Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[hadit]

Apocalyptic literature was a popular literary style of that time. Revelation is a great example of apocalyptic literature. It was written to encourage early Christians that they would overcome the Roman persecutions, that God is always with us. In this literary form was the idea that what will come to earth is first being built in heaven. Despite the ruin Jerusalem had become at the hands of the Romans, it would be rebuilt because it was already being rebuilt in heaven.

Right, a new heaven and a new earth, where we will reside for eternity. That doesn't mean the book was all about the Roman empire.

The Book of Daniel is another example of apocalyptic literature.

Except that Daniel accurately foretold when Messiah would be revealed. It was apocalyptic literature with prophecy, same as Revelation. Why the reluctance to accept Revelation as an account of an encounter the risen, glorified savior, complete with what He revealed that was to come? I find it odd that all of a sudden, we want to consign a very important book of the Bible to just literature.

Jesus did not speak in the style of apocalyptic literature, his favorite style being one of parables. He did use figurative speech, but something to consider: Did he lose followers when he said, "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off?" Or, when he said people should first remove the log from their own eye? Hebrew/Aramaic is an objective, picture language. People of the time were used to this. But...when Jesus said, "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" people did not see it as the picture form of their language. They took it quite literally--and some left.

He didn't always explain that He was speaking metaphorically, when He spoke to the woman at the well for one example. In fact, that's a good example. He said He would give living water that would permanently cure thirst. We say, "Obviously He was speaking metaphorically", and why? Because we know that our bodies still demand water even as we walk with Him. Likewise, there's no need to believe that Jesus is somehow feeding us His un-resurrected body and blood just because He didn't explain He wasn't being literal.

 

[hadit]

Not sure how you can read Revelation literally. But to your point, each account must be read as the author intended. It's not one way for all accounts.

I can read it literally because it clearly describes the risen and glorified savior. There's no need to bring that in if it's all about the Roman empire. I mean, you have to take virtually every sentence in the book and invent completely different meanings for the whole thing.

 

[ding]

I can read it literally because it clearly describes the risen and glorified savior. There's no need to bring that in if it's all about the Roman empire. I mean, you have to take virtually every sentence in the book and invent completely different meanings for the whole thing.

I disagree. I believe I read these passages and accounts as the authors intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do try to remind all of us that we will not be rubbing elbows only with <fill in favorite group here> when we're on the new earth.

LOL. There's the old joke of the newcomer to Heaven getting the 50 cent tour and questioning one door that was closed and not available for viewing. And he was told that was the "X" group who thought they were the only ones there.

 

[Meriweather]

Right, a new heaven and a new earth, where we will reside for eternity. That doesn't mean the book was all about the Roman empire.

It was about the Roman persecution of the early Christians.

Except that Daniel accurately foretold when Messiah would be revealed. It was apocalyptic literature with prophecy, same as Revelation. Why the reluctance to accept Revelation as an account of an encounter the risen, glorified savior, complete with what He revealed that was to come? I find it odd that all of a sudden, we want to consign a very important book of the Bible to just literature.

Jews have a different interpretation. Daniel is amazing.

He didn't always explain that He was speaking metaphorically, when He spoke to the woman at the well for one example. In fact, that's a good example. He said He would give living water that would permanently cure thirst. We say, "Obviously He was speaking metaphorically", and why? Because we know that our bodies still demand water even as we walk with Him. Likewise, there's no need to believe that Jesus is somehow feeding us His un-resurrected body and blood just because He didn't explain He wasn't being literal.

As I said, Hebrew/Aramaic are picture-languages. From the account of the event itself, do you imagine the woman (or anyone) would miss what Jesus meant. Remember how she told others of the event? She said, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done."

 

[hadit]

It was about the Roman persecution of the early Christians.

Just stating that isn't credible. We're already seeing things shaping up to make Revelation not only possible, but inevitable.

Jews have a different interpretation. Daniel is amazing.

Of course, they do. They'll do anything to avoid accepting Jesus as Messiah.

As I said, Hebrew/Aramaic are picture-languages. From the account of the event itself, do you imagine the woman (or anyone) would miss what Jesus meant. Remember how she told others of the event? She said, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done."

From John 4:

14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw
16: Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

She didn't get it. She thought he was being literal, like those who insist Jesus is feeding us His real blood and flesh, and He didn't correct her.

