Today's Gospel from John 6: 1-15

balshan

Well-known member
The question was "what gospel do you mean." But if you want clarification of my position, it is that when Jesus talked about eating his body he meant it literally.
That passage does not apply to communion. I know your position and disagree with it and also misusing of scripture to defend said position. Which is what happens when the John 6 passage is used to boost the false communion position.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
That passage does not apply to communion. I know your position and disagree with it and also misusing of scripture to defend said position. Which is what happens when the John 6 passage is used to boost the false communion position.
Well, my interpretation is a lot more straightforward than the alternative explanation Jesus was only speaking symbolically, and didn't mean eating so much as "taking the gospel to heart" or whatever.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Well, my interpretation is a lot more straightforward than the alternative explanation Jesus was only speaking symbolically, and didn't mean eating so much as "taking the gospel to heart" or whatever.
No it isn't that is just your opinion. It is more straightforward that Jesus is talking symbolically. If He wasn't He was breaking commandments:

Not to eat flesh.
Not to drink blood and that was reinforced in the book of acts.

The whole meal was symbolic, it was not a literal Passover, it was a reminder, symbolic and not literal.

Also another proof is that the evil priests who had murder on their hands and a millstone around their necks did not drop down dead. If it was literal they would be dead no doubt in my mind after reading scripture. God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If you lied to the Holy Spirit the penalty was death, if you touched what is Holy irreverently, death. Your priests touched the host irreverently. They lied to the Holy Spirit, they were not worth to even receive communion. Their souls were unclean. Therefore it is evidence it is symbolic.
 

mica

Well-known member
LifeIn said:
The question was "what gospel do you mean." But if you want clarification of my position, it is that when Jesus talked about eating his body he meant it literally.
Well, my interpretation is a lot more straightforward than the alternative explanation Jesus was only speaking symbolically, and didn't mean eating so much as "taking the gospel to heart" or whatever.
what do you even mean by that? and 'or whatever'?

from your previous reply above I take that to say that you're saying the gospel is that Jesus literally meant for us to physically eat His body.

is my understanding of that right or not?
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
No it isn't that is just your opinion. It is more straightforward that Jesus is talking symbolically. If He wasn't He was breaking commandments:
That's probably why those who left could not accept what Jesus said. "He couldn't possibly mean what he said because he would be breaking commandments." In fact they said almost the same thing "How can he give us his body to eat?" If we are to cherry-pick OT rules, we could not eat pork today. Remember the dream that came to Peter before his meeting with Cornelius? The dream about eating unclean animals? When Peter objected - just like you are objecting now - on the grounds of OT rules, the angel told him "Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean." By commanding his disciples to partake in his body, he is declaring it clean and not a breaking of the commandments.

The whole meal was symbolic, it was not a literal Passover, it was a reminder, symbolic and not literal.
Then what are we to make of John 6 where it appears Jesus is speaking literally? On the other hand, if we take the Lords Table (the Last Supper) to be the first instance of the Eucharist that his disciples are meant to continue, then everything falls into place.


Also another proof is that the evil priests who had murder on their hands and a millstone around their necks did not drop down dead.
Citing other instances of when Jesus spoke figuratively does not mean you can label anything you like as figurative. We are not talking about those other instances. We are talking only about John 6 and the Break of Life Discourse.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
what do you even mean by that? and 'or whatever'?
I mean whatever other phrases you might use to describe the purely symbolic meaning of Jesus's words about eating his body. For example, Nodemon40 used these words:

"That by taking in and receiving Jesus into your life through the gospel you will be saved and born again. It has nothing to do with eating god. But believing just like the bible says, repeatedly".

from your previous reply above I take that to say that you're saying the gospel is that Jesus literally meant for us to physically eat His body.
That's what he said, and I believe it. When need for clarification arose, Jesus could have said "No, I didn't mean that. I meant something more symbolic." But instead when challenged by the Jews who argued "how could this be?" he doubled down and said "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
 

mica

Well-known member
I mean whatever other phrases you might use to describe the purely symbolic meaning of Jesus's words about eating his body. For example, Nodemon40 used these words:

"That by taking in and receiving Jesus into your life through the gospel you will be saved and born again. It has nothing to do with eating god. But believing just like the bible says, repeatedly".


