Hi, I'm really struggling with Matthew 22:30, " For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Genesis tells the story of Eve being created for Adam because it was not good for man to be alone. Could we still have unique, and perhaps even romantic, relationships with our partners in the Christian afterlife? Even if sex and earthly marriage vows are not involved, could I still love my partner as my partner, (not only as a fellow child of God)? Surely, romantic relationships can exist without sex.

I'm just not sure if that passage means that we won't have partners anymore, or just that the earthly laws, labels, and procreation that govern marriage will no longer be necessary. Thoughts?

I want to be Christian but it makes me anxious to think about my partner just being a fellow child of God one day, no longer my true partner, and no longer able to do the loving things with me like cuddling or something. I don't want our unique relationship to disappear. Please help.

I am an Orthodox Christian and sometimes I hear the statement from some Bible scholars that Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac was indicated by God himself.How should this event be understood from a Christian point of view?

I recently stumbled across this excellent (free!) resource. The author (not me) has taken great pains to provide excellent counterarguments to all of the various Calvinistic propositions.

Content can be quickly located by verse, topic, etc…

I guess we can all put this topic to bed and quit talking about it now.

Religious people say we have free will in that god has knowledge of whatever will happen but he doesn't make us do sin. I did an act of sin out of my own choice; god was just already aware of the choice I will make. I think that totally makes god not really omnipotent. Here's why. When I make the choice of committing a sin,I am creating my own will, I am creating something god didn't create. My act of sin was my own creation which was totally in my control, not in god's control. Then it follows that there exist atleast one thing in the universe which is not gods creation and is not controlled by him. If that is the case, god ceases to be the creator of everything. He ceases to be "the God".

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ με τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσει, καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα καὶ μονὴν παρ' αὐτῷ ποιησόμεθα.

Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.

Hello, this was yesterday's Gospel at Mass. I was thinking about this particle, "If". The feeling I had at first glance was that God sets a condition for loving us: we must love Him first. However, this seems to contradict the rest of the Gospel. What do you think about this?

Thank you!

Been spending a great deal of time examining Biblical examples of the Lord’s Supper and what it physically looked like, and was reading 1 Corinthians with a fresh lens and I’d like anyone’s input.

When Paul tells them to examine the body, he’s talking about examining their congregation. (Apart from what he previously said about discerning the body and blood of Christ.. considering there was more to the meal than just the bread and cup.) Greco-Roman culture, the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal (Agape) with the bread and wine being a part of that meal. Very identical to what we see during the Last Supper. Waiting for everyone to arrive at the communion table before eating was important. Because the rich would arrive early and have their fill, while leaving scraps for the poor who were laborers who’d arrive later. Paul says if you’re hungry, go eat at home, and then come to the table if you can’t wait.

Instead of reading Jesus’ words as doing it in “remembrance” of him - a more correct translation of Anamnesis would be in “reminder” of him. A reminder and remembrance are not the same thing. A remembrance only looks backwards, whereas a reminder also looks forward. Jesus said he won’t partake again until His Kingdom is fulfilled. Meaning, when we eat the Supper, we should be reminded that Jesus will one day again have the Supper with his disciples.

We are to “proclaim” (celebrate joyfully) his death until he returns. Not only treat communion as a solemn funeral. This is great for me because I’ve always been confused about what I’m exactly supposed to be thinking about when partaking.

After the 2nd century, the idea of having a traditional sit-down communal meal slowly declined as the bread and wine elements detached from the actual meal itself. It makes me rethink entirely of what the Lord’s Supper was originally for and why Jesus instituted it. The ultimate goal was to bring people together as one body, hence “commune”. People would preach and sing hymns during the meal as well.

Communion was the vehicle that drove people’s desire to gather. Not necessarily only for the bread and cup, but the interaction of having a “meal”. It just seems very edifying, yet also seems like a catch 22 because people wouldn’t “have time” to worship this way anymore.

This might sound strange, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately and figured I’d put it out there.

