Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus is using symbolism to help us better understand what He is teaching. In ancient times bread was more than something to make a sandwich. It was considered the staff of life and still is in some societies. Basically bread symbolizes God's word---man shall not live by b read alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
Notice this passage comes right after Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life. There He is saying My words will sustain your spiritual life just as literal bread sustains you physical life. and goes on to say it will be forever.
Just as physical bread sustains physical life, God's word sustains spiritual life.
At the the last supper when Jesus held up a piece of unleavened bread, he was not saying that bread was his flesh. Since leaven symbolizes false teaching, for those who use the whole Bible to try and understand it, He is also saying His teachings are not false.
Blood symbolizes that which gives life The shedding of blood, takes the life away but Jesus shedding his blood is what made atonement for man's sins(Lev 17:11). The wine at the last supper also represents the new covenant. Wine also symbolizes joy, and the new covenant if accepted and understood bring spiritual joy to the believer.
Let me quote one verse from the new covenant: "I will put my law within them and on their heart I will writ it, and I will be their God and hey will be MY people." That has already happened for every fundamentalist.
Also, the Jews were forbidden from drinking blood and Jesus certainly would not have ask them to do something God had forbidden them to do..
I disagree. First off, Jesus did ask his followers to do things that were not allowed for Jews, like doing physical work on the Sabbath.
But aside from that, if we remove our confirmation bias from the picture and simply take the words of Jesus as they were given, nowhere does he ever suggest his words are symbolic.Nowhere. This is simply the confirmation bias of Protestants kicking in and needing to explain away an uncomfortable passage. But lets look at the sequence of events in the passage as they actually happen.
1) Jesus claims he is bread from Heaven that will give eternal life and that whoever eats his flesh will receive eternal life.
2) His followers ask how Jesus can give them his flesh to eat.
3) Jesus says again that his believers must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Note that nowhere does he make the claim that he is speaking symbolically , nor does he accuse them of mistakenly understanding what he was saying.
4) Many of his followers , not some, but the Bible says MANY of them, grumbled and claim this was too hard to understand and accept. Please note that these followers are people who actually walked with Jesus, heard him in person, spoke with him in person,and had access to the inner core of disciples to learn from as well. If any group of people have the right to say they knew firsthand what Jesus meant, THESE folks did. Not people reading a book 2000 yrs later trying to figure out what it all meant. Trust the people who actually spoke with Jesus, or trust biased interpreters trying to explain it all from reading a book 2000 yrs later? Which makes more sense?
5) Note that once again Jesus never makes the claim that he is speaking symbolically and that they are misunderstanding him.Instead, Jesus's response to this complaint from his followers is to challenge them on their inability to accept the literal understanding they are taking from his words.(see bolded above ) . He point blank asks them " Does this bother you?" .
6) In response to Jesus' words, many of his followers leave him. Again, MANY , not some.
7) In response to losing followers over the issue of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus' response is to ask his inner core of followers if they too will leave him over the issue. Not once does he ever tell anyone, not even his inner disciples, that people have misunderstood his meaning. Not once.
So what you believe is that Jesus let the majority of his own followers walk away from him, and possibly walk away from eternal life, over a simple misunderstanding that Jesus could have easily cleared up by explaining that he was speaking allegorically or symbolically. This doesnt fly. You are saying that Jesus may well have let many people lose their eternal souls ,by conservative Christian standards, because he simply couldnt be bothered to clear up a simple misunderstanding of a strange statement he made.
Let me ask you this. Imagine a Dr that treated patients with life threatening diseases that could not be dealt with by surgery or medicine, like diabetes or kidney and liver issues, runaway high blood pressure, or other such things that required a complete altering of ones lifestyle and diet , and this Dr gave out some instructions that many of his patients misunderstood and thought too difficult and painful to follow the rest of their lives. They question the Dr and he realizes they have misunderstood his instructions but he responds with " Ive told you what Ive told you, do it or not, up to you. Thats my treatment program". So rather than follow the course of treatment they mistakenly thought the Dr gave them for the rest of their lives, they made the choice to live their lives as they always have and settle for as much time as they have left rather than endure what they think is a horrible regimen of treatment from the Dr. and eventually they die early.