That's what he said, and I believe it. When need for clarification arose, Jesus could have said "No, I didn't mean that. I meant something more symbolic." But instead when challenged by the Jews who argued "how could this be?" he doubled down and said "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
between the 2 of you, nondenom is spot on! and your 'interpretation' is off the rails.

the unbelievers took it literally and left... the apostles/disciples trusted His word and stayed.

jn 6 kjv

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

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
 

mica

Well-known member
That's probably why those who left could not accept what Jesus said. "He couldn't possibly mean what he said because he would be breaking commandments." In fact they said almost the same thing "How can he give us his body to eat?" If we are to cherry-pick OT rules, we could not eat pork today. Remember the dream that came to Peter before his meeting with Cornelius? The dream about eating unclean animals? When Peter objected - just like you are objecting now - on the grounds of OT rules, the angel told him "Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean." By commanding his disciples to partake in his body, he is declaring it clean and not a breaking of the commandments.
...
it sounds like you're intermixing OC time in John 6 with NC time in Acts 10.

parents do that with smoothies to mix in those nasty veggies for the kids without them even knowing what they'll be swallowing!

why did God give that vision to Peter and arrange a meeting with Cornelius?
 

balshan

Well-known member
That's probably why those who left could not accept what Jesus said. "He couldn't possibly mean what he said because he would be breaking commandments." In fact they said almost the same thing "How can he give us his body to eat?" If we are to cherry-pick OT rules, we could not eat pork today. Remember the dream that came to Peter before his meeting with Cornelius? The dream about eating unclean animals? When Peter objected - just like you are objecting now - on the grounds of OT rules, the angel told him "Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean." By commanding his disciples to partake in his body, he is declaring it clean and not a breaking of the commandments.


Then what are we to make of John 6 where it appears Jesus is speaking literally? On the other hand, if we take the Lords Table (the Last Supper) to be the first instance of the Eucharist that his disciples are meant to continue, then everything falls into place.



Citing other instances of when Jesus spoke figuratively does not mean you can label anything you like as figurative. We are not talking about those other instances. We are talking only about John 6 and the Break of Life Discourse.
It is symbolic. FULL STOP.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
between the 2 of you, nondenom is spot on! and your 'interpretation' is off the rails.
I think it is the opposite. My interpretation is literally what Jesus said.

the unbelievers took it literally and left... the apostles/disciples trusted His word and stayed.
Or, everyone took it literally, but the apostles and faithful disciples trusted His exact word, even though it was hard to take, and stayed. The other interpretation does not explain why Jesus doubled down on the literal truth of what he said. The other interpretation makes it look like Jesus is tricking the others into leaving by deliberately misleading them. That is harder to believe than the fact that Jesus meant what he said.
why did God give that vision to Peter and arrange a meeting with Cornelius?
It was to prepare Peter to accept the gentiles (as represented by Cornelius, a gentile) as equal heirs to the promise of Christ. Even thought Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man, he would not be observing Jewish dietary law, and when Peter visited Cornelius at his house, God did not want Peter to look down on him for that, and perhaps to eat what was placed before him.

It is symbolic. FULL STOP.
It is literal. Full stop.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I think it is the opposite. My interpretation is literally what Jesus said.


Or, everyone took it literally, but the apostles and faithful disciples trusted His exact word, even though it was hard to take, and stayed. The other interpretation does not explain why Jesus doubled down on the literal truth of what he said. The other interpretation makes it look like Jesus is tricking the others into leaving by deliberately misleading them. That is harder to believe than the fact that Jesus meant what he said.

It was to prepare Peter to accept the gentiles (as represented by Cornelius, a gentile) as equal heirs to the promise of Christ. Even thought Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man, he would not be observing Jewish dietary law, and when Peter visited Cornelius at his house, God did not want Peter to look down on him for that, and perhaps to eat what was placed before him.


