Sunday Is Not the Sabbath

[BobRyan]

1. Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" -

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen. 16 This is in accordance with everything that you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Do not let me hear the voice of the Lord my God again, and do not let me see this great fire anymore, or I will die!’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him.​

2. Jews claimed that Moses gave them manna - but Jesus corrects them - saying GOD gave them manna in John 6:30-32

​

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.​

3. God says it was God that gave the law at Sinai - not Moses - Deut 5:22
4. Heb 8:6-12 says it was JESUS (God the Son) speaking at Sinai - giving the Law.

Matt 19:8-9 Christ MAGNIFIES the Law regarding adultery and marriage instead of annulling it.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”​

​

Jesus is not commanding them to get divorced - rather He raises the moral obligation far above the civil law in Israel. Moral law and civil law are not the same thing - as almost all denominations admit (even your own Pope John Paul II admits this when it comes to the TEN).

Jesus' MAGNIFIED standard went beyond the level of civil law divorce being permitted. He strengthened restriction - he did not loosen/annul it.

AND Jesus made NO NEW civil law. So this is NOT a case of Jesus replacing a civil law stated by Moses with a new civil law.

​

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”​

(1) With respect to the scripture deut 18:15-18, you take note that " Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" "
That is true, but it is in verse 15 and verse 19
deut 18:15 "unto him ye shall hearken"
deut 18:19 "whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will reguire it of him"

"all scripture is given by inspiration from God and is to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction..." 2 Tim 3:16
That does not make every writer "a law giver" but inspiration makes it "obligatory" on the hearer to pay attention.

Moses (actually God) gives a carte blance for this new prophet. We can study in the new testament how Jesus treats this privilege.

Jesus is the one speaking at Sinai - those are "his Commandments" in the form of "God the Son" as we saw in Heb 8:6-12.

Jesus was not telling Moses that He would come and delete His own word at Sinai. In fact in Matt 5 Jesus specifically instructs His followers not to teach such a thing.

The sermon on the mount is a masterpiece on this. It is structered in phrases like "you have heard ... but I say" "it has been said ... but I say". How can anyone use the language "but I say"?

IN every case it is a hardening , a amplification of what is in the OT. It was not a "delete and replace" as we noted earlier in the case of divorce and adultery.

. Also, this is where the new commandment in John 13:34 comes in. Called "the 11th commandment".

In Matt 22 Jesus states it as "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- which is a direct quote of Lev 19:18

Jesus has the authority to give a new commandment.

Jesus is God. So no doubt He could do that.

(2) with respect to the manna in the desert, what role does that play in your religious system?

Jesus said "He IS the bread of life that came down out of heaven". His statement is not "some day in the future I will be" but past tense - He already was the bread that came down out of heaven.

In that text God says "man does not live by BREAD alone - but rather by ever WORD that comes from the mouth of God". In Deut 8 - scripture says THAT IS the lesson of "Manna".

The Gospel of John does not begin with John 6 - but rather with John 1 "The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us".

I should note that for me, the manna in the desert is a sidetrack at this point. But for you somehow it fits into the presentation.

I was not the one to introduce the topic of communion and the Eucharist - you did. I was simply following a topic that you inserted into the discussion. The thread itself is on "Sunday is not the Sabbath". I was obliging a topic that you introduced into the thread.

That is why I ask you, what role does it play in your religious system?

The one scripture dictates for the Bible reader in Deut 8, John 1, John 6...

(3) you then go on with a discussion of the law being given by God. I do not know that I would disagree.

Actually we should be agreeing on that point given what the Catechism says and given what we find in Dies Domini where the Sabbath is included in the moral law of God binding on all mankind as noted in my signature line. but a number of non-SDAs here might object to that point.

 

[BobRyan]

Right @BobRyan we now at least established a starting point for our discussion on the new covenant. The prophecy in deut 18:15-18.

It seems to me that when you start in the same place, you quickly turn in the direction of the law itself, as if it is from heaven, and immutable, and so on.

Good observation. You are correct again. Here is the answer from the Bible

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine , for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

2 Peter 1:
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

When quoting the OT in Heb 3 - the NT writer puts it this way "The Holy Spirit says"
... 7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,...

And in Mark 7 Jesus gives us "The Commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God"

I think we need to understand one issue. Namely your view on the law. Is the law, as I put it, immutable, a heavenly / divine thing that can never be altered? What is your position?

