Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man...., Part 4

[Bob corrigan]

There is so much depth in Scripture. When first going through a passage, things will be missed. It is a fact that you almost always discover something you missed the first, second, and even the third time.

Vs. 48, Yeshua repeats what he said in vs. 35, bringing the emphasis back to the key point. He, Yeshua, is that spiritual bread for spiritual life. That he himself is the way to eternal life.

Vs. 49-50 Yeshua again contrasts the physical and spiritual differences. The manna was physical and fed the physical body. But no matter how much physical bread one eats, all end up physically dead. Ah, but the spiritual bread that comes down from heaven is the true bread, the bread that feeds the spirit now and into eternity.

Vs. 51 For all of the Jews in the crowd who were natural men, men without understanding, men who did not have the minds, eyes, or ears to perceive spiritual things, Yeshua throws in a monkey wrench by stating, "The bread that I give you is my flesh, which I will also give for the life of the sheep." This statement caused an uproar among the crowd and the Jews began to argue about "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Natural men, men of the flesh, always see things in the physical. They wonder how Yeshua can physically pull the flesh off his body to give it to them. I'm sure the ringleaders were spies. They were implying that Yeshua was lying in that there is no possible way that a living man can give his physical flesh to others.
Of course, we are blessed with hindsight. We know that Jeshua was speaking spiritually. But what did he mean when he said, "Which I will give for the (spiritual) life of the world of believers?" In the Old Testament, a part of the First Fruits Sacrifice was "bread and wine." So, Yeshua was saying that as his flesh was bread, it was to be sacrificed. His flesh (bread) was sacrificed on the cross.

Vs. 53-54 Yeshua adds more fuel to the fire by adding that they not only had to eat his flesh, but also drink his blood! On the surface, in the natural, this can only mean catabolism, men eating the physical body of another person. But beyond that, all Jews knew that Jehovah had forbidden the Jews to consume blood! Yeshua's words are just ripping their minds apart!

Vs. 55-57 Yeshua does explain the spiritual meaning of his words by saying, "For my flesh is the true food, my blood is the true drink." And uses metaphorical language that describes "eating Jehovah's word."

Vs. 58 Yeshua teaches for the third time that "this (my flesh) is the bread that came down from heaven." This is not the manna your fathers ate and still died. Those that eat this (spiritual) bread will live forever. The fact that he taught this three times should have made the Jews aware that this theme is the main focus of his words. He was speaking about a spiritual life of eternity versus a physical life that can only end in death. In the Renewed Covenant, everything is understood with a spiritual understanding, and only the spiritual is what matters. Physical is short-term, ends in death, and the spiritual is eternity.

Vs 59-60 "...The huge majority of his disciples, when they heard this said (to themselves) and others, 'This is a hard (offensive) saying. Who can (possibly) understand these words? (This was expressed in arrogance) While the apostles were often referred to as "disciples," the word itself only means: a learner, a student. The word does not mean "a believer." The majority of his disciples followed Yeshua because they thought he was a great rabbi, but a mere man. They didn't believe in Yeshua or believe he was the Anointed One, The son of David.

Vs. 61-62 Yeshua knew what these unbelieving disciples were thinking and saying. So, he said to them, "Does this offend (scandalize) you? And what would your reaction be if you witnessed the Son of man ascend up where he was before (in heaven)?

Vs 63-64 Yeshua tells again that it is the Holy Spirit that brings a sheep to life. "Hearing my words with your natural ears doesn't do you any good, because the words I speak to you are spiritual words and the words of eternal life. But, some of you don't believe in me or my words." Yeshua knew who each of the disciples were who did not believe.

Vs 65 Yeshua explains again how Jehovah is involved with a sheep coming to Yeshua by giving the sheep to Yeshua. Without the work of Jehovah, no person would go to Yeshua. Notice Yeshua says, "no man CAN COME to me..." He doesn't say, "no man will come to me..." Showing that it is impossible to go to Yeshua without the working of Jehovah! It is not a matter of a person "wanting" to go to Jehovah, it is a matter of "being able to" go to Yeshua. Not man's will, but God's will!