 

[Meriweather]

From John 4:

14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw
16: Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

She didn't get it. She thought he was being literal, like those who insist Jesus is feeding us His real blood and flesh, and He didn't correct her.

Are you arguing that when she ran off to tell people about Jesus, she excitedly told them, "Come meet this man who provides water so that we will never be physically thirsty again!"?

As I attempted the point out by her very own words in the last post, she was past thinking about mere physical thirst. What was the result?

Unlike the account of, "Unless you eat my bread and drink my blood..." where many left him in this account many came out to meet him, they believed in him, and he remained with him for two days. What say you: Do you believe that during these two days, no one offered Jesus anything to drink, and that Jesus, during these two days, drank nothing?

 

[hadit]

Are you arguing that when she ran off to tell people about Jesus, she excitedly told them, "Come meet this man who provides water so that we will never be physically thirsty again!"?

As I attempted the point out by her very own words in the last post, she was past thinking about mere physical thirst. What was the result?

Unlike the account of, "Unless you eat my bread and drink my blood..." where many left him in this account many came out to meet him, they believed in him, and he remained with him for two days. What say you: Do you believe that during these two days, no one offered Jesus anything to drink, and that Jesus, during these two days, drank nothing?

Of course not, He asked her for a drink, remember? She got all excited when He was talking about living water and asked for that. I believe Jesus knew full well what people were thinking and didn't think He had to be explicit all the time. People would figure out He was speaking metaphorically.

"I am the vine, you are the branches"
"You must be born again"
"I am the bread of life"
"I am the light of the world"
"I have living water"
"This is my body and my blood"
"Whoever comes to me will never hunger or thirst again"
"Whoever comes to me will live forever"

Some of these confused people and He didn't go to great lengths to spoon feed them.

 

[Meriweather]

Some of these confused people and He didn't go to great lengths to spoon feed them.

None of these confused people. Even Nicodemus got the point right away, and the point was reiterated in the account. The same is true in the account of the Samaritan woman at the well. Each quickly got the point, and the point was reiterated in the story.

The account of Eat my flesh, drink my blood is entirely different. People in the story got the point, and it is the only story where Jesus lost followers because of what he was teaching. Further, early Christians held to Jesus' words--to the point non-Christians were accusing them of cannibalism. Next, are the Eucharistic miracles preserved over the centuries. But we've already gone over this and conclusions remain the same.

 

[ding]

 

[Shiversepter]

.

This subject has been a very interesting study for me over the years, one thing that i notice that is very rarely mentioned is the passage of Scripture in Rev 17:16

:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall EAT her flesh, and burn her with fire.


This is referring to the symbolic act of eating and burning up a city

I believe that Jesus makes it very clear that eating his flesh is spiritual and a act of eating and digesting his word in obedience - in a spiritual manner.

also we see
​

Joh 4:34 ........ My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: you....... have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word ...........

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age .

furthermore

Let’ s Remember that the Greek word Eucharist - Simply means - THANKFUL - Thanks. - Gratitude.

In Mat 15:36, Joh 6:11, Mar 8:6 the term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the food.

We find in Mat 15:36, Joh 6:11, Mar 8:6 He took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave Eucharist / Thanks and gave to the multitude.

Joh 6:23 Jesus gave Eucharist / Thanks.

Also, here are just a few other verses where believers are giving Eucharist / Thanks – and it has nothing to do with food or the last supper.

Luk 17:16 The ten lepers who were healed gave Eucharist / Thanks.
Luk_18:11 The Pharisee gave Eucharist / Thanks
Joh 11:41 Yahoshua said Father, I give Eucharist / Thanks to thee.
Act 28:15 The brethren gave Eucharist / Thanks to God.

Rom 1:8, Rom 7:25, 1Co 1:4, 1Co 10:30, 1Co 14:18, Php 1:3 Paul gave Eucharist / Thanks to God.