What would you think of such a Dr? And yet this is exactly what you wish to believe about Jesus. That he let many of his followers abandon him because they took literally what he meant symbolically, and he let this do so rather than explain things better to them. And once again, followers who heard Jesus give these talks live and in person, and who questioned him personally. And of course, the followers that remained after this episode, having seen Jesus let many of them leave over the issue, would come away convinced that he really and literally meant that they must somehow eat and drink his actual body, and would develop the concept of communion from this. The literalness of Jesus saying would have been driven home to them by this episode.
Last edited by wallflash; 08-05-2018 at 12:00 PM..
I disagree. First off, Jesus did ask his followers to do things that were not allowed for Jews, like doing physical work on the Sabbath.
He didn't ask them to. He just did not condemn them if they did. IMO the Sabbath has never been properly understood. Start with Col 2:16-17. Those verses say the Sabbath is a mere shadow of the good thins to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
The Sabbath is a reminder of who sanctifies us(Ex 31:13). The Sabbath is a reminder of who freed us from bondage(Deut 5:15). WE are not to work for those things. That would be like saying God had not do it for us.
Quote:
But aside from that, if we remove our confirmation bias from the picture and simply take the words of Jesus as they were given, nowhere does he ever suggest his words are symbolic.Nowhere. This is simply the confirmation bias of Protestants kicking in and needing to explain away an uncomfortable passage. But lets look at the sequence of events in the passage as they actually happen.
Get serious. Jesus main teaching were in parables, They are not to be taken literally. In addition to that Jesus told His disciples He spoke to them in figurative language(Jn 16:25). WE don't explain it away, we study it to understand it. If you don't like what it says, you say He didn't say it, and that with no evidence.
Quote:
1) Jesus claims he is bread from Heaven that will give eternal life and that whoever eats his flesh will receive eternal life.
2) His followers ask how Jesus can give them his flesh to eat.
3) Jesus says again that his believers must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Note that nowhere does he make the claim that he is speaking symbolically , nor does he accuse them of mistakenly understanding what he was saying.
4) Many of his followers , not some, but the Bible says MANY of them, grumbled and claim this was too hard to understand and accept. Please note that these followers are people who actually walked with Jesus, heard him in person, spoke with him in person,and had access to the inner core of disciples to learn from as well. If any group of people have the right to say they knew firsthand what Jesus meant, THESE folks did. Not people reading a book 2000 yrs later trying to figure out what it all meant. Trust the people who actually spoke with Jesus, or trust biased interpreters trying to explain it all from reading a book 2000 yrs later? Which makes more sense?
5) Note that once again Jesus never makes the claim that he is speaking symbolically and that they are misunderstanding him.Instead, Jesus's response to this complaint from his followers is to challenge them on their inability to accept the literal understanding they are taking from his words.(see bolded above ) . He point blank asks them " Does this bother you?" .
6) In response to Jesus' words, many of his followers leave him. Again, MANY , not some.
7) In response to losing followers over the issue of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus' response is to ask his inner core of followers if they too will leave him over the issue. Not once does he ever tell anyone, not even his inner disciples, that people have misunderstood his meaning. Not once.
That is all allegory. It is amusing that you criticize fundamentalist for taking the Bible all literally, which fundamentalist do not do, then you wan't to take an obvious allegory as literal.
Quote:
So what you believe is that Jesus let the majority of his own followers walk away from him, and possibly walk away from eternal life, over a simple misunderstanding that Jesus could have easily cleared up by explaining that he was speaking allegorically or symbolically. This doesnt fly. You are saying that Jesus may well have let many people lose their eternal souls ,by conservative Christian standards, because he simply couldnt be bothered to clear up a simple misunderstanding of a strange statement he made.
Jesus told them the truth. They walked away of their own free will, just like you are doing. Why didn't they stay and ask Jesus to explain it to them like His disciples did at times?
