John 6:66 - Why did many disciples stop following Jesus?
- Thread starter Truthcampaign.org
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
Tong2020 said: ↑
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.[/Quote\]
Yeah well most people didn't believe Jesus when he was on earth either. What you call misrepresentation is actually the the truth. It's nobodies fault but yours that you don't have have faith in that truth.
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.[/Quote\]
Yeah well most people didn't believe Jesus when he was on earth either. What you call misrepresentation is actually the the truth. It's nobodies fault but yours that you don't have have faith in that truth.
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
I understand fully that what God said to Noah about eating meat but not the blood, that Noah was to pour that blood on the ground because life was sacred to God and life was in the blood. This command and why God says we should obey it means absolutely nothing to you. That command about blood was to be be applied on Noah and his family offspring throughout the centuries. That command was shown in the scriptures to be still enforced at Leviticus 17:13,14 and Acts 15:28,29 shows us.
37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
You assume the disciples didn't "come to the Lord” before the Bread of Life Discourse, correct?
Even though the Holy Bible, the Word of God called them disciples of Jesus, correct? The Word of God even describes the apostles as disciples, correct? Disciple means a personal follower of Jesus, correct?
You assume, “I will not cast out" means the disciples cannot cast themselves out, correct? It does "not" say nobody can cast them out, not even them self can cast out, correct? It only states, I will not cast out.
Did Jesus choose Judas? Was he chosen by the Father? What happen to him?
In order to be raised up on the last day, there’s another requirement:
47 In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life.
What does the word believe mean?
- Believe means to accept as true; feel sure of the truth of.
- To believe is to accept what Jesus commands us to do.
- To accept all that Jesus taught as truth is the definition of believing in Jesus.
52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'
60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, 'This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?'
The definition of “believe” means to accept as true - google it!
They did not accept the Lord’s teachings in the Bread of Life Discourse and therefore left him; casting themselves out! Jesus did not tell them to leave. They did it on their own.
Now you make misrepresentation a truth thing? Misrepresentation is not something good and never will be truth, for all truth is good. Saying that I said something which I did not is misrepresentation, if not, a false accusation.
And you've succeeded so far in moving out of our subject of discussion and my arguments. Well, I could not prevent that, can I?
Tong
R1323
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Again, you are not addressing my arguments sir. But unlike you, I will address your argument here.
Yes, God did say in the OT about not eating blood. And that He said to Noah "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." And that the life is in the blood.
But I would like to ask what is your take on "life" here, does it refer to physical life or spiritual life?
<<<This command and why God says we should obey it means absolutely nothing to you.>>>
Again, not true. Is that a habit or what?
Now, it is clear God, to Noah (and so goes to all his would be descendants), gave command not to eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. So, the matter pertaining to blood is the eating, and not anything else. Also then, the matter pertaining to blood is as food, not anything else. To take that command more than the matter of food and eating, is going beyond the commandment, right? Right.
<<<That command was shown in the scriptures to be still enforced at Leviticus 17:13,14 and Acts 15:28,29 shows us.>>>
I already addressed and gave my arguments regarding Acts 15:28,29 for which you have not refuted nor had given a counter refutation.
With regards the Leviticus scriptures, yes the not eating of blood was given as a covenant law and was enforced. But when Jesus came and had sacrificed His life, resurrected and ascended back to where HE was before, in heaven, such covenant was replaced by a new covenant. So, we must be concerned now of the new covenant.
What do we have in the new covenant regarding blood pertaining to the matter of food and eating? Let's go to the NT scriptures.
At supper before the night of His crucifixion, Jesus said to drink of His blood. While that is clearly figurative, the drinking of it renders blood as food and the eating (go inside the mouth) can not be taken away from it, else the figure fails to convey the message.
On the matter of food and eating, Paul said:
Romans 14:14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
Tong
R1324
There is no assumption there sir. Before the discourse, Jesus told us in verse 26 why they followed and seek Him.
As I said, one have to determine what "come to me" in John 6 means. We have that in verses 37, 44, 65. Also in verse 35.
Disciple means a follower of one. I already pointed out to you, if I'm not mistaken, that a disciple may be a true disciple or a false disciple. I am sure you know what a true disciple and a false disciple is. In John 6, were the multitude that followed Him to Capernaum, true disciples or not?
