Eucharist Vs John 6

[Charles33]

Bob Ryan said:

For the exegetically sound principle of following the FIRST order context - this literally shouts the meaning in the text itself.

Ok, are you saying that we have to read and understand Matthew first because it is before John in your NT in order of pages? Or that Mattew was written first? In all honesty, if this was so clear that it SHOUTED your understanding, the first 1500 years of the the Christian Church would have been Evangelicals like yourself. Now this sounds reactive, but in all honestly, it is not as clear as you seem to think. First, it is a newer uderstanding of the texts, and as such by default, it needs pretty deep and involved exegesis to beleive what you are saying.

we have INSTEAD the contrast of the literalists that left and those that accepted the symbolic meaning "YOU have the WORDS of LIFE" as the true meaning behind the John 6 lesson that you need to EAT Christ's flesh to have LIFE.

No. What we have are the literalists who still did not understand completely what Jesus meant stay in faith, and those who could not accept it leave. We later have the Last Supper and similar words from Christ about his body and blood bringing even more clarity. We have the teaching of the Apostles follow with the Eucharist being the center of worship every week. We have the writting of the early christians confirming this belief.

What you have a disconnect issue with is this statement of Jesus, which I have tried to answer with you and deal with, but you think I am ignoring you...

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; (2) the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

This is beautiful. Jesus is not refering to His flesh here, as he stated earlier that the Bread which He would give us is His flesh. Are you saying that Jesus' bread profits nothing? Jesus is refering to mans flesh. Our ability under the Law to do good and have riteousness.

But now, Jesus is saying that he will be giving us His flesh as he stated in the passage, but this will have the Spirit and life. It is the spirtual nature of his body that will give life.

Why would Jesus say the Bread he will give is His flesh, and then immediately say that the flesh profits nothing, unless of course, he was refereing to our flesh? Either way, your exegesis falls a bit.

In verse 63, If Jesus meant our flesh, the flesh of those standing around, or works/flesh, then He is not saying that His flesh is worthless, indeed, He said the Bread He would give us was His flesh. This would mean that His flesh is as he said, the Bread of Life, His flesh, and that it is spiritual.

If on the other hand, if He is saying that all flesh is worthless or profits nothing, as you say, He is saying that that which He will be giving us, his 'teaching' profits nothing. That makes no sense.

We have Jesus also saying that the flesh profits nothing, but it is the Spirit that gives life.

So let me be clear to summarize. In verse 63, is Jesus refering to His flesh as well as our flesh, or flesh only, his flesh only? Which?

All you cannibal nuts out there...let me say this. Jesus is not just a man, but God Incarnate. You disrespect Jesus evertime you suggest cannibalism, or you elevate yourselves to His place. Jesus is a diety like the world has never seen before or will ever again. He is God, and has joined physically to man in the Incarnation. He is distinct and unique among all things in existence.

 

[Charles33]

Ok, so I don't get accused of ignoring anybody, bobryan said...

It does not serve your argument to keep pretending that you really - really - don't see the symbol of bread repeatedly used to stand for teaching BOTH in the Gospels and then repeatedly in the John 6 scenario.

I am not pretending. I could say the same of you but lets get real. I am not a child. If I don't see it your way, am I now pretending? You gotta be kidding me right? Would it shake you if I don't believe it but see how you may look at it? At least I am honest. I was Evangelical. I know exactly how you see this text.

Simply "observing" that the symbol of bread is being used both in Matt 16 and in John 6 in Christ's own summary -- for teaching (and in John 6 referencing Deut 8:3) is not "a challenge" it is simply noticing what is in the text. How you choose to accept that observation is up to you and showing how that simple fact fits in with RC doctrine becomes somewhat of a challenge. But the text still contains those obvious statements at the end of the day.

Mathew does not equate bread to teaching and you know it. Are you now pretending that leavening is bread? It equates 'leavening' to teaching, and specifically that of those who are false. If you want to beleive leavening is bread go ahead. But it is not. The Jews ate unleavened bread, and many do still today. The TEXT say leavening. Do you deny this?

And you have yet to respond to each of those instances of the use of that symbol except in one case to say that you wish to find a way that the symbol would not undo what you believe to be taught in John 6.

I have not reponded like you want me to no. I have responded. Ever agree that sombody can see something differently than you, and not be lying to themselves? Honestly?

You also choose not to respond to the fact that IF we go along with the argument that the "Faithful" would also take Christ literally as those who left in disgust did - then to remain behind was to chow down on the living flesh of Christ. Where is the attempt to explain away the fact that Christ makes his case showing that He already IS the bread of heaven - not that He one day will BE the bread of heaven? How do you rationalize NO attempt to EAT His arm at that time by "the faithful" that are supposedly taking Him literally?