IT is God's alone - no one can delete/edit it.

"The Commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God"

Mark 7:7-13
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

No one can edit the Law of God it is the Word of God - it cannot be broken.
Jesus slam hammers the supposedly infallible traditions of His own nation-church magesterium for daring to tweak one of God's commandments.

I would like to present to you some verses on
..
(3) the lawgiving / ruling authority of the church
as well as maybe
(4) the ruling authority of the scribes and the pharisees with respect to the old law

The Jews were trying out that idea and in Mark 7 they get slam-hammered by Christ for doing it - and Christ does that rebuke "sola scriptura"

James 2 say that to break one is to break them all.

James 2:
8 If you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as violators. 10 For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have become a violator of the Law. 12 So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom.

1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the Law" - -by definition

===================================== division of Law
In the OT there are various kinds of law

1. Civil law - governs the nation of theocracy of Israel and ceases to exist when that theocracy ceases to exist. So for example death penalty for things like Sabbath breaking , and gluttony, false prophecy, false doctrine, blasphemy - are not appropriate outside of that theocracy.

2. Ceremonial law - ends when the sacrifice and offering liturgy which defines that law - ends at the cross as God points out in Heb 10:4-12

3. Moral law - like the TEN Commandments so then we see it contrasted with ceremonial law in 1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision does not matter but what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

 

[BobRyan]

I have a question for you...

in your response to this post --

1. Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" -

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen. 16 This is in accordance with everything that you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Do not let me hear the voice of the Lord my God again, and do not let me see this great fire anymore, or I will die!’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him.​

2. Jews claimed that Moses gave them manna - but Jesus corrects them - saying GOD gave them manna in John 6:30-32

​

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.​

3. God says it was God that gave the law at Sinai - not Moses - Deut 5:22

4. Heb 8:6-12 says it was JESUS (God the Son) speaking at Sinai - giving the Law.

​

Matt 19:8-9 Christ MAGNIFIES the Law regarding adultery and marriage instead of annulling it.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”​

​

Jesus is not commanding them to get divorced - rather He raises the moral obligation far above the civil law in Israel. Moral law and civil law are not the same thing - as almost all denominations admit (even your own Pope John Paul II admits this when it comes to the TEN).

Jesus' MAGNIFIED standard went beyond the level of civil law divorce being permitted. He strengthened restriction - he did not loosen/annul it.

AND Jesus made NO NEW civil law. So this is NOT a case of Jesus replacing a civil law stated by Moses with a new civil law.

​

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”​

You said this...

Right, thanks for taking the time to make posts more focused and single-pointed. Although now I have 5 posts to answer. Let me however respond to that. Do you expect me to be superman and digest 5 posts totally, before creating an answer? Or do you have a tendency to "explode" and open up about all sorts of things at once. Then I would encourage you to take a deep breath before starting to post, and ask yourself, which is the most important point you want to get across. That will be helpful for me. And probably others also. Take a deep breath my friend

(1) With respect to the scripture deut 18:15-18, you take note that " Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" "
That is true, but it is in verse 15 and verse 19
deut 18:15 "unto him ye shall hearken"
deut 18:19 "whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will reguire it of him"
Moses (actually God) gives a carte blance for this new prophet. We can study in the new testament how Jesus treats this privilege. The sermon on the mount is a masterpiece on this. It is structered in phrases like "you have heard ... but I say" "it has been said ... but I say". How can anyone use the language "but I say"? Only if he is really a lawgiver, and he has the right to give a ruling. Also, this is where the new commandment in John 13:34 comes in. Called "the 11th commandment". Jesus has the authority to give a new commandment.

(2) with respect to the manna in the desert, what role does that play in your religious system? In the catholic understanding, the manna in the desert is a shadow of the Eucharist, as laid out in the whole John 6 chapter, which is the longest coherent text on the Eucharist in the new testament.
I should note that for me, the manna in the desert is a sidetrack at this point. But for you somehow it fits into the presentation. That is why I ask you, what role does it play in your religious system?

(3) you then go on with a discussion of the law being given by God. I do not know that I would disagree. And a response to matthew 19:8-9 which is not too far off my own evaluation. I will leave the rest of the post unanswered.

My question is that -- did you respond to something in my post that you quoted??

