it right the 1st time: they CAN"t

Weird thing is: Even Jesus didn’t argue with those who rejected it & walked away… he just let them go… I suppose we are to do that also???

Hmmm… God knows…

Jesus said that the road to Heaven was narrow & there are few who “find” it… meaning people need to look… I mean, before you can find the coin that fell down under the car seat, you have to get under there & look for it… make an effort… which is why a lot of people don’t find the absolute Truth (JEsus & his Church)… They don’t extend much effort… or they have found Him but don’t think they have to do everything He says…

 

[Bill_Pick]

None of these scriptures prove your point. Bread is not flesh. If I were to tell you I was eating a steak while muching on bread and butter you would think I was delusional.

Obviously there must be some spiritual meaning to these scriptures. We don’t actually eat human flesh. That is called cannibalism and I know that Catholics are not cannibals. One can believe in a “spiritual real presence” because Jesus said that he is with us if he we are “gathered in his name”. I believe he IS with us and that we symbolically eat his flesh.

A bannana is not a pear. Bread is not steak. Candy is not wheat. Lead is not gold. Things are what they are, but we may speak metaphorically or spiritually about them. There is no such thing as “substance” under different “appearances”. Were it so, I could be 6’4 and weigh 200 pounds of solid muscle and appear to be 18 years old. Or perhaps I could be a lion. No I think a cheetah would be fun-- I would love to be able to run 60 miles an hour. Unfortunately, it is not so! Catholics typically pride themselves on being rational about their beliefs, but this is where all that rationality breaks down.

here was the question Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature

 

[NDfan]

you had it right the 1st time: they CAN"t

Weird thing is: Even Jesus didn’t argue with those who rejected it & walked away… he just let them go… I suppose we are to do that also???

What Bible are you reading?? Jesus may not have argued with them but after they started grumbling HE asked if they were offended. Then asked what if they saw HIM return from where HE came. In other words if you saw ME return to Heaven would you then BELIEVE I am who I say I am. It is the Spirit that gives life the flesh means nothing or accomplishes nothing. The words I just spoke are Spirit and Life. It’s at this point that they decided to leave. How much more arguing do you want

Yeah Jesus is going to give a command to a Jewish community that violates HIS own Father’s law which originally was given to (HELLO) the Jewish community.

 

[distracted]

None of these scriptures prove your point. Bread is not flesh.
Obviously there must be some spiritual meaning to these scriptures. We don’t actually eat human flesh. That is called cannibalism and I know that Catholics are not cannibals.

we do if God tells us to…

One can believe in a “spiritual real presence” because Jesus said that he is with us if he we are “gathered in his name”. I believe he IS with us and that we symbolically eat his flesh.

Jesus never said it was symbolic…

A bannana is not a pear. Bread is not steak. Candy is not wheat. Lead is not gold.

and a non-believer is a non-believer… Some things are to be taken on faith…

Things are what they are, but we may speak metaphorically or spiritually about them. There is no such thing as “substance” under different “appearances”.

Who says? You? Sorry, but i believe the Church God established over human beings…

Were it so, I could be 6’4 and weigh 200 pounds of solid muscle and appear to be 18 years old. Or perhaps I could be a lion. No I think a cheetah would be fun-- I would love to be able to run 60 miles an hour.

God couldn’t care less how fast you run… He does care about you living forever, though… & He said that whoever eats his flesh will live forever…

Unfortunately, it is not so! Catholics typically pride themselves on being rational about their beliefs, but this is where all that rationality breaks down.

who says Catholics pride themselves on being rational?? No one can explain perfectly things that mysterious to us as humans

You can’t explain to me how it is you werre formed in your mother’s womb… You can’t explain to me how God made the world and human beings… (etc…)_

 

[Nicholas_II]

This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.

John 6:63 says " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This proves he was speaking “spiritually” because he plainly says the “flesh profiteth nothing”. What then is the advantage of eating his “flesh” if it “profiteth nothing?” This is especially significant because he is talking about those who misunderstood and left because they thought that he literally wanted them to eat his flesh. What is important is the spirit he is imparting, not the fact that we eat his flesh. It seems very plain to me.

He never said he was a road he said he was the way. He is the way. He said he was the gate. He is the gate. He was speaking the truth. Just like he was when he said “this is my body and this is my blood”.

 

[ryanoneil]

No they didn’t understand him correctly because that is not what he did.

What you guys I think are not seeing is that this makes Jesus to be a liar. They left out because what they believed was that Jesus was going to give them human meat and blood. That is what you said.

