Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

[PRmerger]

Niether did He use it when He said “I am the true vine”, but I don’t see or know of anyone making similar claims about vines.

You don’t believe that Jesus is the vine? He is the Vine upon which all vines aspire!

 

[PRmerger]

Those that were there for the food(and not the spiritual food). They came expecting the physical food as before, but instead they were offered spiritual food.
They too were assigning a literal meaning to His words, or in other words relying on the flesh, rather than the spirit to understand.

What physical food?

What “hard saying” did they leave Jesus about?

 

[flyonthewall]

You don’t believe that Jesus is the vine? He is the Vine upon which all vines aspire!

Figuratively, He is the true vine, but not literally.

PRmerger:

What physical food?

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

What “hard saying” did they leave Jesus about?

They were not understanding the whole thing, but the straw that broke the (metaphorical) camel’s back() was the eating of His flesh.
Here, they almost understood:

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The meat He was offering was the works of God, and the works were to believe on Jesus.

Then they asked for a sign…you know how Jesus likes sign seekers:

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

He saw that they were not ready to

 

[PRmerger]

Figuratively, He is the true vine, but not literally.

He is more of a Vine than any other vine.

IOW, he is truly, substantially, literally the Vine, is he not?

 

[PRmerger]

Fly, you responded to post 77 and 78. Those were not my posts that you were responding to, by the way.

They were my posts, somehow attributed to you.

Seems to be another glitch in the system.

 

[PRmerger]

They were not understanding the whole thing, but the straw that broke the (metaphorical) camel’s back() was the eating of His flesh.

EXACTLY!!!

:extrahappy:

They understood him, exactly as he spoke, and left because of this hard saying.

They did not leave because he was speaking of symbolically eating his flesh.

Who would leave over that?

They left, Jesus saw, yet did not call them back to explain he was only speaking metaphorically.

 

[PRmerger]

He saw that they were not ready to

Indeed. He saw.

And do you know who it was specifically that Jesus *saw *was not ready to “swallow” this hard saying?

May those who leave Him because of this hard saying not follow in the footsteps of the one who left originally.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:72[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just read the OP. This is a textbook baiting thread meant to launch World War III…

 

[flyonthewall]

(continued from post #83 - sorry, accidently posted before I was done, then took me more than 20 minutes to finish.)
Then they asked for a sign…you know how Jesus likes sign seekers:

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Prove you are sent from God first and then
tell us what you would have us do.
He tried to explain, drawing on the symbolism of manna that was given to the Israelites, and Himself. But they asked for more of the manna.

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

He then came right out and stated

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
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.
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.

Notice in His explaination, nothing was said about eating His flesh, but simply “him that cometh to me” and “everyone that seeth the Son and believeth on Him”.

Then they got really off track. This is where they started murmuring because they just werent “getting” what He was telling them.
He made an attempt, one last time, to speak plainly to them in verse 47:

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

Again, nothing here about eating His flesh or drinking His blood.
Then He tries using symbolism to get His point across:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

He is talking of the atonement. His body was broken and His blood was shed as The Atonement.
This is where He first establishes the symbolic connection with bread.
The Last Supper is the institution of the ordinance that remembers His sacrifice, the Atonement.

The more I read this chapter in John, it becomes more and more obvious to me, that it is symbolic and NOT literal.

 

[PRmerger]

The more I read this chapter in John, it becomes more and more obvious to me, that it is symbolic and NOT literal.

Would you please explain further exactly what it was the Jews were responding to here:
*
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” *

What is it that they’re objecting to? What “saying is hard”?

I’m not following your original explanation of what it is you believe Judas and the others left him for.

 

[tester]

Would you please explain further exactly what it was the Jews were responding to here:
*
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” *

What is it that they’re objecting to? What “saying is hard”?

The Jews may have been thinking about some for of cannibalism, but they were wrong.

Yes, the Jews were confused AGAIN at what Jesus was saying:

John 2:19-22

• 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.*

i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 2 and i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 6.

But the point remains that that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was talking about.