For example I show in my post above that Jesus rejects the Jew's claim that Moses gave them manna. Placing Moses in god's chair makes moses the one giving manna and Moses is the one giving the Law -- Jesus corrects all that in John 6.

Did you ever address that in your post? Is there anything in my post above where you respond to what I was saying?

If you are going to ignore my posts and then when I respond to each piece of your post - you are going to say 'those are too many pieces for me to look at" - the likelihood of real communication tends toward nil.

 

[PeterDona]

I have a question for you...

in your response to this post --

You said this...


My question is that -- did you respond to something in my post that you quoted??

For example I show in my post above that Jesus rejects the Jew's claim that Moses gave them manna. Placing Moses in god's chair makes moses the one giving manna and Moses is the one giving the Law -- Jesus corrects all that in John 6.

Did you ever address that in your post? Is there anything in my post above where you respond to what I was saying?

I answered this under my point 2: "I should note that for me, the manna in the desert is a sidetrack at this point. "

If you are going to ignore my posts and then when I respond to each piece of your post - you are going to say 'those are too many pieces for me to look at" - the likelihood of real communication tends toward nil.

From my side, well I have stated my side.
I was not aware that you wanted a discussion of John 6. It is one passage that I lay out very differently. I have previously tried to lay it out to my SDA friend, but he just could not see it, even though I tried 2-3 times to go slowly through it. So I would not expect you @BobRyan to be able to see it more clearly than what he could. The catholic position cannot be conformed to the SDA position, you see. For us, the manna is not "the word of God", it is the real presence of Christ in something we eat and drink. Not metaphorically eat and drink, but literally eat and drink.

Bur understanding how SDA consider "manna" to be "the Word of God", it now makes complete sense to me, why my SDA friend could not see things differently, even though going through the chapter 2-3 times. It is apparently a cornerstone in SDA theology that "manna" = "the Word of God"

 

[PeterDona]

"all scripture is given by inspiration from God and is to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction..." 2 Tim 3:16
That does not make every writer "a law giver" but inspiration makes it "obligatory" on the hearer to pay attention.


Jesus is the one speaking at Sinai - those are "his Commandments" in the form of "God the Son" as we saw in Heb 8:6-12.

Jesus was not telling Moses that He would come and delete His own word at Sinai. In fact in Matt 5 Jesus specifically instructs His followers not to teach such a thing.

IN every case it is a hardening , a amplification of what is in the OT. It was not a "delete and replace" as we noted earlier in the case of divorce and adultery.

In Matt 22 Jesus states it as "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- which is a direct quote of Lev 19:18

Jesus is God. So no doubt He could do that.

Jesus said "He IS the bread of life that came down out of heaven". His statement is not "some day in the future I will be" but past tense - He already was the bread that came down out of heaven.

In that text God says "man does not live by BREAD alone - but rather by ever WORD that comes from the mouth of God". In Deut 8 - scripture says THAT IS the lesson of "Manna".

The Gospel of John does not begin with John 6 - but rather with John 1 "The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us".

I was not the one to introduce the topic of communion and the Eucharist - you did. I was simply following a topic that you inserted into the discussion. The thread itself is on "Sunday is not the Sabbath". I was obliging a topic that you introduced into the thread.

The one scripture dictates for the Bible reader in Deut 8, John 1, John 6...

Actually we should be agreeing on that point given what the Catechism says and given what we find in Dies Domini where the Sabbath is included in the moral law of God binding on all mankind as noted in my signature line. but a number of non-SDAs here might object to that point.

Do you agree that our conversation is an interfaith dialogue? The SDA interpretion is just one among many interpretations.

You quote me selectively, and focus on things that are minor in my presentation. Example, before understanding the authority of the church, you need to understand the authority of Christ. But you reverse it around, focusing on what I would say about the church, and then bring up some verse about traditions of men annulling the Word of God. So you basically aborted my presentation, even before I got it going. It is about, what are the foundational things, and what are then the implications. The authority of Christ as a lawgiver is a foundational thing. He then passes on that authority to the Church.

Likewise, also Moses received authority to rule. As an example from Scripture, Jesus speaks about the authority of Moses as lawgiver, being passed on to the pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; " This is one implication of Moses' authority. And Jesus actually confirms that authority, and that it is handed on.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you agree that our conversation is an interfaith dialogue?