Rom 1:21 The unrighteousness do not give Eucharist / Thanks to God.
Rom 16:4, Col 1:3 Paul and all of the churches give Eucharist / Thanks.
1Co 14:17 You give Eucharist / Thanks and do well.
2Co 1:11 Eucharist / Thanks may be given.
Eph 1:16 Cease not to give Eucharist / Thanks
Eph 5:20 Giving Eucharist / Thanks always
Col_1:12, Col_3:17 Giving Eucharist / Thanks unto the Father.
1Th_1:2, 1Th_2:13, 2Th_1:3, Phm 1:4 We give Eucharist/ Thanks to God.
1Th_5:18 In everything give Eucharist / Thanks :
Rev 11:17 twenty-four elders said - give you Eucharist / Thanks, O Lord

even the terminology and meaning / definition of using the Greek word Eucharist / thanks cannot be translated and used as a word associated with a modern language in the Catholic Mass.,

Roman Catholics must rely upon the process of leaving this word in Greek,
in order to leave it as nothing but a tradition practiced by early Christians instead of translating the word into a modern language and being truthful about what the word literally means in the original language.

leaving it in ancient Greek ' - UNTRANSLATED -
this hides the meaning and context,

and the Catholic Mass become centered around a tradition alone -
and not a Scriptural concept - not a word that is honestly translated into a modern language that honestly reflects how the word Eucharist is used in the Bible.


we have the many deeds and words and day to day actions of what Jesus and the Disciples did filled with symbolism, unclarity, confusion and actions and words needing to be explained by the Holy Spirit

and then we have the SCRIPTURE that corrects, instructs, clarifies, reproofs, finalizes and provides understanding and commandment from the holy spirit

this Scriptural source is not something that Roman Catholics are able to translate with honesty - while performing the tradition of the Mass.

Tradition becomes a Catholics bypass - wrapped in an ancient Greek word that is misrepresented in its meaning, definition and context of the Scripture

​

 

[ding]

.

This subject has been a very interesting study for me over the years, one thing that i notice that is very rarely mentioned is the passage of Scripture in Rev 17:16

:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall EAT her flesh, and burn her with fire.


This is referring to the symbolic act of eating and burning up a city

I believe that Jesus makes it very clear that eating his flesh is spiritual and a act of eating and digesting his word in obedience - in a spiritual manner.

also we see
​

Joh 4:34 ........ My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: you....... have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word ...........

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age .

furthermore

Let’ s Remember that the Greek word Eucharist - Simply means - THANKFUL - Thanks. - Gratitude.

In Mat 15:36, Joh 6:11, Mar 8:6 the term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the food.

We find in Mat 15:36, Joh 6:11, Mar 8:6 He took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave Eucharist / Thanks and gave to the multitude.

Joh 6:23 Jesus gave Eucharist / Thanks.

Also, here are just a few other verses where believers are giving Eucharist / Thanks – and it has nothing to do with food or the last supper.

Luk 17:16 The ten lepers who were healed gave Eucharist / Thanks.
Luk_18:11 The Pharisee gave Eucharist / Thanks
Joh 11:41 Yahoshua said Father, I give Eucharist / Thanks to thee.
Act 28:15 The brethren gave Eucharist / Thanks to God.

Rom 1:8, Rom 7:25, 1Co 1:4, 1Co 10:30, 1Co 14:18, Php 1:3 Paul gave Eucharist / Thanks to God.

Rom 1:21 The unrighteousness do not give Eucharist / Thanks to God.
Rom 16:4, Col 1:3 Paul and all of the churches give Eucharist / Thanks.
1Co 14:17 You give Eucharist / Thanks and do well.
2Co 1:11 Eucharist / Thanks may be given.
Eph 1:16 Cease not to give Eucharist / Thanks
Eph 5:20 Giving Eucharist / Thanks always
Col_1:12, Col_3:17 Giving Eucharist / Thanks unto the Father.
1Th_1:2, 1Th_2:13, 2Th_1:3, Phm 1:4 We give Eucharist/ Thanks to God.
1Th_5:18 In everything give Eucharist / Thanks :
Rev 11:17 twenty-four elders said - give you Eucharist / Thanks, O Lord

even the terminology and meaning / definition of using the Greek word Eucharist / thanks cannot be translated and used as a word associated with a modern language in the Catholic Mass.,

Roman Catholics must rely upon the process of leaving this word in Greek,
in order to leave it as nothing but a tradition practiced by early Christians instead of translating the word into a modern language and being truthful about what the word literally means in the original language.

leaving it in ancient Greek ' - UNTRANSLATED -
this hides the meaning and context,
and the Catholic Mass become centered around a tradition alone

and not a Scriptural - not a word that is honestly translated into a modern language that honestly reflects how the word Eucharist is used in the Bible.


we have the many deeds and words and day to day actions of what Jesus and the Disciples did filled with symbolism, unclarity, confusion and actions and words needing to be explained by the Holy Spirit

and then we have the SCRIPTURE that corrects, instructs, clarifies, reproofs, finalizes and provides understanding and commandment from the holy spirit

this Scriptural source is not something that Roman Catholics are able to translate with honesty -

Tradition becomes a Catholics bypass -

​

Why do you believe Jesus said, the flesh is of no avail? What do you believe he meant by that?