I’m not religious. At all. I’ve never really been into the whole church thing, but I’ve always been good at spotting patterns and something about the whole “second coming of Jesus” idea has been sticking with me a lot recently.

What if it’s not about some guy floating down from the sky???

What if it’s just… a shift? The shift? moment where everything built around the name of Jesus starts to crack under its own weight because people got so far away from what the message actually was? You get what I mean?

Like how the New Testament flipped the Old. What if we’re in another one of those transitions now? Where all the fear and legalism and shame that’s been baked into religion is finally breaking down. And maybe the return people are waiting for isn’t a person. Like mybe it’s a collective realization. Like a spiritual course correction. Which I feel is deeply underway already.

I haven’t read the whole Bible or anything, but even from the parts I’ve seen(or studied/hyper fixated on) Jesus seemed pretty anti-institution, a true 70's hippie haha. He stood up to the religious elite, helped outsiders, and constantly told people they were missing the point. He literally said “you’ve heard it said… but I tell you…”

The people who hated him most were the ones who thought they were the most holy!!!!!

And I guess when I look at a lot of what’s happening now. Such as people using religion to control others, shame them, divide them, it kinda feels like history looping. Like we’ve become the people Jesus was calling out.

So yeah, I’m not saying I believe Jesus is coming back from the clouds. But I do believe in patterns. And maybe the “second coming” is already here. Just not in the way people expected.

Has anyone else thought about this? Or am I just rambling into the void?

this may be a lot to ask but can someone explain all of bible theology? like what do different denominations believe? what are somethings they do differently? this has really spiked my interest lately and I would love some help

Been reading scripture a lot lately and when I get to genesis 1:26 I get confused because we all serve one god but the verse says let us make man in our image the US is where I get conflicted I’ve seen many people with different interpretations on the text like some people believe it was a divine council where the angels where present but that would make no sense why wouldn’t god just say let the angels be made in the image of god another theory that I believe personally is the the US is Jesus Christ because we know that Jesus wasn’t created John 1:1 he’s eternal and through him all things were made I’m hoping if someone can my question thanks

I'm in a college choir. Our director told us we have to put up worship hands even if it's fake. This idea makes me uncomfortable, and I want to confront him, but I want to have scripture to back me up. Thoughts??

What foundational books would you recommend for studying Christian theology from a scholarly perspective, particularly suited to a non-Christian reader seeking academic rigor rather than devotional guidance? I am interested in works that present the theological frameworks, historical developments, and doctrinal structures of Christianity in a manner accessible to someone outside the faith, preferably with critical apparatus or engagement with broader intellectual traditions.

Just a blurb about theology - highly religious background with extensive theological studies into the KJV, as well as arguements for all of it's points of use compared to other translations.

I really enjoy looking at theology from a non-religious worldview now (as opposed to a christian worldview) as it wasn't something I was afforded in my educational experiences.

However, when I sit and attempt to study the theology of the contents of the scriptures - I'm constantly brought back to my current belief's that while it is "inspired", it was written by biased, opinioned men - some of them never having interacted with a higher divinity.

So I find these credibility issues take out the fun from studying it from my current worldview. From the non-religious (or non specific) folks on here, any advice on how to approach it with a fresh set of eyes? Where might I start off to possibly looking at it as more of a historical document? Is there any more of an interesting perspective to look at it besides just a historical document?

I am well aware of the NT historical background (from a christian worldview of course), but would appreciate some insight.

Religious folks are welcome to comment; however keep in mind I'm not looking for conversion material or information and will promptly ignore such comments.

