John 6:66 - Why did many disciples stop following Jesus?

[Truthcampaign.org]

In the present time, as also was for a long time in the past, in the Catholic Church, the leaders have themselves as the "father" of those who belong to their Church. That Matthew 23:9 is relevant to this is because they are the leaders who sit in authority, an authority such as that of the Scribes and Pharisees in Judaism, in things pertaining to God.

Can we call our natural father and ancestors, "father"? Yes, for the sense and context of that is not the same as that in Matthew 23:9. For the same reason, we can call our teachers in school, "teacher".

St Paul addresses the angry crowd of Jews in Act 22:1

'My brothers, my fathers, listen to what I have to say to you in my defence.'

Is this crowd of people natural father or ancestors? Nope!

Is Stephen, a deacon of the Church, referring to fathers in Act 7:2 as his natural father or ancestors? Nope!

Please explain

 

[Truthcampaign.org]

In the present time, as also was for a long time in the past, in the Catholic Church, the leaders have themselves as the "father" of those who belong to their Church. That Matthew 23:9 is relevant to this is because they are the leaders who sit in authority, an authority such as that of the Scribes and Pharisees in Judaism, in things pertaining to God.

Can we call our natural father and ancestors, "father"? Yes, for the sense and context of that is not the same as that in Matthew 23:9. For the same reason, we can call our teachers in school, "teacher".

Also...

In First John chapter 2:13 and 14, St. John refers to the leaders of the church in Ephesus to whom he is writing as “fathers” twice. And notice he gives them the title “father.”

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning…

Notice, he does not say they are “fathers” because they are married with children. They are “fathers,” spiritually speaking. And they are presumably “on the earth.”

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The Church doctrine is there and is what the Lord commanded the Church to do. If you are talking about individuals like Popes, Bishop, priest, etc... Some have not and some are and were wicked evil. Jesus even said there will be wolves dress in sheeps clothing. Plenty of Judas's!

If you're the devil and you know the Church helps soul, where are you going to attack? Within!

That means the entire leadership of the Catholic church is wicked. Because the Catholic leadership does not pattern their meetings and worship according to 1 Corinthians 14:26-31, yet they lay claim to being the authentic and absolutely true and infallible representation of God's truth in this life.

If there's one thing many Protestants have learned, which Catholics have not, it's don't brag about being the one and only true church. Truth is learned gradually and is possessed in increasing amounts by saved individuals, not by whole denominations. There is only one true church and that church is the sum total of true believers. And they are spread out in all the world and not confined to a specific denomination. When a person realizes this they can be a whole lot more honest and transparent and discerning about what is truth, and what is not, because they aren't locked down in the pride and arrogance of man made systems of dogma that they must serve.

 

[Tong2020]

St Paul addresses the angry crowd of Jews in Act 22:1

'My brothers, my fathers, listen to what I have to say to you in my defence.'

Is this crowd of people natural father or ancestors? Nope!

Is Stephen, a deacon of the Church, referring to fathers in Act 7:2 as his natural father or ancestors? Nope!

Please explain

Context sir. The context there is different from that in Matthew 23:9. I pointed that out in my post, in case you have not read.

In Matthew 23:9 Jesus told His disciples to call no one on earth their father. He said that in the context pertaining to the leaders of the covenant people (Israel) of God, the Scribes and Pharisees, who sit in Moses’ seat. The context clearly is with regards the office of the Levitical priesthood, that involves the teaching of God's words found in the Jewish Bible, of which the Scribes and Pharisees, in those days were occupied with. It's definitely not in the context pertaining to our natural fathers and ancestors nor in the context pertaining to natural relations.

Tong
R1301

 

[Truthcampaign.org]

That means the entire leadership of the Catholic church is wicked. Because the Catholic leadership does not pattern their meetings and worship according to 1 Corinthians 14:26-31, yet they lay claim to being the authentic and absolutely true and infallible representation of God's truth in this life.

If there's one thing many Protestants have learned, which Catholics have not, it's don't brag about being the one and only true church. Truth is learned gradually and is possessed in increasing amounts by saved individuals, not by whole denominations. There is only one true church and that church is the sum total of true believers. And they are spread out in all the world and not confined to a specific denomination. When a person realizes this they can be a whole lot more honest and transparent and discerning about what is truth, and what is not, because they aren't locked down in the pride and arrogance of man made systems of dogma that they must serve.

It is not brag about being the one true Church. It about finding the truth!

You can have your opinion and theories.

If the Catholic Church is the Lord's only Church and if your heart believes there may be some truth to it, but you choose to not look into it, you're in big trouble. You would in essence be putting yourself and your theories before God and his Church. All I ask is do your research with an open heart because God knows your heart.