 

[Shiversepter]

thank you " ding " for taking time to reply to me.

I believe that Jesus and the Apostles and authors of scripture were originally speaking and interacting with a Hebrew and not a Gentile culture or with Gentiles.

this method of speaking, communicating and understanding was how the Hebrew people had done for many years.

in other words - the Jews held on to their ancient language and the using of the idea of digesting, eating and spiritually and mentally devouring, consuming, assimilating, digesting, taking in, ABSORBING digest, gobbling, chomping, munching, wolfing down and eating

as a symbolic way of understanding - and this goes back for thousands of years in Hebrew culture ... Jesus was using this same language found throughout thousands of years of ancient scripture.....


Job 12:11 and the mouth tastes God’s meat?

Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good:

Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste!

yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

2Ti 2::17 These word will eat as doth a canker / ulcer.

Joh 8:52 Jesus said - If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

Mat 16:28 and Luk 9:27 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death....

Joh 8:52 he shall never taste of death.

Jas 5:3 Your gold and silver..........shall eat your flesh as it were fire.

Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is an EATING fire, a jealous God.

Heb 12:29 For our God is a EATING fire.

Gen 31:15 Rachel and Leah said their father had EATEN up - consumed - our money.

Isa 58:14 and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father.

This is not even a fraction of the entirety of all the verses in the Bible - but is the entirety of the COMPLETE Symbolic nature of how this concept and metaphoric model of all of the ways that this word is used to mean devour, absorb, consume, and the same word in the Hebrew and also - the Greek is the same exact words meaning to eat.

This is how the Jews spoke and how the entire manuscripts use the word - eat. It has a symbolic meaning. – both positive and negative – but it has the same exact symbolism - depending what it is referring to in the subject description, and it all means the same exact thing - whether it is an EATING fire or an EATING sword or an EATING army or an EATING famine that starves a civilization to death.

The same symbolic concept, model and reproduction of the allegorical metaphoric meaning - is also used as in the same exact way - - as the mind and the soul and in the symbolic actions - in the Bible we are “ ourselves “ spiritually and mentally devouring, consuming, assimilating, digesting, taking in, ABSORBING digest, gobbling, chomping, munching, wolfing down and eating the word of God and literally symbolically eating / digesting our Bible and eating God himself.

i believe that Catholics could be more honest about the Mass and translate the Greek word Eucharist into a modern language that represents ancient Hebrew culture - and the way Jesus spoke to a strictly Hebrew audience and family.

 

[Meriweather]

This is how the Jews spoke and how the entire manuscripts use the word - eat. It has a symbolic meaning. – both positive and negative – but it has the same exact symbolism - depending what it is referring to in the subject description, and it all means the same exact thing - whether it is an EATING fire or an EATING sword or an EATING army or an EATING famine that starves a civilization to death.

The same symbolic concept, model and reproduction of the allegorical metaphoric meaning - is also used as in the same exact way - - as the mind and the soul and in the symbolic actions - in the Bible we are “ ourselves “ spiritually and mentally devouring, consuming, assimilating, digesting, taking in, ABSORBING digest, gobbling, chomping, munching, wolfing down and eating the word of God and literally symbolically eating / digesting our Bible and eating God himself.

i believe that Catholics could be more honest about the Mass and translate the Greek word Eucharist into a modern language that represents ancient Hebrew culture - and the way Jesus spoke to a strictly Hebrew audience and family.

Catholics understand all of this. However, over and above all of this, Catholics (and the Apostles and the early Church) also understand Jesus also meant it literally. So did those who first heard and objected to what Jesus' said. He lost many disciples because they said this teaching was too hard to accept. They would not have had that reaction if they had accepted it as symbolic and picturesque. (The Hebrew and Aramaic languages draw pictures, unlike English which is a subjective language.)