Vs. 66 Thus, we have a mass exodus of disciples who weren't believers going back to their homes, never to follow Yeshua again!

In my opinion, I am positive that Yeshua did not have to use the words "my flesh" and "my blood." I believe he used those exact words, knowing the results, to thin out the ranks purposely, to shrink the numbers because the number of his "disciples" had grown too large.

Vs 70 "Have not I chosen you twelve..." (Many are called, but few are chosen.)

 

[Mountainmike]

There is so much depth in Scripture. When first going through a passage, things will be missed. It is a fact that you almost always discover something you missed the first, second, and even the third time.

Vs. 48, Yeshua repeats what he said in vs. 35, bringing the emphasis back to the key point. He, Yeshua, is that spiritual bread for spiritual life. That he himself is the way to eternal life.

Vs. 49-50 Yeshua again contrasts the physical and spiritual differences. The manna was physical and fed the physical body. But no matter how much physical bread one eats, all end up physically dead. Ah, but the spiritual bread that comes down from heaven is the true bread, the bread that feeds the spirit now and into eternity.

Vs. 51 For all of the Jews in the crowd who were natural men, men without understanding, men who did not have the minds, eyes, or ears to perceive spiritual things, Yeshua throws in a monkey wrench by stating, "The bread that I give you is my flesh, which I will also give for the life of the sheep." This statement caused an uproar among the crowd and the Jews began to argue about "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Natural men, men of the flesh, always see things in the physical. They wonder how Yeshua can physically pull the flesh off his body to give it to them. I'm sure the ringleaders were spies. They were implying that Yeshua was lying in that there is no possible way that a living man can give his physical flesh to others.
Of course, we are blessed with hindsight. We know that Jeshua was speaking spiritually. But what did he mean when he said, "Which I will give for the (spiritual) life of the world of believers?" In the Old Testament, a part of the First Fruits Sacrifice was "bread and wine." So, Yeshua was saying that as his flesh was bread, it was to be sacrificed. His flesh (bread) was sacrificed on the cross.

Vs. 53-54 Yeshua adds more fuel to the fire by adding that they not only had to eat his flesh, but also drink his blood! On the surface, in the natural, this can only mean catabolism, men eating the physical body of another person. But beyond that, all Jews knew that Jehovah had forbidden the Jews to consume blood! Yeshua's words are just ripping their minds apart!

Vs. 55-57 Yeshua does explain the spiritual meaning of his words by saying, "For my flesh is the true food, my blood is the true drink." And uses metaphorical language that describes "eating Jehovah's word."

Vs. 58 Yeshua teaches for the third time that "this (my flesh) is the bread that came down from heaven." This is not the manna your fathers ate and still died. Those that eat this (spiritual) bread will live forever. The fact that he taught this three times should have made the Jews aware that this theme is the main focus of his words. He was speaking about a spiritual life of eternity versus a physical life that can only end in death. In the Renewed Covenant, everything is understood with a spiritual understanding, and only the spiritual is what matters. Physical is short-term, ends in death, and the spiritual is eternity.

Vs 59-60 "...The huge majority of his disciples, when they heard this said (to themselves) and others, 'This is a hard (offensive) saying. Who can (possibly) understand these words? (This was expressed in arrogance) While the apostles were often referred to as "disciples," the word itself only means: a learner, a student. The word does not mean "a believer." The majority of his disciples followed Yeshua because they thought he was a great rabbi, but a mere man. They didn't believe in Yeshua or believe he was the Anointed One, The son of David.

Vs. 61-62 Yeshua knew what these unbelieving disciples were thinking and saying. So, he said to them, "Does this offend (scandalize) you? And what would your reaction be if you witnessed the Son of man ascend up where he was before (in heaven)?

