scripture question

[wmscott]

Jesus was speaking figuratively and it needs to be kept in context with the passover and seder meal. The Jews use unleavened bread to symbolize the body of the lambs from the Exodus and also red wine with warm water to symbolize the blood. The Apostles being Jews would recognize that in referring to these elements Christ was stating they now represent HIS body and blood and no longer the lambs form the Exodus. That’s why Jesus states that HE will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new again. Fruit of the vine is a common term for referring to wine. So even after Jesus states this cup is the new covenant in my blood HE still refers to the liquid as fruit of the vine.

In John 6, Jesus is not speaking figuratively, or in a parable, or as a fable, he is speaking literally. Whichever bible translation you use it is either truly, truly, I say to you or amen, amen I say to you.
Amen
–interjection

1. It is so; so be it (used after a prayer, creed, or other formal statement to express solemn ratification or agreement).
   –adverb
2. Verily; truly.

Why do you think so many walked away from him? The argument of Jesus is speaking figuratively is a Protestant argument to get past John 6.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t know if you are being picky or not, since I don’t know the German from where this came, and the nuances involved in the translation. I understand your point, however. Indeed, the Orthodox will say, at least one here has said, that If “you and I come to agreement on whatever matter is at hand, fine and well. If not, we separate”

 

[jpaul1953]

Jesus was speaking figuratively and it needs to be kept in context with the passover and seder meal. The Jews use unleavened bread to symbolize the body of the lambs from the Exodus and also red wine with warm water to symbolize the blood. The Apostles being Jews would recognize that in referring to these elements Christ was stating they now represent HIS body and blood and no longer the lambs form the Exodus. That’s why Jesus states that HE will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new again. Fruit of the vine is a common term for referring to wine. So even after Jesus states this cup is the new covenant in my blood HE still refers to the liquid as fruit of the vine.

Dear ND Fan,

So the disciples left Jesus because He was just symbolizing His body and His blood as bread and wine… That would be a truly foolish reason to leave. In front of these same disciples, Jesus had cured many of the sick, had turned a few fish and loaves of bread into enought to feed many thousands. And because he wanted to symbolize His body and His blood as bread and wine to remember Him by they walk away …forever. That is very strange.

May God guide us always.

jpaul1953

 

[jpaul1953]

He said He was His own authority. The words He used were, “I say unto you…”

We can all ask God questions as we wonder. God gave us a teaching authority. He gave authority to certain men to teach us. He may reveal things to us personally in provate revelation, but that is unreliable. We may be deceived, hallucinating, mentally ill. His revelation is to all, through His Church according to scripture. We either receive it from those to whom He entrusted it, or make up our own and have chaos, thousands of versions, no unity of mind, as commanded of us.

Grandfather,

I say: " Bravo, my fellow Catholic, Bravo. you can’t make it any simpler than. "

Mau God guide us always.

jpaul1953

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;5427958]

Understanding does develop over time. The content of revelation does not. Everything necessary for salvation was revealed in public revelation, by the time of the death of Saint John. Jesus said to His apostles that there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not bear it yet. He then promised to send the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth and He promised to be with them until the end of time. This is a guarantee of protection in the matters of faith, that doctrine is protected. He stands behind it. We will not go astray and believe lies. This means that if the Church universally taught (for example) that there are seven sacraments in the the year 200 or 1200, that this is true. If someone comes along under his own authority or the claimed authority of scripture (his personal interpretation) many centuries later and says this is wrong and there are two, he is wrong, or the Church believed lies since the beginning and the promises Jesus made are false. We can understand more about what is revealed, but can not believe lies about it. Understanding can not change in contradiction to what we were handed, but it can expand within the Church. If a group separates from the Church and understanding grows, led by the Holy Spirit, the separated group will not be part of it. Similarly, there are Jews in the world that only had the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentatuch. Does that mean there are no more?

So, assuming for a moment that I accept your position, where do I go for that protected truth? Whose doctrine most resembles that of the pre-schism Church?

The term first among equals is an oxymoron. You can not have primacy and equality. I believe the origin of the term came after the schism.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

13] VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several…

Jesus either gave Peter the keys or He didn’t. The faith of the apostles is not divided. It is one. If you get off the train you get left behind

I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

Jon

 

[Filioque]

Interesting statement. If it IS HIS body then when did it become HIS body?? Clearly there had to be a time when it was just bread. Or was the bread always Christ’s body?? If it was bread then it had to at sometime “become” Christ’s body. This is the problem with twisting the meaning of the seder meal. Christ was not using language to insinuate a change in the elements of bread and wine. That’s why HE states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood. It’s not a cup of HIS blood. The covenant is in HIS blood symbolized by the cup. Christ used the cup of redemption or 3rd cup of wine which is red wine mixed with warm water taken after the seder meal symbolizing the blood of the lambs slain prior to the Exodus. But now as Christ states the cup of redemption is represented by HIS blood which is the final sacrifice for our sins. Hence the inception of the new covenant. There’s no language at all which implies the bread changed. It’s still bread but now it has a new meaning.