That essentially makes Jesus say to them – you left because you thought this was going to be disgusting – but ha ha – fooled ya-- it’s really bread and wine that I give you, so it won’t be disgusting at all.

Why didn’t he tell them the truth (from your pov) and say “I am going to turn my body into bread and wine”?

There is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. (John 6:35,41,48-51)

**Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."**

I don’t know why he didn’t say “I am going to turn my body into bread and wine”. Maybe because “. . .Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him” (Jn 6:64)

Why didn’t Jesus give a “sign” in (Mt 12:39) or make his transfiguration a public event?

 

[alanjeddy]

This is a horrible argument. “Eat my flesh” is used metaphorically and your point about the use of “eat” is irrelevant. That is like saying the story of the flood is literally true because the word “ark” is used nowhere symbolically. Jesus also said “I am the way” but he was not a road, he said “I am the gate” but he was not a gate.

John 6:63 says " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This proves he was speaking “spiritually” because he plainly says the “flesh profiteth nothing”. What then is the advantage of eating his “flesh” if it “profiteth nothing?” This is especially significant because he is talking about those who misunderstood and left because they thought that he literally wanted them to eat his flesh. What is important is the spirit he is imparting, not the fact that we eat his flesh. It seems very plain to me.

You are misinterpreting what Jesus is saying. Yes the spirit lives on without the body. Jesus is talking about the flesh of mankind . it rots in the grave after we die. He isn’t talking about His own flesh that He is giving in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. You were Cathoilic did you deny the real presence then too? It is the Spirit which lives on. After the final judgement Matthew 25:31-46 our body will rise to meet the soul either in heaven or in hell. Most Protestants misinterpret "It is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is of no avail. But Jesus is not talking about the His flesh but the flesh of mankind that will again rot in the grave while the spirit lives on.
For the 10th time why did Jesus’ audience leave Him if He were talking metaphorically or symbolically? Why didn’t Jesus call them back to explain that He was talking symbolically? Why was the Greek word TROGO= TO EAT OR GNAW ON FLESH used to exppress to eat His flesh. Why did Jesus ask His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too? Instead He repeated for the 3rd time, He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die and I will raise him up on the last day. Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said.

 

[mfbukowski]

You are misinterpreting what Jesus is saying. Yes the spirit lives on without the body. Jesus is talking about the flesh of mankind . it rots in the grave after we die. He isn’t talking about His own flesh that He is giving in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. You were Cathoilic did you deny the real presence then too? It is the Spirit which lives on. After the final judgement Matthew 25:31-46 our body will rise to meet the soul either in heaven or in hell. Most Protestants misinterpret "It is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is of no avail. But Jesus is not talking about the His flesh but the flesh of mankind that will again rot in the grave while the spirit lives on.
For the 10th time why did Jesus’ audience leave Him if He were talking metaphorically or symbolically? Why didn’t Jesus call them back to explain that He was talking symbolically? Why was the Greek word TROGO= TO EAT OR GNAW ON FLESH used to exppress to eat His flesh. Why did Jesus ask His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too? Instead He repeated for the 3rd time, He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die and I will raise him up on the last day. Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said.

No I believe in the real presence. Read the rest of the thread. It is not necessary to have bread turn into flesh, which is impossible, for there to be the “real presence”. Read the rest of the thread, you have a long way to go.

But it’s true-- I never really believed in transubstantiation. Never made sense and still doesn’t. “It’s a mystery” doesn’t cut it for me. I know I will never comprehend God. But at least what we know should make sense. I will never know higher mathmatics either but at least addition and calculus make sense. If the higher principles are logical, the lower principles would be too if they were true.

 

[alanjeddy]

here was the question Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature

Excellent question Bill and predictably bukowski never replies to posts that he can’t answer. I mentionned the Greek word Trogo that is used in eating Jesus’ flesh in John 6. He was a Catholic who probably never believed in the Real Presence yet he believes the fantasies that comprise mormon unorthodoxy.

 

[mfbukowski]

Excellent question Bill and predictably bukowski never replies to posts that he can’t answer. I mentionned the Greek word Trogo that is used in eating Jesus. flesh. He was a Catholic who probably never believed in the Real Presence yet he believes the fantasies that comprise mormon unorthodoxy.

Fine. if this is your attitude, why answer, since you ignore my posts anyway.

Go away and stop bothering me you liar. This is constituting harrassment – should I call a moderator?

Get lost.