 

[Truthcampaign.org]

Context sir. The context there is different from that in Matthew 23:9. I pointed that out in my post, in case you have not read.

In Matthew 23:9 Jesus told His disciples to call no one on earth their father. He said that in the context pertaining to the leaders of the covenant people (Israel) of God, the Scribes and Pharisees, who sit in Moses’ seat. The context clearly is with regards the office of the Levitical priesthood, that involves the teaching of God's words found in the Jewish Bible, of which the Scribes and Pharisees, in those days were occupied with. It's definitely not in the context pertaining to our natural fathers and ancestors nor in the context pertaining to natural relations.

Tong
R1301

Really?! It is in context. They are referring to them as spiritual fathers. Not ancestor and nature fathers.

Please explain what you mean

 

[Tong2020]

Also...

In First John chapter 2:13 and 14, St. John refers to the leaders of the church in Ephesus to whom he is writing as “fathers” twice. And notice he gives them the title “father.”

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning…

Notice, he does not say they are “fathers” because they are married with children. They are “fathers,” spiritually speaking. And they are presumably “on the earth.”

Again, context sir.

Also, John was not there writing to leaders of the church in particular, but to the church in general.

Tong
R1302

 

[Tong2020]

Really?! It is in context.They are referring to them as spiritual fathers. Not ancestor and nature fathers.

Please explain what you mean

This is what I said in the post you are responding to and I quote "Context sir. The context there is different from that in Matthew 23:9. " Tell us, what is the context of Mt.23:9 and tell us what is the context of Acts 22:1 and what is the context of Acts 7:2?

Tong
R1303

 

[Truthcampaign.org]

Again, context sir.

Also, John was not there writing to leaders of the church in particular, but to the church in general.

Tong
R1302

Right, the whole Church he does address including leaders. Fathers, children and parents.

13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I am writing to you, young people, because you have overcome the Evil One.

14 I have written to you, children, because you have come to know the Father. I have written to you, parents, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I have written to you, young people, because you are strong, and God's word remains in you, and you have overcome the Evil One.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

If the Catholic Church is the Lord's only Church and if your heart believes there may be some truth to it, but you choose to not look into it, you're in big trouble. You would in essence be putting yourself and your theories before God and his Church. All I ask is do your research with an open heart because God knows your heart.

The Catholic church insists it is truth that the wine and the bread literally turn into the real actual blood and body of Christ. When that really happens get back to me, okay?

 

[quietthinker]

I created the website below. The Bread of Life Discourse is a stumbling block for protestants, which has to do with eternal life.

Many seek to be right, and as a result, they fail to seek the truth!

Truth Campaign | Gospel of John Chapter 6 | Always Seek The Truth!

God Bless!

When one understands literally that which is intended as metaphor one either distances oneself because of the bizarre nature of what has been stated or one incorporates it into ones belief system and invents all manner of interpretation as in that of trans substantiation.
It is clear that Jesus was speaking in metaphor...he even qualifies it as such when questioned.
Many followers left him because of their misunderstanding of his words.

 

[Truthcampaign.org]

When one understands literally that which is intended as metaphor one either distances oneself because of the bizarre nature of what has been stated or one incorporates it into ones belief system and invents all manner of interpretation as in that of trans substantiation.
It is clear that Jesus was speaking in metaphor...he even qualifies it as such when questioned.
Many followers left him because of their misunderstanding of his words.

Why would the greatest teacher ever to walk the earth allow his very own disciples to leave him based on a spiritual symbolic teaching?

When Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep,” (John 10:7) did angry arguments breakout? (52) Did the disciples say, this saying is hard, who can accept it? (60) Did the disciples react the same way to other metaphors that Jesus gave like, “I am the vine?” John 15:5

Some people claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said, “I am the bread of life.” Is it a metaphor though?

• If a metaphor, why did angry arguments breakout over this? 52

• If a metaphor, why did the Jews take Jesus’ words literally and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 52

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” 53

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink? 55

• If a metaphor, why did the disciples say, “this saying is hard, who can accept it?” 60

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say, “does this shock you?” 61

• If a metaphor, why did many of his disciples return to their former way of living and no longer accompany him? 66

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus ask if the twelve apostles were going to leave too? 67

https://truthcampaign.org/truth-campaign-3/

 

[Tong2020]

Why would the greatest teacher ever to walk the earth allow his very own disciples to leave him based on a spiritual symbolic teaching?

When Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep,” (John 10:7) did angry arguments breakout? (52) Did the disciples say, this saying is hard, who can accept it? (60) Did the disciples react the same way to other metaphors that Jesus gave like, “I am the vine?” John 15:5

Some people claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said, “I am the bread of life.” Is it a metaphor though?