Sure you belong to one denomination and I belong to another.

But to have a conversation there needs to be attention to detail - response to points raised etc.

The SDA interpretion is just one among many interpretations.

At most there is one correct one... at worst there are no correct ones

At most there is one group that where that has all its doctrines correct, at worst there is none of that sort.

But it is most certain that all denominations have at least one thing correct - and many have more than one.

You quote me selectively, and focus on things that are minor in my presentation.

You are selective in which things you feel you can post that should not get a response as to whether they are correct or not.

Example, before understanding the authority of the church, you need to understand the authority of Christ. But you reverse it around, focusing on what I would say about the church, and then bring up some verse about traditions of men annulling the Word of God.

Instead of arguing the point as if I wrote Mark 7 - why not discuss the details and what I said regarding why i brought it up - with actual quotes, with details.

So you basically aborted my presentation, even before I got it going.

I made the point that Christ established the practice of testing magesterium traditions "sola scriptura" in Mark 7 rather than "let the magesterium edit the Word of God" in some way. I think you are correct to note that if we were to pay attention to Christ's teaching in Mark 7 it would be challenging for something that might be one of your preferences... but that's the whole point of sola scriptura testing.

Let all doctirne and practice be tested by what God's Word has already said on that topic.

It is about, what are the foundational things, and what are then the implications. The authority of Christ as a lawgiver is a foundational thing.

Christ is the one speaking at Sinai according to the New Testament - Heb 8:6-12
That makes HIM the Law giver in Ex 20 just as Deut 5:22 says.. It is God speaking not merely stuff that Moses is making up to the best of his ability.

I am not here to argue against Christ as Law giver. I would argue against Moses as law-giver since Heb 8 tells us it was Christ not Moses in Ex 20.

He then passes on that authority to the Church.

He then shows how the traditions and doctrines of the church are to be tested by the Word of God in Mark 7:7-13 starting with the nation-church He setup at Sinai and showing how its traditions were slam-hammered "sola scriptura" in the Mark 7 text you are not quoting.

Moses was leading but the leadership was not based on the brilliance of Moses but on God who spoke through Moses - it is the authority of God Himself, it is the Word of God Himself according to Christ in Mark 7. Just as the NT writers tell us it is Christ speaking at Sinai -- not Moses.

I think the preferences you have expressed so far do not allow you to quote those texts in your response - but we still read and post those texts and the point they make presents a problem for the preferences you are expressing.

 

[BobRyan]

From my side, well I have stated my side.
I was not aware that you wanted a discussion of John 6. It is one passage that I lay out very differently

I want a discussion on every text I post -- in context. I am happy to have you engage in the discussion. That is my preference.

I have previously tried to lay it out to my SDA friend, but he just could not see it, even though I tried 2-3 times to go slowly through it. So I would not expect you @BobRyan to be able to see it more clearly than what he could. .

The fact that someone does not agree with one of your ideas does not make them wrong or right.

If your view was indeed wrong -- then nothing states I should not be able to see the flaw in your proposal as easily as he did.
If your view was right - then nothing says I should not be able to discover the correctness of your view through study and dialogue even though one-other-person did not see it.

in fact it is not logical at all to argue that if a right POV is rejected by one person it must then be rejected by all in the "same family" or "in the same neighborhood" or "in the same local congregation" or "in the same denomination".

Arguments of that sort are not logical. stick with the facts and things will always work out better.

 

[Leaf473]

Are you aware of the Bible teaching about inspiration?

Well, I searched for the words inspire, inspired, and inspiration. I wasn't aware of the passages from Jeremiah and Hosea, no.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Inspire

www.biblegateway.com

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Inspired

www.biblegateway.com

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Inspiration

www.biblegateway.com

do you consider the Bible to be in error because it says prophets are inspired by God 2 Pet 1:20-21 2 Tim 3:16

No.

-- are you wanting to ignore the Bible topic that you post on??

Not intentionally, no

I like this passage

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 8:7 - New American Standard Bible

But just as you excel in everything, in faith, speaking, knowledge, and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you also excel in this gracious work.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[BobRyan]

My question is -- did you respond to something in my post that you quoted?? an actual response to the point raised based in the Bible text quoted??

