by jwusr 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Why did Jesus allow people to believe in falsehood?
(John 6:51) 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.”
52 Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
66 Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.
Why did Jesus allow people to believe in falsehood?
Welcome jwusr!
No falsehood there :)
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
Blessings,
Stephen
Stephen, 52 seems to indicate they believed in the literal meaning of his words in 51, which your scriptures show would be a false belief.
The meaning was not literal, yet he allowed them to think that it was.
Not according to Catholics ;) Transubstantiation
I believe in the non literal meaning so I understand your point (to a point)!
Anyhow, have a read of the ESV Study Bible notes and see what you think.
John 6:53 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood cannot be intended literally, for no one ever did that. As Jesus has done frequently in this Gospel, he is speaking in terms of physical items in this world to teach about spiritual realities. Here, to “eat” Jesus' flesh has the spiritual meaning of trusting or believing in him, especially in his death for the sins of mankind. (See also v. 35, where Jesus speaks of coming to him as satisfying “hunger” and believing in him as satisfying “thirst.”) Similarly, to “drink his blood” means to trust in his atoning death, which is represented by the shedding of his blood. Although Jesus is not speaking specifically about the Lord's Supper here, there is a parallel theme, because the receiving of eternal life through being united with “the Son of Man” is represented in the Lord's Supper (where Jesus' followers symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–32). This is anticipated in OT feasts (see 1 Cor. 5:7) and consummated in the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).« Less
John 6:59 synagogue. See note on Luke 4:16.
John 6:60 It was a hard saying because they wrongly interpreted Jesus' statements literally (see note on v. 53).
Blessings,
Stephen
One can also view the "eating of his flesh" in the symbolic sense of "digesting his words".
Those that follow the teachings of Jesus have indeed, "digested the word of God", ie: Eaten the Flesh of Jesus.
This is just my own personal take on things, but, it seems to me that the some of the gospel writers were heavily influenced by the dialogues
of Socrates. Greek thought, ethos and culture overtook the world at large like Beatlemania. I think a great many of the snappy sayings of Jesus and his simple way of confounding the intelligencia are set pieces demonstrating a Socratic method and style.
Any boob reading the passage you quoted can immediately grasp Jesus is not being literal. So, what would the point be? That anybody representing any view but Jesus' own was a boob.
His own disciples seldom seem to "get" what he is saying.
I further believe that many passages where Jesus takes them aside and "splains" himself to them like a kindergarten teacher are later additions by scribes.
We don't have any (not even one teeny widdle piece) original autograph scripture manuscripts to compare what originally was transmitted by way of Jesus or his teachings. We don't even have copies. We have assemblages of highly suspect (reworked and re-reworked) hearsay writings to go on that can in no way be verified (despite the pious assertions of people who earn their living by convincing us differently.)
Scripture is a mess and our conclusions are affected by the incompetency of what exists purporting to be divine communication.
The point jwusr is trying to make, Stephen, is that Jesus let those not understanding him simply leave, ostensibly to be condemned for eternity, rather than just chasing them down and explaining the misunderstanding.
"You don't get it? Fine. See you in hell."
What's up with that?
Mad Sweeny,
You make a valid point and there are other places in the Gosple where Jesus says to his disciples that his teachings is for THEM to know and he certainly explains more to them.
Of course THEY do stick with him and question him and ask him questions as opposed to just leaving.
Perhaps it is their reward for their faith, even though they didn't understand, they stuck by him.
Or perhaps it is just the writers way of showing that they were special.
It does seem out of character for Jesus to treat his apostles in a special way, but maybe there is something there.
Jesus disn't say, You don't get it? tough titty bitch !"
He was there to answer any questions that ANYONE asked, if they CHOSE not to ask and leave is it his fault?
We don't have any (not even one teeny widdle piece) original autograph scripture manuscripts to compare what originally was transmitted by way of Jesus or his teachings. We don't even have copies. We have assemblages of highly suspect (reworked and re-reworked) hearsay writings to go on that can in no way be verified (despite the pious assertions of people who earn their living by convincing us differently.)
Bingo.
