John 6 Was Jesus speaking literally

[nedsk]

https://www.alimentarium.org/en/fact-sheet/bread-and-christianity

I think you need to go back into history to understand it better. This might help.

You can say "then he repeats", sure, but he already explained it first.

You know how much Jesus used symbolism in the Bible and how much of it was cultural. You have read the Bible before enough to see the patterns here.

Yes Jesus did explain it first, you posted it. He said the bread that he will give is his FLESH ..... Every reference to the word "flesh" thereafter refers back to this statement.

Your first mistake is including an extra biblical source to try and explain what Jesus "really" meant. Your second mistake is assuming that Jesus doesn't mean what he's saying and you need to explain it to me. It you feel compelled to tell me what Jesus "really" meant then I'm listening to you not him. Won't happen.

 

[BlueNightingale]

Yes Jesus did explain it first, you posted it. He said the bread that he will give is his FLESH ..... Every reference to the word "flesh" thereafter refers back to this statement.

Your first mistake is including an extra biblical source to try and explain what Jesus "really" meant. Your second mistake is assuming that Jesus doesn't mean what he's saying and you need to explain it to me. It you feel compelled to tell me what Jesus "really" meant then I'm listening to you not him. Won't happen.

@nedsk

All of the people here aren't explaining it to you differently for the sake of arguing.

It's because you were taught something that isn't true and they're offering gentle correction, and admittedly, some not so gentle.

This is that situation where everyone is trying to warn you about something and you're not listening because it is engrained in you- because you were taught if you didn't believe it you were disobedient.

It's very difficult to understand something that isn't true. Trust me, I knew, I was raised in Pentecostal churches and had to change my mind.

But maybe it's just better to allow yourself to act with peace and clarity more than it is to rely on Catholic tradition.

If not, is it an idol?

 

[nedsk]

@nedsk

All of the people here aren't explaining it to you differently for the sake of arguing.

It's because you were taught something that isn't true and they're offering gentle correction, and admittedly, some not so gentle.

This is that situation where everyone is trying to warn you about something and you're not listening because it is engrained in you- because you were taught if you didn't believe it you were disobedient.

It's very difficult to understand something that isn't true. Trust me, I knew, I was raised in Pentecostal churches and had to change my mind.

But maybe it's just better to allow yourself to act with peace and clarity more than it is to rely on Catholic tradition.

If not, is it an idol?

They were taught by whom? On what authority?

Obedience is required but it needs to be properly placed. Not one person here has yet shown evidence that their understanding of what Jesus is saying is authoritative. Am I to be blindly obedient to anyone here? Is that what you do?

There it is... you people oppose it simply because you view it as the"Catholic" view or tradition. For 1500 years Christianity taught Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of John the apostle taught that but I'm supposed to listen to you people? Fine. Give me a better reason than, "we say so".

 

[BlueNightingale]

They were taught by whom? On what authority?

Obedience is required but it needs to be properly placed. Not one person here has yet shown evidence that their understanding of what Jesus is saying is authoritative. Am I to be blindly obedient to anyone here? Is that what you do?

There it is... you people oppose it simply because you view it as the"Catholic" view or tradition. For 1500 years Christianity taught Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of John the apostle taught that but I'm supposed to listen to you people? Fine. Give me a better reason than, "we say so".

Not disobedient to us. Fear of disobedience to the Catholic church.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be obedient to God himself and fear no man.

Well you know the history and the culture at the time, and almost everyone has told you. You see it the way you see it. The ball is your court. You get to do what you want with it. None of us get to decide.

Pray about it- its for you.

 

[BlueNightingale]

In your defense @nedsk, yes, others here did explain, and you didn't pick it up.

But who, for anyone, is it easy to change your mind on anything you've believed for 20 years?

On the flip side of that, oh well.

 

[nedsk]

Not disobedient to us. Fear of disobedience to the Catholic church.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be obedient to God himself and fear no man.

Well you know the history and the culture at the time, and almost everyone has told you. You see it the way you see it. The ball is your court. You get to do what you want with it. None of us get to decide.

Pray about it- its for you.

If the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus established then shouldnt I be obedient to it? Don't tell me it's not show me that it's not. It's the only church I've seen they can even remotely trace it's history back to the apostles.

