What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[Gaelic_Bard]

Indeed.

And here Jesus only reinforces that which his disciples grumbled about. He does the opposite of what you claim above. He repeated his hard saying.

If he didn’t clear it up in other instances, why would he here? He wasnt going to change his language just because of the hardness of their hearts.

And was he also only speaking in spiritual terms when he foretold his resurrection? Modernists seem to use your argument above to support their claim that Jesus didn’t really physically resurrect, but that the resurrection was only a spiritual one. They say that Jesus spoke metaphorically (the vine, living water, a door, etc etc etc) and thus apply this to his resurrection.

Do you see how you cannot deny the physical eucharist in John 6 without denying the physical resurrection? (At least, as it applies here using “Jesus spoke metaphorically therefore he was speaking metaphorically all the time.”)

Not anymore than when Jesus speaks metaphorically a dozen other times disproves his physical resurrection or incarnation. Must we interpret drinking the living water as being literalistic at the risk that we disprove the resurrection? Non sequitor.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Sir, I have to say this is a really reaching statement. How do you refigure people leaving Jesus because the words were misunderstood. Eating His body and drinking His blood is what the passage says, they heard it and it was too much for them. The Last Supper quantifies the meaning of the

It doesn’t quantify anything, johnny. There’s absolutely nothing in the passage (or in the whole gospel for that matter) to connect it to the Last Supper.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I’m not arguing at all.

I just like to post ECF stuff

Fair enough LoL

 

[PRmerger]

If he didn’t clear it up in other instances, why would he here? He wasnt going to change his language just because of the hardness of their hearts.

Exactly. He simply repeats his hard saying. And repeats it.

Incidentally, are you saying that they understood what he was saying, but their hardness of hearts refused to let them accept it?

Or are you saying that they had willing hearts that simply misunderstood what he was saying?

Not anymore than when Jesus speaks metaphorically a dozen other times disproves his physical resurrection or incarnation. Must we interpret drinking the living water as being literalistic at the risk that we disprove the resurrection? Non sequitor.

So your argument is inconsistent. “Jesus spoke metaphorically, therefore he spoke metaphorically about: [eating his flesh]” naturally presumes, “Jesus spoke metaphorically, therefore he spoke metaphorically about [his resurrection]”

You can’t argue one without the other.

Rather, you can take the Catholic position which is: Jesus spoke metaphorically sometimes. And other times he spoke literally.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Exactly. He simply repeats his hard saying. And repeats it.

Incidentally, are you saying that they understood what he was saying, but their hardness of hearts refused to let them accept it?

Or are you saying that they had willing hearts that simply misunderstood what he was saying?

No. I am saying they (mis) understood him to be saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in a carnal way. He didnt clear this up because he knew they were looking for him to perform a magic trick and give them more food. He knew that “flesh” (the sinful nature) could not comprehend “spirit and life.” The entire discourse is Christ alternating between faith language and figure…as Augustine, Clement and Tertullian indicate.

On the other hand…your view has Jesus making the statement, a bunch of unbelievers understanding perfectly what he means and then Jesus never even coming close to mentioning communion…but still holding them responsible?

So your argument is inconsistent. “Jesus spoke metaphorically, therefore he spoke metaphorically about: [eating his flesh]” naturally presumes, “Jesus spoke metaphorically, therefore he spoke metaphorically about [his resurrection]”

You can’t argue one without the other.

Rather, you can take the Catholic position which is: Jesus spoke metaphorically sometimes. And other times he spoke literally.

No…we know he’s speaking metaphorically when the textblets us know this…like in John 4 and 6

 

[PRmerger]

No. I am saying they (mis) understood him to be saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in a carnal way.

Why would hardness of hearts prompt this?

 

[johnnyjones]

It doesn’t quantify anything, johnny. There’s absolutely nothing in the passage (or in the whole gospel for that matter) to connect it to the Last Supper.

Of course this will become a circular argument. It’s rare that someone on this forum does a 360 and converts to another viewpoint. I think everyone is looking for that soul they can win over.

If you can not see Jesus telling the twelve that they are about to eat His body and drink His blood you would not see much else that I would add.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Why would hardness of hearts prompt this?

Because flesh (used in Scripture to represent sin, unbelief) cannot understand spirit and life, as Jesus here, and Paul elsewhere indicates.

