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.
So Jesus let disciples leave rather than correct their misunderstanding ? I don’t recall any disciples leaving over his saying he was a gate .
Yes. The incident distinguished those who were serious followers of Jesus from those who were only superficial followers. Jesus let the superficial followers go their way. Those who were serious remained with Jesus.
The passage in John chapter 6 states that Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe. Those who didn't believe withdrew from Jesus over his statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
There is nothing disturbing about Jesus saying that he was a gate which was obviously a symbolic statement. But the mistaken idea by those who did not believe that Jesus' statement was meant to be taken literally was just to much for them. However, the statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood was only symbolic.
Quote:
And the disciple of the guy that wrote the Gospel didn't understand what his mentor that wrote the Gospel meant?
It only seems to contradict the "carnal milk" our ancestors needed to accept what they simply were not capable or prepared to accept about being "born again" as Spirit after their physical death as Jesus's human consciousness was. They were not prepared to understand what a spiritual body is. That is what euphemisms are used for!
this is where you confuse me brother, I agree it is a spiritual body, but in other posts you seem to be saying the spiritual body does not have flesh and blood, yet there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial.
so what I see you saying is we are going to basically be ghosts.
It looks like Protestant miracles are OK. Catholic miracles not allowed
Needless to say, I've enjoyed your contributions in this thread as to me you're an unbiased arbiter between the Protestant and Catholic viewpoints without having a dog in the fight, so to speak.
I know this is off-topic and I certainly understand if you don't care to get into it here; but what caused you to leave Christianity? Feel free to DM me if you want to.
Yes. The incident distinguished those who were serious followers of Jesus from those who were only superficial followers. Jesus let the superficial followers go their way. Those who were serious remained with Jesus.
This entire line of reasoning you and MissKate attempt here is nonsensical . Lets think this through. Jesus says they have to eat his flesh. The disciples grumble about how can they eat his flesh. Then, according to you, Jesus gives them the "hard saying" that he merely means it symbolically . How is this a hard saying? Thats the EASY definition. " I didn't mean it like you thought I meant it when it upset you". Then, according to you, Jesus tells them he only means this symbolically, and the disciples grumble and leave because Jesus told them he didn't mean it literally. What kind of sense does that make? They left, and Jesus let them leave, because Jesus told them he only meant it symbolically ? Did they grumble because they wanted to believe it literally, or did they grumble because they couldn't see how it could possibly be taken literally? According to you, Jesus gave them the very answer they wanted ("I didn't really mean it literally guys. I was speaking symbolically"), but they turned and left still grumbling about how hard it was to accept his teaching. Thats ridiculous .
They left because Jesus didn't explain it was symbolic, and they couldn't understand or accept it.
Quote:
I don't know who you are referring to here.
Ignatius of Antioch. He was an early bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of the Apostle John, and learned directly from John, the writer of the Gospel. And he proclaimed in his writings that the Eucharist was the physical body of Christ . So either a live in person student of the writer of the book we are debating the meaning of is correct in his understanding of it (the Real Presence of Christ), or Michael Way is correct in his understanding of it ,from reading a Bible 2000 years later that has undergone a minimum of 2 language interpretations to get to the language you understand. Because the guy that studied under the writer of the Gospel of John and you disagree on the meaning of John chapter 6 .
Who do you think is the more reliable interpreter ?The guy that knew the writer of the Gospel of John personally and trained under him, or a guy reading one of the various English bibles 2000 years later?
Ignatius of Antioch was one of the early martyrs of the church, BTW.
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-16-2021 at 02:30 PM..