Vs 63-64 Yeshua tells again that it is the Holy Spirit that brings a sheep to life. "Hearing my words with your natural ears doesn't do you any good, because the words I speak to you are spiritual words and the words of eternal life. But, some of you don't believe in me or my words." Yeshua knew who each of the disciples were who did not believe.

Vs 65 Yeshua explains again how Jehovah is involved with a sheep coming to Yeshua by giving the sheep to Yeshua. Without the work of Jehovah, no person would go to Yeshua. Notice Yeshua says, "no man CAN COME to me..." He doesn't say, "no man will come to me..." Showing that it is impossible to go to Yeshua without the working of Jehovah! It is not a matter of a person "wanting" to go to Jehovah, it is a matter of "being able to" go to Yeshua. Not man's will, but God's will!

Vs. 66 Thus, we have a mass exodus of disciples who weren't believers going back to their homes, never to follow Yeshua again!

In my opinion, I am positive that Yeshua did not have to use the words "my flesh" and "my blood." I believe he used those exact words, knowing the results, to thin out the ranks purposely, to shrink the numbers because the number of his "disciples" had grown too large.

Vs 70 "Have not I chosen you twelve..." (Many are called, but few are chosen.)

Meanwhile if you want to ACTUALLY know what those verses mean you need tradition. Not your own opinion as above.
So Jesus handed the truth down to John (the meaning of paradosis, handing down, AKA tradition)
John handed the truth down to his disciples. (paradosis, tradition)
Their writings are there to see.

Read ignatius to Smyrneans. Ignatius and polycarp were Disciples of John.
Taught by the man who wrote it. They know better than you.

Ignatius speaks of a eucharist of the real body and blood ("real flesh" says justin Martyr) which is valid ONLY if presided by a bishop in succession, and only those in a state of grace must receive it without which "some are sick, some have died" says apostle Paul.

Jesus uses a word that means "gnaw" as of meat, not consume as is doctrine.
So it is nothing to do with doctrine. You do not "gnaw" doctrine.

And he was clearly speaking of eating his own flesh which is why most of his followers left in disgust.
Jesus does not call them back.

He simply asks if Peter is going to leave too?

It is precisely because of what the Christians believed the eucharist was that the Romans claimed that christians are cannibals! eating flesh in secret rituals! So they really did believe it, because they really were taught it.

Alas sola scriptura is total # FAIL . Your 2000 year late interpretation is irrelevant.

What matter is what John told his disciples it means, and you can do by reading what he taught his disciples, and read any of the early fathers. That was all before there was a new testament, when the faith was handed by tradition. What matters is what the church appointed as "the pillar and foundation of truth" says the eucharist is. They were given the power to "bind and loose" on true doctrine. You were not. The church at Rome (that iraneus says, long before the new testament) presides over the truth, speaks of the eucharist of the real flesh too.

The fathers and bishops who decided your bible and creed were vociferous about a eucharist of the real flesh - all believed it till the middle ages. Orthodox and Catholics only argue on philosophical nit picking, not the essence of it. Orthodox liturgy quotes justin martyr saying real flesh.

So not just spiritual then. Indeed where some consecrated hosts have been abused they have become flesh and blood visible and confirmed by forensic science in eucharistica miracles. Which a leading forensic pathologist says is "compellling evidence of creation of live heart tissue" . Jesus has shown you what it is, forensic evidence proves it!

So Why dont you believe it when they all did, and the catholic and orthodox - the only churches old enough to claim to be the "pillar of truth" of scripture still do believe it!






.

 

[Bob corrigan]

Meanwhile if you want to ACTUALLY know what those verses mean you need tradition. Not your own opinion as above.
So Jesus handed the truth down to John (the meaning of paradosis, handing down, AKA tradition)
John handed the truth down to his disciples. (paradosis, tradition)
Their writings are there to see.

Read ignatius to Smyrneans. Ignatius and polycarp were Disciples of John.
Taught by the man who wrote it. They know better than you.

Ignatius speaks of a eucharist of the real body and blood ("real flesh" says justin Martyr) which is valid ONLY if presided by a bishop in succession, and only those in a state of grace must receive it without which "some are sick, some have died" says apostle Paul.