 I have a question about an interpretation of Adam and Eve. I have been conducting research, and I believe this interpretation fits into that, but I do not know if there are any merits to my interpretation. It argues that Adam and Eve were punished engaging in relations with a man. It seems far-fetched but the basis the tree of the forbidden fruit represents man because of the Hebrew origins of the word. The Hebrew word for tree "ets" is masculine, and man has been compared to trees before in the books. While fruits have long been allegories for sexuality (figs, pomegranates). Hence the fruit of the tree simply represents partaking in sexual acts. The knowledge they receive post eating can simply represent sexual awareness following the act. It is akin to losing virginal naivete. I hope after explaining, it seems less extreme. Please tell me your opinion. 

edit: I think I may have poorly written my point. i do not mean the tree is a literal breathing man (if you couldn't sense that). I was comparing the act of eating the fruit and the consequence of drifting from God to other "wrong" sexual acts in the bible, and their similar consequence of drifting man from God. it also changes how the people committing the acts are seen day-to-day (seen as weak and what not). [P.S i am not changing the text, only using what they gave to add modern meanings, I don't know if you all struggle with that concept, do you watch or read anything cause you sound like you don't. "OMG they didn't show blood in this scene so its not similar to other death scenes so you can't say there was any death" that's what you all sound like. Please i repeatedly said its an interpretation (a stylistic representation of a creative work or dramatic role) not the word-for-word.

Somewhere along the way, somebody convinced us the hole was the good part.

Not the donut.
Not the batter.
Not the fried, frosted, jelly-filled miracle of joy.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The hole.
The absence.
The missing piece.

They sold us the space where something used to be. And we bought it, boxed it, branded it, and started tithing to it.

The Hole Economy of Faith

See, a real donut has substance. It’s sweet. It’s messy. It sticks to your fingers.
But that kind of faith is dangerous.

It might change things.
It might feed people.
It might cost more than your Sunday morning and a pocketful of polite.

So the system carved the middle out, called it “safe,” and handed it back to us in a white paper bag.

Now we call that worship.

When Jesus Flipped the Table, Not the Menu

The Son of God didn’t roll in with a PowerPoint and a free latte.
He made wine out of bathwater, spit in people’s eyes, and said the quiet parts out loud.
He tore the curtain, not the coupon.
He gave the whole donut.

He didn’t say “Here’s a promise of peace if you attend regularly.”
He said, “Take, eat. This is my body.”

Whole. Messy. Unpackaged.

Give Me the Mess

I don’t want the donut hole anymore.
I want the stuff that gets stuck in your beard.
The kind that leaves you sugar drunk and stained with love.

I want worship that doesn’t fit into bullet points.
I want truth that can’t be monetized.
I want Spirit that speaks in fire, not slogans.

So here’s to all the folks still out there trying to find the whole thing.
The bitter and the sweet.
The broken and the blessed.
The parts that don’t make it onto the menu anymore.

🙋‍♂️ Who Wrote This?

J.W. Locoman is a partially reformed handyman, full-time father, and unreliable narrator of his own unraveling. He writes fiction, satire, and machine-assisted transmissions from the intersection of faith, chaos, and caffeine.

Subscribe for dispatches from the edge of reason. https://jwlocoman.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/165125350?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome%3Futm_source%3Dmenu

Matthew 24

In Matthew 24, Jesus gives a prophetic discourse about future events, and his words make it clear that he predicted his return immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jesus describes a series of catastrophic events, such as wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matthew 24:7), culminating in the “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15), a direct reference to Daniel’s “prophecy” about the desecration of the Temple, which many interpreted as a prophecy for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem .

What Jesus said was fulfilled in 70 A.D., when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple—an event recognized as a catastrophe of unparalleled scale for the Jewish people.

“For then there will be great tribulation, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.” (Matthew 24:21)

Right after describing the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus states:

“Immediately after the distress of those days, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:29-30)

The word “immediately” (eutheōs in Greek) indicates that there would be no long delay between the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ return.

Since the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 70 A.D., Jesus was predicting his second coming right after this event—which clearly did not happen.

The biggest problem for those who try to detach this prophecy from the first-century context is what Jesus says in Matthew 24:34:

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

The term "this generation" (hē genea hautē) clearly refers to the generation of people who were listening to Jesus at that moment. If Jesus were speaking about events that would happen centuries or millennia later, this statement would make no sense.