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (28-29)

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." (35)

Jesus = bread; coming = eating; believing = drinking; coming and believing in Jesus = eating and drinking from him.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. (v 36)

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (40)

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (41-42)

First misunderstanding by the crowd. Jesus says he is come down from heaven. Their minds immediately turn to his carnal, earthly birth. Jesus speaks of the Incarnation.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever *believes *has eternal life. I am the bread of life.” (47-48)

"This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (50-51)

Jesus is the bread. If anyone eats - comes to him - they will not die. Have eternal life.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (52)

Second misunderstanding. Again, their minds cannot perceive what Jesus is meaning with his metaphor because they are trapped in the flesh and cannot understand/see the kingdom of God.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (53-54)

Same thing that Jesus says in verse 35; only now by way of figurative language. Whoever comes and believes in the bread from heaven will have eternal life. If there is no coming and believing…there’s no life in you.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (63-64)

The entire section is book ended by faith that sets the entire beginning and ending context. Again, this doesn’t disprove the real presence. It just means we have to let the text give us the understanding of when Jesus is using metaphor. A dogma in search of a proof text is a pretext for a bad context.

 

[mskejj]

Yes and again, I am agreeing that Matthew 16:18 means Peter. You cannot take the word “primacy” used by Cyprian snd read into it what you mean by primacy. That is anachronism.

The holy churches of the East also have used primacy in reference to the churchb of Rome but they most certainly don’t mean by it what you do.

It seems pretty plain to me…he founded a single chair for the unity of the Church. Isn’t that the point?

 

[Porknpie]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Jon, concrete bunkers can be quite nice and can have a lot of different uses.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

It seems pretty plain to me…he founded a single chair for the unity of the Church. Isn’t that the point?

The problem with your reading of Cyprian is that he never says the chair of Peter is Rome. He says that EVERY bishop is the chair of Peter…whether Rome or Constantinople.

 

[PRmerger]

Because flesh (used in Scripture to represent sin, unbelief) cannot understand spirit and life, as Jesus here, and Paul elsewhere indicates.

Not following you.

They could not understand Jesus’ words that he was the Messiah because of their hardness of hearts?

Can you provide any other verses in Scripture that show this is why his disciples left him?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Not following you.

They could not understand Jesus’ words that he was the Messiah because of their hardness of hearts?

Can you provide any other verses in Scripture that show this is why his disciples left him?

That he was the Messiah? No. That he was saying that they had to have faith in him to receive eternal life.

 

[PRmerger]

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (28-29)

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." (35)

Jesus = bread; coming = eating; believing = drinking; coming and believing in Jesus = eating and drinking from him.

This is very Catholic.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. (v 36)

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (40)

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (41-42)

First misunderstanding by the crowd. Jesus says he is come down from heaven. Their minds immediately turn to his carnal, earthly birth. Jesus speaks of the Incarnation.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever *believes *has eternal life. I am the bread of life.” (47-48)

"This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (50-51)

Jesus is the bread. If anyone eats - comes to him - they will not die. Have eternal life.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (52)

Second misunderstanding. Again, their minds cannot perceive what Jesus is meaning with his metaphor because they are trapped in the flesh and cannot understand/see the kingdom of God.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (53-54)

Same thing that Jesus says in verse 35; only now by way of figurative language. Whoever comes and believes in the bread from heaven will have eternal life. If there is no coming and believing…there’s no life in you.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (63-64)

The entire section is book ended by faith that sets the entire beginning and ending context. Again, this doesn’t disprove the real presence

And this, too, is very Catholic

It just means we have to let the text give us the understanding of when Jesus is using metaphor.

Interestingly, I believe that the text tells us quite clearly that Jesus is speaking literally (also.)

Now what do we do when there’s 2 Christians reading a Bible verse and coming to different conclusions?

In my paradigm we take it to the Church.

In your paradigm…what do we do?

 

[PRmerger]

That he was the Messiah? No. That he was saying that they had to have faith in him to receive eternal life.

Why is that a hard saying?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is very Catholic.

And this, too, is very Catholic

Interestingly, I believe that the text tells us quite clearly that Jesus is speaking literally also.

Now what do we do when there’s 2 Christians reading a Bible verse and coming to different conclusions?

In my paradigm we take it to the Church.

In your paradigm…what do we do?

Deal with what the text is saying?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Why is that a hard saying?

Because only those who believe can truly understand it. Jesus never saidvit was a hard saying. The unbelieving crowd did.

 

[PRmerger]

Because only those who believe can truly understand it. Jesus never saidvit was a hard saying. The unbelieving crowd did.

Fair enough. Why would the crowd think that’s a hard saying, Gaelic?

Think about this. How many Christian denominations have difficulty with the Real Presence doctrine vs how many have a problem with the idea that we need to have faith in Jesus to have eternal life?

 

[PRmerger]

Deal with what the text is saying?

Yeah. And we both are claiming 2 differing views on this text.

Now what?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Fair enough. Why would the crowd think that’s a hard saying, Gaelic?

Think about this. How many Christian denominations have difficulty with the Real Presence doctrine vs how many have a problem with the idea that we need to have faith in Jesus to have eternal life?

Why? Because they didn’t understand that he was talking about faith and they thought he was speaking literally. It’s not that they had a problem with faith per se, because they didn’t understand he was talking about faith at all.