Quote:
Let me ask you this. Imagine a Dr that treated patients with life threatening diseases that could not be dealt with by surgery or medicine, like diabetes or kidney and liver issues, runaway high blood pressure, or other such things that required a complete altering of ones lifestyle and diet , and this Dr gave out some instructions that many of his patients misunderstood and thought too difficult and painful to follow the rest of their lives. They question the Dr and he realizes they have misunderstood his instructions but he responds with " Ive told you what Ive told you, do it or not, up to you. Thats my treatment program". So rather than follow the course of treatment they mistakenly thought the Dr gave them, they made the choice to live their lives as they always have and settle for as much time as they have left rather than endure what they think is a horrible regimen of treatment from the Dr. and eventually they die early.
Let me ask you this. What would you do if your doctor gave you some instructions he said would save your life an you didn't understand them?
Quote:
What would you think of such as Dr? And yet this is exactly what you wish to believe about Jesus. That he let many of his followers abandon him because they took literally what he meant symbolically, and he let this do so rather than explain things better to them. And once again, followers who heard Jesus give these talks live and in person, and who questioned him personally.
Let me ask you something else. If you didn't understand the instructions and ask the doctor to explain them to you, what would the doctor do?
hey, you finally see how people receive your message of ...
No, I see how liberals and non-believers receive my message. I am not willing to change it to please anyone. If I believe what I believe to be the truth, that would be a disservice to them and to myself.
Quote:
"god killed his son because you are a sinner." or "if you don't believe what I believe you go to hell forever."
That is what the Bible says. I you don't believe it, that is your choice., I am not here to try and convince your anyone else.
Quote:
omega, your people teach that to children and young adults. that time is so important in programming the adult and your people program them with that nonsense. You put my family and friends in danger when you turn your children(when adults)loose on the rest of us. talk about insulting.
That is the bolony of ignorance of conservative Christianity. We don't program, we teach what God says in His inspired and errant word. If he message of the gospel is true, and you can't prove it isn't, it is you who is putting your children in danger.
Quote:
believe me omega, I want so bad back in that fishbowl. me and you could toss bible quotes at each other and settle nothing but our own self justifying statements of belief. all the while pretending what we know is all anybody needs to know. but, I was born with a curse, entp/intj based on the percentages.
If man has a sin nature, like the Bible teaches, we all start out under a curse, but God has left a way to get out from under the curse.
This New Covenant is with the houses of Judah and Israel and it is upon Israel’s heart that G-d shall wife His Torah...This per Jeremiah 31....In other words, Jews...
The new covenant is for all who have put the faith in Jesus, the Christ of God. God does not have favorites.
Because guess what, the Catholics DO take it literally, as Normstad said.
Except when they don't like what it says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
They also ignore the fact that in Jeremiah 31 it states that this New Covenant will be made with the houses of Judah and Israel...
And what about the other 99% of the people on Earth?
You have to wonder what kind of god would would endorse ethnocentrism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn
Early Man = a bunch of dopes...bless their little hearts, tho, I do feel bad for all the innocent little animals sacrificed.
It makes you wonder what kind of god would demand that animals be maimed and dissected, and then have the severed limbs flailed around to make pretty pictures with the sprayed blood, and all according to very detailed instructions as written in Leviticus and Numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
That's why God came to us as Jesus,...
Because he screwed up.
And when you say "us" you really mean Jews in Palestine, because like Yahweh before him, Jesus totally ignored Australian Aboriginals, the hundreds of tribal groups on the South Pacific Islands, the more than 100 tribal groups in North, Central and South America, the hundreds of tribal groups in Southeast Asia, more than 100 tribal groups in Southwest Asia, another 100+ in Central Asia and Siberia, 100s more across Europe, and the more than 400 tribal groups in sub-Saharan Africa.
And one can't help but notice that the resurrected Jesus blatantly refrained from appearing before Pilate, the Pharisees or Sadducees, or anyone of any importance.
P.S. I don't think the entire world was destroyed by flood, do you?
No, the evidence clearly shows a small asteroid or comet striking or striking in close proximity to the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, which destroyed the Ice Sheet and sent a tsunami into the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean.
