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

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

If he was speaking figuratively, then the greatest teacher ever misled his very own disciples. Why would he allow his disciples to leave on a wrong interpretation?

Any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (LV 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

“The blood is the life,” as the Torah taught the Jews, and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour the blood out on the earth, not because it was too vile but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God himself. How fitting then that when Jesus (Who is the Life) comes we are commanded to drink his blood (Mt 26:27–28). His is the blood we not only may but must drink if we are to have life in us (Jn 6:53).

When Noah was given permission to eat animal flesh after the Flood, he was strictly warned: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 9:4) This prohibition was specifically repeated in the Law that God gave to the nation of Israel. Leviticus 17:10 Later, Christians, too, were required by holy spirit and the apostles to “keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”—Acts 15:28, 29.
At Matthew 26:27,28 which is when Jesus instituted his memorial or what some call his last supper Jesus gave them bread to eat saying it represents his body. He didn't give them literal flesh to eat. Also the cup that he gave to his disciples to drink was a cup of wine that he said represents his blood. He did not give them literal blood to drink.

 

[Tong2020]

let me make this clear, neither I , nor you establish reality. It is God Who establishes reality.

Nobody says otherwise.

so then, when Jesus says 'this is my body', it is either true or not true independently of my belief, or your unbelief.

But Jesus speaks either literally or figuratively. So that is the first thing the reader should be able to determine, right Philip?

For 2000 years the Church in Rome, the Church in Alexandria, and the Church in Constantinople have professed that Jesus really meant what He said and that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and that this we have received from the apostles...
Where is the 2000 year old Christian community that says otherwise?

Not that some man from some 2000 years ago professed that the bread transforms into the literal body of Jesus and the wine into the literal blood of Christ, and was passed on by tradition to you, necessarily makes it the truth. You yourself know that during those times, scriptures was not available to people as it is now. Only the privileged few, the leaders and elders of the church, and perhaps a few very very rich, who have a copy of the scriptures, and those who are literate can go to scriptures and read. The rest of the people have no other recourse but to believe what these people tell them is the truth. And these people who read the scriptures do make mistakes. So, if there is a mistake, and they taught it to be the truth, to the people, these mistakes becomes the truth to them. And because the people have no way to examine such teaching, whether they are in keeping with scriptures or not, such mistake is not corrected but passed on by tradition to be the truth, though it is not. But today we have the scriptures to go to, to examine whether a certain teaching passed on by tradition is in keeping with scriptures or not. For only the words of God in scriptures is infallible and unchanging and is the truth.
_________________________
Tong2020 said:
And by the way, how are the words of Jesus spirit? Here were the words of Jesus in John 6:55, "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Can you explain to us how those words are spirit?

Jesus' words are spirit because they are Truth! And the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth!

This is what Jesus said "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.", which is different from what you say "Jesus' words are spirit because they are Truth!".

The question is how are the words of Jesus, spirit?

So you get what I am asking, let me ask in addition, are the words of Satan, spirit?
___________________________
Tong2020 said:
My question, do you say that the bread and the fruit of the vine there became literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ at that supper?

If Jesus said that, I too will believe Him. But where did Jesus said that the bread and the fruit of the vine there became literally His body and blood?

This is my Body. Take and eat

Different statement than saying that the bread and the fruit of the vine there became literally His body and blood. So, there is the problem.
_________________________
Tong2020 said:
Anyway, so you believe that. In your belief then, all the apostles ate of the literal flesh of Jesus and had drank of the literal blood of Jesus at the last supper, right? Right. And what did Jesus said when one eats of His flesh and blood? Did not Jesus said "This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."? However, all the apostles are dead...

Have you not heard? Our God is the God of the living!

Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,

and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

The apostles are very much alive.

All you holy apostles, pray for us!

In a wedding, Jesus transformed water into wine, so that, the guests literally drank not literal water, but drank literal wine. That was just a simple wedding event. But in this very significant last supper, Jesus did not transform the bread into His literal flesh and the wine into His literal blood. Just a thought for you.

So, clearly you believe that the bread and the fruit of the vine became literally the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at that supper. In your belief, at the last supper, the apostles (including Judas) ate of the literal bread (transformed into the literal body of Jesus), and they drank of the literal wine (transformed into the literal blood of Jesus). And Jesus too ate and drank, right? And like the apostles, He believed too that the bread and wine, while they remain literal bread and wine, were transformed into His literal flesh and blood, right? Well, there it goes....
__________________________________
Tong2020 said:
Yes. It was for in remembrance of Jesus Christ, that they are to break bread as they did in that night before His death. Also, scriptures said that as often as they do that, they proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. There is not in scriptures that speaks of any other purpose or reason pertaining to the coming together of the brethren to eat the Lord’s Supper, than those.

