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.
That is precisely the major issue Jesus had in communicating His spiritual understanding to carnal minds who were terrified of Spirits and had no frame of reference for comprehending the spiritual significance of anything. Things HAD to be phrased in carnal terms and concepts. This is also why His rebirth as the Holy Spirit (Comforter) had to be communicated as a physical resurrection with a physical body.
His inexplicable appearance in closed rooms was supposed to provide the clues necessary to revise the understanding when we had evolved the necessary spiritual maturity, but it did not happen. We are still too carnal and conditioned to our physical bodies despite being told specifically we would have spiritual bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
If Jesus was being metaphorical or symbolic about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, how could that be considered a "hard saying"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Perhaps He was speaking metaphorically, and His audience thought He was speaking literally. People today seem confused about it. Why couldn't they have been?
He was speaking spiritually to carnal minds that were not ready to receive the spiritual message. The spiritual content of the Torah is hidden from those who have not matured enough spiritually to discover it through Kabbalah.
Much of what Jesus had to do was to translate spiritual things into those things their carnal minds could understand and accept. That is why He used parables and other methods to convey the spiritual principles of rebirth in physical terms, like resurrection.
Perhaps He was speaking metaphorically, and His audience thought He was speaking literally. People today seem confused about it. Why couldn't they have been?
The problem with that is that Jesus allowed those followers to leave Him without offering any clarification that he was being figurative. He didn't even give further clarification to those who remained.
The problem with that is that Jesus allowed those followers to leave Him without offering any clarification that he was being figurative. He didn't even give further clarification to those who remained.
As natural and carnal men, they were not ready for and would not understand the spiritual truth so He had no recourse other than to rely on those who had enough faith in Him to accept the unacceptable. He left enough inconsistencies and clues that as we evolved and matured spiritually, He fully expected that we would eventually figure it out. We failed to do that.
The problem with that is that Jesus allowed those followers to leave Him without offering any clarification that he was being figurative. He didn't even give further clarification to those who remained.
If Jesus had explained, would they have believed? The difference between those who stayed and those who didn’t was that those who continued on with Jesus believed and trusted in who He said He was. Those who left had unbelieving hearts. This is what Jesus is saying in verse 65. No one can come to Him unless it is granted by the Father.
61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
The problem with that is that Jesus allowed those followers to leave Him without offering any clarification that he was being figurative. He didn't even give further clarification to those who remained.
I can see where you're coming from, but you've got to admit that much of the New Testament appears to have bits and pieces of conversations that were probably longer and more complete than what was recorded. As I'm reading the Bible, I have often noticed that the topics of conversation seem to jump around a lot, and sometimes you feel as if you missed some preliminary comments or that the conversation ended before things were really clarified. The next thing you know, the setting has changed and you find yourself in the middle of a new dialogue. If you're not following what I'm saying, I could probably find some examples.
If Jesus had explained, would they have believed? The difference between those who stayed and those who didn’t was that those who continued on with Jesus believed and trusted in who He said He was. Those who left had unbelieving hearts. This is what Jesus is saying in verse 65. No one can come to Him unless it is granted by the Father.
61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
Would they have believed if Jesus explained it was merely symbolic and he wasn’t speaking literally ? Why wouldn’t they ? Their very problem was with it being presented as literal . Him saying he didn’t actually mean it literally would have been exactly the response they were looking for . But he didn’t say that, and this is what you keep trying to dodge .
Your claim that all those who left had hard unbelieving hearts is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. That Jesus allowed his disciples to take his words literally , and didn’t bother to explain them away as symbolic even after followers were leaving him over this issue .
As natural and carnal men, they were not ready for and would not understand the spiritual truth so He had no recourse other than to rely on those who had enough faith in Him to accept the unacceptable. He left enough inconsistencies and clues that as we evolved and matured spiritually, He fully expected that we would eventually figure it out. We failed to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
If Jesus had explained, would they have believed? The difference between those who stayed and those who didn’t was that those who continued on with Jesus believed and trusted in who He said He was. Those who left had unbelieving hearts. This is what Jesus is saying in verse 65. No one can come to Him unless it is granted by the Father.
61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Would they have believed if Jesus explained it was merely symbolic and he wasn’t speaking literally ? Why wouldn’t they ? Their very problem was with it being presented as literal . Him saying he didn’t actually mean it literally would have been exactly the response they were looking for . But he didn’t say that, and this is what you keep trying to dodge .
Your claim that all those who left had hard unbelieving hearts is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. That Jesus allowed his disciples to take his words literally , and didn’t bother to explain them away as symbolic even after followers were leaving him over this issue .
The problem is not that it was merely symbolic but that it was spiritually literal. It is the literal "spiritual eating and drinking of the Spiritual body and blood of Christ." It is NOT merely symbolic, but they were not capable of thinking or understanding the spiritual. They were too carnal. That is why they were "fed carnal milk."
The problem with that is that Jesus allowed those followers to leave Him without offering any clarification that he was being figurative. He didn't even give further clarification to those who remained.
My biggest problem with the idea of transubstantiation is that I don't see the purpose of it. I mean, what reason would Jesus have for telling us to literally consume His body and blood? If we are really speaking in literal terms, then for one thing, eventually (and long before now), His body and blood would have been fully consumed and there would be none left. And what would be accomplished by our literally eating flesh and drinking blood that is not accomplished by our seeing the tokens of the Last Supper as representative of our devotion to Him and our commitment to follow Him. It just doesn't seem very reasonable to think that He would have asked that we do that.
Also, in Luke 22:19, when He said to His Apostles at the Last Supper, " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me," you would think that if they assumed He was speaking of His literal body, they would be somewhat taken back by His request. That's not something they would have expected when they sat down to eat. I can't help but think that they -- the ones who knew Him best -- understood that He was speaking symbolically.
I realize that several of the early Church fathers, referred to the bread and wine as being Jesus' body and blood. After all, those were Jesus' actual words. Still, some of these same men also referred to the bread and blood at other times as being symbolic. And The Didache, which dates from roughly the late first century refers to the bread and wine as “spiritual food and drink,” and doesn't even hint at transubstantiation.
Would they have believed if Jesus explained it was merely symbolic and he wasn’t speaking literally ? Why wouldn’t they ? Their very problem was with it being presented as literal . Him saying he didn’t actually mean it literally would have been exactly the response they were looking for . But he didn’t say that, and this is what you keep trying to dodge .
Your claim that all those who left had hard unbelieving hearts is merely a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. That Jesus allowed his disciples to take his words literally , and didn’t bother to explain them away as symbolic even after followers were leaving him over this issue .
Nate, I’m not trying to dodge anything. I am trying to be as honest with my responses as I’m sure you are. Ask yourself this. Why did the twelve get it? It was because they believed He was who He said He was, the Son of God. Their hearts were right with God. They knew there was nowhere else they could go. Jesus had the words of life. The problem with the disciples who left was because they did not believe. Their hearts were not right with God. John 6:65 tells us exactly why they didn’t believe. It was because the Father had not granted that they should come to Jesus. Think about it. Why else does Jesus include verse 65 in the discourse? Read chapter 6 again. It is so obvious that these disciples had hardened their hearts.
John 6
64 there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 and He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
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.
