John 6:64

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him".

It would seem he indeed was seperating the wheat from the tares, eh?

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Okay, yes, there are always Judases, but you are not addressing those who were rightly scandalized by what they perceived to be Jesus' suggestion of cannibalism - after all, the Lord Himself had forbidden the eating of human flesh and blood. Why didn't Jesus at least clarify His meaning to the Twelve?

I was ready to say "Amen" until that final paragraph!

Or..........it could have been worded so that subsequent future generations would have an idea of what was to take place in the future.

But there's one wee little problem with interpreting Revelation and it's judgements/events as happening during the A.D. 70 timeframe that many do: most scholars agree, even those who do not hold to a futurist view of prophecy, that John wrote Revelation in about A.D. 90. I know what Sothern Doc wrote here isn't dealing specifically with that, but it's hard to see how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day, most of whom were jewish, to give them illustrative language of events that they already went thru (e.g. the Temple being destroyed by Titus, etc.), especially if Nero was the beast as many non-futurists contend.

Now I have to resist breaking out some H.A. Ironside about correctly interpreting what the seven heads on the Dragon represent.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

So, this whole discussion has been interesting and it's obvious that within Christ's Church there are differing perspectives on Israel and the covenant. I think that if we want to support Israel on the political front we have got to maintain secular, political arguments for that support. Scriptural arguments will not win over the public. Btw, I don't know what I am among all those fancy terms for end times doctrines but I happen to attend a church within the restoration movement. I attend a Christian church (not Disciples of Christ which is the liberal branch of the restoration movement) which is a little different then the Church of Christ (non-instrumental) but we tend to be on the same page in a lot of areas. Our tradition of broad Christian liberty in matters of interpretation means that there is more variance among congregations then with denominational churches but there is a general trend.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."

John 6:64

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him".

It would seem he indeed was seperating the wheat from the tares, eh? [/quote]
Okay, yes, there are always Judases, but you are not addressing those who were rightly scandalized by what they perceived to be Jesus' suggestion of cannibalism - after all, the Lord Himself had forbidden the eating of human flesh and blood. Why didn't Jesus at least clarify His meaning to the Twelve?[/quote]


You just want to trap me into quote box hades, don't you?

I think you have your answer in verse 63..........

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT (emphasis mine), and they are life".

I think Jesus made it pretty clear what he was getting at here..............to those who have eyes and ears that is.

How on earth did we get into transubstitutionalism anyway?

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Sorry, but this conversation has taken so many directions that it's the only way to keep straight which angle is being addressed!

Look at the verse in context: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?' Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, 'Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.'" [John 6:60-63]

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase "the flesh" instead of "my flesh" or "the flesh of the Son of Man" because He is not talking about His own body; He is referring to natural man. Man is composed of spirit and body/flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving His revelation.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can't understand how He would give them His flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of "the flesh" to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh "counts for nothing" otherwise His death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that His own body, His flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh clearly does count for something, He must have been referring to "flesh" other than His own in v. 63.

Don't start getting snarky with me, young man!

Seriously, though, do you realize how many of us hold differing or even contradictory beliefs and each would insist that we do have the ears to hear? It is one of the major impediments to evangelization.


Because YOU started talking about symbolism - see, it's all YOUR fault!

Here's a snip from a "This Rock" article that I think makes the point much better:

Father Frank Chacon makes what I believe to be a valid point as well:

goalieman, I used to think the same way as you concerning eschatology, but after giving a serious study to all of the eschatological view points, I found Partial Preterism to be the most logical.

All this eschatological talk is really interesting though.

QVA, here's where we will have a big difference of opinion. While the physical death of Christ is of great significance, it was his being spiritually seperated, or maybe better put, having the relationship that He always enjoyed with the Father greatly diminished while on the cross, from the Father "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" that took the place of our being spiritually seperated from God and subsequently paying the price that none of us could ever pay and thus making it possible now to enjoy fellowship with our Creator once again. The spiritual suffering that Christ endured on that cross was far more painful to him than the physical pain he endured on it.

P.S. I should add that Christ's disciples were baffled at His talk of needing to endure the cross even AFTER he had been crucified. So his words in chapter 6 are pretty consistant with his disciples confusion............and they were a confused bunch! (Like we would have done better, LOL!).

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Clearly, I've come to a different conclusion.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Correct, I was not saying that. I accept what I consider the best scholarship which places the writing around 95 during the reign (and resumption of traditional state paganism) of Domitian. One of the problems with the Book of Revelation is we have no manuscript or Church Father reference to it until the late 2nd Century (c. 170) and no reference to specific persecution against Jews or Christians under Domitian until the late 3rd Century. That is one of the reasons why Revelation out of all the Books generally considered as part of the Canon experienced the most opposition and controversy (to this day) to its inclusion.

Most Christian leaders through history therefore gave it a pretty wide-berth. Augustine (who systematized the understanding of its historic non-futurist interpretation), Luther (who rejected it as central Canon relegating it to his apocrypha) , and Calvin (who included it but it was the only book he never wrote a commentary on), all de-emphasized the need to understand the Book as a road map to future events and, like the most famous early opponents of its inclusion in the Canon, feared that the vast disparity of "reasonable" or "revealed" interpretations would foment schism.

