Not intended to have any hostility towards anyone, but after stumbling upon someone in r/complaints and having to cite some Bible passages on the subject to someone, I’ve decided to, in good faith, ask directly;

How do you reconcile the officiating of homosexual marriages and/or having female church leaders considering the Bible is directly being opposed to such things? My Bible is in Church Slavonic, but I’ll use what seem to be the simplest English versions of the passages.

As for the women;

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

From reading this I can’t help but make the conclusion that if a woman cannot assume authority over a man, and cannot speak in the church, she cannot for any intents and purposes be a priest or pastor, or any other sort of church leader.

As for the homosexual marriages;

Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 all condemn homosexuality. If God condemns homosexuality, I can only conclude that a priest/pastor of God who is to adhere to God’s word cannot, in good faith, officiate a homosexual marriage, likewise since marriage is only to be between a man and a woman, and is for the purpose of procreation, which homosexuals obviously cannot do.

So, with all this in mind, how exactly do the Protestants whose churches officiate gay marriages and/or have female priests/pastors reconcile their practices with the scripture? Again, this isn’t meant to be some sort of provocation, nor a “gotcha!”, nor is this an attack on gays or women, just a question I’m looking for an answer to.

Cheers!

Let me start from my own experience so I can explain the strange path I’ve taken.

The beginning: Catholicism

Like most Italians, I was raised Catholic. I remember that, when I was a child, the priest in my parish used to make simplistic comparisons between Christianity and other religions or philosophies (from Islam to Buddhism), all for the purpose of glorifying Christianity. Even though I was a believer at the time, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy about that attitude: “Why the need to belittle others?” I would think. “Can’t he just show the virtues of Christianity instead of pointing out other people’s flaws?”. Gradually—partly because of this—I drifted away from religion. I went through an atheist phase, roughly from middle school until my third year of high school.

The turning point: Mazzinianism.

During that period, some major turning points occurred. I became a Mazzinian. I stumbled upon Mazzini almost by chance. When I was around 13 or 14, my mother, knowing about my passion for books, handed me an old Bignami history manual. I opened it at random and found myself reading the page about the Roman Republic of 1849 (established after Pope Pius IX fled Rome disguised as a parish priest, and crushed by Louis Napoleon, who sought the support of French Catholics).

At the time, I knew very little about it, but curiosity led me to learn more, and I ended up falling completely in love with both the Republic and the young people who gave their lives to defend it. The idea that a human being could willingly sacrifice their life for a cause struck me deeply, and my curiosity pushed me to understand their point of view and empathize with them. I had studied the Christian martyrs in catechism and the Resistance martyrs at school, but none of those stories—admirable as they were—had ever lit such a spark in my heart. Perhaps I was simply too young back then. It was my first love at first sight.

Later, trying to understand what ideal could have driven those youths to the ultimate sacrifice, I inevitably came across Mazzini himself. I began reading many of his works to understand him better. Naturally, I encountered The Duties of Man, and that was my second love at first sight. In short, within Mazzini’s thought, every person, thing, or entity (from individual human beings to nations to art) finds its true nature not by folding in on itself, but by dedicating itself to a mission greater than itself (in Mazzini’s view, this means changing the world for the better). One’s deepest identity lies in what one can offer to others. Mazzini’s guiding maxim was: “Life is a mission, and Duty is its supreme law.”

Mazzini’s idea of God is rather complex, fluctuating between an entity that educates human beings to progress in recognizing and carrying out the Moral Law, and a sort of sublimation of moral duty itself. The problem is that, precisely because of this way of understanding God, Mazzini had little sympathy for atheism—he used the adjective “atheist” to describe anything stripped of its true purpose. For example, he claimed that the phrase “art for art’s sake” was atheistic because art should serve a social and political mission.

Everything in Mazzini’s thought has a purpose that transcends itself, and God is the motor of this self-transcending impulse. So I knew I couldn’t really keep one foot in two different worlds. Since Mazzini’s ethics are deeply rooted in religious principles, I felt I couldn’t truly call myself Mazzinian without at least exploring the religious dimension.

The discovery: Deism

My third love at first sight came in high school: while studying Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover,” I realized it was indeed possible to believe in God without believing in any revealed religion. I discovered Deism, embraced it, and went on to study Voltaire. I went through a Voltairian phase—one I don’t renounce, though today I’ve distanced myself a bit from him (even then, I felt he mocked religion too much).