This entire line of reasoning you and MissKate attempt here is nonsensical . Lets think this through. Jesus says they have to eat his flesh. The disciples grumble about how can they eat his flesh. Then, according to you, Jesus gives them the "hard saying" that he merely means it symbolically . How is this a hard saying? Thats the EASY definition. " I didn't mean it like you thought I meant it when it upset you". Then, according to you, Jesus tells them he only means this symbolically, and the disciples grumble and leave because Jesus told them he didn't mean it literally. What kind of sense does that make? They left, and Jesus let them leave, because Jesus told them he only meant it symbolically ? Did they grumble because they wanted to believe it literally, or did they grumble because they couldn't see how it could possibly be taken literally? According to you, Jesus gave them the very answer they wanted ("I didn't really mean it literally guys. I was speaking symbolically"), but they turned and left still grumbling about how hard it was to accept his teaching. Thats ridiculous .
They left because Jesus didn't explain it was symbolic, and they couldn't understand or accept it.
Ignatius of Antioch. He was an early bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of the Apostle John, and learned directly from John, the writer of the Gospel. And he proclaimed in his writings that the Eucharist was the physical body of Christ . So either a live in person student of the writer of the book we are debating the meaning of is correct in his understanding of it (the Real Presence of Christ), or Michael Way is correct in his understanding of it ,from reading a Bible 2000 years later that has undergone a minimum of 2 language interpretations to get to the language you understand. Because the guy that studied under the writer of the Gospel of John and you disagree on the meaning of John chapter 6 .
Who do you think is the more reliable interpreter. The guy that knew the writer of the Gospel of John personally and trained under him, or a guy reading one of the various English bibles 2000 years later?
Ignatius of Antioch was one of the early martyrs of the church
No, that Jesus meant what he said symbolically is not nonsensical, and it was the disciples who said that it was a hard saying. Jesus had previously told the disciples that they sought him only because they had eaten the loaves of bread and were filled (John 6:26). Then Jesus told them to work not for the food which perishes but for the food which endures to eternal life. When the crowd asked him what they had to do to do the works of God, Jesus told them that the work (singular) of God was to believe in Him. Then Jesus referred to the manna in the wilderness which was bread out of heaven to eat. From there Jesus said that he was the true bread out of heaven. It is he who is the source of life.
Jesus saying that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink and that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in him (John 6:53-56) is a metaphor. It is symbolism in which Jesus is saying that he is the source of life and that you must believe in him to have life.
Eating the living bread is a figure of speech meaning to believe on him. Those who come to Jesus will not hunger and those who believe on him will never thirst (John 6:35).
And I know who Ignatius was. As for Ignatius, as well as certain other early church fathers, the article below provides an explanation for what they meant.
No, that Jesus meant what he said symbolically is not nonsensical, and it was the disciples who said that it was a hard saying. Jesus had previously told the disciples that they sought him only because they had eaten the loaves of bread and were filled (John 6:26). Then Jesus told them to work not for the food which perishes but for the food which endures to eternal life. When the crowd asked him what they had to do to do the works of God, Jesus told them that the work (singular) of God was to believe in Him. Then Jesus referred to the manna in the wilderness which was bread out of heaven to eat. From there Jesus said that he was the true bread out of heaven. It is he who is the source of life.
Jesus saying that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink and that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in him (John 6:53-56) is a metaphor. It is symbolism in which Jesus is saying that he is the source of life and that you must believe in him to have life.
Eating the living bread is a figure of speech meaning to believe on him. Those who come to Jesus will not hunger and those who believe on him will never thirst (John 6:35).
So you return to the silliness that the "hard saying" was that Jesus meant it symbolically, which would have completely satisfied the disciples grumbling that his claim that they had to eat his flesh was too difficult to accept, while the "easy" understanding was that somehow the disciples had to accept that they had to consume the flesh of Jesus. This is why Protestants are so hilarious. This sort of logic seemingly makes sense to them
Quote:
And I know who Ignatius was. As for Ignatius, as well as certain other early church fathers, the article below provides an explanation for what they meant.
