The Stumbling Block

[SBG]

Jesus encountered a stumbling block by the way He phrased what He said to the people. Should Jesus have changed His message so that more could have accepted this?

John 6:32-71
"32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[b] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[c] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)"


-------------


This was a hard teaching, eating His flesh, drinking His blood, while He was alive? They didn't understand this, so should Jesus have changed His Message to suit those so that they could better understand? Was Jesus wrong to hold and teach such a hard teaching?



I present this in the origins forum because yecs are constantly accused of bring a teaching that is too hard for atheists to understand, that which causes them to stumble; so we are accused. We are told that if we didn't preach God creating as Genesis says, many many people would be Christians today. So was should Jesus have changed His message so that many more people may have accepted His teachings? There is a direct parrallel here between tes arguing against yecs and Jesus' hard teaching in John 6.


And let me leave you with what Peter says about stumbling in 1 Peter 2:8:


"“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message–which is also what they were destined for.""

 

[Calminian]

This was a hard teaching, eating His flesh, drinking His blood, while He was alive? They didn't understand this, so should Jesus have changed His Message to suit those so that they could better understand? Was Jesus wrong to hold and teach such a hard teaching?

It's an interesting point SBG

I present this in the origins forum because yecs are constantly accused of bring a teaching that is too hard for atheists to understand, that which causes them to stumble; so we are accused. We are told that if we didn't preach God creating as Genesis says, many many people would be Christians today. So was should Jesus have changed His message so that many more people may have accepted His teachings? There is a direct parrallel here between tes arguing against yecs and Jesus' hard teaching in John 6.

And I don't think people (at least the ones willing to listen) are that opposed to the idea of miracles anyway. I think the ones with open ears would be much more stumbled by the strained interpretation of Genesis that TEs and OECs insist on.

 

[SBG]

I don't think people who are willing to listen have a problem with creation as Genesis' puts it, either. (ie literal history) I think people who enjoy disobeying the message don't follow and thus stumble in their walk with God. As Peter says, this is what they were destined for.

 

[SBG]

Well, was Jesus wrong to not water down the message into words that could have been easier on the people so they may have considered what He said?

TE's is Jesus wrong?

 

[billwald]

Then we are not living in a real universe but a large sound stage with a false backdrop of galaxies? All we see is painted scenery?

 

[SBG]

Then we are not living in a real universe but a large sound stage with a false backdrop of galaxies? All we see is painted scenery?

I am a little lost. I don't know where I have ever said this.

I was hoping for an answer to the question posed in the OP.

 

[abbygirlforever]

SBG, I think Jesus spoke in metaphor like this a lot because it was not yet time for all to be revealed. Looking back on it now, we can understand, through the Holy Spirit, what He meant. He knew that most of the people He spoke to had hard hearts, closed eyes, and plugged ears anyway.

Christ never has done and never will do anything wrong. He is perfect in every way. He knew what He was doing when He spoke like this.

 

[grmorton]

This was a hard teaching, eating His flesh, drinking His blood, while He was alive? They didn't understand this, so should Jesus have changed His Message to suit those so that they could better understand? Was Jesus wrong to hold and teach such a hard teaching?



I present this in the origins forum because yecs are constantly accused of bring a teaching that is too hard for atheists to understand, that which causes them to stumble; so we are accused.

That is NOT what you are accused of. YOu are accused of denying what one can see with his own eyes, or what one can know via logic. The YEC message is not hard, it is WRONG, FALSE, ILLOGICAL, AD HOC, etc.

We are told that if we didn't preach God creating as Genesis says, many many people would be Christians today.

This is clearly unorthodox. Jesus didn't say, "Believe in me and not in evolution, the old earth, and anything science teaches, and thou shalt be saved."

But he also didn't say, "Teach all sorts of illogical nonsense to make the message hard so few will follow," either. Remember, if you teach things which are not true, then you are a hindrence to the gospel.