For example I show in my post above that Jesus rejects the Jew's claim that Moses gave them manna. Placing Moses in god's chair makes moses the one giving manna and Moses is the one giving the Law -- Jesus corrects all that in John 6.

Did you ever address that in your post? Is there anything in my post above where you respond to what I was saying?

I answered this under my point 2: "I should note that for me, the manna in the desert is a sidetrack at this point. "

You keep responding with "I don't want to address that" as "the response".

my question was about the fact that you are actually qouting my post but then not responding to a single point other than to day "I choose not to respond to those posts - or to that point ...". That all fits in the category of "I am not responding to what you are posting".

Do you see how that does not work in an actual conversation?

Bur understanding how SDA consider "manna" to be "the Word of God", it now makes complete sense to me, why my SDA friend could not see things differently,

As Moses stated in Deut 8
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

John 1 'The WORD became flesh'

John 6:
"I AM the BREAD that CAME down out of heaven" not "in the future at the last supper I will be bread"

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe. ...

41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.


Matt 16:
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

even though going through the chapter 2-3 times. It is apparently a cornerstone in SDA theology that "manna" = "the Word of God"

Possibly SDAs are reading the text of Deut 8 above - where God Himself makes that point about the manna being a symbol for the Word of God.
Or maybe they are reading John 6 above - where God Himself makes that same point.
Or is it Matt 16 above where they see bread used as a symbol for "teaching"

 

[BobRyan]

This is one implication of Moses' authority. And Jesus actually confirms that authority, and that it is handed on.

There is no doubt that Moses was the human leader in the wilderness --

But Jesus does not get His authority from Moses, since as Heb 8 points it - it is Jesus speaking to Israel at Sinai - it is Jesus speaking to Moses at Sinai.

God is the Law giver at Sinai as Ex 20 and Deut 5:22 point out.

 

[PeterDona]

My question is -- did you respond to something in my post that you quoted?? an actual response to the point raised based in the Bible text quoted??

Not the first time I have seen you react like this. You are maybe not able to understand my language.
I respond to what I read in your posts. It turns out that more than one time you fail to comprehend that I could come up with such an answer. So we are having a major communication problem here. The question is, if it is fruitful to continue? Maybe if I were physically able to talk to you, I would understand much better what the issue is. But for me right now, I simply perceive a disconnection.

As for the rest of your answer, focused on John 6, this is my response to your interpretation: you do one fundamental error
(1) You criss-cross references, taking sentences from one context and applying them to another context

For example I show in my post above that Jesus rejects the Jew's claim that Moses gave them manna. Placing Moses in god's chair makes moses the one giving manna and Moses is the one giving the Law -- Jesus corrects all that in John 6.

Did you ever address that in your post? Is there anything in my post above where you respond to what I was saying?

You keep responding with "I don't want to address that" as "the response".

my question was about the fact that you are actually qouting my post but then not responding to a single point other than to day "I choose not to respond to those posts - or to that point ...". That all fits in the category of "I am not responding to what you are posting".

Do you see how that does not work in an actual conversation?

(2) You get worked up, that at some point there was something that I did not respond to
Why would you get worked up about that? People all the time respond selectively

As Moses stated in Deut 8
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

John 1 'The WORD became flesh'

This is one example of what I call criss-crossing references. The text John 1:14 is about a divine person called THE WORD OF GOD becoming flesh, meaning he incarnated, he was born of a woman (which is why we celebrate christmas). It does not say that "the Bible became flesh". You are creating confusion.

John 6:
"I AM the BREAD that CAME down out of heaven" not "in the future at the last supper I will be bread"

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe. ...

41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.


Matt 16:
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

this is another example of what I call criss-crossing references. In John 6, Jesus is talking about the bread from heaven, and how he is that bread. In Matt 16 he is talking about bread in the sense of a teaching system.

As I have said before, in John 6 Jesus is talking about bread in a different sense. I will lay it out below

Possibly SDAs are reading the text of Deut 8 above - where God Himself makes that point about the manna being a symbol for the Word of God.
Or maybe they are reading John 6 above - where God Himself makes that same point.
Or is it Matt 16 above where they see bread used as a symbol for "teaching"

John 6 is NOT about Jesus correcting some misunderstanding, and corroborating some teaching system that would be invented 1800 years later. Again an example of criss-crossing references. You need to read the chapter as a whole. And then you should ask, how would a first-century jew hear this?

