John 6 -- full of symbolism.

[utilyan]

You are not replying to my post. You are ignoring it. Go back and reply to my post.
I will show you how wrong you are. I will use the same verse you used.

That's laughable.

Let me underline and bold.

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Clearly Jesus is indicating his FLESH.

Clearly not! There is not one verse with the mention of the word "flesh" before this verse, not once. Now go and answer my post as you should have in the first place.[/QUOTE]


Not once huh?

51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”


One of us is telling the truth, one of us says Jesus brought it up first.

 

[DHK]

Clearly not! There is not one verse with the mention of the word "flesh" before this verse, not once. Now go and answer my post as you should have in the first place.

Not once huh?

51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”


One of us is telling the truth, one of us says Jesus brought it up first.

John the Baptist brought it up before Jesus was even baptized.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. To eat of him is to believe on him and what he has done on the cross. There is no other way to obtain eternal life. Salvation is by faith not of works, and that is what Christ was teaching, as John taught in John 1:29. There are no works, only faith in Christ.

By faith trust Him.
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--But an unsaved Jew was confused at the symbolic language Jesus used, but the apostles were not. You have not responded to this yet.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
1. Why is this true?
2. How is it possible?

Answer:
1. It is true because Jesus said it is true, and because he was speaking in spiritual terms not physical terms.
2. It is possible because Jesus said it is possible, and without which no man can enter heaven.
It is possible because it is an act of faith, not a physical act. Salvation is by faith, not of works. See Eph.2:8,9.

 

[utilyan]

John the Baptist brought it up before Jesus was even baptized.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. To eat of him is to believe on him and what he has done on the cross. There is no other way to obtain eternal life. Salvation is by faith not of works, and that is what Christ was teaching, as John taught in John 1:29. There are no works, only faith in Christ.

By faith trust Him.
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--But an unsaved Jew was confused at the symbolic language Jesus used, but the apostles were not. You have not responded to this yet.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
1. Why is this true?
2. How is it possible?

Answer:
1. It is true because Jesus said it is true, and because he was speaking in spiritual terms not physical terms.
2. It is possible because Jesus said it is possible, and without which no man can enter heaven.
It is possible because it is an act of faith, not a physical act. Salvation is by faith, not of works. See Eph.2:8,9.

You said:
"52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--But an unsaved Jew was confused at the symbolic language Jesus used, but the apostles were not. You have not responded to this yet."


The apostles had trouble with this too, else Christ would not have said "Will you also leave?"

If it was symbolic NONE, nobody would have trouble with this. There would have been no scandal because previously there was always greater claims.


Just a chapter before

John 5

18For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
19Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20“For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


We don't see the disciples leave or Jesus say well are you going to leave because I said "he who believes in me has eternal life?"

None of the disciples has a problem with this. None have a problem with him making himself equal to God. Having the power to raise the dead, expecting the same honor as the father.

His disciples don't leave.


You want to imply John 6 symbolically was a greater claim, No way it is, symbolically it is NOTHING compared to what he says before. If it was well understood by all that he is symbolic no big deal at all.

Its precisely because he is being literal then scandal erupts.

No one said its symbolic. No early church father said its symbolic. The very first bishops appointed and taught by apostles said it is real.

 

[utilyan]

You going to teach Martin Luther how faith alone works? He made up faith alone!

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” --Martin Luther.

 

[DHK]

You said:
"52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--But an unsaved Jew was confused at the symbolic language Jesus used, but the apostles were not. You have not responded to this yet."

The apostles had trouble with this too, else Christ would not have said "Will you also leave?"

If it was symbolic NONE, nobody would have trouble with this. There would have been no scandal because previously there was always greater claims.

Jesus asked his apostles a rhetorical question, one he knew the answer to. The text already tells us that Judas would leave (he wasn't a true disciple). The others promised faithfulness. Read the Great High Priestly Prayer of Christ in John 17. None of his disciples fell away except for the one that betrayed him. He gave them eternal life. They are his sheep. It would be impossible for them to "fall away." Read and understand that prayer.

Just a chapter before

John 5

18For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
19Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20“For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

We don't see the disciples leave or Jesus say well are you going to leave because I said "he who believes in me has eternal life?"

None of the disciples has a problem with this. None have a problem with him making himself equal to God. Having the power to raise the dead, expecting the same honor as the father.

His disciples don't leave.

You want to imply John 6 symbolically was a greater claim, No way it is, symbolically it is NOTHING compared to what he says before. If it was well understood by all that he is symbolic no big deal at all.

It was a call not only to believe on him for salvation, but also for discipleship. It was a commitment. Compared to John 5:25, an invitation for salvation, what Jesus was asking in John 6 was far greater. But it seems you don't understand that meaning yet. Most unsaved don't understand the meaning. It is salvation plus commitment.

