To Be Ignored

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To Be Ignored

    Jesus was ignored for telling the truth: John 6:65-66 KJV - "And he said, ‘Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father.’ 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

  • #2
    [FONT=trebuchet ms, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=16px]Ignored? I read that he was despised and rejected. I can't recall him being ignored. [/SIZE][/FONT]

    [FONT=trebuchet ms, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=16px]When those disciples walk out on the Lord it wasn't because they were ignoring him it was because they felt deeply offended at what he said. He wanted them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they just could not abide hearing that from him. They wanted a teacher like the teachers they could handle. Like the Pharisees but with less hypocrisy I guess.
    [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=16px][FONT=trebuchet ms]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? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
    (John 6:52-65 KJV)[/FONT][/SIZE]
    [FONT=trebuchet ms, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=16px]
    [/SIZE][/FONT]
    Comment>

    • #3
      They rejected his saying, turned on their heels, a left Him, which is what one wants to do to ignore that person, as the reason was they were offended. Eating go His flesh? Drinking of His blood? It says nothing there about that in my quote. I understand RCC take that to be literal at communion. If so, that's cannibalism and we could eat each other and drink each other's blood because we are the body of Christ. Jesus was using metaphor, not being literal and said, "Do this in remembrance of me." You're pushing your RCC doctrine in an arena that did not bring it up.

      I do like the quote you and I used. It demonstrates the doctrine of election. It shows that the Bible does not teach man having free will to choose salvation. The last couple sentences prove that. "And from that time, many went back and walked no more with him." - v. 66. I find that most interesting. Why do you suppose they did that? Why would they walk away at that saying? Faith, which saves, was not given to them from the Father is why. They knew this within themselves and left Him. They just wanted to see Jesus at work, not do as He did.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
        They rejected his saying, turned on their heels, a left Him, which is what one wants to do to ignore that person, as the reason was they were offended. Eating go His flesh? Drinking of His blood? It says nothing there about that in my quote. I understand RCC take that to be literal at communion. If so, that's cannibalism and we could eat each other and drink each other's blood because we are the body of Christ. Jesus was using metaphor, not being literal and said, "Do this in remembrance of me." You're pushing your RCC doctrine in an arena that did not bring it up.

        I do like the quote you and I used. It demonstrates the doctrine of election. It shows that the Bible does not teach man having free will to choose salvation. The last couple sentences prove that. "And from that time, many went back and walked no more with him." - v. 66. I find that most interesting. Why do you suppose they did that? Why would they walk away at that saying? Faith, which saves, was not given to them from the Father is why. They knew this within themselves and left Him. They just wanted to see Jesus at work, not do as He did.
        [FONT=times new roman][FONT=trebuchet ms][SIZE=16px]I thought I underlined what the Lord Jesus Christ said in my quote from the gospel according to John. In my red letter edition of the KJV the underlined words are in red ink and I think that means that the Lord said them.

        I wrote a post about the last supper dialogues and in it I quoted from the gospel according to Matthew. But for some reason - which I do not yet know - it got moved to the Jehovah's witnesses sub forum. Perhaps it was because the quote was from "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" which Jehovah's witnesses use and publish. My guess is that was the reason. But the topic was precisely what you've indicated in the words that I underlined in your post. Jehovah's witnesses change what's written in the gospel according to Matthew; what they do is change "is" to "means" in their bible. That way they can make a case for the words of Christ being a metaphor.

        It isn't quite as easy to make the case for a metaphor when you stick with "is". [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
        [SIZE=16px][FONT=trebuchet ms]And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28 KJV)[/FONT][/SIZE]
        [FONT=times new roman][FONT=trebuchet ms][SIZE=16px]I suppose changing "is" to "means" works as long as nobody knows that it was changed.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
        Last edited by peppermint; 06-14-2015, 04:18 AM.
        Comment>

        • #5
          You forgot the last part: "This do in remembrance of me." It is a reminder of his laying down His life for our sins. It is obviously a metaphor. Christ rose from the dead. How can you be eating His body and drinking His literal blood? Come on, now. Look at it before you partake. Is the host really meat off Jesus' bone? Is the wine really blood? It is a spiritual metaphor. It is an holy sacrament.

          I agree the JW Bible is bogus. I like the KJV. I've read some of the Catholic Bible, and from what I can tell, if one reads just the Scriptures and ignores the commentaries, they read pretty close to each other. I am not changing the meaning of the Scripture, but there are literal and metaphorical meanings, and we have to know which are which, rightly dividing the word of truth 2 Timothy 2:15.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
            You forgot the last part: "This do in remembrance of me." It is a reminder of his laying down His life for our sins. It is obviously a metaphor. Christ rose from the dead. How can you be eating His body and drinking His literal blood? Come on, now. Look at it before you partake. Is the host really meat off Jesus' bone? Is the wine really blood? It is a spiritual metaphor. It is an holy sacrament.