You really believe that I should believe this nonsense because he used the word “gnaw”? Metaphor is metaphor. You need to take a poetry class

Now go away

 

[alanjeddy]

No I believe in the real presence. Read the rest of the thread. It is not necessary to have bread turn into flesh, which is impossible, for there to be the “real presence”. Read the rest of the thread, you have a long way to go.

But it’s true-- I never really believed in transubstantiation. Never made sense and still doesn’t. “It’s a mystery” doesn’t cut it for me. I know I will never comprehend God. But at least what we know should make sense. I will never know higher mathmatics either but at least addition and calculus make sense. If the higher principles are logical, the lower principles would be too if they were true.

Unfortuneately you are trying to understand the omnipotence of God through the strictures of the human intellect which is finite. The finite can never fully comprehend the infinite. If Jesus can change water into wine why is it so incomprehensible that He can change wine into His blood? We walk by faith alone not by sight. God is a mystery and we will never fully comprehend the omnipotence of God. Only to the degree in which Jesus has revealed Himself to us. That was satan’s downfall thinking he could be like God.

 

[alanjeddy]

Fine. if this is your attitude, why answer, since you ignore my posts anyway.

Go away and stop bothering me you liar. This is constituting harrassment – should I call a moderator?

Get lost.

You really believe that I should believe this nonsense because he used the word “gnaw”? Metaphor is metaphor. You need to take a poetry class

Now go away

Thank you for showing how mormons really exhibit compassion.
I forgive you and hope Jesus will too when you meet Him.

 

[alanjeddy]

Fine. if this is your attitude, why answer, since you ignore my posts anyway.

Go away and stop bothering me you liar. This is constituting harrassment – should I call a moderator?

Get lost.

You really believe that I should believe this nonsense because he used the word “gnaw”? Metaphor is metaphor. You need to take a poetry class

Now go away

\

Watch what you are saying calling Jesus’ Bread of Life nonsense. One day you will answer for all of this especially since you had the fullness of the truth.

 

[ncgolf]

You really believe that I should believe this nonsense because he used the word “gnaw”? Metaphor is metaphor. You need to take a poetry class

Remember what happened prior to the discourse … he fed the 5000 (not counting women and children) with only a little bit of food … 5 barley loaves and 2 fish.

Now if someone who had just done this in front of yours eyes … you saw it, you ate of it … and had as much as you wanted … and the next day this man told you must gnaw on his flesh … why would you doubt him?

They did not fill up on metaphorical food.

It is a metaphor and I would take it metophorically if the feeding of the 5000 is metaphorical. Maybe John was misquoted and there were 5000 fish and 200 loaves. You tell me.

You must put yourself there … see what those 5000 saw …then tell me why you would doubt him?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Thank you for showing how mormons really exhibit compassion.
I forgive you and hope Jesus will too when you meet Him.

what is paul saying 1 cor 11-27

 

[mfbukowski]

Remember what happened prior to the discourse … he fed the 5000 (not counting women and children) with only a little bit of food … 5 barley loaves and 2 fish.

Now if someone who had just done this in front of yours eyes … you saw it, you ate of it … and had as much as you wanted … and the next day this man told you must gnaw on his flesh … why would you doubt him?

They did not fill up on metaphorical food.

It is a metaphor and I would take it metophorically if the feeding of the 5000 is metaphorical. Maybe John was misquoted and there were 5000 fish and 200 loaves. You tell me.

You must put yourself there … see what those 5000 saw …then tell me why you would doubt him?

I don’t know why you cannot see the most obvious things here. If I saw the loaves and fishes, they were still loaves and fishes. If I saw the water into wine, it was still wine.

It was wine. Looked like wine tasted like wine was wine. It started out water, Looked like water tasted like water smelled like water.

What you are saying is that bread becomes flesh but looks like bread.

Can you see that is just a little different?

Does Jesus lie?

Why would he say he was going to give them flesh to gnaw on so that people left, and then he gave them bread?

What he gave them was his presence in the bread. The fact that they were meeting together and remembering him in his name made his presence real.

Bread is not flesh. Read this thread over again – the whole thing. I do not want to repeat it. I have a life to lead

 

[Bill_Pick]

I don’t know why you cannot see the most obvious things here. If I saw the loaves and fishes, they were still loaves and fishes. If I saw the water into wine, it was still wine.

It was wine. Looked like wine tasted like wine was wine. It started out water, Looked like water tasted like water smelled like water.

What you are saying is that bread becomes flesh but looks like bread.