PEACE

A similar argument took place when I was a child. My Grandfather, who was leading the Seder, and not an overly schooled man held that as we are taught in the Seder that anyone who fulfils the basic requirements of the Seder are to consider that they themselves came out of the land of Egypt. My Uncle, who had a Masters Degree, and saw everything as symbolic, and felt superior because he had cast off the shackles of an ignorant ancient belief, argued that it was just a nice story, that spoke of freedom from a despot.

My Grandfather explained to him that while the excape that he and my grandmother were able to make from Europe, thanks to Angelo Roncolli, took place in time, that each day he looked into the eyes of his children and grandchildren, the events of the past were linked to the present day. That G-d did not work in time but being eternal, saw everything as now. So the Pesach we celebrated was no different than the Exodus. The Seder we celebrated, and the food we ate, was the same food as was sacrificed in the Temple of old, and we by our Anmensis, (He was raised in Salonika, so spoke greek) by G-d’s power walked with Moses out of Egypt, not in a figurative way, but in reality. When he and my grandmother eventually became Catholic, he said the easiest thing to believe once he became convinced of Jesus’ deity was the Eucharist, because of the traditional Jewish teaching of what the Seder is. He told me, “Just as the Seder is, and not was, the Mass is, and not was Calvary.” It was this in combination with anti-catholic polemics that encouraged me to find out what the Catholic Church really taught, and convert. So your arguments about how the Seder disproves the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Or the argument about what Greek words Jesus used, (when it is more likely that he used either Aramaic, or Hebrew) are moot to me.

 

[grandfather]

So, assuming for a moment that I accept your position, where do I go for that protected truth? Whose doctrine most resembles that of the pre-schism Church?

Jon

I guess that is your decision. You know the options.

There can be only one Church. She has to be findable. Calvin said the Church is invisible. That which is invisible can not be found. Jesus said we are a beacon set on a hill, highly visible.

I try to be as objective as I can, with myself, not trying to debate anyone, or argue anything, but seeking objectively to understand my own faith. Is it all really true? What evidence is there that makes it undeniable, for me?

It is not theological intellectual convincing that gets me there, including what the Bible says. I am not denying that, or saying it is not integral to our faith. But that does not hold me fast in faith.

It is the witness of others that convinces me. It is the lives of the saints, from the apostles to Mother Teresa. It is the depth of their witness, the acts of courage and love, the countless miracles and signs of so many kinds, medical, miraculous conversions, bilocations, raising the dead, all the things Jesus did. There is so much of it that it is undeniable and I have seen it in my own life. We have them in every age including our own. I want to belong to this, to them. I don’t want to be part of anything that rejects them or discounts them who are God’s highly beloved. I want to be in communion with them and to honor them for their virtue, as God honors them and they glorify Him.

Honestly, humbly, that is also what I want for you. I don’t even know you, but it does not matter. We long for communion not separation.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;5428269]I guess that is your decision. You know the options.

There can be only one Church. She has to be findable. Calvin said the Church is invisible. That which is invisible can not be found. Jesus said we are a beacon set on a hill, highly visible.

I try to be as objective as I can, with myself, not trying to debate anyone, or argue anything, but seeking objectively to understand my own faith. Is it all really true? What evidence is there that makes it undeniable, for me?

It is not theological intellectual convincing that gets me there, including what the Bible says. I am not denying that, or saying it is not integral to our faith. But that does not hold me fast in faith.

It is the witness of others that convinces me. It is the lives of the saints, from the apostles to Mother Teresa. It is the depth of their witness, the acts of courage and love, the countless miracles and signs of so many kinds, medical, miraculous conversions, bilocations, raising the dead, all the things Jesus did. There is so much of it that it is undeniable and I have seen it in my own life. We have them in every age including our own. I want to belong to this, to them. I don’t want to be part of anything that rejects them or discounts them who are God’s highly beloved. I want to be in communion with them and to honor them for their virtue, as God honors them and they glorify Him.

Honestly, truthfully, I want our communions to share these things together. To share His body and blood at each other’s altars. It is what Christ called for, what we are meant to be.