            I agree the JW Bible is bogus. I like the KJV. I've read some of the Catholic Bible, and from what I can tell, if one reads just the Scriptures and ignores the commentaries, they read pretty close to each other. I am not changing the meaning of the Scripture, but there are literal and metaphorical meanings, and we have to know which are which, rightly dividing the word of truth 2 Timothy 2:15.
            [SIZE=16px][FONT=trebuchet ms]I don't quite get why saying "do this in memory of me" makes the "this is my body" part into a metaphor. I look at it like this. If I had a chicken curry with you and during the meal I said "this is my chicken" and after the supper said "do this is memory of me" the chicken would not be a metaphor. So I don't see why the bread & wine said to be the body & blood of the Lord become a metaphor simply because he said "do this in memory of me".[/FONT][/SIZE]
            Comment>

            • #7
              I did say it is a metaphor, yes. That which is carnal is carnal, and that which is spiritual is spiritual. He was referring to the spirituality of eating and drinking, not a physical action. It is a sacrament.Somehow some of what I write gets ignored and the rebuttal does not consider what I actually say.

              The chicken analogy is carnal. Besides, He said "Do this in memory of me" before, not after partaking, which if I remember right, Jesus joined them in the last supper.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
                I did say it is a metaphor, yes. That which is carnal is carnal, and that which is spiritual is spiritual. He was referring to the spirituality of eating and drinking, not a physical action. It is a sacrament.Somehow some of what I write gets ignored and the rebuttal does not consider what I actually say.

                The chicken analogy is carnal. Besides, He said "Do this in memory of me" before, not after partaking, which if I remember right, Jesus joined them in the last supper.
                [FONT=trebuchet ms][SIZE=16px]It isn't what the Lord Jesus Christ said though is it. He didn't say "this is a metaphor of my body" or even the more succinct "this is like my body" and since you've rejected "this means my body" because Jehovah's witnesses mess things up I don't see how you manage the verse as it is written.[/SIZE][/FONT]
                Comment>

                • #9
                  When interpreting a piece of scripture context is very important, the context of an extract in the passages that go immediately before and after, the context of the participants, the context of the writer, even the context of the date of writing.

                  You cannot just extract a piece and make interpretations without considering these. And particularly you cannot extract two pieces from totally different books, by different writers without being very careful.

                  Now let us look at the context of the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Jesus is having his final meal with the disciples. Tomorrow he will die. He had been looking forward sharing this with them. Why? Because it will be a very significant meal.

                  He takes the standard Passover meal and gives it a whole new meaning. He is not playing word games with them. He says makes some very simple statements and gives them some very simple commands

                  This IS my body
                  This IS my Blood

                  Take and EAT
                  DRINK from this all of you

                  This was so important that this ritual was one of the key items of the early Christian assembly.
                  "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42)

                  Now consider this in the context of John’s gospel. John was writing many years after the other Gospels. He includes many items that the other did not. He gave no account of the Last Supper meal but did give the bread of life discourses. I think this is because the Last Supper memorial was so well established that he had no need to, but he did want to give the context for it. In Chapter 6 we hear Jesus gradually expounding about how he was the Bread of Life and they would have to eat his body and drink his blood to have life (Jn 6:51-58).

                  It starts with the feeding of the five thousand, a miracle of multiplication, and a giving of bread which recalls the bread from heaven (manna) that the Israelites received in the desert. He then crossed the sea of Galilee and the crowds follow. He takes this opportunity to remind them of the miracle of the loaves and to move on from there.

                  "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled." (verse 26).
                  He continues (verse 27): "Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you".

                  Then in verse 30-31 they ask for sign – surprising seeing that they had already had one. What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

                  Jesus responds and casts out the bait…. "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
                  ….and they take it "They said to him, Sir, give us this bread always"

                  Now he starts the teaching. "Jesus said to them I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst………I came down from heaven"

                  He now has a dialogue going, The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and he continues on the bread theme "I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die." (vs 48-50)

                  At this stage he seems to be still talking about normal bread, but he then takes it a step further.
                  "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (vs 51)

                  This is strange talk: The Jews quarrelled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” (vs 52)

                  Jesus hammers home his point and emphasises he is talking literally about flesh and blood. This is no figurative language. "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. " (vs 53)

                  He then switches the verb he uses for eating from phago to trogo which means chewing or gnawing to give added emphasis.
                  "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (vs 54-57)

                  This upsets many listeners including many disciples who left. Does Jesus call them back and say “Hey, it was only figurative. I didn’t mean it literally”? No he doesn’t.
                  He turns to the twelve and says “Do you also want to leave?” This is a crunch point There is no compromise in this. He offers no further explanation. Jesus is saying I meant what I said. Do you believe in me?

                  The apostles are confused but Peter answers “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” (vs 68) Jesus has just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Now Peter says you have the words of eternal life. So he is accepting that he has to literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life because Jesus has said it and Jesus is the Holy One of God, even though he does not understand how this can happen without there being some sort of horrible cannibalistic ritual. And Jesus does not enlighten them.

                  Now move on to the Last Supper. Jesus blesses the bread and wine. Does he say “Hey guys, remember that time a few weeks ago when I really got you wound up about eating my flesh and drinking my blood? You really fell for it. Of course I was just winding you up. You only have to eat this bread and drink this wine as a sort of symbolic action.”

                  No, he says:
                  This IS my body
                  This IS my Blood

                  Take and EAT
                  DRINK from this all of you.

                  Jesus said what he meant, and he meant what he said.


                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Refer to "Or is it Means".
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stratcat View Post
                      Jesus was ignored for telling the truth: John 6:65-66 KJV - "And he said, ‘Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father.’ 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
                      Yep he was ignored.
                      Comment>
                      Working...
                      X
                      Articles - News - SiteMap