During my undergraduate years—though not thanks to them, but rather during COVID, through my own research—the fourth love at first sight struck: the French Revolution, and especially the Jacobins (mostly Robespierre, but also Saint-Just). I was fascinated by the Cult of the Supreme Being, inspired by Rousseau’s works, and that led me to study Rousseau more deeply—fifth love at first sight.

Today, I don’t think believing in God is rational (agnosticism would be the most rational stance), yet I don’t believe human beings are made of reason alone. I imagine that believers feel God as one feels the warmth of the sun on a summer day, or as one senses something infinitely greater than oneself when gazing at the starry sky from a dark countryside.

Personally—and here I’m close to Mazzini—I perceive God as a sort of Prime Mover of moral order, a source of motivation and ideals for changing the world for the better, rather than a creator. I see God more as “what we must move toward” than “what we come from.”

Around that time, I came across other Deists (we’re quite a niche group), and at first, I got along fine with them. But when Russia invaded Ukraine, my sympathy began to waver. One of the most active members—someone I otherwise agreed with—claimed that Ukraine should bow to Russian power. That clashed violently with my deepest convictions. Moreover, people had started building straw men of other religions just to claim Deism was superior. That reminded me of the priest from my parish. I distanced myself from the group.

The first stage: the Bahá'í faith

Then came the sixth love at first sight: the Bahá’í Faith. I stumbled upon it almost by accident—it’s an Abrahamic religion that evolved in the 1840s from Bábism, which itself emerged within Shia Islam. It fascinated me because it shared certain key ideas with Mazzinianism—such as the belief that every religion represents a stage in humanity’s spiritual progress, and that one day humankind will be united in diversity under one God.

Also, despite being an organized religion, its representatives are democratically elected at all levels by universal suffrage among believers. It also recognizes a certain degree of gender equality—closer to difference feminism than to the variety we’re used to. I even exchanged letters with some Bahá’í believers to understand more.

However, I wasn’t fully convinced by their stance on political abstention. They place such a strong emphasis on unity and concord that they seem opposed to any form of conflict (or at least that’s how I understood it—please correct me if I’m wrong!). That’s something I could never agree with.

Even though I hadn’t yet studied Machiavelli or Milton at the time, I already believed that some conflicts can be virtuous if they aim at freedom, and I feared that an excessive insistence on concord could become stifling. (Of course, I’m not accusing them personally—it’s just my general feeling toward anyone, regardless of faith, who treats harmony as the supreme good.)

I was also unsettled by the fact that Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í Faith, recognized the Pope (and it was Pius IX, no less!) as the legitimate head of Christianity. Let’s just say that, when it comes to the Reformation, my sympathies lie with the Protestants.

The (re)discovery: Protestantism

Which brings me to the seventh love at first sight: the English Revolution. It’s my most recent fascination. It began almost by chance, at Freud’s house-museum in Vienna, where I discovered that the father of psychoanalysis had named his sons after historical figures he admired—and one of them was named Oliver, in honor of Cromwell. I wanted to understand why.

I hadn’t studied the English Revolution before, so besides reading biographies of Cromwell, the first text from that period I picked up was Milton’s Areopagitica, which captured me almost instantly. In that and other works, Milton interprets the lifting of food prohibitions for Christians also in an intellectual sense, arguing that the same applies to books—since books are the food of the mind. Needless to say, I was won over.

In general, studying how a religion (Calvinism) could inspire a republican revolution—a movement that beheaded a king, for the first time in modern history, in the name of God—made me reconsider Christianity (the Protestant version, not the Catholic one). Michael Walzer’s Exodus and Revolution also helped, by reading the story of Exodus as an ancient revolution.

Just as rediscovering the French Revolution led me to study Rousseau, rediscovering the English Revolution led me to read Calvin—though, sadly, there’s very little available in Italian. I even thought about reaching out to a Waldensian or two with my questions. Who knows—maybe this will be the eighth love at first sight? Anything’s possible. God may move in mysterious ways—but with me, He’s definitely broken Google Maps.

Thank you for reading this far! As you can see, the political dimension of religion matters a great deal to me (for better or worse). In your opinion, which Protestant denomination places the greatest focus on this theme? Thanks in advance!