Ex 12:6
1Cor 10:16-18
Mal 1:11
Heb 13:10
ezek 37:27
Eph 5:31-32


You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

Not one of those cited scriptures tells us of a reason or purpose pertaining to the coming together of the brethren to eat the Lord’s Supper. Misuse of scriptures there, if they are made to speak what they don't.

Tong
R1312

 

[Tong2020]

.....I was speaking metaphorically, and then allows his disciples to leave on a misunderstanding. This does not make sense.

It would make sense if you understand the truth that Jesus said in John 6:37,44,65.

Do you know how Jesus taught during His earthly ministry? Yes, it was, most often than not, if not always, by the use of parables. Don't you know why? It seems you don't. Because if you do, you would not say "This does not make sense."

Tong
R1313

 

[Tong2020]

From my website:

Did the disciples leave because Jesus taught, to “truly believe” in him, required supernatural faith that many disciples did not have?

YES!

The Lord does not just want a relationship with you. He wants “intimacy” with you! We are all made for intimacy. There are studies that show if babies are not held, they can die. We are made for intimacy. It’s extremely intimate when spouses give their entire bodies to each other which create these beautiful babies. We are all intimate human beings.

Our intimate God came into this world as an intimate baby. How awesome is that! In John chapter 6, Jesus took intimacy one big step further. By consuming the Bread of Life, we transform into the Body of Christ. Our intimate God wants to “literally” dwell within each and everyone of us.

In the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus is talking about the requirement to have supernatural faith. His disciples were not “believing” in his supernatural teachings. Many disciples said, “this saying is hard, who can accept it.”(60). Then Jesus said, “what if you see the son of man ascend to where he was before?” (62) Contextually, why would Jesus say this? Is ascending to heaven incomprehensible? Yes! So is bread becoming literal flesh. It is of the miraculous, and that is the obvious point Jesus makes in verse 62.

Supernatural faith means to believe beyond scientific understanding or laws of nature; of the miraculous similar to his supernatural birth and the multiplying of bread and fish. Many disciples lacked in supernatural faith and therefore left him and went back to their former ways of living.

Consuming his flesh and blood feeds our spirit (soul) which gives life, not our sinful flesh which is of no avail. We transform into the Body of Christ by spiritually being fed, so we too rise from the dead.

What is with this so called "supernatural faith"? Another strange idea.

Tong
R1314

 

[Philip James]

Not that some man from some 2000 years ago professed that the bread transforms into the literal body of Jesus and the wine into the literal blood of Christ, and was passed on by tradition to you, necessarily makes it the truth

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot identify any 2000 year old Christian community that does not affirm that which we received from the apostles: the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Peace!

 

[Tong2020]

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot identify any 2000 year old Christian community that does not affirm that which we received from the apostles: the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

You can freely take it as you like to take it Philip. As also I can take your silence regarding the fact that what had been passed down from thousand of years ago to you are not necessarily the truth.

Whether there is a 2000 year old Christian community or not is not the basis of truth, but the infallible and unchangeable scriptures is. All truth from God is preserved in the scriptures, not in traditions of men. We should learn from the past history of Israel. God gave Israel His words in scriptures. Only the tribe of Levites were to teach the word of God and implement the Law. As they sit in Moses' seat, what they say Israel must observe, Israel must observe and do. But look what those men taught and made as traditions and doctrines have done over the thousand of years. They have led Israel astray, which effects still persist even to this day. The nation Israel had been blinded by such traditions and doctrines of men.

Tong
R1315

 

[ChristisGod]

When Noah was given permission to eat animal flesh after the Flood, he was strictly warned: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 9:4) This prohibition was specifically repeated in the Law that God gave to the nation of Israel. Leviticus 17:10 Later, Christians, too, were required by holy spirit and the apostles to “keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”—Acts 15:28, 29.
At Matthew 26:27,28 which is when Jesus instituted his memorial or what some call his last supper Jesus gave them bread to eat saying it represents his body. He didn't give them literal flesh to eat. Also the cup that he gave to his disciples to drink was a cup of wine that he said represents his blood. He did not give them literal blood to drink.

and its why thousands of JW's are guilty of murdering their family by Abusing the scriptures like the above by refusing to give their loved one the life saving blood transfusion. it is just as bad if not worse than Abortion. The killing of an innocent life.

hope this helps !!!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

and its why thousands of JW's are guilty of murdering their family by Abusing the scriptures like the above by refusing to give their loved one the life saving blood transfusion. it is just as bad if not worse than Abortion. The killing of an innocent life.

hope this helps !!!