No assumption there again sir. Jesus explained in relation to that, in verses 38-40, where He said in verse 39, "....of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.". Not one of those whom the Father gave to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ will lose. All will be saved by Him. And that translates to no one that was given by the Father to the Son will cast himself out. If that does not tell you that, then that is on you. Else, if one whom God had given to Jesus Christ cast himself out and so is lost and is not saved, then Jesus would have failed to do the will of the Father, which could not be.
Are you really asking that? Jesus chose Judas (John 6:70). But unlike the 11, Judas was chosen with a specific purpose, which was to fulfill scriptures. I am sure you know what that was.
That's faith, right? Well, if you view faith that way, then it is to you. But in my view, it is not a requirement. Rather, faith is through which God saves (Eph.2:8).
In other words, to have faith.
If they understood what Jesus was telling them, they would not have such argument or questions.
In the version you quoted, "accept" is the word used to translate the original Greek word "akouó" which means to hear, listen. It is the same Greek word translated "hearing" in the same verse and version you quoted. Check out the original Greek scriptures and see what the texts means.
Tong
R1325
Good to know that you use it as synonym for true faith. How about for false faith?
Tong
R1327
Tong2020 said:
By the way, what does coming to Jesus means to you, since you cited said scriptures?
Tong
R1328
By the way, what does coming to Jesus means to you, since you cited said scriptures?
Does it answer the question?
Tong
R1328
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to keep speaking on this same topic I believe we should Practice abstaining from blood just as we should abstain from the practice of idolatry and sexual immorality. You have not said anything to me that convinces me otherwise. So you think of me however you wish to think of me and I'll allow you to believe about this Scripture anyway you wish as it should be.
Believe what you will Barney. And we heard you say that same line about blood over and over. However, if you don't want to clarify when asked for clarification on what you meant by your statement, it only means you don't want to be understood. So, it's like talking to the air or saying nothing. And if you don't consider arguments against your statement and avoid them, it only means you have no counter argument or refutation.
Whether what I said to you regarding this topic convinces you or not is beyond me. Conviction and persuasion belongs to God and is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Tong
R1329
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
To take that command more than the matter of food and eating, is going beyond the commandment, right? Right.[/QUOTE\]
I disagree, the fact that the scriptures say to abstain from blood I believe goes beyond eating. I believe you refrain from blood as you would refrain from sexual immorality and idolatry.
when Jesus came and had sacrificed His life, resurrected and ascended back to where HE was before, in heaven, such covenant was replaced by a new covenant. So, we must be concerned now of the new covenant.[/QUOTE\]
Even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was “necessary” that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit.
The first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given through Noah to all the world.
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.
Can those who plead their ‘Christian liberty’ in regard to this matter point us to any part of the Word of God in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, By what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?
I disagree, the fact that the scriptures say to abstain from blood I believe goes beyond eating. I believe you refrain from blood as you would refrain from sexual immorality and idolatry.
when Jesus came and had sacrificed His life, resurrected and ascended back to where HE was before, in heaven, such covenant was replaced by a new covenant. So, we must be concerned now of the new covenant.[/QUOTE\]
Even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was “necessary” that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit.
The first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given through Noah to all the world.
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.
Can those who plead their ‘Christian liberty’ in regard to this matter point us to any part of the Word of God in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, By what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
I believe I made myself perfectly clesr. I think you just want me to change and believe your way. Which I'm not because you haven't convinced me of anything you have said.
Tong2020 said:
To take that command more than the matter of food and eating, is going beyond the commandment, right? Right.
That's one. Another is the out of context argument which you have not refuted nor had given a counter argument.
______________________
Tong2020 said:
when Jesus came and had sacrificed His life, resurrected and ascended back to where HE was before, in heaven, such covenant was replaced by a new covenant. So, we must be concerned now of the new covenant.
flesh with its life, that is, its blood. The basis of Acts 15:29 is found in Acts 15:21 which make mention of Moses, which takes reference then to the Mosaic Law. So, out of context, as I pointed out.
With regards your questions, I have already addressed that in my post#609. In fact, since you just repeat yourself here, all that you have said were addressed in that post. It was Jesus Christ that replaced the covenant that contains the covenant laws, with the new covenant. Jesus Himself even comfortably and repeatedly and with clarity, spoke in a figure of speech which involves the drinking of blood.