So was should Jesus have changed His message so that many more people may have accepted His teachings? There is a direct parrallel here between tes arguing against yecs and Jesus' hard teaching in John 6.

There is no parallel at all. You are teaching a view which has been falsified by all sorts of observational knowledge.

And let me leave you with what Peter says about stumbling in 1 Peter 2:8:


"“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message–which is also what they were destined for.""

The last sentence is yours. It isn't a 6000 year old earth which is that stone. But you guys seem to think it is the gospel, when it isn't and thus you are placing a huge block in the path of those familiar with modern science.

 

[Calminian]

But he also didn't say, "Teach all sorts of illogical nonsense to make the message hard so few will follow," either. Remember, if you teach things which are not true, then you are a hindrence to the gospel.

Amen!

There is no parallel at all. You are teaching a view which has been falsified by all sorts of observational knowledge.

Actually He did. He taught that the first male and female existed from the beginning of creation.

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

And Paul taught that invisible attributes of God were being seen and understood from the beginning of creation.

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

But you guys seem to think it is the gospel, when it isn't and thus you are placing a huge block in the path of those familiar with modern science.

And you're putting a block in front of those familiar with the Bible. I'd much rather people be stumbled by naturalistic philosophy.

 

[Sinai]

Actually He did. He taught that the first male and female existed from the beginning of creation.

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

I don't think you probably meant to say what you appear to have said in this post. Surely you're not suggesting that Jesus didn't know that human beings were created at the very end of God's creation. Since Jesus knew that the creation of man in the image of God occurred on the sixth and final yom of creation, it should be apparent that is not what he was referring to in this passage.

If you look at the context, you will note this statement came as a response to an attempt by the Pharisees to trap Jesus by questioning him on controversial and vexing issues. The Jews generally agreed that Mosiac law permitted divorce on the basis of "uncleanness" (Deuteronomy 24:1), but they were polarized as to what "uncleanness" actually meant.

The disciples of Shammai taught that the reference was to adultery or unchastity--but the followers of Hillel thought the reference was broader and that a man could divorce his wife for anything that displeased him (even if it was something extremely trivial). Thus, the question posed by the Pharisees was at least to test Jesus' position--and possibly to place him in opposition to either Moses or to Herod (who had recently divorced).

Jesus initially responded by asking the Pharisees, "What did Moses command you?" They responded that Moses allowed divorce provided a bill of divorcement were written. It might be noted that this was actually a protection for the wife, since it had to state clearly the reasons for the divorce, thus protecting her against false and abusive accusations.

Jesus did not refute that the law permitted divorce, but rather pointed out that Moses did not command it and that the law was meant to restrict the abuse of divorce. The bill of divorce provided the rejected and repudiated wife a certificate which would authenticate the dissolution of the marriage contract and would affirm her right of remarriage.

Jesus then turned their thinking away from the concession of divorce and toward the higher purpose of marriage that God had in mind when he created humans as male and female. Thus, what Jesus is referring to in verse 6 is that when God first created men and women, He constructed them in such a way that they were complementary to each other; God's original design was that the husband and the wife be one--not that they be torn asunder by divorce.

 

[grmorton]

Amen!

Well we agree on one thing

Actually He did. He taught that the first male and female existed from the beginning of creation.

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

While not exactly the colloquial use of male and female, bacteria seem to have been having sex with each other as far back as genetics can tell. Indeed some thing that the earliest stages of life everything had sex and exchanged genetic material with everything else.

And Paul taught that invisible attributes of God were being seen and understood from the beginning of creation.

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm

I think Paul was right

And you're putting a block in front of those familiar with the Bible. I'd much rather people be stumbled by naturalistic philosophy.

No I am not, you don't know much about what I am proposing. You assume I am like everyone else and I can assure you I am not.

 

[SBG]

Before we get off on a tangent, I am still looking for an answer to my question, one that no one here has answered.