This is just not true Bob. Just because they took Him literally does not mean they would try to eat Him on the spot. If you cannot get past that, fine. But like I said before, which you did not repond to, Jesus said he would die and be raised up, but even then his Apostles did not understand. Even when Jesus was physically resurected, they still did not get it. Only later did they fully understand and remember the words that they previously heard and believed in faith, but could not possibly understand at the time.

And Bob. Do you think if this passage is symbolic, those there understood Jesus? Because if they did, then they know that his flesh was his crucifixion and the spirit was his resurected perfection of grace. These things had not yet come to pass. Using your own logic, why did they not all just accept Jesus into their hearts on the spot, and spread the good news of His grace? You are seriously giving these people more credit than they could deserve. They could not understand these things either way. All had not come to pass.

Clearly, your "literalist" view for the faithful that remain - does not work in the chapter. They show no action indicating they were about to literally bite him. Not even in the remotest sense.

Your logic is the only thing holding you into this box of reason. Let me explain. Christ told his Apostles that he would be crucified. He told them He was the son of God. Yet why did they not defend Him at his trial? Why did Peter deny him three times? Peter did not, as you say, even remotely act like he thought Jesus actually the Son of God? What was he scared of? Did Peter believe who Jesus was? Did he really really believe Him? He must have because Jesus said God has shown Peter this. Yet, Peter did not act accordingly at that time. When Jesus was ressurected, all did not shout with joy. Everybody did not get it. Even the faithful.

Also, don't be so angry or irritated that I no longer understand your interpretation as the complete truth. You seem a bit wired over this. We are still brothers in Christ, so take it easy.

As far as not even in the remotest sense statement about taking Him literally. It is clear that the early Christians did take this literally. So at the end of the day, and in the remotest sense, right or wrong, they did understand the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ. And this is not just a blind thing. The text does clearly support a literal interpretation. You have found what I would call logical course of action problems with it. I have some for you as well with a figurative view metioned earlier. I look forward to your reponse.

Also, one other tidbit from my days of looking at these things. I don't care what a person believes in the Scripture, there will always be things that don't fit the puzzle like we expect them to. Scripture is hard to understand, even Peter said this about NT letters. And if Peter, had trouble with it, you can be assured we all will as well.

 

[Kamoroso]

Hello raymond. You said the following.


"Thanks for the straight answer. You, and the SDA denomination, believe that God lost control of the organized Church only decades after His Ascension, and with the Apostle John only freshly buried.

Here's my problem with that: Jesus Christ established an identifiable, organized Church. That was His plan. To say the plan got hi-jacked and to believe that, I would then have to think that God is either incapable of delivering on His original plan of having His Church teach all nations, or unwilling to make good on His promise. It seems to me that we would now be on plan 'b' or 'c' now. "

Brother, I do not believe that God lost control of anything. I am sure however, that the following scripture is true.

Isa 55:8-11 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God is in control. His ways are not our ways. His word will not return unto him void. He is in control of his church. Though his ways and movements are far beyond our comprehension. You are certainly right, Jesus Christ did establish an identifiable, organized church. The identity, and organization of that church may be found in the word of God. His word was given to all humanity for this express purpose.

2 Tim 3:15-17 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Gods word is to be exalted in all the world. Not any human being, or church organization. Any individual, or church organization that exalts itself, placing itself between humanity and God, is false. No one can stand in the place of God.

True Christians point the way to Christ, and his word as the final authority, not themselves.

Acts 20:29-30 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Here is some more from Ignatius. They show the fulfillment of the Apostle Paul’s warning that after his departure wolves would come into the flock, seeking followers of themselves. The exaltation of the Bishops, was a first step in this direction.

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God. Do ye all come together into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which
nothing is more excellent. Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians Chap. 7 )

Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died
for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the
presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall be found in Him. It behooves you also, in every way, to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus; for they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against
them], as they would a burning fire. Let them, then, prove themselves to be such. ( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chap, 2 )


Matt 23:8-12 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[raymond]

Kamoroso>>>>
God is in control. His ways are not our ways. His word will not return unto him void. He is in control of his church. Though his ways and movements are far beyond our comprehension. You are certainly right, Jesus Christ did establish an identifiable, organized church. The identity, and organization of that church may be found in the word of God. His word was given to all humanity for this express purpose.<<<<

Dear Kamoroso,
You can maybe start to bring me around if you can reconcile a)your statements God is in control and has established an identifiable, organized church. with b) as of 110 ad, Ignatius' heyday, that organized church got hi-jacked.

God so loved the World that His only Son sent reliable human teachers into the World, Matthew 28. He did this long before He gave us the N.T. If those teachers had had to point to the N.T. to validate themselves, they would have had to wait a long time, as it took circa 50 years to complete, and 300 years to figure out exactly what it contained. Do SDA's not believe in the "laying on of hands" for ministerial positions?

your brother

 

[LisaMC]

Charles,

You said:

You said I could not prove the early fathers believed these things. Ok. Maybe not to your satisfaction, whatever that might entail.