If you cannot give clarification of your statements, can't give a refutation of the arguments I gave to you or give a counter argument, but just repeat your disagreement to them and repeat what it is you believe, I guess this topic comes to its end. For then I have nothing new to consider coming from you.
Tong
R1330
To take that command more than the matter of food and eating, is going beyond the commandment, right? Right.
Well, we sure can read in Acts 15:29 "to abstain from blood". I have already shown you what the original Greek text means that was translated "abstain". Moreso, I was asking for you to clarify what you meant by abstaining from blood, more than it pertaining to food and eating of it. You just say it is the same as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry. You see, sexual immorality is easily understood and so is idolatry and so abstaining from it is easily understood. However, that is not the case with blood, for blood isn't like the two. Abstaining, or better yet "apechesthai" from blood only tells us to to hold back, keep off, to be away, be distant from blood. You claim that in Acts 15:29, the "apechesthai" from blood there is more than the eating of it or taking it as food, but more. The matter of not eating it, that is supported in scriptures. I am asking you for scriptures that support what you say is more to that. But you have not done so. That could only mean that, more than the not eating of it as food, what you say then only is coming from you and not from scriptures.
That's one. Another is the out of context argument which you have not refuted nor had given a counter argument.
______________________
Tong2020 said:
when Jesus came and had sacrificed His life, resurrected and ascended back to where HE was before, in heaven, such covenant was replaced by a new covenant. So, we must be concerned now of the new covenant.
You just repeat the same argument you have which I already have given counter arguments. Besides, in Acts 15, there was not a mention of Noah and the commandment to him to not eat
flesh with its life, that is, its blood. The basis of Acts 15:29 is found in Acts 15:21 which make mention of Moses, which takes reference then to the Mosaic Law. So, out of context, as I pointed out.
And again here, you just keep repeating your statement there. You could not clarify what you meant by abstaining from blood just as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry. You also could not explain why only the three were commanded and many others where not, such as to not murder, to not steal, to not bear false witness, to not use the name of the Lord God in vain, etc... which are equally serious as sexual immorality and idolatry.
With regards your questions, I have already addressed that in my post#609. In fact, since you just repeat yourself here, all that you have said were addressed in that post. It was Jesus Christ that replaced the covenant that contains the covenant laws, with the new covenant. Jesus Himself even comfortably and repeatedly and with clarity, spoke in a figure of speech which involves the drinking of blood.
If you cannot give clarification of your statements, can't give a refutation of the arguments I gave to you or give a counter argument, but just repeat your disagreement to them and repeat what it is you believe, I guess this topic comes to its end. For then I have nothing new to consider coming from you.
Tong
R1330
Yes, it's clear that you just repeat yourself, can't give a refutation of the arguments I gave to you or give a counter argument, repeat your disagreement to them and repeat what it is you believe. That's clear indeed.
And I was clear that, conviction and persuasion belongs to God and is the work of the Holy Spirit, not mine. I pointed out my disagreement to what you teach and preach, and not without explanation and made a refutation and given counter arguments.
Tong
R1331
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
I know that not everyone believes the same concerning Acts 15:38,29 I believe you refrain from blood, meaning I would refrain from having anything to do with blood the same way I would have nothing to do, or with anything to do with idolatry. This would include not eating any food that's been sacrificed to an idol. I know food is good. That there is nothing wrong with food sacrificed to an idol because an idol is nothing. However I also know knowledge puffs up and we are to use love with that knowledge. What do I mean? You see I also know that all individuals are not the same. Some individuals faith is stronger than others. Because of that am I to think my faith is more important than their faith. Well what do I mean by that, well if I eat food sacrificed to an idol because my faith tells me food is food and an idol is nothing and perhaps there is an individual who sees me do this and he/she also eats food sacrificed to an idol but feels guilty afterwards for doing so, then that persons faith is destroyed and I have helped to destroy that persons faith. Why, how, because I also know that there is plenty of food out in the world that's not been sacrificed to an idol, I'm not going to starve to death if I choose to not eat food that's been sacrificed to an idol. My love for people is to be the same kind of love that God showed for people in that he sent his Only Begotten Son to die for all people and I'm especially am to show love for a fellow believer. If a fellow believer doesn't have any thing to do with idols including not eating food sacrificed to idols he/she is doing nothing wrong. I will not allow my faith to destroy a fellow believer faith my love for that fellow believer should always come first.
Similar threads