That is NOT what you are accused of. YOu are accused of denying what one can see with his own eyes, or what one can know via logic. The YEC message is not hard, it is WRONG, FALSE, ILLOGICAL, AD HOC, etc.

You may not accuse me of this, but I have been accused of this by te's here. There are many things I see with my eyes that aren't what they appear to be.

And it is not evidence that says something. I don't see why any of you cannot understand this. INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE is what says something, and that is given by scientists.

The YEC is hard, because as you have said, you almost lost your faith because of it. If it is not a hard teaching, why would it have tested your faith? You say it is wrong, and you are free to your opinion. Am I free to mine to believe that rocks don't just start speaking, with a voice, on their own and tell you their history, that men interpret what those rocks say?

Yes, you say we are wrong. I can live with this. Just like the Jesus seminar people say we are wrong about Jesus raising from the dead and they claim they have Biblical support for this.

The world has been telling me, since I have given myself to Jesus, that I am wrong. They don't persuade me, and neither do you. Their reasoning is the exact same as yours, there is no visible evidence for the support to believe in God.

This is clearly unorthodox. Jesus didn't say, "Believe in me and not in evolution, the old earth, and anything science teaches, and thou shalt be saved."

That wasn't the question. Why are you straying from it?

But he also didn't say, "Teach all sorts of illogical nonsense to make the message hard so few will follow," either. Remember, if you teach things which are not true, then you are a hindrence to the gospel.

Really? You don't think raising the dead at the end of what we know the world to be is not illogical to some people? How about walking on water? Is it logical for a non-believer to think a human being can walk on water?

Was it logical that Jesus taught they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood? They didn't know He was speaking figuratively or literally, neither did He explain this. Do you think this was logical to the people who heard this?

Can you answer my question, grmorton? Should Jesus have said what He said in a better way so that people could have better understood and may have more likely listened and followed Him? Should He have expressed His teachings in a more watered down version so that it was easier for people to come to Him?

There is no parallel at all. You are teaching a view which has been falsified by all sorts of observational knowledge.

Oh, but there is, and you don't want to see nor do you want to answer my question. Was Jesus teaching a view that was falsified by Scripture, that men shouldn't eat other humans and drink their blood? Should Jesus have made this teaching easier for people to understand? Was He wrong to make it so hard, and thus lose many disciples?

The last sentence is yours. It isn't a 6000 year old earth which is that stone. But you guys seem to think it is the gospel, when it isn't and thus you are placing a huge block in the path of those familiar with modern science.

You are again, evading my question. Should Jesus have made His teaching easier so that it was not so hard and thus lose many disciples and possible people who were listening to Him speak?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Well, was Jesus wrong to not water down the message into words that could have been easier on the people so they may have considered what He said?

TE's is Jesus wrong?

The problem you are having here is that TE's don't see YEC as true but say that TE is true to make things easier for people. We believe TE to be true.

 

[SBG]

The problem you are having here is that TE's don't see YEC as true but say that TE is true to make things easier for people. We believe TE to be true.

Thank you. You made my point for me. So, since you agree that TE is making things easier for people, should Jesus Christ have done the same thing with this particular teaching?

 

[Calminian]

I don't think you probably meant to say what you appear to have said in this post. Surely you're not suggesting that Jesus didn't know that human beings were created at the very end of God's creation. Since Jesus knew that the creation of man in the image of God occurred on the sixth and final yom of creation, it should be apparent that is not what he was referring to in this passage.

This subject already been covered in another thread. The greek and a simple study of the way Mark used the word "creation" will show he is not referring to a creative process such as the creation week. Mark uses the word in the sense of the created world, or that which was created. There's a thread posted a while back called "from the beginning of creation" or something close to that in which this is discussed more thoroughly. Mark is not saying, "from the beginning of creation week." He talking about the beginning of the world. If you have the capability, look up the lexical form of the word ktisis and look how Mark uses it elsewhere. Then look how all the N.T. authors used it. When by itself it's never used in the sense of a creative process (not to my knowledge, anyway). It's simply a way of referring to the created word.