Furthering the case that Jesus words were literal is that there have been Eucharistic miracles where the bread did change to human heart muscle and Type B blood.

This is not an effort to convince you or change your mind about it being symbolism. It's merely an explanation of why Catholics follow apostolic/early Church teachings and traditions, and firmly believe Jesus' meaning, intent is literal.

 

[ding]

thank you " ding " for taking time to reply to me.

I believe that Jesus and the Apostles and authors of scripture were originally speaking and interacting with a Hebrew and not a Gentile culture or with Gentiles.

this method of speaking, communicating and understanding was how the Hebrew people had done for many years.

in other words - the Jews held on to their ancient language and the using of the idea of digesting, eating and spiritually and mentally devouring, consuming, assimilating, digesting, taking in, ABSORBING digest, gobbling, chomping, munching, wolfing down and eating

as a symbolic way of understanding - and this goes back for thousands of years in Hebrew culture ... Jesus was using this same language found throughout thousands of years of ancient scripture.....


Job 12:11 and the mouth tastes God’s meat?

Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good:

Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste!

yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

2Ti 2::17 These word will eat as doth a canker / ulcer.

Joh 8:52 Jesus said - If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

Mat 16:28 and Luk 9:27 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death....

Joh 8:52 he shall never taste of death.

Jas 5:3 Your gold and silver..........shall eat your flesh as it were fire.

Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is an EATING fire, a jealous God.

Heb 12:29 For our God is a EATING fire.

Gen 31:15 Rachel and Leah said their father had EATEN up - consumed - our money.

Isa 58:14 and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father.

This is not even a fraction of the entirety of all the verses in the Bible - but is the entirety of the COMPLETE Symbolic nature of how this concept and metaphoric model of all of the ways that this word is used to mean devour, absorb, consume, and the same word in the Hebrew and also - the Greek is the same exact words meaning to eat.

This is how the Jews spoke and how the entire manuscripts use the word - eat. It has a symbolic meaning. – both positive and negative – but it has the same exact symbolism - depending what it is referring to in the subject description, and it all means the same exact thing - whether it is an EATING fire or an EATING sword or an EATING army or an EATING famine that starves a civilization to death.

The same symbolic concept, model and reproduction of the allegorical metaphoric meaning - is also used as in the same exact way - - as the mind and the soul and in the symbolic actions - in the Bible we are “ ourselves “ spiritually and mentally devouring, consuming, assimilating, digesting, taking in, ABSORBING digest, gobbling, chomping, munching, wolfing down and eating the word of God and literally symbolically eating / digesting our Bible and eating God himself.

i believe that Catholics could be more honest about the Mass and translate the Greek word Eucharist into a modern language that represents ancient Hebrew culture - and the way Jesus spoke to a strictly Hebrew audience and family.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me too. But let's look at the actual account where Jesus gave the command because you aren't the first person to be shocked by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He lost a lot of disciples over that command.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51
2. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
3. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53
4. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
5. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
6. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63
7. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

He let disciples walk away rather than to soften his stance and make it symbolic. He was given an opportunity to soften it and instead he reinforced what he said by saying the flesh is of no avail.

 

[Shiversepter]

.
hello there again, " Meriweather " - and - " Ding " I hope today you are in good health and doing great.

I understand what you are saying, i read your replies and enjoyed reading them and sincerely appreciate the opportunity to study with you.

I love you in the Lord and ask that you pray for me and if you wish i may do the same for you..

one thing I would like to ask you to consider doing when you have time and opportunity is to please try to go back to the chapter in Joh 6 and please try to accept and realize the context of what the passage is explaining and saying in a reality based format.

please realize after reading the context that i am also a believer just as you are - I do believe in Jesus. However, the crowd Jesus was speaking to were not believers nor his disciples ..

Here, Jesus was on the other side of the sea .........and that Jesus was not with his disciples - - - - his disciples were gone away alone;

:23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias.
people who knew very little about Jesus ​

Joh 6:24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

we see further that - - :59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

in conclusion ............ the context is explaining that ......... these specific Jews who were not his disciples were disputing and arguing among themselves

not the disciples

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

eventually.........................these events and incidents of the words and teaching of what Jesus was teaching to unbelievers in the crowds and in the synagogue to unbelievers was discovered by the believers / disciples, .......the disciples who had already been taught by Jesus were not shocked, not arguing or confused about it but they were actually complaining and a little upset that Jesus would use such terminology in such a way that was shocking and in a the symbolic nature to deliberately - purposefully intend to shock and vilify and insult a crowd of people and a synagogue of people on purpose.