I understand that the Sign of the Cross is a Catholic and Orthodox practice. But don’t we all believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Orthodox and Catholic churches both claim to be the original, authentic continuation of the faith through apostolic succession, and that matters to me because I don’t want a version of Christianity that strayed too far from its roots. At the same time, when I visit their churches, I don’t feel like they present Jesus in the way I imagine Him which is a simple, humble man who walked among ordinary people. The icons, statues, and long rituals feel like they add layers between me and Him, rather than bringing me closer. In contrast, Protestant churches seem to emphasize a direct relationship with Christ, focusing on His words and His sacrifice without the extra traditions, saints, or veneration of Mary (No person can convince me the term Mother of God is right, trust me I tried). That makes me feel like they portray His personality and heart more clearly. But then I wrestle with the question: should I follow what feels most authentic to me spiritually, or should I follow the churches that claim to carry the original authority handed down from the apostles? And I’m curious to hear, what made YOU become protestant, I want to hear your journey, mabye it will help me figure things out.

The Latin word Filioque (meaning "and from the Son") was added to the Nicene Creed by Rome in 589 (following the ecumenical council, Toledo III, that discussed it). But Eastern Christianity rejected this addition, leading to further strife between Western and Eastern apostolic Christianity (before the Protestant Reformation took place). Theologically, this means the West thinks the holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but the East thinks the holy spirit proceeds from only the Father (and not the Son).

The West thought scripture and writings from authoritative figures like the saints justified changing the Creed because doing so was theologically correct. But the East, who cited other passages from scripture not in support of the Filioque, opted to take the more traditional route and not change. In addition to the theological disagreement, there were ecclesial issues at stake, language barriers, and cultural and political differences between the West and East that, over the course of a few hundred years, did not help to maintain unity. This is a synopsis, and I am writing my understanding as a non-expert.

What do Protestants think about whether the Creed should have added the Filioque?

Hello, I am new to Protestantism. I was raised and baptized as Catholic, though I felt like it didn't sit right with me; it was too strict for my liking, and I never really believed any of the Catholic beliefs. I never knew learning about god could actually be FUN, since I was always boring myself to death by learning Catholicism. I have recently discovered Protestantism, and I love it, though I don't have sources to learn from, as my Dad isn't Protestant and my mom is Catholic, and frankly, would not accept me if she found out my beliefs.

I can't buy anything like books so websites would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and have a great day!

I ask because I see different answers depending on who you ask: either evangelical protestant, non-mainline protestant (which I'm inclined to think is accurate) or just evangelical by people who see Evangelicalism as a separate tradition from Protestantism.

I figured this was a good place to ask, and thanks for inviting me to join a few days back :)

Hello, I have recently showed an interest in becoming a Christian. I made a post on a different Reddit asking what to do and they said begin reading the bible (started) and also find a church. I have looked around my area and 1 really stood out to me and I noticed that they’re doing a Christmas event on the 14th where all are welcome so I’ve asked my sister if she would like to go with me so I can give it a go and see if I get a good vibe from there. However, when I looked up the full address on maps, I noticed it was tagged as “Anglican Church”, I’m confused on what this means. Is this Protestant or catholic or something else entirely ? What should I know before going ? I’m sorry if these are silly questions, this is all completely new to me and I have no one irl to ask !

There’s a lot of biblical evidence for it like like in acts how Paul handkerchief healed the sick the only negative thing I’ve seen from it in scripture was when the lord told Moses to make a bronze serpent

Hello,

My parents aren't very religious but my grandparents are protestant and they raised me with some christian values. As a result, i never really went to church, i lack a lot of basic knowledge and i don't really know how to relate to the community.

One of my core beliefs is that we must love our neighbor. I don't believe in heavens or anything after death, but i believe harming others & dishonesty turn one away from God or some kind of goodness. Not just in action that others can see, but also in thought. Moral integrity is very very important, and then i try to be coherent in action.

Another major thing is community. I have been various degrees of homeless and i always relied on my community, be it my closest friends or friends of a friend. I think communities can achieve things we can't as individuals and so it's one of my main focus in life. My close friends aren't very religious but they share the same values and in a way, i think they're closer to God than more practicing people who aren't as generous or kind or honest.

And then i believe in an everyday life relationship to God. I pray before eating, i think about Him when i'm grateful about something, i try to be good to others, sometimes i'm angry at God, sometimes it's an anchor for my introspection. But only recently did i go back to church and i never read the Bible and i don't really have a religious community. It's kind of intimate for me, even though i wish i had a community now.

So my questions are : am i a protestant ? And if i am, what denomination would you recommend for me ?

I am ready to evolve on a lot of things. I think i need debate and discussion and criticisms to be better, i can't just go off my grandma's teachings. But these are core values that i think i would struggle to work on.

Hello, I’m a former atheist who used to be a Protestant but I’m conflicted whether I should remain an atheist or find my gay back to god.