Honestly, humbly, that is also what I want for you. I don’t even know you, but it does not matter. We long for communion not separation.

Actually, I think I know you to some degree, from the times we have dialogued. Believing your words, you are a man of faith, who loves the Lord and the Church.
Blessings,
Jon

 

[grandfather]

A similar argument took place when I was a child. .

Thank you for sharing. Beautiful!

 

[adrift]

Well, when he said “I am the bread that comes down from heaven” and later said “eat this bread” and “the flesh availeth nothing”, you think these were all not what he meant to say?

Jesus was an authentic worker of miracles. If he intended bread to actually become flesh there would be no question. They would have seen the flesh, but would any of them have eaten human flesh? No they would not…

You are quoting out of context. Many found this to be a hard saying and walked with Him no more. They did not misunderstand Him otherwise He would have corrected it. He meant what He said this IS not this represents This Is My body, THIS IS My Blood. Lets do a little diagramming. Verb is meaning a state of being. What is? This is the subject and it refers to what Jesus held in His hands the bread and the wine. Is what? His Body and His Blood.

 

[geometer]

You are quoting out of context. Many found this to be a hard saying and walked with Him no more. They did not misunderstand Him otherwise He would have corrected it. He meant what He said this IS not this represents This Is My body, THIS IS My Blood. Lets do a little diagramming. Verb is meaning a state of being. What is? This is the subject and it refers to what Jesus held in His hands the bread and the wine. Is what? His Body and His Blood.

He said: This (bread) is my body. This (wine) is my blood. Bread and wine are truly food. He said more than once that; he is the bread that came down from heaven, and he called the wine in the cup the “fruit of the vine”. There is no reason to cut away these things that he actually said, which make his meaning very clear.

Jesus was a man who came down from heaven, and he taught other men to do the same, and this is his gospel, that you can be born again, born of God, his begotten son.

Salvation is given through the grace of God. God helps you, but you need to ask…

 

[jpaul1953]

Well, last time I checked I was not an agnostic. I am a Catholic to the very best of my knowledge. I believe we can know God. In fact the purpose for which we are made is to know and love God.

But that is not the same as asking God questions, as individuals, which is a fine thing to do, but not the means by which we know the truths He reveals.

If a hundred people all claiming to be Christians, or a thousand, asked God a question, how many different answers (denominations) might we end up with? That is not the means He proscribes for us to know truth. God does not explain the details of His plan of salvation (is or becomes) to each of us, or leave us to our own means to figure out the different points of theology and get it right, even with the help of the Bible. We don’t have to do that. He does not hoild us responsible for that. We are held responsible to love one another and Him, not to make or win arguements, but to love. The answers are given, but we insist on the right to do it on our own, and make up our minds for ourselves on anything and everything, or some do.

So we have theological and moral chaos in our society and can not even figure out any longer that men marry women much less whether a Greek word in scripture means is or becomes.

Hey Grandfather,

Has any of the ‘Opposite Viewers’ explained why the short-term disciples, who were there for the feeding with the fish and loaves and curing of the sick left Jesus’ side after Christ’s explanation of the real body and blood, never to return.

That’s the key. Why leave if He was only speaking of spiritual body and blood.

It’s sort of the same thing when the ‘Opposite Viewers’ claim that the reason Jesus gave Mother Mary and Apostle John to each other at the cross was that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not believers at that point in their lives. So Jesus wanted His mother to be with one of His strong followers. Those non-believering children were good enough to be by their mother’s side while Jesus was preaching in the temple and during His ministry while His mother was not with them. But, at the cross things must change since Jesus is just leaving for three days.

I guess the ‘Opposite Viewers’ forget that Jesus knows everyone’s heart as He would with His ‘Supposed Natural Brothers and Sisters. Why, when His ‘SNB&S’ were going to believe would He send his Mother with John to, I believe I’ve read, to Africa for five years and to finish their lives in Ephesus. If Jesus’ ‘SNB&S’ were as they believe younger than Him than their mother may have abandoned them. That’s not the Blessed Mother I was brought up to believe in.

I didn’t mean to go there, but I was trying to make the analogy that with every opposing view the Church has the original truth, which wasn’t opposed prior to the original truth being set, is there for a reason, It’s the truth.

I am sorry that I mixed two threads together.

May God guide us always.

jpaul1953

 

[adrift]

There is no reason to cut away these things that he actually said, which make his meaning very clear.
.

I agree that His meaning is quite clear that the bread and wine are changed into His Body and Blood.

