Catholic Inventions?

[BobRyan]

Doubting Thomas --
you might as well be a gnostic--they thought the physical flesh was worthless as well. You might want to consider what Christ meant here again.

Let's try to keep your comments IN context with John 6.

"They thought EATING human flesh was WORTHLESS for gaining ETERNAL LIFE" is that what you meant to say?

If so - then you are making the VERY point Christ makes!! I am happy to see some kind of progress in your argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I notice that in the RC response to this subject -- attempt after attempt is made to GET AWAY from the context and "details" of John 6.

How "unnexpected".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB]
In the book of John the reader STARTs with the definition for FLESH - that is WORD. The WORD became FLESH (– came down out of heaven )- John 1:14.

]

Umm...John's not giving a "definition" of flesh; he's stating the Eternal Word of God (the second Person of the Trinity) became flesh in time in the man Jesus Christ. It's this same flesh (and blood) that He gives us in the Eucharist in the forms of bread and wine.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

"They thought EATING human flesh was WORTHLESS for gaining ETERNAL LIFE" is that what you meant to say?

If so - then you are making the VERY point Christ makes!! I am happy to see some kind of progress in your argument.

In Christ,

Bob

I am making the point that Christ makes, a point that you keep missing. Once again you're holding to the fallacy of false dilemma. Christ is neither advocating crass cannibalism (the straw man you keep erecting and what the Jews misunderstood Him as saying) nor the Zwinglian metaphorical view in this passage. Christ gives us His flesh and blood in the bread and the wine, not by hacking off His limbs and throwing them to us. The disciples, who stayed with Christ knowing He had the words of life, finally learned what He meant at the Last Supper. Not gross cannibalism. Not empty metaphors. But the actual communion of His real body and blood in the forms of bread and wine. Amen.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ is NOT talking about people having to BITE HIM?? You mean you AGREE??

Wonderful!!

So "biting Christ's flesh" IS NOT the topic of John 6 - but it IS the symbolism HE uses!!

Notice that He does not SAY - "some day in the FUTURE you will need to BITE ME But NOT YET".

(I think the Catholic argument kinda wants to go there - but it is not in the text).

HE DOES NOT say "my FLESH will one day turn into Bread - and in that future day when you EAT the bread it will TURN BACK INTO ME so you can have eternal life".

(I think the Catholic argument was kinda HOPING that text could be inserted in John 6. But it is ALSO not in the chapter!)

Of course all this has already been pointed out about half a dozen times!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Not empty metaphors. But the actual communion of His real body and blood in the forms of bread and wine. Amen.

"
You have to admit it would have really been great IF Christ had held up some communion bread (or MENTIONED COMMUNION AT ALL) in John 6 saying - SEE THIS bread - this Bread will someday turn into ME -- THEN when you EAT this bread you will gain eternal life just by EATING!!

It is all in knowing WHAT TO EAT!"


Instead of THAT focus Christ TURNS the John 6 chapter into a focus on "HIS WORD" being SPIRIT and LIFE.

So the ANSWER to HOW to obtain LIFE (which was the discussion about eating Christ's flesh) turns out to be HEARING and accepting HIS WORD which IS Spirit and GIVES LIFE!!

Christ GIVES the solution Himself!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB]
In the book of John the reader STARTs with the definition for FLESH - that is WORD. The WORD became FLESH (– came down out of heaven )- John 1:14.

]

Umm...John's not giving a "definition" of flesh; he's stating the Eternal Word of God (the second Person of the Trinity) became flesh in time in the man Jesus Christ. It's this same flesh (and blood) that He gives us in the Eucharist in the forms of bread and wine. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem for Catholicism is that John BEGINS with the assignment of WORD to FLESH AND THEN leads us into John 6 Where Christ makes the argument that EATING LITERAL FLESH is pointless for gaining eternal life! Rather the WORDS of Christ give LIFE!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

John 6 begins with the error of the people who are only focused on "Something TO EAT". Christ takes them from the physical - literal - temporal topic of LITERALL EATING for life -- to the SPIRITUAL dimension of the WORD that GIVES real eternal life. EATING as in Spiritually consuming the WORD of Life!

He points to the illustration of manna - which has the Lesson of Deut 8:3 "MAN does NOT LIVE by BREAD alone but BY EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD".

The SAME LESSON in Deut 8 is being REPEATED in John 6 by the WORD that was MADE flesh!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Christ is NOT talking about people having to BITE HIM?? You mean you AGREE??

Wonderful!!

So "biting Christ's flesh" IS NOT the topic of John 6 - but it IS the symbolism HE uses!!

Actually "munching, and chewing" His flesh is what He is talking about (as I said before, "trogo" in v.54 means "eat/crunch/chew"), just not in the crass carnal manner you keep suggesting.

Notice that He does not SAY - "some day in the FUTURE you will need to BITE ME But NOT YET".

You're splitting hairs. Any partaking of Christ's flesh and blood would be after He said it. The context does nothing to rule out His giving His body and blood in the future at the Last Supper despite your confident assertions.