The scriptures tells us to abstain from blood with the equal force that it tells us to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality and idolatry.Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved of.
All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.

When someone like says to us that we don't allow our children to have transfusions
we tell them we do allow them to have transfusions, the safer kind. We accept the kind of transfusions that don’t carry the risk of such things as AIDS, hepatitis, and malaria. We want the best treatment for our children, as I am sure that any loving parent would.’ ‘When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. You do realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. When much blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed. Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these.’ ‘Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.’ ‘Even more important to us is what the Bible itself says at Acts 15:28,29’ So the question is, Do we have enough faith to do what God commands' at Acts 15:28,29

 

[Tong2020]

When Noah was given permission to eat animal flesh after the Flood, he was strictly warned: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 9:4) This prohibition was specifically repeated in the Law that God gave to the nation of Israel. Leviticus 17:10 Later, Christians, too, were required by holy spirit and the apostles to “keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

Misuse of those scriptures there. Out of context. If you notice, the issue is about salvation, on the matters of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5). That was settled as it was made clear that such have nothing to do with salvation (Acts 15:6-11).

What then is that which they wrote in Acts 15:23-29? In Acts 15:21, you will read what was the consideration for such instructions. This is so to not offend the Jews and at the same time not to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples so great, which neither the Jews nor the patriarchs were able to bear. Looking at what they said in verse 29, saying "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.", what does that mean? Also looking at what they said in verse 29, saying "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality", why only those? How about the other commandments in the Law such as murder, stealing, etc? So, we must read in context.

The matter of food was addressed by Paul elsewhere. Read Romans 14:14-23.

Tong
R1316

 

[Tong2020]

The scriptures tells us to abstain from blood with the equal force that it tells us to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality and idolatry.Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved of.

The Greek word "apechó" which means to hold back, keep off, to be away, be distant, is that which was translated "abstain". So, how do you prepare your meat? How do you approach the problem of a wounded person needing your help, etc... We'd better read Acts 15:29 in its proper context.

Tong
R1317

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Misuse of those scriptures there. Out of context. If you notice, the issue is about salvation, on the matters of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5). That was settled as it was made clear that such have nothing to do with salvation (Acts 15:6-11).

What then is that which they wrote in Acts 15:23-29? In Acts 15:21, you will read what was the consideration for such instructions. This is so to not offend the Jews and at the same time not to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples so great, which neither the Jews nor the patriarchs were able to bear. Looking at what they said in verse 29, saying "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.", what does that mean? Also looking at what they said in verse 29, saying "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality", why only those? How about the other commandments in the Law such as murder, stealing, etc? So, we must read in context.

The matter of food was addressed by Paul elsewhere. Read Romans 14:14-23.

Tong
R1316

How about you quit trying to convince people that it is ok with God that you don't abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality. I know you abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality it doesn't matter if you're gentle or Jew you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality and just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality you abstain from blood. The only approved use of blood is to use it sacrificially

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The Greek word "apechó" which means to hold back, keep off, to be away, be distant, is that which was translated "abstain". So, how do you prepare your meat? How do you approach the problem of a wounded person needing your help, etc... We'd better read Acts 15:29 in its proper context.

Tong
R1317

Like I said you can teach people it's ok to be a part of sexual immorality and idolatry I know that's not true. Just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality you abstain from blood.

 

[Tong2020]

How about you quit trying to convince people that it is ok with God that you don't abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality. I know you abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality it doesn't matter if you're gentle or Jew you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality and just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality you abstain from blood. The only approved use of blood is to use it sacrificially

I am not at all trying to convince people that it is ok with God that you don't abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality. I don't know where that is coming from Barney.

And you are not really addressing my arguments in my post. You just insist that the only approved use of blood is to use it sacrificially. And I also do not know where that is coming from in scriptures. Tell us, how is blood used sacrificially, which for you is approved?

Tong
R1318

 

[Tong2020]

Just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality you abstain from blood.