Oh I don't fear you or any of you. What you preach wasn't taught in the earliest days of christiandom.

What is it you don't understand? Why should I listen to you? Give me a reason besides you don't like the Catholic Church. Prove your underground of Scripture is authoritative. If you can't why would I listen to you?

 

[nedsk]

In your defense @nedsk, yes, others here did explain, and you didn't pick it up.

But who, for anyone, is it easy to change your mind on anything you've believed for 20 years?

On the flip side of that, oh well.

I am not in need of your defense. What I am in need of is assurance that anything you tell me about scripture is authoritative. Can you show that authority? Yes or no?

It's the pomposity you people ooze that's most unseemly and that causes me to be disinclined to anything you have to say. You're speaking from pride not concern

 

[BlueNightingale]

If the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus established then shouldnt I be obedient to it? Don't tell me it's not show me that it's not. It's the only church I've seen they can even remotely trace it's history back to the apostles.

Oh I don't fear you or any of you. What you preach wasn't taught in the earliest days of christiandom.

What is it you don't understand? Why should I listen to you? Give me a reason besides you don't like the Catholic Church. Prove your underground of Scripture is authoritative. If you can't why would I listen to you?

I think you're referring to the bishop under St. Peter, but I don't fully know. I know that Christianity is mentioned first in the book of Acts. I went to a Celtic Catholic school, but it is much different than the Roman Catholic Church.

Regardless, is Walmart still running with the same moral intentions Sam Walton had planned or were his intentions destroyed by capitalism and greed within only 60+ years?

I believe the origins of Catholicism do come from the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that was kind of the point. However, I do not believe that they were 100% correct the whole time.

First, you would have been imprisoned for not attending the Catholic church and not have the Bible in your own language.

After Luther translated the Bible into German, people were finally able to read the Bible in their own language for themselves and from there you have the anabaptists who were then imprisoned and martyred for their beliefs by both the Lutheran and Catholics.

@Matthias can probably fill in some holes if I missed anything.

But I'm just explaining to answer your question.

 

[nedsk]

I think you're referring to the bishop under St. Peter, but I don't fully know. I know that Christianity is mentioned first in the book of Acts. I went to a Celtic Catholic school, but it is much different than the Roman Catholic Church.

Regardless, is Walmart still running with the same moral intentions Sam Walton had planned or were his intentions destroyed by capitalism and greed within only 60+ years?

I believe the origins of Catholicism do come from the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that was kind of the point. However, I do not believe that they were 100% correct the whole time.

First, you would have been imprisoned for not attending the Catholic church and not have the Bible in your own language.

After Luther translated the Bible into German, people were finally able to read the Bible in their own language for themselves and from there you have the anabaptists who were then imprisoned and martyred for their beliefs by both the Lutheran and Catholics.

@Matthias can probably fill in some holes if I missed anything.

But I'm just explaining to answer your question.

It's irrelevant where you went to school. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the apostle and taught that Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. If you want me to believe otherwise you need to prove your understanding of Scripture authoritative over John and Ignatius.

Luther did translate the Bible into German and his first translation was missing 25 books from the Canon established by the catholic church. You need to prove authority but like the rest you're working on assumptions. Nothing you believe was taught by the church prior to the 1500s

 

[BlueNightingale]

It's irrelevant where you went to school. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the apostle and taught that Jesus was fully present in the Eucharist. If you want me to believe otherwise you need to prove your understanding of Scripture authoritative over John and Ignatius.

Luther did translate the Bible into German and his first translation was missing 25 books from the Canon established by the catholic church. You need to prove authority but like the rest you're working on assumptions. Nothing you believe was taught by the church prior to the 1500s

I just don't agree with him.

I believe it is a symbolism. I'm choosing to believe what Jesus was showing throughout the entire gospel when he kept referring himself as the bread of life and broke the bread.

I trust him more.

If you put a piece of bread in front of me, I understand what it represents, but it is still a piece of bread. It is not literally flesh.

That is not how science works.

 

[nedsk]

And I don't agree with you.

I just don't agree with him.

I believe it is a symbolism. I'm choosing to believe what Jesus was showing throughout the entire gospel when he kept referring himself as the bread of life and broke the bread.

