Search results

Likewise. Regards and all the best

You're welcome :smilewinkgrin:

You are quite correct. This is not a doctrine of man, but of God

Agreed re the body seated at the table. But what about what's on the table? That's where we need to talk about what you mean by 'literal'.

Thanks for the candid responses.

We need to talk about what you mean by 'literal' in order to explore this point further.

Nope, I've answered your question about redemption and time, I've answered your point about the tense of the Bread of Life Discourse - see v.51 in particular and what I said about that. You have disagreed with my answers - fair enough, that's what a discussion/ debate board is all about - but...

1. Yes. 2. Yes 3. The Apostles partook of His Body and Blood. In order to fully answer your question, you need to define what you mean by 'actually and literally' and then we will need to talk about accidents and substance. 4. No - the explanation for this will be found in our exploration of #3...

Ok, hands up here how many objected to/ disagreed with the USA PATRIOT Act?

<Sigh> I've already given the evidence for the correct (IMO) contextual interpretation of the Bread of Life Discourse. I don't propose to go over it again for you; doubtless you will continue to apparently wilfully ignore what I've said.

I don't have anything particularly to hide but I would be uneasy at this level of government intrusion into our private lives. There's something that just doesn't smell right about it... And I'm sure our government is up to it too, doubtless under the guise of national security.

I'm not ignoring anything that's in the text. I am disagreeing with your particular spin on it because I - and most Christians - believe it to be erroneous and novel, that I don't think the text means what you want it to mean. See the difference? I've already said I disagree with your...

She broke the rule. End of. No apology. We can debate the rights and wrongs of the rule if we like and how much cleavage is too much (put it this way, when I was a healthy late teen boy, I would have found it difficult to look her in the eye...) but that's another matter.

The Words of Institution are nothing to do with food (or FOOD if you prefer shouty capitals) and everything to do with Jesus. If you leave the rabbit trail about food (or FOOD) and actually deal with Jesus' Nature and thus the nature of His words rather than taking refuge in insulting tones, we...

Wait! What?! So are you now denying the supernatural, the miraculous? 'Metaphor' now, what next?! An allegorical reading of Scripture, a la Origen? The first 11 chapters of Genesis as myth? You're sounding like a liberal.

You do understand that God is outside of time, don't you? FOOD (why the caps?) words are nothing to do with "This is My Body, this is My Blood". These are precatory words because they are spoken by the very Word of God Himself.

Nope, I'm not calling Christ a liar. I fully understand the concept of prospective-retrospective justification, unlike most evangelicals I know (who are, admittedly, mainly dispies). I just don't think you can make it mean what you think it means... And you haven't really addressed the...

Evangelicalism has the same dilemma though: faith before the Crucifixion is of no avail (no atonement, you see?). So what's your point? And you haven't addressed the problem of the Words of Institution, so quod scripsi, scripsit.

To reply to you and DHK, you have to read the Jn 6 Bread of Life Discourse (a) in its entirety and (b) in conjunction with the Words of Institution in the Synoptic Gospels: "This is My Body, this is My Blood". So, when read in tandem with "I am the Bread of Life", the meaning is clear: this is...

Indeed. And someone who responds with un-Christian insults and accusations of lying is really not worth engaging with.