Johm 6 is
(1) a miracle of multiplying food (6:1-13)
(2) the jews realizing that Jesus is "that prophet", want to make him a king. But Jesus escapes and crosses the water
(3) Jesus being the bread that must be eaten to have life (6:22-59)
"eaten" is the greek word "trogo", a word that stresses physical chewing, rather than just taking in. Jesus is stressing that there must be a physical chewing on his flesh.
(4) many followers abandoning Jesus for this teaching (6:60-71)

(3b) when misinterpreters of the passage 6:22-59 erroneously jump to 6:63, they fail to respect the outline of the text. They fail to see that word "trogo", and instead jump to something that could support their spiritualizing interpretation

Basic understanding of John 6:
The priest is in every mass authorized to perform the multiplication of food, the heavenly food, which IS the body and blood of Christ.
This is the kingdom. This is how Jesus wanted to be king. By being received orally. Not by being made a political ruler.

A main theme for the gospel of John is Jesus being "the prophet", meaning the prophet of Deut 18:15-18, as we discussed.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

My question is -- did you respond to something in my post that you quoted?? an actual response to the point raised based in the Bible text quoted??

Not the first time I have seen you react like this.

True - I keep reminding you that your posts do not actually address the conversation details put to you for response.

Just as that remark also avoids the question.

I respond to what I read in your posts.

Which as pointed out in the example I gave -- is nothing.

So we are having a major communication problem here.

Now that is a true statement

The question is, if it is fruitful to continue? Maybe if I were physically able to talk to you, I would understand much better what the issue is. But for me right now, I simply perceive a disconnection.

And I am helping you by pointing to very specific details that you continue to not respond to -
Apparently you do notice this - since you are now remarking that I keep noticing it.

As for the rest of your answer, focused on John 6, this is my response to your interpretation: you do one fundamental error
(1) You criss-cross references, taking sentences from one context and applying them to another context

The problem is not the context - the problem is your understanding of exegesis.

You eisegete by taking one statement out of context and hoping no text that show your flaw will be posted.. that is flawed. It is the purest example of eisegesis.

Exegesis says that we look at the speaker, his audience and similar statements by that speaker on the same topic or using the same symbols -- that is how we get the best understanding of the text. IT is the very thing you complain about.

So instead of addressing the Bible details in the post I made - you circle back to complaining that the texts exist in the post, as if magnifying your eisegesis method - "helps" to make your case. Essentially your response is to shoot yourself in the foot and then look to be satisfied. That is not a form of "communication".

Now since you seem to have no interest in responding to the Bible case being made via texts that you apparenly find to be so inconvenient to your preferences posted... and since you claim to have at one point been very competent at the sola-scriptura testing method... it raises another question.

IS THIS kind of treatment of the text - what you used to call "sola scriptura" testing?
If so you should continue to try to give it up - choose instead actual exegesis and sola scriptura testing.

 

[BobRyan]

(1) You criss-cross references, taking sentences from one context and applying them to another context


This is one example of what I call criss-crossing references.

clearly you do not understand the basics of exegesis.

Eisegesis is your method of lifting one text out of the context of all texts that speak to the subject in an effort to bend-wrench it away from the pattern for it given in scripture

Exegesis is the method of looking at the speakers POV and what the listeners would have known, what they were taught as well as how that same set of ideas/symbols teaching was used by that same speaker or by writers of scripture known to the listeners of that speaker using the same symbols. Consider accepting exegesis rather than referring to it as "crisscross" .

The text John 1:14 is about a divine person called THE WORD OF GOD becoming flesh, meaning he incarnated, he was born of a woman (which is why we celebrate christmas). It does not say that "the Bible became flesh".

I did not post "The Bible became flesh" but I have repeatedly pointed out that the Bible is the "word of God" as does Jesus make that same point in the Mark 7:7-13 you said you must ignore to hold to your preferences.

In John 6, Jesus is talking about the bread from heaven, and how he is that bread. In Matt 16 he is talking about bread in the sense of a teaching system.

John 1 is the context for John 6 -
Deut 8 is part of the context for John 1
Matt 16 shows Christ using the same symbol for teaching.
John 6 shows Christ saying "literal flesh is worthless ... it is my WORD that is Spirit and life" - as quoted for you in posts you are determined to ignore.