Actually, I said, "Charles, you can not factually prove that those who came immediately after the Apostles understood these passages literally." At best, you may be able to present the argument for Ignatius upholding this view. But, as for Martyr, I'm afraid I beg to differ on that one, not to mention the huge amount of evidence I have presented from Augustine a doctor of the Catholic Church. You are aware that only a select few of the early fathers were given that title. I can also present you with evidence showing that Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Eusebius, Cyprian, Chrysostom held spiritual (figurative) beliefs in the Eucharist. You seem to think that if you can present evidence to support that the fathers who came directly after the apostles believed in the Real Presence, that your case is proven. First of all, we look at the Apostles understanding before those following. They did not hold a literal view, at least we know Paul didn't. However, even if you could prove factually that the earliest fathers believed in the Real Presence, that still isn't enough evidence according to the rules established by the RCC itself. Council of Trent and other doctrine require Unanimous Consent of the Fathers. There is no Unanimous Consent on this issue and many other Catholic doctrines.

Ignatius who sat at the feet of the Apostle John, and Justin Martyr, who was just as early, both give explanations of what Christians believed regarding the Eucharist.

A couple of points here. First, I don't think Martyr or Ignatius spoke for the entirety of what all christians believed in regards to the Eucharist. Second, and I only mention this in passing, we know the Church Fathers are not held to be "infallible." However, let's look at a couple of quotes from Martyr:

It is quite evident that this prophecy also alludes to the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believed in Him for whom He suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood.

He continues:

'Likewise,' I continued, ‘the offering of flour, my friends, which was ordered to be presented for those cleansed from leprosy, was a prototype of the Eucharistic Bread, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to offer in remembrance [for a memorial] of the Passion He endured for all those souls who are cleansed from sin . . . . Now, I also admit that prayers and thanksgiving, offered by worthy persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For Christians were instructed to offer only such prayers, even at their thanksgiving for their food, both liquid and solid, whereby the Passion which the Son of God endured for us is commemorated.'

I agree Charles that the words are there for all to see. However, we MUST take into account all the words that are there for us to see.

So, I also agree with your comment that, "Saying a chicken is a duck is not acceptable." However, I completely missed the point of the second sentence in this quote.

I'll be getting to your other posts soon. God Bless!

 

[LisaMC]

Charles,

You said:

I don't buy that John 6:63 is the answer to verse 52, where the question about literal flesh is asked. Jesus' response, direct response to the direct question was in verse 53. I do, however, understand what you are saying in verse 63.

Then, I'm curious as to how poor old Nicodemus ever made out in his confusion of being born of Spirit and of water. I mean, you have Nicodemus saying how can a grown man crawl back into his mother's womb, in John 3:4. And in 3:5, Jesus only reiterates that unless a man is born of Spirit and of water he can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. You could perhaps argue that John 6:63 doesn't address John 6:52. But, your argument fails.

Do you contend that John 6:60 has no relation to John 6:52-58? What about John 6:59, . . . THESE things said He in the synagogue, as He taught at Capernaum. Notice, in 6:59 that Jesus says "these THINGS." This probably isn't restricted to referencing verses 52-58 only since the subject in these verses is the same. Verse 59 most likely refers to the whole "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6. Like I pointed out before, the disciples were already doubting His sanity when He said He had came down from Heaven in 6:43. Anyhow, then comes 6:60 after 6:59 which encompasses at least verses 52-58. What's the subject of verses 52-58? Eating His flesh and drinking His blood. What does 6:60 say, "This an hard saying; who can hear it?" So, if this question isn't a repeat of verse 52, what are they questioning now? Well, then comes verse 6:61, "When Jesus knew in himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, "Doth this offend you?" What were they murmuring at and what was the "this" to which Jesus referred? It has to be the "hard saying" they were talking about in 6:60, and that hard saying had to have been "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" in verses in 6:52-58. I think you can safely infer that verse 63 is addressing verse 60 which is a repeat of verse 52. So, Jesus was definitely addressing their offense to His command of eating His flesh.

You can not even definitively argue that it was this commandment which they rejected. Because they didn't walk away until verse 6:66 after verse 65 where Jesus said, " . . . Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto Him of my Father." So, exactly why did the disciples walk away? Because Jesus said He was the bread which came down from heaven; that he came down from heaven? Or because Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood? Or because He said they would not come to Him unless His Father sent them? Or was it the totality of all that Jesus taught in John 6?