It is literal. Full stop.
It is symbolic FULL STOP. The whole meal was symbolic. The apostles did not get up and start eating Jesus. Now if they did that, it would be literal. If it was literal those abusive priests would have dropped down dead.
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Well-known member
It is symbolic FULL STOP. The whole meal was symbolic. The apostles did not get up and start eating Jesus.
You are jumping ahead to the Last Supper without fully understanding John 6. If you first understand John 6 as literal, then the Last Supper makes sense as the first instance of Jesus instituting the Eucharist - something that you would not understand unless you took John 6 into account first.
 

balshan

Well-known member
You are jumping ahead to the Last Supper without fully understanding John 6. If you first understand John 6 as literal, then the Last Supper makes sense as the first instance of Jesus instituting the Eucharist - something that you would not understand unless you took John 6 into account first.
No you made that connection. You connected that passage to the last supper. I explained earlier about John. Not repeating myself. The feeding of 5000 literal mircle, last supper symbolic.

I have been clear on my position on both passages.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
No you made that connection. You connected that passage to the last supper. I explained earlier about John. Not repeating myself. The feeding of 5000 literal mircle, last supper symbolic.
You are avoiding talking about the verses that are the most troublesome for you. They are John 6:53-55, which are the verses I take literally.

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

That does not sound symbolic at all.
 

Johan

Well-known member
You are avoiding talking about the verses that are the most troublesome for you. They are John 6:53-55, which are the verses I take literally.

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

That does not sound symbolic at all.
And I say that it sounds very symbolic. Just like the expression "bread of life" is figurative. Just like the expression "born again" is figurative. Just like the expression "living water" is figurative. Just like expression "true vine" is figurative. And so on.
 

balshan

Well-known member
You are avoiding talking about the verses that are the most troublesome for you. They are John 6:53-55, which are the verses I take literally.

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

That does not sound symbolic at all.
I did talk about them. It is not literal. It is not troublesome for me at all. It is symbolic. Jesus never expected anyone to jump up and literally eat Him. Only the fools who thought it was literal went away as they do not understand the spiritual world at all. They knew the commandments against eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood and so were appalled by the statement.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Is he Hmm it is being feed the same way Jesus was being feed. It is symbolic.

Jesus is a vine which we must stay attached to. Symbolic. Jesus is the door we must pass through. Symbolic. So much symbolism is used.
 

mica

Well-known member
I think it is the opposite. My interpretation is literally what Jesus said.

Or, everyone took it literally, but the apostles and faithful disciples trusted His exact word, even though it was hard to take, and stayed. The other interpretation does not explain why Jesus doubled down on the literal truth of what he said. The other interpretation makes it look like Jesus is tricking the others into leaving by deliberately misleading them. That is harder to believe than the fact that Jesus meant what he said.
you think that way because you don't understand the truth of it. you certainly don't understand vs 63-65. Jesus knew the Father had not called those disciples to Him.

again, why did He use parables?

It was to prepare Peter to accept the gentiles (as represented by Cornelius, a gentile) as equal heirs to the promise of Christ. Even thought Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man, he would not be observing Jewish dietary law, and when Peter visited Cornelius at his house, God did not want Peter to look down on him for that, and perhaps to eat what was placed before him.
It is literal. Full stop.
even tho...he had to hear the gospel and be born again, according to scripture, just as we do today.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I did talk about them. It is not literal. It is not troublesome for me at all. It is symbolic. Jesus never expected anyone to jump up and literally eat Him. Only the fools who thought it was literal went away as they do not understand the spiritual world at all. They knew the commandments against eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood and so were appalled by the statement.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Is he Hmm it is being feed the same way Jesus was being feed. It is symbolic.

Jesus is a vine which we must stay attached to. Symbolic. Jesus is the door we must pass through. Symbolic. So much symbolism is used.
We are feed by His word as well.

Matt 4:4

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Heb 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Col 1:16

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God

John 6:6

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1 Peter 2:2

Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

It does not mean eat the literal book and you will taste Jesus. It is symbolic. No mention of your catechism at all.
 

mica

Well-known member
You are avoiding talking about the verses that are the most troublesome for you. They are John 6:53-55, which are the verses I take literally.

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

That does not sound symbolic at all.
that you do makes them very troublesome verses for you.

try got questions regarding those verses (and others in jn 6). it goes into other verses that might help. got questions
 

mica

Well-known member
We are feed by His word as well.

Matt 4:4

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Heb 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Col 1:16

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God

John 6:6

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1 Peter 2:2

Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

It does not mean eat the literal book and you will taste Jesus. It is symbolic. No mention of your catechism at all.
good verses about the need of His word that we feed on - which brings us closer to Him and into more understanding of His word.
 
Top