Bottom line is, Jesus believe the first male and female existed at the very beginning of our world. Maybe it’s time to start questioning current interpretations of nature.

 

[ChiefOfBackEnd]

I don't think people who are willing to listen have a problem with creation as Genesis' puts it, either. (ie literal history) I think people who enjoy disobeying the message don't follow and thus stumble in their walk with God.

You don't find it ironic that, if I follow your logic, you are... with every stroke of your keyboard... enjoying the stumblings of many, many Christians and non-Christians to point out they enjoyed disobeying Jesus' message?



What do you think would happen if Christians stopped questioning and understanding the properties of universe God created because attempting to reconcile their faith to science caused them to "stumble in their walk with God"?



Speaking of which, I shake my head in disgust each time radical Muslims have the audacity to tell us we our culture is wrong... all the while holding onto a Handi-cam developed using technology WE (as in the West) applied!



Nothing they have isn't a result of some contribution by Christians who found that faith and science were not mutually exclusive. You can't do that without the confidence that God's love will not abandon us if we dare to question, discover, and explain our universe - even if it's challenging to reconcile faith to newly discovered facts.



Ultimately, everything about the way Jesus delivered his teaching to man THEN can be seen as how he prepared to get where we are NOW.



Please don’t take this as any sort of accusation, but I can’t help but ask you this:



Every time you burn gas in your car, log on to this site, fly in a commercial jet, use a microwave, or talk on a cell phone, you are using things that would not have been possible for man to produce if literal history were accepted without question. I mean, just some of the most basic principles of mass, motion, and energy that would have been missed by literal acceptance of Creation would cause the lights in your house to go out (if you’d like some specifics, feel free to ask). How can you be sure your walk with God won't become unstable just by using all this stuff?

 

[Biliskner]

Every time you burn gas in your car, log on to this site, fly in a commercial jet, use a microwave, or talk on a cell phone, you are using things that would not have been possible for man to produce if literal history were accepted without question. I mean, just some of the most basic principles of mass, motion, and energy that would have been missed by literal acceptance of Creation would cause the lights in your house to go out (if you’d like some specifics, feel free to ask).

*raises hand - I ask. Give me examples.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Thank you. You made my point for me. So, since you agree that TE is making things easier for people, should Jesus Christ have done the same thing with this particular teaching?

Any point made for you by my statement is probably more to due my faulty wording than any intended meaning.

TE doesn't make it easier for everyone. It makes it easier for some while it may make following Christ harder for others. But whether or not it makes things easier or harder is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it is true.

 

[grmorton]

You may not accuse me of this, but I have been accused of this by te's here. There are many things I see with my eyes that aren't what they appear to be.

And it is not evidence that says something. I don't see why any of you cannot understand this. INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE is what says something, and that is given by scientists.

Do you know what 'interpretation of evidence' is? It is logic. If you don't believe that logic is a worthwhile thing, then we have little to talk about. if I see footprints throughout the entire, and I mean ENTIRE geologic column, I can logically conclude that this means that animals were walking around throughout the deposition of the column. If I see burrows throughout the entire geologic column, and I do mean the ENTIRE geologic column, I can logically conclude that animals were burrowing throughout the deposition of the geologic column. And then I can logically look at how long it takes worms to burrow (they move about 1 cm / minute), you know that they took a lot of time to dig the burrows. And when you then look at the say 36,000 ft thickness of the geologic column in some of the basins around the world, you realize that to deposit all this in the global flood requires an average deposition of 4 feet per hour. Such a deposition would put the burrowers below the depth at which they can burrow in 1 hour. Thus, if there was a flood, logically we should not see burrows. That is the problem. Interpretation is just logic applied to the observation. I guess you don't like logic.

The YEC is hard, because as you have said, you almost lost your faith because of it. If it is not a hard teaching, why would it have tested your faith? You say it is wrong, and you are free to your opinion. Am I free to mine to believe that rocks don't just start speaking, with a voice, on their own and tell you their history, that men interpret what those rocks say?