 

[BobRyan]

Bur understanding how SDA consider "manna" to be "the Word of God", it now makes complete sense to me, why my SDA friend could not see things differently,

(UPPER CASE used for emphasis - not volume in my posts)

As Moses stated in Deut 8
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

John 1 'The WORD became flesh'

John 6:
"I AM the BREAD that CAME down out of heaven" not "in the future at the last supper I will be bread"

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe. ...

41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.


Matt 16:
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
SDAs are reading the text of Deut 8 above - where God Himself makes that point about the manna being a symbol for the Word of God.
Or maybe they are reading John 6 above - where God Himself makes that same point.
Or is it Matt 16 above where they see bread used as a symbol for "teaching"

John 6 is NOT about Jesus correcting some misunderstanding, and corroborating some teaching system

He does that very thing in John 6 correcting their statement about Moses and showing that it is GOD that gave them manna not Moses.
In John 6 Jesus said "eating literal flesh is worthless... it is my WORD that is spirit and life" - as pointed out repeatedly.
In John 6 Jesus does not say "some day I WILL be bread" but I ALREADY AM the bread of life - I AM the BREAD that came down out of heaven.

And we ALL AGREE - that nobody in John 1 or in John 6 sees BREAD literally falling out of the sky.
We all agree that in John 6 - nobody bites Jesus.
We all agree that Jesus does not say "Some day in the future I WILL be BREAD".
We all agree Jesus uses that symbol of bread for TEACHING as we see Him state it in John 6, as we see PETER state it in John 6, as we see Jesus doing in Matt 16.

 

[FenderTL5]

(UPPER CASE used for emphasis - not volume in my posts)

As Moses stated in Deut 8
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

John 1 'The WORD became flesh'

John 6:
"I AM the BREAD that CAME down out of heaven" not "in the future at the last supper I will be bread"

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe. ...

41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.


Matt 16:
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

SDAs are reading the text of Deut 8 above - where God Himself makes that point about the manna being a symbol for the Word of God.
Or maybe they are reading John 6 above - where God Himself makes that same point.


He does that very thing in John 6 correcting their statement about Moses and showing that it is GOD that gave them manna not Moses.
In John 6 Jesus said "eating literal flesh is worthless... it is my WORD that is spirit and life" - as pointed out repeatedly.
In John 6 Jesus does not say "some day I WILL be bread" but I ALREADY AM the bread of life - I AM the BREAD that came down out of heaven.

Reading this thread - can you clarify something about this post (quoted portion above)?
Are you really not seeing the Eucharist in these passages?

 

[BobRyan]

Reading this thread - can you clarify something about this post (quoted portion above)?
Are you really not seeing the Eucharist in these passages?

Jesus does not say "I will one day in the future be bread" and no one in John 6 claims to see bread, claims to bite Christ, claims to see bread coming down out of heaven.. I suspect we both agree with that.

But Jesus does speak in one place of his future work --

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

He states clearly that seeing and believing the teaching of Christ is the focus.

================================

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life.

Again there is the focus on the Word, hearing, believing , having eternal life.​

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down out of heaven, so that anyone may eat from it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh.”

That is the future focus on the work of Christ as the sin offering. He states in the future He will give his flesh for the world, his LIFE. But He still insists He already IS the BREAD That came down already - out of heaven.​

Yet no one in John 6 bites Christ nor does he insist that anyone take a bite out of him. As we all know.​

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, the one who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

he does not say "This is the bread that you will one day confect in the Eucharist" - He says the bread is here, it already came down out of heaven and it is ALREADY the case that they need to eat the flesh and drink the blood.​

​

This gets bent around to "Some day in the FUTURE you will need to eat the bread that is confected at communion" - which is never the future reference for Christ's teaching in John 6. His PRESENT and PAST tense reference is to the bread that ALREADY came down from heaven and that one must ALREADY be eating that bread and drinking that blood to have life.​

​

The focus in John 6 is not "you must eat some new bread in the future" but TODAY you must eat this to have eternal life today.​

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 11 - the Eucharist is a memorial (in remembrance of me) - and its focus is on the death event - of Christ. Completed "once for all" Heb 10

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

 

[FenderTL5]

Jesus does not say "I will one day in the future be bread"

A simple yes or no would've worked, but okay.
Jesus Himself, is the Logos, the Word.