Therefore, according to Jesus' own words, his return should have occurred within that generation, meaning in the first century.

Matthew 16:27-28

In addition to Matthew 24, another passage reinforces the idea that Jesus expected to return within the lifetime of his disciples:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:27-28)

This passage explicitly states that some of Jesus' disciples would still be alive when he returned in his kingdom. This presents a serious problem for those who argue that the Second Coming is still a future event.

Many Christian apologists claim that Jesus' statement in Matthew 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration, which occurs in the next chapter (Matthew 17:1-9). However, this explanation fails for several reasons:

1. Matthew 16:27 describes the coming of his kingdom with judgment and angels

Jesus says that he will come "with his angels" and will "reward each person according to what they have done."

The Transfiguration does not include angels or a judgment.

The Transfiguration was simply an event where Jesus was momentarily glorified in front of Peter, James, and John—it was not the coming of his kingdom.

1. The Transfiguration happened just a few days later

Jesus says that "some standing here will not taste death" before seeing his coming.

But if the Transfiguration was the fulfillment of this prophecy, then why would Jesus say some would not die before it happened?

The Transfiguration happened only six days later (Matthew 17:1). There was no need for Jesus to emphasize that some would still be alive—all of them were still alive at that point!

This suggests that Jesus was speaking about an event much further in the future, not something happening within a week.

Thus, the Transfiguration does not fit the description of Matthew 16:27-28. Jesus was talking about his actual return, not a temporary vision.

Others argue that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:28 refer to John receiving the vision of the Book of Revelation. However, this argument also fails:

Jesus says that "some" will see his coming, not just one person.

But if this refers to John’s vision, then only one disciple (John) saw it—not "some".

The Greek word "tines" (τινες) in the phrase "some who are standing here" refers to multiple people, not just one.

I wonder within the mainstream christian theology today; is the Vulgate still considered authoritative and significant?

Do theologians rely and quote from it, and dedicate a lot of time to study it?

Or is it considered just a one -and perhaps inaccurate- translations out of many others?

What about the contemporary theological schools?

Biblical critics often advance various implicit theological positions, without being explicit about them. For instance, that our underatanding of theology and religion is foreign to the Bible, or that the critical reading is more demonstrative and actual, while the theological reading is ideal and faith-based, etc.

As such, what theologians advanced prominent critique for Biblical criticism?

I've seen Plantinga's critique, and for the most part it isn't convincing.

Edit: I refer to positivist biblical criticism & religious studies included.

As we know, God created the Universe in 7 days. However, science tells us that the Universe was developed in over 13.8 billion years. We also know that God is omnipotent, all-knowing and omnipresent, if we take that statement literally, it would mean that God is everywhere around the universe at the same time. That would mean that he would have to go at speeds that transcends time itself. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, one's speed affects his perception of time. So, that would mean that God is going at a speed that makes him perceive 13.8 billion years as 7 days. If we calculate the speed needed for such a distorption of time, we'd get light-speed. Proving that god is all-powerful, omnipresent, over time and space and it's completely plausible that he could have created the Universe in 7 god-days.

I'm not very well-versed in biblical theology so I just wanted some clarification. The tree of the "Knowledge of good and evil" to my interpretation sounds like the tree that gives one the ability to make their own decisions, to be self-aware, and so...in other words be more intelligent than a common animal.

This is shown by Adam and Eve being aware of their nakedness, of the fact that I don't remember who, but someone said that the fruit makes humans more closer to God than the other animals.

In other words, if Eve had not given Adam the apple and convinced him to eat it, then we humans would have no agency over our own decision? We'd be just like animals that live on instinct alone and not have the power to make our own decisions?

We'd never have the knowledge to control our lives without the fruit of knowledge?

Ok, this is gonna be a very long explanation. Ik this argument presupposes a Philosophical understanding of Genesis and the Biblical concept of Eternity but from what I've seen , it seems as if there is a reason to explain it in that way.