HE DOES NOT say "my FLESH will one day turn into Bread - and in that future day when you EAT the bread it will TURN BACK INTO ME so you can have eternal life".

Nope, but He explains Himself later to the disciples who trusted Him enough to stick around.

Of course all this has already been pointed out about half a dozen times!

Yes, you "pointed" out something--that you repeatedly have missed the gist of what Christ is saying.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE DOES NOT say "my FLESH will one day turn into Bread - and in that future day when you EAT the bread it will TURN BACK INTO ME so you can have eternal life".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT -
Nope, but He explains Himself later to the disciples who trusted Him enough to stick around.

Exactly!! In vs 63 He says that eating "literal FLESH IS WORTHLESS - my WORDS are Spirit and are Life"!!

That has been the point all along!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
John 6 begins with the error of the people who are only focused on "Something TO EAT". Christ takes them from the physical - literal - temporal topic of LITERALL EATING for life -- to the SPIRITUAL dimension of the WORD that GIVES real eternal life. EATING as in Spiritually consuming the WORD of Life!

You're right--they were focused on what to eat. They just saw Him feed 5000. Christ, the Word of Life Incarnate, says that eating His flesh (food indeed) and drinking His blood (drink indeed) is what will result in eternal life (in contrast to the manna in the wilderness). However, Christ becomes more and more literal through out the discourse changing from "phago" (simply, "to eat") to "trogo" in v.54 ("chew/crunch"). He, the Word of Life, would indeed give His literal flesh and blood for the life of the world and His followers could partake of His flesh and blood for eternal life in the forms of bread and wine. Amen.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE DOES NOT say "my FLESH will one day turn into Bread - and in that future day when you EAT the bread it will TURN BACK INTO ME so you can have eternal life".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DT -
Nope, but He explains Himself later to the disciples who trusted Him enough to stick around.

Exactly!! In vs 63 He says that eating "literal FLESH IS WORTHLESS - my WORDS are Spirit and are Life"!!

That has been the point all along! </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not the point, His words are spirit and life as opposed to carnality. His literal flesh is most certainly NOT worthless. Misinterpreting Him in a crass, carnal way (to suppose cannibalism) results in missing out on the spiritual (NOT "metaphorical") way in which we actually partake of His body and blood and that is in the very physical (and literal) act of eating the bread and drinking the wine which is the actual communion of His real Body and blood respectively.

 

[DHK]

DT,
Are you "the salt of the earth?"
If so, in what way?
Do the rest of us, as believers, literally partake of you? How? Please explain.
DHK

 

[john6:63]

Bob’s misunderstanding vs. 63, but its expected since SDAs use the writings of Ellen G. White to interpret the Scriptures, her writings are the final arbitrator of doctrine. If Bob is reading from The Clear Word Bible then it is understandable why the Word of God is unclear to him.

How could Christ in John 6:63 say to eat His flesh and then state that His flesh is of no avail? Obviously, this refers to mans inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. In John 8:15-16 Jesus says to His opponents that You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me. So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

Furthermore, were the disciples to understand the statement by Jesus: The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life as nothing but a circumlocution for symbolic? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 flesh does not refer to Christ’s own flesh, the context makes this perfectly clear, but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. The words I have spoken to you are spirit does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic.” The word spirit is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father, see John 6:37, 44–45, 65.

As I have said in the past, Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 states: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? So when Catholics receive Communion they are actually participating in the body and blood of Christ, just as Christ’s disciples did. If these were meant to only be symbolic, then why did Paul have to state in 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29: Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. How could eating mere bread and drinking mere wine unworthily be so serious?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
DT,
Are you "the salt of the earth?"
If so, in what way?
Do the rest of us, as believers, literally partake of you? How? Please explain.
DHK

DHK, you know nothing about the culture of Jesus’ day do you? Those whom Jesus was preaching to that sunny day on the Mount knew exactly what Jesus was referring to when He said: Ye are the salt of the earth…

Christ’s disciples are like salt, b/c they are precious. Salt was a very valued commodity. Roman soldiers were often times paid with salt; ever heard the phrase: worth his salt.

Also, disciples like salt, have a preserving influence. Salt can preserve meats, and to retard decay and Christians should have a preserving influence in our culture.