You just repeat and insist what you say without an argument to give. Tell us, how do you abstain from blood which you say is just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality? At least explain that to us and make us understand what you meant by your statement. Remember, the Greek word "apechó" which means to hold back, keep off, to be away, be distant, is that which was translated "abstain".

Tong
R1319

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I am not at all trying to convince people that it is ok with God that you don't abstain from idolatry or sexual immorality. I don't know where that is coming from Barney.

And you are not really addressing my arguments in my post. You just insist that the only approved use of blood is to use it sacrificially. And I also do not know where that is coming from in scriptures. Tell us, how is blood used sacrificially, which for you is approved?

Tong
R1318

Yes you do know where that's coming from, you're saying we're not to put into practice the abstaining from blood with equal force that you word abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality at Acts 15:28,29. In fact you're accusing JW that because they're practicing the abstaining from blood they murder the innocent as you said. So if you believe that the scripture at Acts 15:28,29 is right to tell us we are to abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality then you have to agree that we have to abstain from blood with the same determination of that we would abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality. You either believe that or you don't.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

You just repeat and insist what you say without an argument to give. Tell us, how do you abstain from blood which you say is just as you abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality? At least explain that to us and make us understand what you meant by your statement. Remember, the Greek word "apechó" which means to hold back, keep off, to be away, be distant, is that which was translated "abstain".

Tong
R1319

The thing you obviously don't want to understand is that the command God gave to Noah about not eating blood applied to the whole world and it still applies today as Acts 15:28,29 tells us.

To abstain from blood was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as abstaining from idolatry or fornication.

The command to abstain from blood was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as abstaining from idolatry or fornication.
In other words, just as we would refrain ourselves from having anything to do with idolatry and sexual immorality we would refrain ourselves from taking into our bodies any manner of blood

 

[Philip James]

Whether there is a 2000 year old Christian community or not is not the basis of truth, but the infallible and unchangeable scriptures is

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

But you do not want to come to me to have life.

 

[Tong2020]

Yes you do know where that's coming from, you're saying we're not to put into practice the abstaining from blood with equal force that you word abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality at Acts 15:28,29. In fact you're accusing JW that because they're practicing the abstaining from blood they murder the innocent as you said. So if you believe that the scripture at Acts 15:28,29 is right to tell us we are to abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality then you have to agree that we have to abstain from blood with the same determination of that we would abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality. You either believe that or you don't.

And you here still insist your misrepresentation, if not, false accusation, and putting words into my mouth. I never said anything you accused me of saying. I even did not mention JW. You are confused Barney. I never said anything or hinted that you murder the innocent. You are barking at a strawman you had made up in your mind.

And evidently, you are not really addressing my arguments in my posts. Evading my arguments only tells me about you and your belief.

Tong
R1320

 

[Tong2020]

The thing you obviously don't want to understand is that the command God gave to Noah about not eating blood applied to the whole world and it still applies today as Acts 15:28,29 tells us.

To abstain from blood was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as abstaining from idolatry or fornication.

The command to abstain from blood was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as abstaining from idolatry or fornication.
In other words, just as we would refrain ourselves from having anything to do with idolatry and sexual immorality we would refrain ourselves from taking into our bodies any manner of blood

The problem of your take with that passage, as I pointed out is taking it out of context. The thing you obviously do not realize is that before Acts 15:28,29, Paul who is the apostle to the Gentiles, have no such problem with the brethren who are of the Gentiles concerning the matter of blood. It was only when certain men came down from Judea and taught that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”, to which Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them (Acts 15:1-2). Now do you realize what it means to be circumcised? Paul said, every man who becomes circumcised, he is a debtor to keep the whole law (Gal.5:3). And do you realize what the whole law is? It's not only about abstaining from idolatry, from sexual immorality, from blood, but a lot lot more, right? You say that abstaining from idolatry and from sexual immorality was a serious matter. Why, the other commandments in the Law such as murder, stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, are they not serious matters as well, that such were not included by them?

Tong
R1321

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said:
Whether there is a 2000 year old Christian community or not is not the basis of truth, but the infallible and unchangeable scriptures is

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

But you do not want to come to me to have life.

Showing yet another misuse of scriptures in John 5? I sure do hope you don't use such words of God in scriptures in an attempt to deny or perhaps refute what I said in my statement above quoted, which does not.

By the way, what does coming to Jesus means to you, since you cited said scriptures?

Tong
R1322