Jesus then asks his disciples does this scandalize - defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass you ?

because Jesus was deliberately, purposefully intending to confuse and completely show dishonor and embarrass the crowds of unbeleivers who were only with him because of the free food

Jesus speaking to his disciples asked them ----- does this scandalize you, - does this defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass you ?

the Greek word here in skandalizō - skan-dal-id'-zo - scandalize, defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass,

this is why many of his followers left him because he was purposefully confusing and insulting and condemning and making mockery of the unbeleivers.,...... this offended and embarrassed some of his followers

Jesus was not intending to convert the bread into his literal physical flesh but was saying that the people were only interested in the food he had for them to eat therefore they did not accept his word nor would they truly understand or truly accept the words that were truth and spiritually nourishment.......

Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: :40 that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted,

Act 28:26 Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

Jesus explains to his disciples that the material flesh is not profitable


not helpful - not USEFULL

but it is the words he speaks and his teaching that is spirit and the life...and THE BREAD .... and is the context of everything ....

This is why he clarified .....when we eat the bread and drink the wine this done in remembrance / memory / memorial of me

 

[ding]

.
hello there again, " Meriweather " - and - " Ding " I hope today you are in good health and doing great.

I understand what you are saying, i read your replies and enjoyed reading them and sincerely appreciate the opportunity to study with you.

I love you in the Lord and ask that you pray for me and if you wish i may do the same for you..

one thing I would like to ask you to consider doing when you have time and opportunity is to please try to go back to the chapter in Joh 6 and please try to accept and realize the context of what the passage is explaining and saying in a reality based format.

please realize after reading the context that i am also a believer just as you are - I do believe in Jesus. However, the crowd Jesus was speaking to were not believers nor his disciples ..

Here, Jesus was on the other side of the sea .........and that Jesus was not with his disciples - - - - his disciples were gone away alone;

:23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias.
people who knew very little about Jesus ​

Joh 6:24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

we see further that - - :59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

in conclusion ............ the context is explaining that ......... these specific Jews who were not his disciples were disputing and arguing among themselves

not the disciples

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

eventually.........................these events and incidents of the words and teaching of what Jesus was teaching to unbelievers in the crowds and in the synagogue to unbelievers was discovered by the believers / disciples, .......the disciples who had already been taught by Jesus were not shocked, not arguing or confused about it but they were actually complaining and a little upset that Jesus would use such terminology in such a way that was shocking and in a the symbolic nature to deliberately - purposefully intend to shock and vilify and insult a crowd of people and a synagogue of people on purpose.

Jesus then asks his disciples does this scandalize - defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass you ?

because Jesus was deliberately, purposefully intending to confuse and completely show dishonor and embarrass the crowds of unbeleivers who were only with him because of the free food

Jesus speaking to his disciples asked them ----- does this scandalize you, - does this defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass you ?

the Greek word here in skandalizō - skan-dal-id'-zo - scandalize, defame, disgrace, dishonor, slander, vilify, embarrass,

this is why many of his followers left him because he was purposefully confusing and insulting and condemning and making mockery of the unbeleivers.,...... this offended and embarrassed some of his followers

Jesus was not intending to convert the bread into his literal physical flesh but was saying that the people were only interested in the food he had for them to eat therefore they did not accept his word nor would they truly understand or truly accept the words that were truth and spiritually nourishment.......

Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: :40 that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted,

Act 28:26 Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

Jesus explains to his disciples that the material flesh is not profitable


not helpful - not USEFULL

but it is the words he speaks and his teaching that is spirit and the life...and THE BREAD .... and is the context of everything ....

This is why he clarified .....when we eat the bread and drink the wine this done in remembrance / memory / memorial of me

The flesh is of no avail.

 

[Meriweather]

we see further that - - :59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

in conclusion ............ the context is explaining that ......... these specific Jews who were not his disciples were disputing and arguing among themselves

Continuing on to John 6:60-71....

Verse 60 clearly states many of his disciples...
And again, Verse 66...Many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"

 

[Zebra]

we were told so

 

[ding]

we were told so

As much as 70% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. That's a crying shame.