I do not believe this is a refutation of the entire past discussion about His body being bread in reality

You must look at the contextual order of Christ's teachings. Before Jesus ever mentions eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He says He is "bread." Look at the numerous verses where He refers to Himself as bread, 6:32, 33, 35, 41, 48, 51 (interesting in verse 51, He says "if any man eat of this bread. Why doesn't He refer to it as His flesh?), and verse 58. IF Jesus is "bread," then logic tells us that His flesh IS bread. Why do you take the statement "eat my flesh and drink my blood" as physically literal and not take the emphatic statement that He is bread physically literal?

Also, you didn't even address verse 68 where Peter says they will stay with Christ because He had the "words" of life.

And this symbolic rendering is a newer understanding.

Who says it's new? It's not new, seeing as how that's what Jesus meant when He made the commandment.

The testimony of the first Christians show what they understood in this matter. It shocks me that they could have misunderstood the biggest part of their worship in so many places so fast and in such union.

I don't know how you justify claiming that they held such beliefs in "union." Most cases you have one to two fathers writing in one generation. And, clearly somebody misunderstood, because there are fathers who held to the "literal" interpretation and some fathers who held to the "spiritual" interpretation. I have already shown you that some of the early christians understood it symbolically. The earliest being the Apostles.

If I am going to go with a newer symbolic rendering, I have to buy into the charge that all the churches fell away, <snip> which are of the core of Christian faith and salvation at stake.

No, you have to accept that some not only held incorrect understandings, but they also attempted to pass these teachings on.

If I ‘believe' in Him, then I will ‘come' to Him, and will receive the bread of life. What is this bread that He will give us? Jesus said over and over that He was the Bread of Life in this passage. He clarifies what this bread is in verse 51. ". . . and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.

You've reversed the contextual order of the passage. If you insist on a "literal" rendition, you must accept that first He said He was "Bread," then logic dictates that His flesh is "bread."

Continued . . . .

 

[LisaMC]

A continuation . . .

Ok in your exegesis, from John 6 and 4 and 5...I see the way you are looking at this. It is stripped of the physical realities also that accompany the spiritual. Nothing wrong really except that I think the Bible and the church combine both elements.

The Catholic Church-sure. The Bible?--uh . . . no.

Did Jesus physically die for us or only in spirit? Both.

Jesus died physically only. John 6:53, ". . . you eat His flesh and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." Am I physically dead? Or spiritually? John 6:54, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; Will I become immortal? Will I never die physically? Will I live forever physically or spiritually? I think we both know the answer to these questions. Eternal life is a spiritual existence.

See, Catholics make this about literal vs. symbolic. That's not correct. Because, Jesus' Spiritual presence is every bit as literal as His physical presence. It is about carnal vs. spiritual. Everything Christ taught was to exhibit how spiritual matters were far more supreme than carnal matters. Just because I do not believe we are meant to believe that we are "eating" Jesus carnally, does not mean that I do not believe we are in communion with Him spiritually.

Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

It is God's desire that we worship Him spiritually, that we learn to be content with spiritual sustenance.

How do you take a passage which is so "spiritual" in content and impose a carnal interpretation on one command?

Jesus can not be with us "physically/carnally" because:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Jhn 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

Jhn 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.


Jhn 16:22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.

Jhn 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Physically Jesus is no longer on this earth.

So, to summarize the passage in verse 63, did Jesus say in essence that the ‘bread' (which is his flesh) profits nothing? But, that ‘only' the spirit gives life?

Verse 63 is can only be interpreted as saying Jesus' flesh profits nothing if you are taking "eat my flesh and drink my blood" literally. IF you interpret this passage correctly, and you understand and accept that He was using eat/drink symbolically for come/believe. If you have a proper understanding, it never occurs to you that Jesus is saying, "My flesh profits nothing." You simply understand that He is saying, I don't really mean be fed by my flesh and blood, I mean be spiritually nourished by my words, my teaching.

I take it that you understand that Jesus' actual physical sacrifice on the cross, is what He means as his flesh. <snip> brought about by eating(hearing:coming:seeing) and drinking(believing).

No. I take it to mean you must be fed spiritually and you can't do that if you don't believe. He is bread, the bread is his flesh, his flesh is meat in deed . . . So, what is the meat? John 4:34, ". . . to do the will of Him that sent me and to finish His work."

Continued . . .

 

[LisaMC]

finished . . .

Here are some more interesting verses:

John 5:37, "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hat born witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his shape. 38, and ye have not his word abiding in you;" What does it mean for His word to be abiding in us? It means that His spirit is abiding in us--not His flesh.

Luke 4:4, "It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Spititual nourishment.

Luke 4:14, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

So, is there some water we are suppose to be drinking? What water are we suppose to be drinking?

John 7:37, ". . . If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." 38, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Is Jesus talking about drinking real water--real rivers? Or is the drinking in these verses representative of "spiritual" nourishment?

Another interesting verse: Jhn 13:18, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but . . . He that eateth BREAD with me hat lifted up . . ."

Why does Jesus say "he that eateth bread" and not "he that eateth my flesh with me?"