 

[PRmerger]

The Jews may have been thinking about some for of cannibalism, but they were wrong.

And Jesus responded, “Does this shock you?”

Why, if he were speaking symbolically, would he ask that?

This alleged “symbolic” meaning is so…um….not shocking, not hard to understand.

And it was at this point that Judas “left” the flock. Over a metaphor?

 

[PRmerger]

i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 2 and i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 6.

We don’t know that Jesus did not correct them. Certainly, no one is reported to have left him over this statement, eh?

But the point remains that that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was talking about.

Yes, and there are many who still misunderstand.

They want to remove the difficult sayings Jesus proclaimed (like this one in John 6, and like his teaching on divorce and remarriage) and make it more palatable.

 

[PRmerger]

i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 2 and i don’t know why Jesus did not correct them instantly in John 6.

Oh, but he did correct them instantly in John 6, tester.

He corrected them in v 47 after he rebukes them for murmuring among themselves.

And then in v 53.

And then again in v 64.

And he knows that Judas will leave him because of this teaching. It’s too hard for him to swallow. :sad_yes:

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:43-72[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ERose]

Twice in the scriptures it is recorded as to be done in rememberance. In Corinthians it states quite clearly, 3 separate times " For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come". It does not say eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.

So you are saying remembrance and symbol are the same thing? Remembrance tells us to continually do this until His return, which was and is done in the Book of Acts all the way to the present day in the Catholic Church. The Eucharish is celebrated constantantly throughout the whole world.

To eat and drink the Eucharist/Sacrament unworthily is to not believe in the effecacy of the atonment and basically be like those that turned away and only be there for the food.

Let us look at these references of Paul in 1 Cor.

10: [16]The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

No where in this passage does it claim that the bread and wine are just symbolisms. In fact the only symbolism shown in these verses that the one bread symbolises us who are members of the body of Christ.

11: [21]For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. [22] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you*: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

If the bread and wine do not become the true body and blood of Jesus then why would we be guilty of this body and blood if we partake of it unworthily. Why does Paul claim that one who eats and drinks the Eucharist unworthily brings judgement upon himself because he failed to discern that the Eucharist IS the body of the Lord.

And what, or should I say who was the animal sacrificed symbolic of? The whole sacrifice thing was representative(symbolic) of the Sacrifice of Christ. Once His sacrifice was made, there was no more physical sacrifices to be made…only spiritual sacrifices.

The OT sacrifices prefigure the NT Sacrifice. Within the OT sacrifices one finds knowledge concerning the NT Sacrifice. For a Sacrifice in the OT to be edifying it must be consumed. The same applies that in the NT Sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the Sacrifice, which is Jesus Christ.

On a side note, do you know that one of the accusations against the early Christians in Roman empire, was cannibalism? Because of their literal teaching on the Eucharist. This was before what you would believe is the great apostasy. For there were Apostles still living during this time.

Since you brought up the blood part, do you believe that you will literally bathe in the blood of Christ?

Actually yes I do. I don’t know how, but I do believe that I have been bathe in the blood of Christ.

In my faith, we do bless and sanctify the bread -

And in my belief, it goes without saying, about the power and authority to administer the ordinances of God.

Like I said, I truly do understand why you must accept the symbolism belief of the Eucharist. Your church does not possess the power to consecrate the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

One other passage I want to point out as well is found in Luke Ch 24: *25]Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.

[26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. [28] And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. [29] But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. [30] And it came to pass, **whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. ***[31] **And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: **and he vanished out of their sight.

God Bless*

 

[flyonthewall]

Would you please explain further exactly what it was the Jews were responding to here:
*
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” *

What is it that they’re objecting to? What “saying is hard”?

I’m not following your original explanation of what it is you believe Judas and the others left him for.

The Jews that left were having a hard time following the entire discourse. Without the spirit to give understanding, His words were hard to understand.

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 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?

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Why did Jesus teach with parables?
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

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

The same thing is going on here in John 6. Those that left were hearing but they heard not. Their understanding was not quickened by the spirit.