• If a metaphor, why did angry arguments breakout over this? 52

• If a metaphor, why did the Jews take Jesus’ words literally and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 52

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” 53

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink? 55

• If a metaphor, why did the disciples say, “this saying is hard, who can accept it?” 60

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say, “does this shock you?” 61

• If a metaphor, why did many of his disciples return to their former way of living and no longer accompany him? 66

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus ask if the twelve apostles were going to leave too? 67

Apparently you have a lot of "why" questions. Questions that you think would make a metaphor to be not a metaphor. Let me try to help you with that.

<<<why did angry arguments breakout over this?>>>

They were really there for food for the stomach(26), and Jesus rebuked them for that (27). Then He pointed to Himself, that they should eat Him. Now, what do you think that sounds (in the literal) like to them? So, they murmured among themselves. For that simply is madness to their hearing.

<<<why did the Jews take Jesus’ words literally and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”>>>

They did, and that was the problem. That was why they murmured among themselves and quarreled over such foolishness and madness saying "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”(52)

<<<why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”>>>

That wasn't an ultimatum sir. Jesus in v.53-58 just continued what He was telling them about Himself. Of course He was not telling them that they kill Him there and then and that they all eat His flesh and drink His blood for them to have eternal life and not die. Perhaps, if you and five thousand more, who takes the words of Jesus there literally, would have killed Him and ate Him, for then you would not die and even have eternal life or would you, like them, argue over His words?

<<<why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink?>>>

It was a figure of speech He used to tell them about Himself. He used this figure of Him being the "bread of life" as they followed Him seeking for food.

<<<why did the disciples say, “this saying is hard, who can accept it?”>>>

They did not realize that what Jesus was telling them is figurative rather than literal.

<<<why did Jesus say, “does this shock you?” >>>

Because Jesus know they are shocked for they murmur and quarrel about what they heard Him say about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, that they did not understand what He was telling them.

<<<why did many of his disciples return to their former way of living and no longer accompany him?>>>

They did not understand what Jesus was telling them (v.60). If what Jesus said was literal and not figurative, then they would not have complained and said "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?". For then, they would have understood Jesus, since there is nothing hard in what Jesus said if taken literally. It would not be a hard saying. What is hard for them, since they took it literally, is HOW can Jesus give them His flesh to eat (52). To them, that is simply impossible, if not, madness. So, perhaps they thought that Jesus had gone mad and crazy. If they continue to follow a man whom they thought to be like that, what would that make of them?

<<<why did Jesus ask if the twelve apostles were going to leave too? >>>

Jesus simply wanted to know from them if they too would do as they did, if they too think of Him as they did.

I hope this helps.

Tong
R1304

 

[Philip James]

Apparently you have a lot of "why" questions. Questions that you think would make a metaphor to be not a metaphor. Let me try to help you with that.

<<<why did angry arguments breakout over this?>>>

They were really there for food for the stomach(26), and Jesus rebuked them for that (27). Then He pointed to Himself, that they should eat Him. Now, what do you think that sounds (in the literal) like to them? So, they murmured among themselves. For that simply is madness to their hearing.

<<<why did the Jews take Jesus’ words literally and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”>>>

They did, and that was the problem. That was why they murmured among themselves and quarreled over such foolishness and madness saying "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”(52)

<<<why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”>>>

That wasn't an ultimatum sir. Jesus in v.53-58 just continued what He was telling them about Himself. Of course He was not telling them that they kill Him there and then and that they all eat His flesh and drink His blood for them to have eternal life and not die. Perhaps, if you and five thousand more, who takes the words of Jesus there literally, would have killed Him and ate Him, for then you would not die and even have eternal life or would you, like them, argue over His words?

<<<why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink?>>>

It was a figure of speech He used to tell them about Himself. He used this figure of Him being the "bread of life" as they followed Him seeking for food.

<<<why did the disciples say, “this saying is hard, who can accept it?”>>>

They did not realize that what Jesus was telling them is figurative rather than literal.

<<<why did Jesus say, “does this shock you?” >>>

Because Jesus know they are shocked for they murmur and quarrel about what they heard Him say about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, that they did not understand what He was telling them.

<<<why did many of his disciples return to their former way of living and no longer accompany him?>>>

They did not understand what Jesus was telling them (v.60). If what Jesus said was literal and not figurative, then they would not have complained and said "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?". For then, they would have understood Jesus, since there is nothing hard in what Jesus said if taken literally. It would not be a hard saying. What is hard for them, since they took it literally, is HOW can Jesus give them His flesh to eat (52). To them, that is simply impossible, if not, madness. So, perhaps they thought that Jesus had gone mad and crazy. If they continue to follow a man whom they thought to be like that, what would that make of them?