So is Jesus in verse 63, talking about His flesh, that he has told us is this same bread He will give us? Or is He talking about our flesh, which under the Law produced righteousness? But now Jesus' bread Himself, His flesh, with the spirit, will give us life. Just as the water(physical) and the spirit, give us life.

That question is a little confusing. However, if one must insist that Jesus was in fact speaking of flesh, any flesh, we can only infer that He is talking about His very own flesh, since that is the only flesh he has mentioned in this chapter.

1Cor 10:16, Is not the (1) cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Both physical and spiritual. The text supports this understanding as does the tradition of teaching followin this text in history.

You think this verse is evident of a literal interpretation? How? Paul says, "cup of blessing . . . a sharing in the blood" and likewise on the body. This is not the same as saying that the cup contains His blood and the bread is His flesh/body.

And something else I've wondered, presuming a literal/carnal intent, how does one come to the interpretation that when Christ says, "this is my flesh" or "this is my body," that He also means that His spirit is also contained therein?

Anyhow, I think I have one more post of yours to address. God Bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Raymond

My problem with seeing them as 'wolves' in the 1st and 2nd Cty Church is that you then have no 'sheep'

Very funny. Justin and Augustine were the only Christian to live in the first and second centuries??? I must have forgotten that part of my world history.

Or are you actually saying that you "have" a first century document showing the John 6 meaning to be anything other than Christ's own summary of it?

Apparently in Phil 3:18 Paul was finding "MANY" of those wolves - not just one or two.

Apparently we also found a few more in Galations 5.

Oops - maybe that is the wrong historic document for me to be reading.

Any chance of getting you back on the topic of John 6 - the text and what is actually in it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Raymond said ---
This idea threatens my belief in a Sovereign God. How could He become incarnate and establish a human teaching Organization, the Church, and then allow it to extinguish His message within decades of His Ascension? You can call me pollyannic, but I don't think God is that weak and-or indifferent.

Can you explain how this could happen in light of God's love and sovereignty? You could make your faith much more understandable to me.

Hmmm. I would say your confusion about the sovereignty of God needs to review the Biblical text some more. There you will see that the ONE True Hebrew Nation Church sovereignly Started by God at Sinai and given FOREVER promises of His teaching Word and Holy Spirit - fails in Mark 7 by teaching false doctrine (the traditions of man as doctrine) and in Matt 23 is shown to fill up its cup of iniquity - 1Thess 2 confirms this.

Romans 11 shows the fall and warns US of the SAME danger.

Ooops - Paul was not supposed to do that. How could WE possibly be in the SAME danger as the ONE true CHURCH started by God at Sinai?? Impossible you say?

Maybe we need to have a little talk with Paul and straighten him out on that point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scripture does not 'debunk scripture'. Rather the Exegetical model is to "notice" that the symbolism of bread is already used in Matt 16 and it is directly linked to Teaching. It is "shown" to be a symbol for "teaching.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles
You used the bread in Matt 16 to answer the discussion in John 6.
In Matthew, the discussion is about the teachings of the Saduces and Pharises right? Jesus equates their teachings as the 'leaven' not the bread. What does leaven do to bread? It puffs if up, and gives it structure. It is not bread in and of itself.

Well lets see IF Matt 16 really DOES use the SYMBOL of BREAD as "TEACHING of the Pharisees"


11
""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12
Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
13


Hmm - what do you know "Bread" does get the top seat in that "symbol" illustration.

He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees

ANd as already pointed out Matt 4 ALSO used the symbol of BREAD for teaching "Man shall not live by bread ALONE" as the "lesson" of the MANNA is repeated - Deut 8 points out that the MANNA - BREAD from HEAVEN - was to teach the LESSON that man does NOT live by bread alone- and SURE ENOUGH Christ uses that lesson ALSO in John 6.

Just can't miss that - no matter how hard I try.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to this is ADDED Christ's OWN explicit summary of what it is that ACTUALLY brings life IN John 6 "Literal flesh is WORTHLESS - my WORD is that which is SPIRIT and LIFE"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles
Quit putting spin on the words of the Bible. My NASB, NIV, nor KJV say 'Literal flesh is WORTHLESS'. That is you screaming your idealogy.

Ok - sorry about that - do you prefer "SYMBOLIC FLESH is worthless - nothing - useless BUT RATHER MY WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE".

Is that "better"??

Are you ready to entertain exegesis?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the exegetically sound principle of following the FIRST order context - this literally shouts the meaning in the text itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles said --
Ok, are you saying that we have to read and understand Matthew first because it is before John in your NT in order of pages? Or that Mattew was written first?

Nope. I am saying that the INTERNAL sources of context (you know, actually reading the Bible and caring about what the details of the text say) - are the "first" order of exegetical context. NEXT is the external context of the primary first-person audience that would heard/read the teaching.