 

[Radical]

Hi again Jon,

Yes, He is the door, but the door isn’t Him. And this, to me, differentiates between figurative and literal. Only at the Last Supper does He put His hands on the bread and say, “this is me”. That is literal, the real presence. All the figurative language is “I am this”, a different representation.

Now, the difference between ‘is’ and ‘becomes’ may have to do with the language of the mystery. Christ leaves us no clues to reckon or explain how this happens. Prior to the consecration, it is bread and wine. Then, it just is His body and blood.

Jon

So you differentiate between the “I am” passages and the one set of “is my” passages…what about the other “is my” passage? It reads: *"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven **is my **brother and sister and mother.” *

In verse 47 it would seem that the Jews are talking about a biological mother and biological brothers…so then, if one does the will of the Father, is that one’s DNA transformed (though retaining the accidents of the person’s original DNA) into the DNA(s) of a biological mother, brother and sister?
To ask the questions that I get asked all the time;

Do you think God isn’t capable of mysteriously changing the DNA and making us all his mother…just like he said?
Why don’t you accept Jesus at his word and accept that you are his sister too?
Just had to ask.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jesus was speaking figuratively and it needs to be kept in context with the passover and seder meal. The Jews use unleavened bread to symbolize the body of the lambs from the Exodus and also red wine with warm water to symbolize the blood. The Apostles being Jews would recognize that in referring to these elements Christ was stating they now represent HIS body and blood and no longer the lambs form the Exodus. That’s why Jesus states that HE will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new again. Fruit of the vine is a common term for referring to wine. So even after Jesus states this cup is the new covenant in my blood HE still refers to the liquid as fruit of the vine.

I would encourage you to err on the side of caution. Within the FIRST century we hear the Fathers speaking of a literal presence of Our Lord in that sublime Eucharist. For 1,500 years there is nothing but a literal understanding and a deep reverence for the species. Transubstantiation wasn’t coined until Aquinas’s age but the sentiment predated him. I find it VERY HARD to believe that Jesus instituted a symbolic, figurative, empty sedar meal and his own first generation of Christians all the way until Calvin and Zwingli and company came along and got it right? It defies logic that Christ would allow his flock to flounder for 1,500 years with literalism and error if your approach is valid? I’m not buying it. I’m going with the Fathers, the saints, and the traditional understanding that the Catholic Church, East and West, have both agreed on for two millenia, not Zwingli or some baptists.

 

[grandfather]

Hi again Jon, So you differentiate between the “I am” passages and the one set of “is my” passages…what about the other “is my” passage? It reads: "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

Hi Rad,

The topic is changed a bit, but the topic of Jesus relatives for those who insist that He had siblings vs having close kin (cousins), they have a dilemma, a serious problem, in that their theory makes the Bible contradict itself and false. If Jesus had sibling brothers the Bible contradicts itself. I have shown this to numerous Protestants and they agree.

The Bible in several places lists the twelve apostles. There are two named James. To differentiate which James is which the Bible tells us the names of the parents of James. It does not mention the parents of the other apostles, other than the brothers, James and John, sons of Zebedee (thunder). The parents of both James are not Joseph or Mary, but Alpheous (Clopas) and Zebedee. Nor were any of these men married to Mary.

We also know the names of the wives of these men, the mothers of both James, from the Bible stories of the crucifixion. They were there with Mary and one was related to her, called a sister. That is not the main point though.

Paul when he is defending his standing as an apostle says he met Peter as if to say Peter the head of the apostels accepted him as an apostle so that was some proof of Paul’s credentials. Then Paul says that he met no other apostle except “James the brother of the Lord”. Very interesting. Again this proves Jesus had a sibling brother if that is what the word brother means in Greek scripture and Hebrew.

But the Bible tells us that neither apostle James had parents named Mary or Joseph. How then could either James be Jesus’s sibling? They can not. So if either James was Jesus sibling then the Bible falsely tells us who their parents were.

Either Jesus had no sibling brother named James, or the Bible is in error. Take your pick. The alternative explanation that harmonizes scripture with reality is that there is no Hebrew word for sibling brother. Rather brother and sister means “close kin”, cousin.

Now if you read about the crucifixion and the women who were standing with Mary you will see that the the James, Jude, etc. named in Mark and Matthew as brothers, were related as sons of these women, and Alpheous (Clopas) and Zebedee, close kin, cousins.

So what are we doing? We are straining at gnats as did the scribes and pharisees. In fact if you caught it we are straining of the meaning of a very interesting word or words and it should cause us serious pause.