You know, believing that the earth is flat is also hard. Believing that the earth is on the back of an elephant standing on a turtle who is swimming in a sea of clarified butter is also a hard doctrine. Just because something is hard doesn't make it true. Why would you think this?

Yes, you say we are wrong. I can live with this. Just like the Jesus seminar people say we are wrong about Jesus raising from the dead and they claim they have Biblical support for this.

the difference is that there is no observational evidence one way or another about Jesus raising from the dead. But we can see footprints and burrows throughout the entire geologic column. We even see desiccation cracks throughout the geologic column, which logically means that the land was dry, not flooded.

The world has been telling me, since I have given myself to Jesus, that I am wrong. They don't persuade me, and neither do you. Their reasoning is the exact same as yours, there is no visible evidence for the support to believe in God.

On the contrary, I beleive there is evidence which is consistent with there being a god. The problem is that there is no evidence supporting a global flood. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm for why I believe in design in the universe.

That wasn't the question. Why are you straying from it?

That is exactly the issue and I am not straying. When you wrote: "We are told that if we didn't preach God creating as Genesis says, many many people would be Christians today."

You are acting as if Creation is the gospel. It isn't. Creation, while interesting is not the gospel. The gospel is that God sent his son to die for our sins. It isn't that God created the universe. I stand by what I wrote. You are less than orthodox if you add to the plan of salvation.

Really? You don't think raising the dead at the end of what we know the world to be is not illogical to some people? How about walking on water? Is it logical for a non-believer to think a human being can walk on water?

Was it logical that Jesus taught they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood? They didn't know He was speaking figuratively or literally, neither did He explain this. Do you think this was logical to the people who heard this?

Can you answer my question, grmorton?

Please follow the argument. We were talking about you teaching all sorts of untruths and wrapping those untruths in the flag of the gospel. You are tying your false interpretation to the Scripture and then making the scripture smell like your intepretation. The fact that your view of creation is false has nothing to do with all that you raise above.

Should Jesus have said what He said in a better way so that people could have better understood and may have more likely listened and followed Him? Should He have expressed His teachings in a more watered down version so that it was easier for people to come to Him?

You would love it if I used the word, watered down. Jesus said what he said. I certainly won't change it nor will I criticise it. But you seem to think that God should have us saved only if we beleive in a 6 day creation.

Oh, but there is, and you don't want to see nor do you want to answer my question. Was Jesus teaching a view that was falsified by Scripture, that men shouldn't eat other humans and drink their blood? Should Jesus have made this teaching easier for people to understand? Was He wrong to make it so hard, and thus lose many disciples?

I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. In that, I can't help you. That is your problem. We aren't talking about eating flesh and blood but we are talking about your view of creation. Please try really hard to stay on topic. You keep going off onto all sorts of rabbit trails. Creation, think creation....creation...creation.... etc. It really isn't hard to stay on topic if you just try.

You are again, evading my question. Should Jesus have made His teaching easier so that it was not so hard and thus lose many disciples and possible people who were listening to Him speak?

Jesus' teaching is NOT that the earth was created in 6 days. Where on earth do you get this nonsense? Not only do you teach nonsense about the earth, you teach nonsense about what Jesus' message was. Cite one verse which has Jesus saying that the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't know of one. That is your teaching, not that of Jesus.

 

[grmorton]

Every time you burn gas in your car, log on to this site, fly in a commercial jet, use a microwave, or talk on a cell phone, you are using things that would not have been possible for man to produce if literal history were accepted without question. I mean, just some of the most basic principles of mass, motion, and energy that would have been missed by literal acceptance of Creation would cause the lights in your house to go out (if you’d like some specifics, feel free to ask). How can you be sure your walk with God won't become unstable just by using all this stuff?

While I certainly don't support YEC, you are over reaching here. This is a really bad argument.