I am appealing to actual exegesis in this case.

In all honesty, if this was so clear that it SHOUTED your understanding, the first 1500 years of the the Christian Church would have been Evangelicals like yourself.

Oh I get it - just like the first 1500 years of Judaism so fully accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah SINCE it was started by God at Sinai - authoring His infallible Word, given FOREVER promises of His Holy Spirit and teaching Word - they COULD not fall into the Mark 7 errors of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN" and teaching the traditions of man in such a way that they contradict the word of God.

I must have forgotten how innerrantly that ONE TRUE Hebrew Nation Church SHOWED the point of the sovereignty of God in KEEPING them forever without error.

Maybe we should only accept scripture -as the ONE True Hebrew Nation Church interprets it.


quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we have INSTEAD the contrast of the literalists that left and those that accepted the symbolic meaning "YOU have the WORDS of LIFE" as the true meaning behind the John 6 lesson that you need to EAT Christ's flesh to have LIFE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles
No. What we have are the literalists who still did not understand completely what Jesus meant stay in faith, and those who could not accept it leave.

And NOWHERE do we see in this the "literalist who STAY and remain faithful and LITERALLY BITE Christ's flesh"..

Now, I know you are trying hard to avoid that point. But that just means I get to keep making it until you decide to respond.

You only have MY version "those who stay and DO NOT BIT Christ. Those that say You have the WORDS of LIFE when addressing the lesson of LIFE in John 6 and HOW one obtains it".

Charles

What you have a disconnect issue with is this statement of Jesus, which I have tried to answer with you and deal with, but you think I am ignoring you...

Do you not "see yourself" doing that? Do you not "see" that you refuse to address the point of the faithful disciples NOT biting Christ?

Do you not "see yourself" avoiding the point I make that Christ did NOT SAY "SOME DAY I WILL be the bread of life" but He claims to ALREADY BE it?

Do you not "SEE" that no disciples BIT Christ?

Do you not "SEE" that a literal view such as yours could do NO other?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; (2) the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles
This is beautiful. Jesus is not refering to His flesh here,

On the Contrary - HIS Flesh is the ONLY flesh mentioned in John 6.

Charles
Why would Jesus say the Bread he will give is His flesh, and then immediately say that the flesh profits nothing,

Well - because "as HE SAID" it was a symbol of TEACHING Just as we see him speaking of the leaven of the BREAD -- the TEACHING of the Pharisees.

His conclusion is that HE has the WORDS of LIFE. That the ENTIRE John 6 lesson regarding the WAY to get LIFE vs having death - was the TEACHING of Christ ALONE for the literal FLESH "avails NOTHING".

Charles

We have Jesus also saying that the flesh profits nothing, but it is the Spirit that gives life.

So let me be clear to summarize. In verse 63, is Jesus refering to His flesh as well as our flesh, or flesh only, his flesh only? Which?

His flesh is the ONLY flesh he mentions in his dicussion. Clear - obvious - innescapable and IT profits NOTHING in terms of literally eating it as "food" for obtaing LIFE. Rather the only way to obtain LIFE (which is the entire point of his symbolism used in John 6) is "The WORDS that I speak - THEY are Spirit and THEY are LIFE".

Could not be any easier.

Bad news for the cannibals as you say.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LisaMC]

I guess one would question why Jesus uses come/believe and eat/drink interchangeably. Why would He say "eat my flesh and drink my blood" if He only meant come to me and believe. I think He wanted to stress that coming/believing/hearing was not as simple as it sounded. He didn't want people to just "hear" His words, He wanted them to consume His words-His teachings. He was showing the correlation between as well as distinguishing the vast difference in the "carnal" nourishment provided by God in the "Mana" which fell from Heaven and the "spiritual" nourishment now provided by the "True Bread" from Heaven-Jesus. We must feed on His words, not just hear them and abide by them. The following verses confirm this:

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Eze 2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.

Eze 2:7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they [are] most rebellious.

Eze 2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.

Eze 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein;

Eze 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.

Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.

Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Eze 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.

Eze 3:5 For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel;

Eze 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.

Do you think that whomever was really eating words and books?

Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go [and] take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Same thing, is John being literal here? Just to show the correlation with these quotes and John 6:

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Luke 4:4, "It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

 

[raymond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond said ---
This idea threatens my belief in a Sovereign God. How could He become incarnate and establish a human teaching Organization, the Church, and then allow it to extinguish His message within decades of His Ascension? You can call me pollyannic, but I don't think God is that weak and-or indifferent.

Can you explain how this could happen in light of God's love and sovereignty? You could make your faith much more understandable to me.