Jesus uses a word that means "gnaw" as of meat, not consume as is doctrine.
So it is nothing to do with doctrine. You do not "gnaw" doctrine.

And he was clearly speaking of eating his own flesh which is why most of his followers left in disgust.
Jesus does not call them back.

He simply asks if Peter is going to leave too?

It is precisely because of what the Christians believed the eucharist was that the Romans claimed that christians are cannibals! eating flesh in secret rituals! So they really did believe it, because they really were taught it.

Alas sola scriptura is total # FAIL . Your 2000 year late interpretation is irrelevant.

What matter is what John told his disciples it means, and you can do by reading what he taught his disciples, and read any of the early fathers. That was all before there was a new testament, when the faith was handed by tradition. What matters is what the church appointed as "the pillar and foundation of truth" says the eucharist is. They were given the power to "bind and loose" on true doctrine. You were not. The church at Rome (that iraneus says, long before the new testament) presides over the truth, speaks of the eucharist of the real flesh too.

The fathers and bishops who decided your bible and creed were vociferous about a eucharist of the real flesh - all believed it till the middle ages. Orthodox and Catholics only argue on philosophical nit picking, not the essence of it. Orthodox liturgy quotes justin martyr saying real flesh.

So not just spiritual then. Indeed where some consecrated hosts have been abused they have become flesh and blood visible and confirmed by forensic science in eucharistica miracles. Which a leading forensic pathologist says is "compellling evidence of creation of live heart tissue" . Jesus has shown you what it is, forensic evidence proves it!

So Why dont you believe it when they all did, and the catholic and orthodox - the only churches old enough to claim to be the "pillar of truth" of scripture still do believe it!






.

Meanwhile if you want to ACTUALLY know what those verses mean you need tradition. Not your own opinion as above.
So Jesus handed the truth down to John (the meaning of paradosis, handing down, AKA tradition)
John handed the truth down to his disciples. (paradosis, tradition)
Their writings are there to see.

Read ignatius to Smyrneans. Ignatius and polycarp were Disciples of John.
Taught by the man who wrote it. They know better than you.

Ignatius speaks of a eucharist of the real body and blood ("real flesh" says justin Martyr) which is valid ONLY if presided by a bishop in succession, and only those in a state of grace must receive it without which "some are sick, some have died" says apostle Paul.

Jesus uses a word that means "gnaw" as of meat, not consume as is doctrine.
So it is nothing to do with doctrine. You do not "gnaw" doctrine.

And he was clearly speaking of eating his own flesh which is why most of his followers left in disgust.
Jesus does not call them back.

He simply asks if Peter is going to leave too?

It is precisely because of what the Christians believed the eucharist was that the Romans claimed that christians are cannibals! eating flesh in secret rituals! So they really did believe it, because they really were taught it.

Alas sola scriptura is total # FAIL . Your 2000 year late interpretation is irrelevant.

What matter is what John told his disciples it means, and you can do by reading what he taught his disciples, and read any of the early fathers. That was all before there was a new testament, when the faith was handed by tradition. What matters is what the church appointed as "the pillar and foundation of truth" says the eucharist is. They were given the power to "bind and loose" on true doctrine. You were not. The church at Rome (that iraneus says, long before the new testament) presides over the truth, speaks of the eucharist of the real flesh too.

The fathers and bishops who decided your bible and creed were vociferous about a eucharist of the real flesh - all believed it till the middle ages. Orthodox and Catholics only argue on philosophical nit picking, not the essence of it. Orthodox liturgy quotes justin martyr saying real flesh.

So not just spiritual then. Indeed where some consecrated hosts have been abused they have become flesh and blood visible and confirmed by forensic science in eucharistica miracles. Which a leading forensic pathologist says is "compellling evidence of creation of live heart tissue" . Jesus has shown you what it is, forensic evidence proves it!

So Why dont you believe it when they all did, and the catholic and orthodox - the only churches old enough to claim to be the "pillar of truth" of scripture still do believe it!