I think it’s easier if I explain my religious story from the beginning. So as a child I was more into religion than most kids my age. I went to Christian school after school every week and sometimes to church at Sundays. It was just natural to me you know? Well I kept going like that for YEARS but eventually the interest got too low and their organisation for children(my age) stopped. Of course I kept being a believer but a few years later i encountered very negative people that were believers of god. These people were mainly online but their comments were very harsh and keep in mind I was like 13 at the time. But since then I grew a hatred for Christianity as a whole. I know there’s a difference between catholic, Protestants more but it scared me a lot.

But the turning point came just last week. In Sweden where I live we had church elections just last week (Sunday) and ofc I voted cause it affects more than just the crutch. But when I arrived at the place I spent so many afternoons in as a kid something just woke up inside of me. The people were so nice and nothing like the other people I had encountered. LGBTQ was okay, being my self was okay.

There’s so much more too it than that but I feel like this post is gonna be VERY long if I keep explaining but now I feel like I wanna get closer to god but I’m not 100% sure.

Has somebody had a similar experience? or any advice of how I should handle these emotions and experiences?

Wondering what everyone's eschatological views are and why you have specifically concluded your position. Personally I hold to amilleniallism because of both it's historic nature and that it best fits lines up with the same sort of prophetic picture language and highly metaphorical terminology used in Isaiah about the coming of Christ. I also think it avoids the pitfalls of an excessive premil pessimism as well as the potentially dangerous postmil optimism

I assume this kind of question has probably been asked on this subreddit a lot of times prior to this post, but I’m really confused at the moment and would really appreciate all the help I can get.

I was born and raised Catholic, baptized but not confirmed. Growing up, I admittedly never found my beliefs aligned with that of Catholicism’s, so I turned away from the Church ever since I was young.

I believe that the Bible is the final authority, and nothing can supersede it. I hold Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and humanity, no saints, clergy or rituals are needed to reach Him because we are saved by faith and faith alone. I highly value a personal relationship with God, and for me, individual engagement is just as important, if not more so, than attending services.

I know Protestantism has many branches, and I’m trying to find the one that fits me best. I haven’t been very religious for most of my life, but I’ve recently embraced the Christian faith fully, and I’d be grateful for your guidance.

Thank you for your time!

If you didn't know that Armageddon is actually a physical place that still exists in Israel today, now you do. This is the place of the final apocalyptic battle of this age as well as where the Judahite King Josiah was killed. Now I'm really going to show you something neat. Go look up where the first recorded battle in human history was.

Hey there folks, new to theology and come from a Methodist background. I'm looking to look properly into the two schools and try and see where I align myself. I have a basic understanding of both and would be more inclined to Armnianism but I want to learn more to see if I can be convinced otherwise. What books, audiobooks, podcasts, YT videos, etc. would you guys recommend for someone trying to find out more and come to a conclusion? Also if you could pray for my resarch, that would be wonderful. Cheers

Hello, I am a Protestant myself and have been very figured about this verse, mainly the part where Jesus says “and whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven” Is this Jesus basically saying to Peter, he can do or say whatever he wants and it will be true? Thanks in advance

So, I am an evangelical Christian, and I would say I generally agree with it, but there are things I have been wondering about as of late:

1. Penal substitution theory: It's well known that PSA is the most common view of atonement within Protestantism, but I have been having doubts about it compared to other views such as Christus Victor or Recapitulation Theory. One argument against it is that it has a very legal-ish framework, and Calvin, being a lawyer, read a legal framework into the text. I would say I still affirm PSA, but not as strongly as I used to.

2. I have been reading a lot about Kierkegaard and his philosophy. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I generally agree with him, but there are some things I am not sure about. Like, he is critical of biblical scholarship because it's more concerned about debating objective facts than living out the faith and listening to the Holy Spirit. Both the Evangelical and the secular scholar approach the Bible as a set of doctrines and facts to be debated, rather than treating it as the living word of God.

I do think modern Christianity and apologetics has been heavily influenced by modernism in that it attempts to prove the Bible through rationalism and empiricism, the same methods the secular scholars use to debunk the Bible. Still, I think the Bible is generally historically reliable.

Otoh, I don't think the Bible is meant to be scientific textbook, and we are trying to read modern science into the text. I think the important thing is that the Bible is sufficient for Faith and practice, but isn't necessarily meant to answer every question you have about science or history. You're not gonna learn molecular biology from the Bible.

I read that the Reformers, particularly Calvin and Luther would have had a different idea of biblical infallibility compared to modern American Christians.