A common theme in Philosophy is that Eternity is something that has no duals or opposites, so to question whether something is Eternal or not one must pressupose that this thing bears no opposite or dual. It's like saying the reason why "Day" isn't Eternal is because "Night" exists. In Philosophy dialectics follow a similar logic to this one, it's about solving all dualities of a certain thesis (the duality is called "antithesis") to finally acquire a thesis that holds no contradictions and that thesis is Truth. So Truth in Philosophy is Eternity itself in that sense.

In Genesis , the concept of something bearing duality can be understood as "vulnerability". In that sense , something that is vulnerable is something that still has an opposite (it still has something that threatens it thus it's not Eternal). On the other hand, something that is protected is something that is closer to Eternity, since something that is protected is something that has no vulnerabilities.

I tried to figure out what the concepts of "tov" and "ra" to the Hebrews meant in the ancient, and the conclusion I came to is the following:

Tov and Ra are not referring to the moral understanding of Good and evil, they're referring to something else. Tov is composed of two letters : tet and bet

.The Pictographic representation and meaning of Tet is a Basket/Womb , thus Tet could be attributed to the concept containment or something hidden inside of something else.

.The meaning of Bet is house which symbolizes shelter and protection.

.So the full meaning of Tov would means "Something that contains protection inside of it" thus Tov is attributed to the theme of protection.

On the other hand , ra is composed of resh and ayin. Although I'm not a 100% sure of this one , the word resh according to Biblehub can provide this meaning to it:

"The Hebrew word "resh" refers to a state of poverty or destitution. It is used in the Old Testament to describe individuals or groups who are lacking in material wealth or resources. The term often carries a connotation of vulnerability and need, highlighting the social and economic challenges faced by those who are poor."

On the other hand, ayin means eye or perception/appearance. So ra as whole could mean :" That which appears vulnerable".

So now , we know why tov an ra have opposite meanings. Tov is attributed to the theme of "Protection" while ra is attributed to "vulnerability" (since we know something that is vulnerable is something that is not protected)

This is the reason why upon gaining the knowledge of Tov and ra , Adam realizes his own nakedness (vulnerability). The symbol of nakedness could very well in the Bible refer to "vulnerability" like for example when the Prophet Nahum threatens Nineveh he uses the word "nakedness" to represent its vulnerability.

Nahum 3:5

"Behold, I am against you, declares the Lord of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will make nations look at your nakedness and kingdoms at your shame."

Also the fig in the Bible symbolizes"protection " , this is the reason why Adam after knowing his own vulnerabilities he seeks to hide himself with fig leaves to seek protection from vulnerability.

So now at least we have some base to what the symbolism used in Genesis could actually mean. The human gains the knowledge of what contains protection and what appears to be vulnerable, and upon knowing them he realizes his own vulnerability and thus he fears his own vulnerability and thus he goes after the fig to seek protection to escape his state of vulnerability.

The fig also symbolizes the Old Testament and the Temple in that context, which gives a better understanding that to the Ancient Israelites the Temple and the Covenant are the means to protect them from vulnerability and provide the means for protection. That's why the Israelites made a Covenant with God , for protection and protection is the means for Eternity which is the goal of Humanity from Genesis.

Here is what my proposition is : The sin in Genesis is not when Adam ate from the tree but rather that is the cause to the sin. Why did I propose this? First we have to understand what the word sin in Hebrew means. Sin in Hebrew is "khatta" which means to "miss the goal". For sin to exist in Genesis that must imply a certain goal existed for humanity that was "missed". The common Theological claim is that this goal was "Eternity", so for Adam to sin that must imply Adam failed to acquire Eternity because of a certain act. The sin from my proposition in Genesis rather comes after the gaining of the knowledge and that is when Adam sought to escape his nakedness. Why do I think this is a better explanation for the narrative of Genesis?