You are aware that the Eucharist being instituted took place decades before John's Gospel was recorded?
So if that's your concern then all New Testament writings were even further into the future than the institution of the Eucharist.

Jesus was referring to Himself and His presence in the Eucharist.

Yet no one in John 6 bites Christ nor does he insist that anyone take a bite out of him. As we all know.​

As we all know? That's a bit presumptuous on your part since that's literally what he said. Not only is that what He said but it's also clear that's what He said based on the response of those hearing in attendance.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
..From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If HE was referring to Scriptures, or His sayings, or teachings as 'The Bread' then there would have been no fallout. This took place in the synagog where the Scriptures of the day were read routinely. They were following Him to hear what He had to say.. until this. This was different.

This is off the thread topic but good grief, it takes considerable effort to deny the Eucharist in this passage.

 

[BobRyan]

A simple yes or no would've worked, but okay.
Jesus Himself, is the Logos, the Word.

He is the "Word became flesh" in John 1:14
He is the "Word was with God and the Word WAS God" in John 1 --

But in Mark 7:7-13 Jesus informs us that the writings of scripture "Are the WORD of God"

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

We see in the red highlighted text "commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God" -- quoting from Ex 20 as an example

That is contrasted to "commandments of men" = "traditions of men" = "your traditions" ... "handed down" with the comment that they do "Many such things as that"

In this case - Jesus slam hammers the supposedly infallible tradition of the one true nation-church magesterium - where that nation-church was infallibly started by God at Sinai and had God's own system of choosing "successors" for its high priests.

 

[BobRyan]

You are aware that the Eucharist being instituted took place decades before John's Gospel was recorded?

John's gospel is written as part of his compliance and response to the great commission found in Matt 28.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

John is telling us to follow what Jesus taught them .. and as you say there is no question that John's gospel is written a number of decades after the the last Supper. It was written after Paul's statement about the communion service in 1 Cor 11. It goes back in time to introduce the start of Jesus' ministry and to remind the reader that Jesus is the God of creation - the God of Genesis 1. The Word that became flesh and dwelt among us.

So if that's your concern then all New Testament writings were even further into the future than the institution of the Eucharist.

Actually the gospel of John was written after Revelation - after all other NT writings in the NT. In any case I am happy to agree that the Last Supper occurs before any NT writings and John 6 occurs before the last supper.

Jesus was referring to Himself and His presence in the Eucharist.

True at the last supper but Jesus makes no mention of turning Passover into the eucharist in John 6 and Jesus most certainly does not use future language to suggest "some day in the future I will be the bread that comes down out of heaven".

He does not say "some day in the future you will need to eat bread think of it as eating me".
In John 6 "I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven"
In John 10 "I AM the door"

As we all know? That's a bit presumptuous on your part since that's literally what he said. Not only is that what He said but it's also clear that's what He said based on the response of those hearing in attendance.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
..From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

No doubt the faithless disciples in John 6 take the symbols too literally.
Notice that Peter does not -- when Jesus asks Peter about it - Peter does not say
"ok I will bite you just as you insist"
nor does Peter say "oh so you mean that some day in the future Passover will use bread as your body".
nor does Jesus respond to Peter "you did not bite me - so you too are unbelieving"

Instead Peter refers to Jesus' own explanation of the symbol of bread...

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”...​

​

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”​

This is off the thread topic

Well we do agree there.

The whole reason we are in John 6 at all - is because I mentioned the part of John 6 where the Jews wanted to claim that "Moses gave us manna" and Jesus corrects them in John 6 saying "Moses DID NOT give you manna -- but rather My Father gave you manna".

This had to be noted because someone else was arguing that Mary is the "Ark of the New Covenant" (as claim not found in all of scripture) and to support that suggestion they wanted to start by arguing that Moses was the Law giver (I guess instead of God) and that Jesus came as a second Law giver so Jesus should be able to edit/delete/change whatever scripture he wanted.

My point was
1. In Matt 5 Jesus said not to make those claims about his mission. It is not a delete-the-bible mission according to Jesus in Matt 5 - but Jesus' enemies often accused him of that sort of thing.

2. It is not Moses - but it is GOD speaking the Law at Sinai in Ex 20, and in fact Heb 8:6-12 says it is Jesus Himself speaking at Sinai.