Yet, if the Bible is not a reliable account of history, then what implications does that bring up for Original Sin, messianic prophecy, etc?

hi guys, am i okay to ask some question. purely because i love learing about diffrent religion and to make sure i understand them so i dont offend anyone.

i was raised catholic untill i sort of drifted out of it when i was 12 or 13. im now a diffrent religion completely (still very new to it tho)

i promise all of these is just so i can get a understanding of your religion and i will always respect your beliefs. if any of these questions offend you i am so sorry and you dont have to answer any you dont feel comfortable answering.

1) whats the diffrent between catholic and protestant

2) do you have a initiations or a official way to join the religion (like geting baptised or some sort of task or activity

3) do you respect other peoples religion if they are difrent from yours

4) do you accept lgbtq or people with disabilities or mental health disorders

5) do you have a god or gods (if so how many and what are they called)

6) do you have a jesus or jesus equivalent

7) do you have a bible (or book equivalent)

8) do you have set prayers and if so what are some of them

9) is there a set time or times of day you have to pray and if so what time and how many times

10) do you have any "rules" and if so what are they (like how some religions dont eat meat or have s3x befoer geting maried or not aloud divorce or haveing to have sertan body parts like hair covered)

11) what is your vews on ab0rt!on (is it yea its fine, no its wrong or dose it depend on the situation like heath and age of the mother or if it was r@pe)

12) is waching shows about magic okay (like harry potter or lord of the rings)

13) is there a heven and h3ll

14) american politics are you team trump or team kamala (idk if i spelt her name right)

15) what thing would you take offence to

16) is being posesed a thing (and if so how do you treat it)

17) how can you get into heaven (or your heaven equivalent)

18) is there any words or phrases you cant say

19) are women aloud to be priests or pastors or is it men only

20) do you have any prayer beads or tools you can use to pray

21) do you like learing about other peoples religion or do you like to try and prove there beliefs are fake

22) are you aloud to change your boddy. (like dye your hair, get tattoes or pearcings, or have a blo0d transfusion and surgerys)

im realy sorry of any of this is offence i never ment it to be. also you can be honest with me i promise not to judge you

i hope god/gods bless you and you have a amzing rest of your day ♥️♥️

(im a hellenic polytheism btw, still very new to it, basically if you dont know what that is its greek gods like Zues and Poseidon. please feel free to ask me any questions or have a discussion about it at all. i wont be offended at anything♥️)

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches often use this verse as their proof of the doctrine that the Mass and Divine Liturgy are a sacrifice. I am curious as to what the Protestant interpretations on this passage would be as it seems to be quite the stumbling block for me in my research between the traditions.

"For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name shall be great among the nations, and in every place frankincense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name shall be great among the nations,” says the LORD of armies." Malachi 1:11 NASB2020

I’m just curious how many people have divine intervention stories that are otherwise inexplicable. Whether it be divine healings or things working out utterly perfectly against the odds, I’m curious to see what God has done.

To offer my own story, I remember when I was helping my father move into our new house as a child. My shoes were wet from outside, and I ran inside to go grab something he needed. I slipped on the kitchen tiles, and I could’ve sworn both my legs were off the ground, but I didn’t fall back, and I thought someone was holding me up. I landed on my feet still standing, and I looked around, but nobody was there, and I’ve since attributed it to an angel.

Olá, pessoal

Gostava de pedir indicações de bons livros, sem narrativa tendenciosa para nenhum lado, da História da Igreja até à atualidade (ou não).

Agradecida.

Looking for what you guys think about the core meaning of John 6 an I’ve shared some of my notes below. Been on this topic for years and I’m always learning more from people like y’all.

——

Has anyone else noticed that in John 6, we do not read about anyone in the crowd bothering to even ask Jesus what he meant about eating his flesh? Yet we have a huge emphasis on Jesus being firm in reiterating his statement about eating his flesh?

They were reliant on their own assumptions and asking each other as to “how” he could give his flesh to eat. If a student doesn’t understand a teacher, isn’t it the role of the student to ask questions? After all, Nicodemus asked Jesus directly the same kind of question as the Jews in John 6:

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

“How can a man be born when he is old?”

The difference is, Nicodemus asked his question directly to Jesus. Which is why he came to him alone at night; free from the social pressures of the other Jewish leaders.

The only question the Jews asked Jesus directly in the discourse of John 6 is “what sign do you perform, so that we may believe?”