 

[flyonthewall]

And Jesus responded, “Does this shock you?”

Why, if he were speaking symbolically, would he ask that?

This alleged “symbolic” meaning is so…um….not shocking, not hard to understand.

It is hard to understand if you don’t get the symbolism.

And it was at this point that Judas “left” the flock. Over a metaphor?

If you don’t understand the metaphor, then it won’t make sense. Even your statement that this is where Judas “left” the flock is a metaphor because he stayed with Jesus up until the Last Supper. Physically, he did not leave but spiritually and metaphorically he left.

 

[flyonthewall]

So you are saying remembrance and symbol are the same thing? Remembrance tells us to continually do this until His return, which was and is done in the Book of Acts all the way to the present day in the Catholic Church. The Eucharish is celebrated constantantly throughout the whole world.

A rememberance is not the literal event. In this case it is the act of eating the bread and drinking the wine that is done in rememberance, which is the very definition of symbolism…one thing represents another.

Let us look at these references of Paul in 1 Cor.

10: [16]The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.*

No where in this passage does it claim that the bread and wine are just symbolisms. In fact the only symbolism shown in these verses that the one bread symbolises us who are members of the body of Christ. *I find it interesting that you can get the symbolism of the bread symbolizing the members of the body of Christ, yet not see that that same symbolism is used to compare the Eucharist.

If the bread and wine do not become the true body and blood of Jesus then why would we be guilty of this body and blood if we partake of it unworthily. Why does Paul claim that one who eats and drinks the Eucharist unworthily brings judgement upon himself because he failed to discern that the Eucharist IS the body of the Lord.

Because of what the Eucharist represents. Not only does the Eucharist represent the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of Christ represent the Atonement. Can the Atonement be participated in unworthily? NO.

The OT sacrifices prefigure the NT Sacrifice. Within the OT sacrifices one finds knowledge concerning the NT Sacrifice. For a Sacrifice in the OT to be edifying it must be consumed. The same applies that in the NT Sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the Sacrifice, which is Jesus Christ.

And what does the consuming of the sacrifice represent? Jesus tried to give the understanding:
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

On a side note, do you know that one of the accusations against the early Christians in Roman empire, was cannibalism? Because of their literal teaching on the Eucharist. This was before what you would believe is the great apostasy. For there were Apostles still living during this time.

And there was apostacy going on while the Apostles were still alive, otherwise they would not have had to go around trying to put out fires.

Actually yes I do. I don’t know how, but I do believe that I have been bathe in the blood of Christ.

How is it you don’t know how? If it is a literal thing, then there is only one way to accomplish it. If it is symbolic, then there are many ways it can be done.
This is the type of understanding the Apostles had…they didn’t understand completely but had faith that it would be made known to them.

One other passage I want to point out as well is found in Luke Ch 24: *25]Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.

[26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. [28] And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. [29] But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. [30] And it came to pass, **whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. ***

[31] **And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: **and he vanished out of their sight.

God BlessThat is a wonderful scripture. If anything it demonstrates how even the Apostles did not fully understand everything that was prophecied and taught, even though they walked beside the Lord during His ministry. Even though they were receiving manifestations of the truth, they were slow to believe until He blessed and brake the bread. At that time the spirit revealed to them wihtout a doubt of the truth that was before them.

 

[PRmerger]

The Jews that left were having a hard time following the entire discourse. Without the spirit to give understanding, His words were hard to understand.

So please tell me the teaching to which Jesus referred to as “shocking”.

That he is spiritual nourishment? Um…no. Not so shocking is it?

You tell any Muslim, Hindu, pagan that Jesus claimed he was spiritual nourishment and not a single one will be shocked.

Now, tell him that Jesus gave us his body/blood/soul and divinity to be consumed, and see what reaction you’ll get.

 

[PRmerger]

Why did Jesus teach with parables?

Surely you’re not claiming that all of Jesus’ discourses were parables, are you, fly?

And, you really can’t be trying to say that John 6 is a parable. I am simply incredulous that you would try to proclaim that.