It is a scientific fact that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is only 8,000 years old having started to reform circa 7,000 BCE to 6,000 BCE.
There is no set of climate factors that would have caused the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet to melt in its entirety, leaving no remnant whatsoever, either suddenly or over a given period of time, since such climate factors would also have substantially affected the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet, and no evidence exists that the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet was affected.
There is a layer of debris in the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet at the 12,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE layer consistent with the impact of a celestial body nearby.
The myths of northeastern Siberian tribal groups, and Alaskan and northwestern tribal groups in the US report a "green star" or "green arrow" appearing before the disaster. This is wholly consistent with a celestial body entering Earth's atmosphere over the north polar region, traveling across the eastern most part of Siberia, the Bearing Sea and the Pacific Northwest area, and continuing on a low south easterly trajectory to western Antarctic.
Tribal groups in the eastern US, and southern Asia do not report the event, nor should they, since they would not have been physically able to see the celestial body.
All myths, save the Hebrew myth, correctly report the disaster lasted a period of 3-5 days, which is scientifically consistent with the effects of an impact by a celestial body in the ocean near Antarctica.
The effects would have lasted longer in the Indian Ocean region, than the Pacific Ocean region, because the surface area and volume of the Indian Ocean is less than that of the Pacific Ocean.
He didn't ask them to. He just did not condemn them if they did. IMO the Sabbath has never been properly understood. Start with Col 2:16-17. Those verses say the Sabbath is a mere shadow of the good thins to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
The Sabbath is a reminder of who sanctifies us(Ex 31:13). The Sabbath is a reminder of who freed us from bondage(Deut 5:15). WE are not to work for those things. That would be like saying God had not do it for us.
Get serious. Jesus main teaching were in parables, They are not to be taken literally. In addition to that Jesus told His disciples He spoke to them in figurative language(Jn 16:25). WE don't explain it away, we study it to understand it. If you don't like what it says, you say He didn't say it, and that with no evidence.
That is all allegory. It is amusing that you criticize fundamentalist for taking the Bible all literally, which fundamentalist do not do, then you wan't to take an obvious allegory as literal.
Jesus told them the truth. They walked away of their own free will, just like you are doing. Why didn't they stay and ask Jesus to explain it to them like His disciples did at times?
Let me ask you this. What would you do if your doctor gave you some instructions he said would save your life an you didn't understand them?
Let me ask you something else. If you didn't understand the instructions and ask the doctor to explain them to you, what would the doctor do?
None of your response addresses the point . Regardless of how Jesus taught at other times , his followers took him literally on this , and he doesn't correct them . Nowhere . Nothing you can say will alter this fact. The Bible records that Jesus let many of his followers leave over what you claim was a misunderstanding of his words .
And your claim they should have gone and asked is silly. Again, the Bible records that that some did go and question Jesus, and he responded by doubling down on his claim they had to consume his flesh and blood to receive eternal life rather than explaining your view, that he was simply speaking symbolically . Show me where Jesus ever corrects their misunderstanding . Chapter and verse please . They went and questioned him on the "hard saying", and he doubled down on it . So show me where he told them it was meant to be symbolic when he was questioned on it . Or show me where he later told the followers that remained that it was symbolic and the deserters just misunderstood . Again, chapter and verse , please . I am not interested in personal opinion, but Bible verses .
Oh, also, I am simply showing the inconsistency in your approach to the Bible , selectively switching back and forth as fundamentalists do, and really as all Christians do . Your approach is no sounder than any of the other methods . You take literally only what you want to take literally, and things that prove too difficult suddenly must be symbolic . Transubstantiation has been around since the dawn of the Christian church, but the ones claiming they take the Bible literally reject any teachings they don't like on the basis it must be symbolic . Then they criticize others for taking other passages allegorically that fundamentalists don't . Liberals operate they same as fundamentalists, just in a different direction, yet many fundamentalists condemn them as not really Christian for doing the very thing you do here .
Last edited by wallflash; 08-05-2018 at 03:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