-------------------------------------------------BobRyan said:>>>>>>-------------------------------

Hmmm. I would say your confusion about the sovereignty of God needs to review the Biblical text some more. There you will see that the ONE True Hebrew Nation Church sovereignly Started by God at Sinai and given FOREVER promises of His teaching Word and Holy Spirit - fails in Mark 7 by teaching false doctrine (the traditions of man as doctrine) and in Matt 23 is shown to fill up its cup of iniquity - 1Thess 2 confirms this.

Romans 11 shows the fall and warns US of the SAME danger.

Ooops - Paul was not supposed to do that. How could WE possibly be in the SAME danger as the ONE true CHURCH started by God at Sinai?? Impossible you say? <<<<<

Dear BobRyan,

For a second there I thought you were not going allow me to continue in this vein, and to go back to John 6. I apologize for drifting. NTL you have opened the door with this post and now I will go back thru it...

I see a marked contrast between the OT and NT promises to the people of God.
The NT Church was organized with the purpose of "teaching all nations", the nation of Israel was not. The NT Church was promised that she would prevail against the "gates of hell", the nation of Israel did not receive that promise. The Bible refers to the Church as the "foundation of truth".

My problem with your view of history is that it seems to shrug off the Incarnation as just the latest in a series of God's unsuccessful attempts to get His message thru. I believe the Incarnation was infinitely powerful. God became man and He entrusted His Gospel to mere humans and gave them authority to teach and promised them that that Church would endure.

your brother

 

[raymond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond said ---
This idea threatens my belief in a Sovereign God. How could He become incarnate and establish a human teaching Organization, the Church, and then allow it to extinguish His message within decades of His Ascension? You can call me pollyannic, but I don't think God is that weak and-or indifferent.

Can you explain how this could happen in light of God's love and sovereignty? You could make your faith much more understandable to me.

-------------------------------------------------BobRyan said:>>>>>>-------------------------------

Hmmm. I would say your confusion about the sovereignty of God needs to review the Biblical text some more. There you will see that the ONE True Hebrew Nation Church sovereignly Started by God at Sinai and given FOREVER promises of His teaching Word and Holy Spirit - fails in Mark 7 by teaching false doctrine (the traditions of man as doctrine) and in Matt 23 is shown to fill up its cup of iniquity - 1Thess 2 confirms this.

Romans 11 shows the fall and warns US of the SAME danger.

Ooops - Paul was not supposed to do that. How could WE possibly be in the SAME danger as the ONE true CHURCH started by God at Sinai?? Impossible you say? <<<<<

Dear BobRyan,

For a second there I thought you were not going allow me to continue in this vein, and to go back to John 6. I apologize for drifting. NTL you have opened the door with this post and now I will go back thru it...

I see a marked contrast between the OT and NT promises to the people of God.
The NT Church was organized with the purpose of "teaching all nations", the nation of Israel was not. The NT Church was promised that she would prevail against the "gates of hell", the nation of Israel did not receive that promise. The Bible refers to the Church as the "foundation of truth".

My problem with your view of history is that it seems to shrug off the Incarnation as just the latest in a series of God's unsuccessful attempts to get His message thru. I believe the Incarnation was infinitely powerful. God became man and He entrusted His Gospel to mere humans and gave them authority to teach and promised them that that Church would endure.

your brother

 

[BobRyan]

The NT Church was organized with the purpose of "teaching all nations",

As was the ONE true Nation CHURCH started by God at Sinai... a Kingdom of Priests.. "You are MY WITNESSESS" God says to the Hebrew Nation Church.

He gives them FOREVER promises of His Holy Spirit and His infallible teaching Word Isaiah 59.

They were to be used to teach the "whole World" --- "All the Earth" was to learn of God through them.

The Hebrew Nation church was promised that they would conquer all their enemies and last forever.

The Promises given to them are ALSO given to us according to Galations 3 - WE TOO inherit the promises given to Abraham.

Hebrews 4:1 "The GOSPEL was preached to US just as it was to THEM also".

Gal 1:6-11 in all of time - "ONLY ONE Gospel".

In fact EVEN BEFORE the ONE true Hebrew Nation Church John 8:58 "Abraham SAW MY DAY and was glad"

Gal 3:7-8 "The Gospel was preached beforehand TO ABRAHAM".

Gal 3 - the ONE TRUE Hebrew Nation Church setup at Sinai - DID NOT nullify the GOSPEL PROMISES ALREADY in effect - given 430 years before. (Gal 3:17)

BTW - The NT church is never called "The Foundation of Truth" - though I understand why some Roman Catholic leaders would prefer that it was.

Raymond
My problem with your view of history is that it seems to shrug off the Incarnation as just the latest in a series of God's unsuccessful attempts to get His message thru.

Nope. Just as Romans 9 and 11 show that "God's promises DID NOT fail" JUST because the ONE True Hebrew Nation CHURCH did not follow through, but those who choose to BE faithful are "heirs and sons of the promise". By going into apostacy the ONE true Hebrew nation church abandons their Messiah JUST as a Christian denomination does when IT ALSO chooses to wander off into apostacy.