.

I post the results of my studies of Scripture. I don't expect or demand that anyone believe what I post. People can draw their own conclusion to my studies. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I don't attack anyone for what they choose to believe, even when they are 100% wrong. It doesn't bother me if people want to believe lies, error and false teaching, that is their business.
And I am not opposed to discussing my studies with others

Meanwhile if you want to ACTUALLY know what those verses mean you need tradition. Not your own opinion as above.
So Jesus handed the truth down to John (the meaning of paradosis, handing down, AKA tradition)
John handed the truth down to his disciples. (paradosis, tradition)
Their writings are there to see.

Read ignatius to Smyrneans. Ignatius and polycarp were Disciples of John.
Taught by the man who wrote it. They know better than you.

Ignatius speaks of a eucharist of the real body and blood ("real flesh" says justin Martyr) which is valid ONLY if presided by a bishop in succession, and only those in a state of grace must receive it without which "some are sick, some have died" says apostle Paul.

Jesus uses a word that means "gnaw" as of meat, not consume as is doctrine.
So it is nothing to do with doctrine. You do not "gnaw" doctrine.

And he was clearly speaking of eating his own flesh which is why most of his followers left in disgust.
Jesus does not call them back.

He simply asks if Peter is going to leave too?

It is precisely because of what the Christians believed the eucharist was that the Romans claimed that christians are cannibals! eating flesh in secret rituals! So they really did believe it, because they really were taught it.

Alas sola scriptura is total # FAIL . Your 2000 year late interpretation is irrelevant.

What matter is what John told his disciples it means, and you can do by reading what he taught his disciples, and read any of the early fathers. That was all before there was a new testament, when the faith was handed by tradition. What matters is what the church appointed as "the pillar and foundation of truth" says the eucharist is. They were given the power to "bind and loose" on true doctrine. You were not. The church at Rome (that iraneus says, long before the new testament) presides over the truth, speaks of the eucharist of the real flesh too.

The fathers and bishops who decided your bible and creed were vociferous about a eucharist of the real flesh - all believed it till the middle ages. Orthodox and Catholics only argue on philosophical nit picking, not the essence of it. Orthodox liturgy quotes justin martyr saying real flesh.

So not just spiritual then. Indeed where some consecrated hosts have been abused they have become flesh and blood visible and confirmed by forensic science in eucharistica miracles. Which a leading forensic pathologist says is "compellling evidence of creation of live heart tissue" . Jesus has shown you what it is, forensic evidence proves it!

So Why dont you believe it when they all did, and the catholic and orthodox - the only churches old enough to claim to be the "pillar of truth" of scripture still do believe it!






.

who disagree with me. However, since my studies are based on Scripture alone, that I show the verses and what the verses say and word definition, the only way I can take serious and engage another person in any discussion of my work is if they also follow the same rules i.e., they use Scripture, verses, context, word definition, etc. to show me where I am incorrect.

Which, of course, you or any other Catholic cannot do since Catholics have very little knowledge of Scripture or what Scripture teaches. What they do have is only what they are told by the Catholic Church, the traditions of the Catholic Church. So, I am not responding to you directly, but I am responding to what you wrote for the benefit of those who read my response.

You say I need tradition to understand what the verses mean? Are you serious? You mean I can't read any verse in Scripture and understand what it means without the tradition of the Catholic Church available to me? So I can't read Gen 1 and figure out that God created everything without your tradition? That when I read "Jesus wept," I have no way of knowing that Jesus was crying, except tradition explain it to me.? When I read that "the tomb was empty," I will be clueless to what that means without tradition? Or, do you mean a Catholic priest has to explain it to me? By the way, where do we see a Gentile priesthood set up in the New Testament? Where do we see the Apostles ever called priests? Where is the word "pope" in the New Testament, or Peter being addressed as "pope" or "Holy Father?"