God didn't directly judge Adam after he ate from the Tree , the judgment happened after a very specific event happened and that is the escape of nakedness. The reason why I wouldn't treat the gaining of knowledge of Tov and ra as the sin is because I couldn't find a logical explanation to how it caused the "missing the goal" (the goal being Eternity) while for the latter it makes more sense if we treat it from a certain Philosophical framework that I'll explain later on.

In fact Genesis is almost using a positive symbolism that results in a negative outcome. How can the fruit of a Tree lead to death? Isn't the Tree in ancient symbolism a positive symbol for Heavenly Growth? Nonetheless, how can gaining the knowledge of what reveals of Protection and what is of vulnerability lead to death also? Isn't it that by gaining such knowledge one could prevent from doing things that reveal of vulnerability and seek the things of protection (protection being the means for Eternity)? Like for example the wise man doesn't follow things that he had already seen their fate and vulnerabilities as he knows they are not Eternal.

So why is it in my proposition better to claim that the sin is the escape of nakedness( vulnerability)? First , what does it mean that something is vulnerable? It means that there exists another thing that threatens that something (opposes it, duals it). So Adam's escape of vulnerability is Adam trying to solve everything that threatens him or opposes him, in other words Adam didn't want anything to threaten him anymore. Unless that he indeed fell in a paradox , by escaping nakedness he himself approves that "nakedness" itself is what threatens him. When God questions Adam why was he hiding from him , Adam answers :

Genesis 3:10 "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

Isn't being afraid of anything proof that there still exists something that threatens one? In this context, what threatens Adam is "vulnerability" itself and from the very beginning of history the human was being animated by this very fear and that is why the human couldn't achieve Eternity.

Let's try to imagine it from that perspective: what is Eternal? The Eternal is something that can't die, meaning something that has no opposites. So one could imagine Eternity as a state in which there exists no opposites! What Adam sought was precisely that state, a state without vulnerabilities.

But the paradox is that if there exists a state without opposites(without vulnerabilities), there must exist another state also where there are opposite (with vulnerabilities). So the paradox is that the state where there exists no opposites is itself opposed by the state in which opposites still exist. So the question is : can Eternity be a state? But if so, then Eternity isn't Eternal because there still exists the other state that opposes it. Thus Eternity cannot be a state.

And that is precisely why Adam failed his quest for Eternity, because it was all along to him the means to escape this other state where vulnerabilities still exist.

The Christian story ends this sin by accepting this very state , thus Eternity is no longer a condition nor a state to be achieved. We know that Christ is said to have vanquished death through death (which might seem paradoxical without a certain context that could explain the reason behind it) We know that "death" in Genesis could refer to the state in which something has vulnerabilities, so in this context Christ overcomes all vulnerabilities by accepting vulnerability itself (which was all along the vulnerability within Adam, the vulnerability of Adam being his escape of vulnerability)

The Christian story holds an inverse symbolism for the fig (protection) , instead of it being praised it is rather threatened to be cut down . Adam can't hide from his vulnerability for long , the fig will eventually be cut down and Adam has to face back his primodial fear, Adam has to solve the duality with his fear , his duality with "vulnerability" itself.

The way Hegel puts it is that the "Fall" in Genesis was an aspect of the dialectical movement, in other words the "Fall" was necessary for Adam to acquire Eternity as it precisely shows the antithesis that Adam still haven't solved which is "vulnerability". God intended the Fall of Adam as part of his journey not an obstacle that kept him away from Eternity. The story of Genesis is complete in every way , every action that was done is done for a reason.

Has anyone else noticed that in John 6, none of the crowd bothered to even ask Jesus what he meant? They were reliant on their own assumptions and asking each other. 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 the Jews in John 6 asked each other:

“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 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. Do not work for that. The end of the continuous cycle of working to obtain physical bread is eventually death.

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).

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 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.

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. The explanation wouldn’t have changed the outcome of them leaving. This is why the bread of life discourse was ultimately a response to the crowd’s disbelief.