I trust him more.

If you put a piece of bread in front of me, I understand what it represents, but it is still a piece of bread. It is not literally flesh.

That is not how science works.

So? Either he is right or you're right. He was a disciple of John the Apostle. You're a disciple of Luther. If you want me to believe you then you have to show that your understanding is superior to theirs. I'm not interested in your opinion.

So you're saying Jesus can't turn that bread into his body that he's restricted by science. Fascinating. We put dead bodies in the ground all the time. They don't died from the dead. That's not how science works.

I wish you people could actually hear yourselves.

 

[marks]

I believe it is a symbolism. I'm choosing to believe what Jesus was showing throughout the entire gospel when he kept referring himself as the bread of life and broke the bread.

Of course it was symbolism!

This fellow is making an "appeal to authority" but his authority disagrees with Scripture, so it's the classic logical fallacy.

When they asked Jesus about this hard saying, He told them, My words are spirit, the flesh profits nothing. Jesus was teaching a spiritual truth through parable.

Jesus is the way. But this doesn't mean He is a paved street. Jesus is the door. But He doesn't swing on hinges.

Much love!

 

[BlueNightingale]

We put dead bodies in the ground all the time. They don't died from the dead. That's not how science works.

What?

 

[nedsk]

What?

Too much for you? You posted this

"If you put a piece of bread in front of me, I understand what it represents, but it is still a piece of bread. It is not literally flesh."

You don't believe Jesus can turn bread into his flesh but you believe his body rose rom the dead because that's not how science works. Fascinating.

 

[BlueNightingale]

Too much for you? You posted this

"If you put a piece of bread in front of me, I understand what it represents, but it is still a piece of bread. It is not literally flesh."

You don't believe Jesus can turn bread into his flesh but you believe his body rose rom the dead because that's not how science works. Fascinating.

Your sentence didn't make sense to me. Correct.

I do not deny that Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You quoted me correctly.

 

[nedsk]

Of course it was symbolism!

This fellow is making an "appeal to authority" but his authority disagrees with Scripture, so it's the classic logical fallacy.

When they asked Jesus about this hard saying, He told them, My words are spirit, the flesh profits nothing. Jesus was teaching a spiritual truth through parable.

Jesus is the way. But this doesn't mean He is a paved street. Jesus is the door. But He doesn't swing on hinges.

Much love!

I am in part making a argument from authority. I have a choice to make I can listen to the apostle John and his disciple Ignatius of Antioch or I can listen to you. Tell me why I should take your understanding as more authoritative than theirs. Not one of you has even attempted to address the question. Why should I listen to you over them. Saying "Oh course it was symbolism" is intellectually and theologically lazy.

 

[nedsk]

Your sentence didn't make sense to me. Correct.

I do not deny that Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes, I am saying that.

So Jesus can't turn bread into his body but he can rise from the dead. Jesus should have sought your approval.

 

[BlueNightingale]

@nedsk When you take communion does it taste and have the texture of bread or does it taste like a human?

It is a piece of bread.

It represents Christ's flesh. It is a symbol of his blessing. This is a spiritual symbolism.

 

[nedsk]

@nedsk When you take communion does it taste and have the texture of bread or does it taste like a human?

It is a piece of bread.

It represents Christ's flesh. It is a symbol of his blessing. This is a spiritual symbolism.

Again you're assuming Jesus can't turn bread into his body while allowing the accidents of the bread to remain. That's a fine argument but you need to show your authority to make such a claim. For 1500 years the church believed and taught that Jesus was fully present body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist but you come along and what? You disagree. Well there we have it folks the issue is settled. Blue nightingale doesn't agree with the apostle John and his disciple Ignatius of Antioch

 

[marks]

I am in part making a argument from authority. I have a choice to make I can listen to the apostle John and his disciple Ignatius of Antioch or I can listen to you. Tell me why I should take your understanding as more authoritative than theirs. Not one of you has even attempted to address the question. Why should I listen to you over them. Saying "Oh course it was symbolism" is intellectually and theologically lazy.

The point is, listen to Jesus over your church leaders. When they don't say the same as Jesus, listen to Jesus.

You call it lazy, I call it believing the Bible.

Much love!