Actually, what the Catholic Church teaches are the traditions of the Catholic Church, man-made teachings not based from or on Scripture. Did you know, oh, wait, you don't know this because you don't even bother to read anything on your own, that Jesus warned of the traditions of men?
Mat 15:1-3 "....why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:6-9 "...Thus you have made the commandment of God void by your traditions. You hypocrites! How correctly did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, 'This people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Isaiah 29:13)
Mk 7:1-13 "...For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men...You completely reject the commandment of God so that you can keep your own tradition."

Paul also warned about the traditions of men;

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit which come from the traditions of men..."

Col 2:22 These (teachings) will be destroyed because they are based on the commandments and doctrines of man.

1Pet 1:8 "...received by tradition from your fathers."

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables and the commandments of men, these which turn people away from the truth.

Here is a perfect example of this. The Catholic Church insists that all priests be addressed as Father. Yet, in Mat 23:9, Jesus clearly instructed that people were not to address spiritual leaders by the title "Father," A Catholic Church tradition! What a quandary! Do I obey Jesus, you know, God in human flesh? Or do I obey a Catholic tradition that makes the commandment null and void, that actually changes God's word?

There is a Greek word eucharisteo found in
Lk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks...

Mk 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks...

The Greek word means "to give thanks, thanksgiving. It is a verb, not a noun. Another Catholic tradition is the "Eucharist." This word is a made-up word. There is no Biblical Greek word that can be translated into Eucharist, which is a noun, not a verb. You cannot find this word in the New Testament. In every verse that speaks of the body or blood of Christ, the word "body" is always from the Greek word "soma," and "blood" is always from the Greek word "aima." If you look in any Greek dictionary or concordance, you will never find any Greek word for "eucharist." All they did was drop the "eo" off.

Please don't even suggest to me anything the Catholic Church fathers said or wrote! They don't prove anything! I don't care about anything they have to offer!

And then you said, "...have abused they became flesh and blood, visible and confirmed by forensic science. A leading pathologist says is "compelling existence of creation of live heart tissue. Forensic science proves it!


You are just making blanket statements! "Confirmed by forensic science?" Where and when? When did this happen? Where did it happen? Was it an independent lab, a private lab or a lab at a research hospital? Who observed this? How many observed this? How many times was this observed? Is there video? Are there pictures? What tests did they run? Who analysized the results? Are there published records of this in any medical journal or any news magazine? "A leading pathologist?" What is the name of this "leading pathologist? What is his nationality? Who does he work for?

When a person has to resort to this tactic just shows that they can't prove what they claim! But, you know what? I like the premise. Why not gather the real leading pathologists and tissue experts together along with a priest. Invite the media and allow camaras everywhere. And, while being observed and filmed live, have the priest, heck, let's bring the pope, and have him place the wafer on a slide, say the mumbo-jumbo words over the wafer, and the whole world can watch the miraculous transformation of bread into human flesh! And then we could all watch wine turn into blood! Because if what the Catholic Church claims to be true, why not prove it? Prove it to the whole world? Something like this has to
be proven, otherwise it is and always will be just another Catholic tradition!

 

[concretecamper]

I don't attack anyone for what they choose to believe, even when they are 100% wrong. It doesn't bother me if people want to believe lies, error and false teaching, that is their business.

Well this went out the window pretty quick.

When a person has to resort to this tactic just shows that they can't prove what they claim! But, you know what? I like the premise. Why not gather the real leading pathologists and tissue experts together along with a priest. Invite the media and allow camaras everywhere. And, while being observed and filmed live, have the priest, heck, let's bring the pope, and have him place the wafer on a slide, say the mumbo-jumbo words over the wafer, and the whole world can watch the miraculous transformation of bread into human flesh! And then we could all watch wine turn into blood! Because if what the Catholic Church claims to be true, why not prove it? Prove it to the whole world? Something like this has to
if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'christianforums_com-netboard-2','ezslot_21',710,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-christianforums_com-netboard-2-0'); be proven, otherwise it is and always will be just another Catholic tradition!

Started off respectful, but then went south really fast