So the Jews knew Jesus wasn’t being literal in Matthew 5:13, you don’t read them questioning Jesus as they did in John 6 do you? The Jews in John 6 knew exactly what he was talking about, hence they left, again they were thinking on a human level, just as your are now, and I have in the past.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
What “details” must be faithfully ignored in John 6 to hold to the RC doctrine on eating the Flesh of Christ?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
#1. Ignore the context starting with vs 25-40 Where Christ is explicitly redirecting His followers AWAY from Earthly concern about food.
#2. Ignore the "Lesson of manna" that Christ references in 31-51 which is spelled out for us by God in Deut 8:3 – avoid God’s own summary of that lesson.
#3. Ignore Christ’s own summary of the discussion in John 6:63 saying that the term “FLESH” as he has used in his discussion so far (exegesis: Context determines meaning) “is worthless" for something to literally “bite” and then get eternal life.
#4. Ignore the detail in vs 43-58 that Christ is not stating “that the truth is a FUTURE truth” but rather is already true. He is Already the bread that already came down and they must already eat His flesh. He does not say “someday in the future you must eat My flesh”.
#5. Ignore the John 6:68 detail of Peter's summary conclusion of the "lesson learned" and the fact that it does not take the too-literal view of the faithLESS disciples in 6:52,60, but rather matches perfectly with Christ’s own clear statement as to how we literally obtain life in 6:63.
#6. Ignore the Matt 16 event where Christ scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of both bread and leaven too literally. MAtt 16:6-12. And do not connect that with the fact that He says nothing against the faithFULL disciple’s understanding/view in John 6.
#7. Ignore the detail of John 6 whereby the taking of Christ literally by the faithFULL disciples and then immediately obeying – (as the RC claims they should) – the gospel would end in John 6 with their biting His literal flesh for He said “My Flesh IS real food”.
#8. Ignore the detail of John 6 making no mention at all of a future Lord’s supper or Communion service needed for Christ’s words to “Then” become true at that future time.

What “details” in the book of John itself must be ignored to hold to the RC teaching on eating the Flesh of Christ?

#1 Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the connection between Flesh and The Word is set explicitly as the starting context of the entire book.
#2.Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the disciples have access to the “literally broken body of Christ” after the cross and in preparing it for burial – take no bites out of it.

#3. Ignore the same model of symbolism followed by literal as we see in John 11. “Lazarus SLEEPS, I go that I may wake him” and then plainly “Lazarus is Dead” as they took Him “too literally”.

All of these steps to ignore what is in the chapter must be combined to cut-and-paste from the chapter in snippets and still get what the RCC “needs” to find..

But - it must be noted that many will not take those steps to ignore all those details. What then? What if someone is paying attention to the details above?
How will the case be made for the Eucharist from John 6 in that situation? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
DT,
Are you "the salt of the earth?"
If so, in what way?
Do the rest of us, as believers, literally partake of you? How? Please explain.
DHK

DHK, you know nothing about the culture of Jesus’ day do you? Those whom Jesus was preaching to that sunny day on the Mount knew exactly what Jesus was referring to when He said: Ye are the salt of the earth…

Christ’s disciples are like salt, b/c they are precious. Salt was a very valued commodity. Roman soldiers were often times paid with salt; ever heard the phrase: worth his salt.

Also, disciples like salt, have a preserving influence. Salt can preserve meats, and to retard decay and Christians should have a preserving influence in our culture.

So the Jews knew Jesus wasn’t being literal in Matthew 5:13, you don’t read them questioning Jesus as they did in John 6 do you? The Jews in John 6 knew exactly what he was talking about, hence they left, again they were thinking on a human level, just as your are now, and I have in the past. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah, very good. So the Catholic can be hypocritical.
He can see the metaphor in Matthew when Jesus speaks of being the "salt of the earth," that it does have a spiritual meaning--being a preservative in this earth--a restrainer of evil. But he must interpret the metaphor in John 6, as if it is no metaphor at all. This is not good hermeneutics, nor is it rightly dividing the Word of truth. You are able to apply spiritual truth in one place, but not in another. Why are you not able to be consistent?
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

Here is the website
http://www.secondexodus.com/

 

[Eric B]

Salt was a very valued commodity. Roman soldiers were often times paid with salt; ever heard the phrase: worth his salt.

Actually; the very word "salary" is derived from "salt money"!

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
Aah, very good. So the Catholic can be hypocritical.
He can see the metaphor in Matthew when Jesus speaks of being the "salt of the earth," that it does have a spiritual meaning--being a preservative in this earth--a restrainer of evil. But he must interpret the metaphor in John 6, as if it is no metaphor at all. This is not good hermeneutics, nor is it rightly dividing the Word of truth. You are able to apply spiritual truth in one place, but not in another. Why are you not able to be consistent?
DHK

The Jews UNDERSTOOD what Jesus meant when He talked of salt in His sermon on the mount. At the beginning of Jesus’ sermon in the Temple in John 6, the Jews at first thought He was speaking figurative, BUT did Jesus stop there? NO, Jesus knew that they still didn’t get what He was speaking of, so Jesus repeats Himself again and again. The Jews now UNDERSTOOD what Jesus meant, b/c now it seems like Jesus was getting fed up with having to repeat Himself, thus Jesus drives His point home by saying My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed…he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood…

I just don’t understand why Jesus would let a disagreement over a metaphor drive off some of his disciples and why Jesus would let a metaphor offend people. Seems like to me He would’ve re-explained Himself better to clear up any misunderstandings. He didn’t…

I don’t know how I overlooked this simple fact all these years. Maybe I just didn’t want to believe I don’t know, but you don’t have to have an Theological degree to see the obvious.