Christ REMAINS the way the truth and life - EVEN when the ONE TRUE organization STARTED BY HIM at Sinan - and later in Jerusalem -- chooses to go into Apostacy.

The Gospel REMAINS - and those who choose to return to His word - among BOTH Jews and Gentiles - plug DIRECTLY into the Romans 11 vine of Christ - no interlopers in priestly attire to interfere.

And now - I know of course you are dying to answer at least one of those challenges I gave out in John 6 - so feel free.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Kamoroso]

Hello raymond

Eph 2:19-22 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

God’s true church on earth is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ himself, as the chief corner stone. It is those who give heed to these three through the word of God, that compose the church of God. This they can only do through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.

During the days of the apostles, the old testament scriptures, and Christ’s fulfillment of them, were the foundation of the church. The gospels, letters, and instructions given by Christ, and the apostles themselves pertaining to these things, are the foundation of the church. It is this word of God that the church is built upon, not the writings of the supposed church fathers.

The writings of these supposed church fathers, and the writings of all others, are to be judged by the scriptures.

Matt 24:14 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The gospel commission is a simple one, as stated above. God does not so much need this or that church organization, as he does, individuals who will fulfill this commission. God’s church is, and always has been composed of those individuals who have made Christ, the prophets, and the apostles their foundation. Seeking to fulfill that which has been pointed out by the same.

True Christians are not so much about proving that their church is the true one, as they are about preaching the everlasting gospel to humanity. Their goal is to fulfill the gospel commission, so that their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will return, and they can be with him evermore. The gospel is not about exalting ones self, or denomination, it is about exalting Christ.

God has a well organized church here on earth. The Holy Spirit sees to that. It matters not what any church organization claims, or does. God’s church goes forward when his followers speak and live that which the Holy Spirit convicts them to. The wheat and tares grow up together in every denomination, but only the wheat produces the fruit which fulfills God’s commission to his church, and leads souls to Christ.

Rev 14:6-7 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[raymond]

Lisa, I spent a lot of time researching your quote of Webster's quote of Augustine. Webster used ellipses to cut out a section from the middle of Augustine's quote, I will re-insert the deleted section indicate it by <<<<>>>>

raymond

Webster's quote:

imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . .>>>>So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. <<<<<< ....That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament...end of quote

What Webster does, by excising the middle portion is to fog up, and make unintelligible the first and third sections.

With the middle section the passage seems much more clearly to be arguing against the idea that the Eucharist is little pieces of the Body and Blood of the Pre-resurrection Jesus, Rather the Post-resurrection Jesus. That being, it is of such a nature that Jesus is consumed in His entirety. As the Church teaches: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Lisa, why do you suppose Webster edited out the middle section?

To me it would be like if hundreds of years hundreds of years from now for some weird reason, someone were to try to prove that I was never married, or even thought I was married. So they find a letter I have written to my wife, and excise out any words like: Liebling, Dearest, Sweetie pie, Honey bun, etc. and then present the edited version to posterity and say:

Look how Raymond talked to this woman! No man talks to his wife that way!

raymond

 

[LisaMC]

Raymond,

I used Webster's quote because it was handy. However, there is nothing that I've read cited by him that I haven't went and read from Augustine myself.

For instance, the quotes you gave by Augustine are so isolated, I am having the hardest time locating them. Do you know how many Sermons there are? That's why I haven't gotten back to you on them yet, because I'm still looking.

Certain parts are edited out due to space. If something is only restating the obvious, it's not necessary. I don't see the implication you do in this 'missing' part. You may believe that Webster had an ulterior motive, but that's not likely considering that anyone who cared enough to double check can do so.

imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . .So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not.....That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament...

imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament

Notice in the last portions of this quote, minus the insertion you gave us, basically says the same thing. To eat an drink Life and that Life is Entire. However, what I find most telling is the omission you presented. The last part of the quote:

if What is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life."

Have you spent anytime researching the other quotes?

Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. . .we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed,

To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; IT IS THEREFORE A FIGURE. . .that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

 

[Bible-belted]

Lets just say your right and Catholics do not believe John 6 literally. Fine. When Jesus says the bread that comes down from heaven is my flesh, Catholics believe that the bread which comes down out of heaven is Jesus' real actual flesh. Maybe that is not literal? But it is different than Protestants. You know, you are playing word games here, not representing what people actually believe.

No it isn't literal. Check out the teaching of the RCC on this. Trent never says that Christ is physically present, but rather that Jesus is sacramentally present. The people who complained in John 6 knew noting of a sacramental presence. you can't claim to take Jesus literally as the first hearers did whewn your literal meaning differs from their's.

If you can only sustain your argument by means of an equivocation, which is a logical fallacy, then you have a very weak argument indeed.