I am. The very words that God gives as His identity and name to Moses are causing some to choke. "I AM, the bread of life. I am the bread come down from heaven. He who eats this bread will never die. Unless a man eats my flesh and drinks my blood he has no life within him. My flesh is real food. My blood is real drink. His followers from the beginning understood these words to have a certain meaning. When He first spoke His words many left him and those words still drive many away. Nothing has changed. They can not accept His words so they argue over the meaning and come up with a meaning that is different from the faith of the ancient Church and they walk away.

If you are to escape the angel of death you have to eat the flesh of the sacrificed passover lamb. Believe it or not.

 

[geometer]

I agree that His meaning is quite clear that the bread and wine are changed into His Body and Blood.

I know that, that is what is commonly supposed, but it is not stated in the scripture. But it does seem that only the ones who believed that bread was changed into flesh left him. Christians always follow the worst example, because they do not know what was important. If people actually knew what was important in what Jesus said, they would be living lives performing the miracles that he said would be performed by those who believe him.

The eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, are the incorporation of what he said as gospel. He said that he was the true bread that came down from heaven. The problem is that most people receive his words like water on a ducks back. Because you have not believed that he came down from heaven, sent by our father in heaven, you have not been sent…

 

[grandfather]

I know that, that is what is commonly supposed, but it is not stated in the scripture. But it does seem that only the ones who believed that bread was changed into flesh left him. Christians always follow the worst example, because they do not know what was important. If people actually knew what was important in what Jesus said, they would be living lives performing the miracles that he said would be performed by those who believe him.

The eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, are the incorporation of what he said as gospel. He said that he was the true bread that came down from heaven. The problem is that most people receive his words like water on a ducks back. Because you have not believed that he came down from heaven, sent by our father in heaven, you have not been sent…

You are becoming incoherent. You are babbling nonsense.

 

[Radical]

Hi Grandfather,

The topic is changed a bit, but the topic of Jesus relatives for those who insist that He had siblings vs having close kin (cousins), they have a dilemma, a serious problem, in that their theory makes the Bible contradict itself and false. If Jesus had sibling brothers the Bible contradicts itself. I have shown this to numerous Protestants and they agree.

you must have done a much better job of it on those other occasions.

The Bible in several places lists the twelve apostles.

Actually, the bible uses the term “apostle” with respect to a number of men outside of the original group of 12. In Phil 2:25 a fellow by the name of “Epaphroditus” is included in the group. Paul, Timothy and Barnabas are better known examples and then of course there is James the brother of Jesus (as opposed to the two disciples also named James).

But the Bible tells us that neither apostle James had parents named Mary or Joseph.

No, it tells us that neither of the two disciples named James (from the original twelve) had parents named Mary or Joseph. By telling us the names of Jesus’s parents, the Bible tells us that the parents of Jesus’s brother James were named Mary and Joseph.

How then could either James be Jesus’s sibling? They can not.

agreed. That is why Paul bothers to specify that the James in Jerusalem is the brother of the Lord, so that we don’t think he was talking about one of the two guys named James in the original 12.

So if either James was Jesus sibling then the Bible falsely tells us who their parents were. Either Jesus had no sibling brother named James, or the Bible is in error. Take your pick. The alternative explanation that harmonizes scripture with reality is that there is no Hebrew word for sibling brother. Rather brother and sister means “close kin”, cousin.

Even if the James of Galatians was one of the original 12, then all you would have done is to have shown that “brother” doesn’t always mean biological brother…which is something we should already know. (That Epaphroditus felow is also called Paul’s brother) It doesn’t mean that in Matt 12 “brothers” didn’t mean biological brothers, b/c that is still the most likely meaning given the context.

In fact if you caught it we are straining of the meaning of a very interesting word or words and it should cause us serious pause.

agreed

. His followers from the beginning understood these words to have a certain meaning. When He first spoke His words many left him and those words still drive many away. Nothing has changed.

actually a great deal has changed…In John 6 Christ gives no explanation as to how he will give people his flesh to eat. Since then, over the course of a number of centuries, the Catholics have provided an explanation as to how this eating can take place w/o involving anything approaching cannibalism. In John 6 the Jews were confused and offended by Jesus’s words. Now, most Christians just don’t believe the Catholic claim that the bread has been changed into Jesus’s body when they can observe that no change has occured.

 

[geometer]

The alternative explanation that harmonizes scripture with reality is that there is no Hebrew word for sibling brother. Rather brother and sister means “close kin”, cousin.

No, the hebrew for brother is achim. And the greek of the new testament does use the greek word for cousin in reference to Elizabeth. She was not called the sister of Mary.