Lets let Ignatius, who was a disciple of the writer of the Gospel of John give what he thinks in his own words.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Once again, the guy saying this had the writer of the Gospel of John as his teacher/mentor, and therefore spent much time in his actual presence. But evidently Michael Way understands what John meant better than Ignatius
So you return to the silliness that the "hard saying" was that Jesus meant it symbolically, which would have completely satisfied the disciples grumbling that his claim that they had to eat his flesh was too difficult to accept, while the easy understanding was that somehow the disciples had to accept that they had to consume the flesh of Jesus. This is why Protestants are so hilarious. This sort of logic seemingly makes sense to them
Lets let Ignatius, who was a disciple of the writer of the Gospel of John give what he thinks in his own words.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Once again, the guy saying this had the writer of the Gospel of John as his teacher/mentor, and therefore spent much time in his actual presence. But evidently Michael Way understands what John meant better than Ignatius
I've thoroughly explained in post 305 exactly what Jesus meant and utilized the entire context of John chapter 6 to do so. Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically about the need to believe on him for eternal life.
I'v also stated the fact that what Jesus said separated the true believers from those who did not believe. Jesus let those who didn't believe go their own way.
Again, Ignatius is explained in the article I provided.
Ignatius
Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.
The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.
We do not have to take the phrase "the Eucharist is the flesh" in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ. To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).
Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.
Your attempt to make this about me is noted. I think you're more interested in trying to win a debate rather than actually trying to understand what Jesus meant. At any rate I'm done with this. You people can argue about it to your hearts content.
I've thoroughly explained in post 305 exactly what Jesus meant and utilized the entire context of John chapter 6 to do so. Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically about the need to believe on him for eternal life.
I'v also stated the fact that what Jesus said separated the true believers from those who did not believe. Jesus let those who didn't believe go their own way.
Again, Ignatius is explained in the article I provided.
Ignatius
Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.
The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.
We do not have to take the phrase "the Eucharist is the flesh" in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ. To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).
Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.
Your attempt to make this about me is noted. I think you're more interested in trying to win a debate rather than actually trying to understand what Jesus meant. At any rate I'm done with this. You people can argue about it to your hearts content.
You have thoroughly explained ? Oh well, that settles it then. Forget what the early church fathers who learned at the knee of the apostles taught . You have explained it all for us . No need to pay attention to those that actually spent time with Jesus and taught that to their own disciples .
Once again, your supposed explanation about why some disciples left makes no sense . It doesn’t matter how many times you claimed to have “ explained it”. Your claim is that they left because Jesus told them his meaning was symbolic and not literal, when the very issue they were having was accepting it was literal . That makes zero sense , and “ explaining it “ a dozen times isn’t going to make that argument make sense .
I’m not trying to make it about you, or MissKate . I am highlighting the silliness of some guy on a chat forum presuming to correct an early church father that learned in person from the actual writer of the Gospel of John that his understanding is wrong . Along with that being just plain silly, it displays an enormous amount of hubris .
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-16-2021 at 04:22 PM..
You have thoroughly explained ? Oh well, that settles it then. Forget what the early church fathers who learned at the knee of the apostles taught . You have explained it all for us . No need to pay attention to those that actually spent time with Jesus and taught that to their own disciples .
Once again, your supposed explanation about why some disciples left makes no sense . It doesn’t matter how many times you claimed to have “ explained it”. Your claim is that they left because Jesus told them his meaning was symbolic and not literal, when the very issue they were having was accepting it was literal . That makes zero sense , and “ explaining it “ a dozen times isn’t going to make that argument make sense .
I’m not trying to make it about you, or MissKate . I am highlighting the silliness of some guy on a chat forum presuming to correct an early church father that learned in person from the actual writer of the Gospel of John that his understanding is wrong . Along with that being just plain silly, it displays an enormous amount of hubris .
I HAVE explained it, your inability or unwillingness to accept it or understand it notwithstanding. And you know damn well that the argument here goes far beyond 'some guy on a chat forum.' It's an issue, among other issues, which the church has argued about for a very long time.
Read the damn article I posted. The misunderstanding about Ignatius is yours. Now, if you need to get the last word in, do so. But I have explained it.
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.
Truly I say to you, Jesus never wanted us to eat and drink his body. Not even on his worst day. 