<<<why did Jesus ask if the twelve apostles were going to leave too? >>>

Jesus simply wanted to know from them if they too would do as they did, if they too think of Him as they did.

I hope this helps.

Tong
R1304

That's a pretty good argument, all to suggest that you can follow Jesus and yet reject His words and the words of His Church for 2000 years...

6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

CHAPTER 7
7:1 They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again.

ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html


This cup is the new covenant in my blood

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

That's a pretty good argument, all to suggest that you can follow Jesus and yet reject His words and the words of His Church for 2000 years...

6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

CHAPTER 7
7:1 They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again.

ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html


This cup is the new covenant in my blood

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

Two things.

One. Ignatius is talking just as metaphorically as Jesus was. We know that from his other writings. It doesn't matter anyway because, two, everyone can see for themselves the wine and the bread DO NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE INTO FLESH AND BLOOD.

Why do Christians park their brains at the door when it comes to things like this??? Simple observation of the elements shows us and proves Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Good grief, people. Things like this make Christianity look stupid! But I know it doesn't matter now, anyway. We're at the end of the age and Christianity is pretty much a joke in the eyes of the world and is so thoroughly polluted there's no turning the church as a whole back to the truth. Each person is on their own. Save your own skin, people. Read your bibles and live for Jesus and do not be deceived by cold, dead, empty liturgy that people think puts them in fellowship with God and shows they are in fellowship with God. Live for God according to the fruit of the Spirit. THAT is what being in fellowship with God is all about. THAT is what pleases God and shows you know him and are prepared to meet Jesus when he comes back. And that is what the world approves of and which takes the craziness of 'religion' out of Christianity. Don't be fooled by cold, dead religion and the carnal ordinances of this life.

 

[quietthinker]

Why would the greatest teacher ever to walk the earth allow his very own disciples to leave him based on a spiritual symbolic teaching?

When Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep,” (John 10:7) did angry arguments breakout? (52) Did the disciples say, this saying is hard, who can accept it? (60) Did the disciples react the same way to other metaphors that Jesus gave like, “I am the vine?” John 15:5

Some people claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said, “I am the bread of life.” Is it a metaphor though?

• If a metaphor, why did angry arguments breakout over this? 52

• If a metaphor, why did the Jews take Jesus’ words literally and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 52

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus then give an “ultimatum” after the disciples argued over his teaching? “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” 53

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say his flesh is “true” food and his blood is “true” drink? 55

• If a metaphor, why did the disciples say, “this saying is hard, who can accept it?” 60

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus say, “does this shock you?” 61

• If a metaphor, why did many of his disciples return to their former way of living and no longer accompany him? 66

• If a metaphor, why did Jesus ask if the twelve apostles were going to leave too? 67

https://truthcampaign.org/truth-campaign-3/

Your questions are unacceptable ...why?, because they derive from the premise that Jesus meant to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. Holding this position is indicative of the loss of objectivity and the whole intent of why Jesus said these things.

 

[Philip James]

It doesn't matter anyway because, two, everyone can see for themselves the wine and the bread DO NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE INTO FLESH AND BLOOD.

And therein lies your problem. You demand that the perceptions of our flesh establish our reality, rather than the Word of God...

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

What are His words again?

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."

Yet still today many ask 'how can this man give us his flesh to eat..' ?

'This is My Body, take and eat'

Peace be with you!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And therein lies your problem. You demand that the perceptions of our flesh establish our reality, rather than the Word of God...

I'm not the one with the problem. You are. You are the one claiming 'real food' means actual, literal flesh and blood. But the wine and the bread DO NOT ACTUALLY TURN INTO 'REAL' FLESH AND BLOOD. You, my friend, are in a cult. You are being told to believe something that obviously is not true. We can literally see that it is not true.

 

[Philip James]

You, my friend, are in a cult. You are being told to believe something that obviously is not true. We can literally see that it is not true.

I have 3, 2000 year old living witnesses that we received this from the apostles. The Church in Rome, The Church in Alexandria and the Church in Constantinople.
Where is your 2000 year old Christian community that says otherwise?

Shall we follow the apostles teaching, or some 500 year old (or less) interpretaion of their notes.. ?

Peace!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I have 3, 2000 year old living witnesses that we received this from the apostles. The Church in Rome, The Church in Alexandria and the Church in Constantinople.
Where is your 2000 year old Christian community that says otherwise?

Shall we follow the apostles teaching, or some 500 year old (or less) interpretaion of their notes.. ?

Peace!

You have been shown that the early church did not believe the elements became literal flesh and blood. But like I said, it doesn't matter what they believed anyway. We can see with our eyes that the elements do not turn into 'real' literal flesh and blood as your leaders claim it does.