Can you see that is just a little different?

Does Jesus lie?

Why would he say he was going to give them flesh to gnaw on so that people left, and then he gave them bread?

What he gave them was his presence in the bread. The fact that they were meeting together and remembering him in his name made his presence real.

Bread is not flesh. Read this thread over again – the whole thing. I do not want to repeat it. I have a life to lead

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. what is paul talking about

 

[Bill_Pick]

None of these scriptures prove your point. Bread is not flesh. If I were to tell you I was eating a steak while muching on bread and butter you would think I was delusional.

Obviously there must be some spiritual meaning to these scriptures. We don’t actually eat human flesh. That is called cannibalism and I know that Catholics are not cannibals. One can believe in a “spiritual real presence” because Jesus said that he is with us if he we are “gathered in his name”. I believe he IS with us and that we symbolically eat his flesh.

A bannana is not a pear. Bread is not steak. Candy is not wheat. Lead is not gold. Things are what they are, but we may speak metaphorically or spiritually about them. There is no such thing as “substance” under different “appearances”. Were it so, I could be 6’4 and weigh 200 pounds of solid muscle and appear to be 18 years old. Or perhaps I could be a lion. No I think a cheetah would be fun-- I would love to be able to run 60 miles an hour. Unfortunately, it is not so! Catholics typically pride themselves on being rational about their beliefs, but this is where all that rationality breaks down.

Is the Eucharist contrary to reason? No, it is above reason, and John explains how the doctrine of the Eucharist is easier to believe than the Incarnation. so it is not hard to see why you do not understand you have no faith in Our Lord btw I hope you will answer my question about 1 cor 11-27

 

[alanjeddy]

Bill, bukowski has hardened his heart to the bread of Life Discourse and like most non believers he attempts to understand a miracle from God that is incomprhensible to the finite mind. I can’t understand how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead can you? How did He restore sight to the blind? How did He multiply the loaves? Walk on water? I believe all these things through the eyes of faith. Your faith can not be based only on what you can understand. If we use bukowski’s reasonning then he shouldn’t believe the rest of Jesus’ miracles simply based on his own admission that what Jesus accomplished defies all human logic.Moreover, the finite mind will never comprehend how Jesus’ actualy performed them. We don’t know the mechanism that He employed. For bukowski he’s like Thomas and has to stick his hands into the side of Jesus before he believes that the Roman soldier’s spear was thrust into our Saviour’s heart.

Man would I love to get this man on stage in a debate on the mirales of Jesus. especially John 6.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill, bukowski has hardened his heart to the bread of Life Discourse and like most non believers he attempts to understand a miracle from God that is incomprhensible to the finite mind. I can’t understand how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead can you? How did He restore sight to the blind? How did He multiply the loaves? Walk on water? I believe all these things through the eyes of faith. Your faith can not be based only on what you can understand. If we use bukowski’s reasonning then he shouldn’t believe the rest of Jesus’ miracles simply based on his own admission that what Jesus accomplished defies all human logic.Moreover, the finite mind will never comprehend how Jesus’ actualy performed them. We don’t know the mechanism that He employed. For bukowski he’s like Thomas and has to stick his hands into the side of Jesus before he believes that the Roman soldier’s spear was thrust into our Saviour’s heart.

Man would I love to get this man on stage in a debate on the mirales of Jesus. especially John 6.

alenjeddy i think i have it worled out since the Mormons deny basic Christian doctrine and claim to be Christian, then I can deny basic Mormon doctrine and be a Mormon. For example, I deny the following Mormon doctrines.
I deny that there are many many gods (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 163).
I deny that the trinity is three separate gods (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith page 370).
I deny that god is a man from another planet (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 3).
I deny that there is a goddess mother (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 443).
I deny that god is married to his goddess wife (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.).
I deny that god and his goddess wife have bodies of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22; Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
I deny that we were all born in the pre-existence (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, page 218; Articles of Faith, page 174).
I deny that Satan is my spirit brother (Mormon Doctrine, page 163).
I deny that I need a temple (Articles of Faith, page 138).
I deny that I have the potential of becoming a god (Articles of Faith, page 424).
I deny that the book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible (History of the Church, 4:461).
I deny that good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, pages 81, 92).
I deny that my own blood must atone for any of my sins ((Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247; see also, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54, 219-220).
Therefore, since the Mormons deny basic Christian doctrines and call them selves Christian, is it okay for me to deny basic Mormon doctrines and call myself a Mormon?