Yet much later some (like Scofield and later Moody) considered it "Fundamental" to the core Gospel message. And that is where we are today.

I accept it as "God breathed" and inspired, but I am very reluctant to camp too hard on particulars and firmly believe that Christian liberty should be the watchword. This for no other reason than the clear ability of brethren to be Christians for 60 years before John penned the Revelation in 95 A.D. Whatever insights Revelation provides to understanding God and His will (past, present, future) those insights were not "The Gospel."

As far as why
"it's hard to see how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day, most of whom were jewish, to give them illustrative language of events that they already went thru."
You really have a hard sell on this with me.
Why would it be valuable? Because its history! The whole Biblical narrative is a contextualization of God moving through history, always faithful though his children were not, always reminding them to "remember" so that they might in the future "live." {which is why the symbolism of the Lord's Supper seems the obvious crux of its purpose to me [sorry QVA I was just using the argument for leverage] "Do This in Remembrance of Me."}

One might just as easily ask "how helpful it would be to Christ's followers in that day" to know that in 1948 a state of Israel would be established in Palestine run overwhelmingly by secular Jews? Don't worry Sarah, just wait till the Huckabeanns restore the Temple in 2019! If anything such a view would make more likely, not less likely, keeping ones head down and assimilating to the Roman culture.

To further confuse

I actually do believe that Romans 11 likely does teach that Israel will be saved before the Last Day. And that perhaps (if you look at Paul's full argument) even those who have rejected Christ of the people of Israel. This is seemingly indeed because God will be faithful to His promise to Abraham even if his descendents are not as a further manifestation of His Grace.

Romans 11

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear [there is that language again],
to this very day.”[c]

9 And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”[d]

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Jesus on the cross asked for the forgiveness of those who knew not what they did.

Go figure?

Yet there is nothing in this that requires a state of Israel.

If it does...well...He is the MAN!

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Umm, no, He was not separated from the Father (how could such a thing be accomplished without flirting with the heresy of dividing Jesus into a human self and a Divine self each separate from the other?).

Jesus was not speaking for Himself; He was speaking to His disciples by quoting prophetic Messianic Scripture (in their day, they knew Scripture well enough to recognize a passage from its beginning the way we would recognize a familiar song). Read Psalm 22, note verse 1, but then read it all the way to the end.

Basically, He was comforting them by reminding them that the Messiah was to suffer - so badly that He would appear as one forsaken by God - but that it was part of God's plan & He would ultimately & gloriously triumph.

No fair......you have use of multi-colored words and I don't right now!

Two things briefly. First, there are many of my fellow futurists who attempt to dot every I and cross every T when it comes to future events. It's not really necessary to do so. It's the overall framework of the theology that is important. Second, having the hope of a restored Israel with it's Temple would certainly be something of encouragement to the jewish believers of that day I would think. If God had specifically stated 1948 as being that day, maybe not so much.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Why would God want Israel to rebuild the Temple?

Actually got to go with goalie here. And I think many a Catholic theologian (though obviously not in what Goalie want to imply by it).

At the moment Christ "became sin" on the cross he could not be in the presence of God whose Holiness cannot abide a union with sin. This is part of the mystery of the Trinity. His nature did not change, but the intimacy he enjoyed with God was gone. The really tricky part (and one of great debate) is whether the "Spirit" was also withdrawn for this to be completely accomplished. Therefore: God's special presence is removed (Eloi! Eloi!); then His Spirit (which has to be "Willfully" forfeited by Jesus (into thy hand I commend my Spirit)since he himself was innocent of any sin God could not claim his Spirit; then, and only then, all was accomplished "It is finished." As he died.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

To be clear, some would say seperated, I would not, which is why I said "greatly diminished".
It was the fellowship that they had enjoyed for eternity that was effected.

Clearly we're not going to agree on this issue, but at least we know where we're both coming from on the subject.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Just so you know no one's offended me if I don't reply for a while:

I'm off to Walmart! I'll catch up later.

Take it literally.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

To be Christ's earthy throne when he reigns over the earth during the 1000 year period of time after He comes back to rule. It's one of many possibilities............

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Isn't the Temple supposed to be destroyed again?

Why would God use nonbelievers to build His Temple?

Not a problem! I was under no misapprehension of your theological position here.

And I don't disagree with your point other than the fact that it cannot be all there was to it because this verse is not all there is to it. But for the purpose of your argument, looking strictly at this verse, does it really simply mean "don't forget"?

I do not know Greek, but I do know how to use a Lexicon!
Look at Hebrews 10:3 which uses the same word for "remembrance" ("anamnesis") as the verse that we are talking about. It is talking about remembrance in terms of performing a sacrifice - that is, an action being performed rather than a mental process.

I also have to leave the computer for a while & don't have time to fully respond so I hope you don't mind if I leave another article quote regarding this verse for your consideration instead


Regarding "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me", I'll also have to get back to you all on that, but for the sake of clarification - do you both propose that it is only a coincidence that the Lord's words mirrored the beginning of Psalm 22?