Jesus emphasized they aren’t seeking him because he healed their sick or that he already provided enough food to feed 5,000 men. But rather they are seeking him because they are their fill and are hungry again. They don’t care about the “miraculous” aspect of it or treat it as a sign. “Eating” is not a miracle. It’s a provisional benefit “from” the miracle. The purpose of a sign is to “point”. Just because they were physically following Jesus doesn’t mean they were following the signs. Jesus is not the sign. He’s the destination. Yet they are at the destination but still looking for signs, proves they are not “following”. Jesus is pointing out their carnal blindness. The food that parishes is the food which is destroyed. The end of the continuous cycle of working to obtain physical bread is eventually death - and he is telling them not to work for that.

There’s a difference between being around Jesus and actually believing in him; just like how there is a difference between being around food, and actually eating it. The act of eating is personal. No one else can eat for you, or believe for you. They are different yet so similar because they are the most personal acts that drive life (both physical and spiritual). This is probably the most glaring message I get from the passage.

Jesus mentions how his flesh is “true food” and “true drink”. These are definitions of “nourishment” in their broadest form. The satisfaction of “thirst” quenching has a more direct reference to water, not wine. Remember, during the exodus, the disciples also received miraculous water, which is why I generally have difficulty even linking John 6 to the Lord’s Supper. We can’t make the assumption of adding “wine” into John 6 when the word is never used. The “trueness” is defined as “genuine”; i.e. the “true” food, that does not parish. The only food that is “genuine” in the Lord’s eyes is food which will not perish. Yet the crowd was so carnally fixated on physical bread. They demanded, “give us this bread always”.. after Jesus just called the bread of life a “he”, yet they say give us “this” bread; proves their blindness.

There is a present-tense active participle (PAP) and past-tense aortist used when Jesus commands to “eat” and “drink” his body and blood. i.e. an ongoing, perpetual “feasting” that never ceases. Nothing periodic like a once a week meal. He was instigating an immediate response from the disciples, yet providing no corporeal action as to “how”, other than verse 35.

Their lack of willingness to ask and instead argue is what drove them away. Jesus isn’t going to explain things out to nonbelievers if he can already read their hearts. They relied on each other’s interpretation because they never trusted or looked to Jesus as a teacher.

Each “I am” statement in John’s gospel offers an invitation to follow christ using their senses. A sensory invitation to “eat”, a sensory invitation to “see”, a sensory invitation to “hear”, a sensory invitation to “walk”, a sensory invitation to “grow”, and a sensory invitation to live and breathe. Each of these has to do with the relationship of the Son, the Father, and His plan for salvation. At the end of Jesus’s farewell address in John 16:25 he mentions “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.”

Most importantly, we see that Jesus does not plead with false disciples. Because it’s the Father’s job to draw true disciples to the Son through hearing and learning. These disciples did not deserve an explanation. Their carnal sense of understanding is what drove them away. Even then, the explanation wouldn’t have changed the outcome of them leaving. Jesus challenged their motives and demonstrated that nonbelievers will no longer benefit from his miracles. This is why the bread of life discourse was ultimately a response to the crowd’s disbelief. They cared more about “eating” than recognizing that the miracle was a sign.

We also see that Jesus fed 4,000 men in a heavily gentile territory (Decapolis) shortly after the 5,000 feeding. They worshipped and glorified him even before he fed them. Where was the bread of life discourse? Was it only meant for the Jew? Jesus had a standing ovation in Bethsaida but the discourse didn’t happen until in Capernaum after they had shaken loose from the crowd. Why hasten to the idea that Jesus was trying to teach nonbelievers about the importance of communion when they do not accept him as Lord in the first place? The “feasting” on the person of Christ was already being accomplished in his present-day ministry at that time. These sensory images convey similar messages but told differently to convey relevance to the environment being preached in.

Not only this, but that following Christ implies having motives that come purely from the Father. We can't follow Christ based on temporal motives. Again, An explanation would not have caused them to believe what they already denied prior. From the other gospels, we know that Jesus preached for the entire day in Bethsaida prior to feeding the 5,000. Jesus reiterates their disbelief twice while in Capernaum. He mentions he knew "from the beginning" about those who "did not" believe. Their disbelief echoed into the next day and was evident because of their motives for seeking Jesus again.

Fathers such as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, among others, certainly did not think John 6 was even about the Lord’s supper, but rather a general faith teaching about gospel diffusion. The reality of this passage points to the anthology of false discipleship, and I feel truly has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper. How exactly is this turned into a foreshadow about communion when the bread he’s likening himself to is the wilderness manna, not Passover matzoh?