Its precisely because he is being literal then scandal erupts.

No one said its symbolic. No early church father said its symbolic. The very first bishops appointed and taught by apostles said it is real.

No bishop was appointed by the apostle. The so-called doctrine of "apostolic succession" is a man-made and false doctrine. It is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

No one didn't say it wasn't symbolic either. And no one should trust the ECF. That is the first big mistake any person would make. Trust the Bible, not the ECF.
The "flesh and blood," the "bread and wine" are both symbolic. It has to be.
Jesus spoke as if they were. He didn't offer anyone a chunk of his flesh and none of his disciples understood him in that crude manner.
Paul understood very well that the bread and wine were symbolic as he explains them to be.

 

[Adonia]

Jesus asked his apostles a rhetorical question, one he knew the answer to. The text already tells us that Judas would leave (he wasn't a true disciple). The others promised faithfulness. Read the Great High Priestly Prayer of Christ in John 17. None of his disciples fell away except for the one that betrayed him. He gave them eternal life. They are his sheep. It would be impossible for them to "fall away." Read and understand that prayer.


It was a call not only to believe on him for salvation, but also for discipleship. It was a commitment. Compared to John 5:25, an invitation for salvation, what Jesus was asking in John 6 was far greater. But it seems you don't understand that meaning yet. Most unsaved don't understand the meaning. It is salvation plus commitment.


No bishop was appointed by the apostle. The so-called doctrine of "apostolic succession" is a man-made and false doctrine. It is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

No one didn't say it wasn't symbolic either. And no one should trust the ECF. That is the first big mistake any person would make. Trust the Bible, not the ECF.
The "flesh and blood," the "bread and wine" are both symbolic. It has to be.
Jesus spoke as if they were. He didn't offer anyone a chunk of his flesh and none of his disciples understood him in that crude manner.
Paul understood very well that the bread and wine were symbolic as he explains them to be.

Trust the Bible for sure, but then we get to whose interpretation of the Bible do we trust? Certainly not yours or any other of the rejectionists who twist and turn it to arrive at the conclusions they so desire.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If it was symbolic NONE, nobody would have trouble with this.

Because this --"flesh"-- was symbolic, everyone had <trouble with this>. Like you have, because you take "flesh", for literal.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You going to teach Martin Luther how faith alone works? He made up faith alone!

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” --Martin Luther.

Who's Martin Luther?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

For some pseudo Protestants Luther may be some pope; but not for true Protestants.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus asked his apostles a rhetorical question, one he knew the answer to. The text already tells us that Judas would leave (he wasn't a true disciple). The others promised faithfulness. Read the Great High Priestly Prayer of Christ in John 17. None of his disciples fell away except for the one that betrayed him. He gave them eternal life. They are his sheep. It would be impossible for them to "fall away." Read and understand that prayer.


It was a call not only to believe on him for salvation, but also for discipleship. It was a commitment. Compared to John 5:25, an invitation for salvation, what Jesus was asking in John 6 was far greater. But it seems you don't understand that meaning yet. Most unsaved don't understand the meaning. It is salvation plus commitment.


No bishop was appointed by the apostle. The so-called doctrine of "apostolic succession" is a man-made and false doctrine. It is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

No one didn't say it wasn't symbolic either. And no one should trust the ECF. That is the first big mistake any person would make. Trust the Bible, not the ECF.
The "flesh and blood," the "bread and wine" are both symbolic. It has to be.
Jesus spoke as if they were. He didn't offer anyone a chunk of his flesh and none of his disciples understood him in that crude manner.
Paul understood very well that the bread and wine were symbolic as he explains them to be.

LOL, Backwards theology reading everything backwards. THE DEAD BODY ALONE.


"No bishop was appointed by the apostle. The so-called doctrine of "apostolic succession" is a man-made and false doctrine. It is contrary to what the Bible teaches."

Not a surprise from the man who doesn't know who his MAMA's "offspring" is.

Acts 1
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Here they are assigning Bishopick held by Judas under his BISHOP OFFICE.


That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.



Heres another DAMNING verse (pun intended)

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

The ministry and apostleship Judas FELL. If he never had it, he never fell from it. If your at bottom of the ladder and laying on the ground.........there is no falling to be done.

Judas quit his Job. You can't quit a job you never had.

Episkopos that is Greek for BISHOP. The bible didn't fall out the sky written in English.

1 Timothy 3
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Overseer is episkopēs = BISHOP.


"No bishop was appointed by the apostle."

True FOR YOU. Because that is not your church in the bible.


"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). POPE CLEMENT I


From wiki:

Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.[3]
Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter,[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third[2][4] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter.


You have to claim the the HOLY TEACHINGS of THE WORD of GOD.......NEVER WORKED not ONCE. In regards to choosing Bishops, Deacons, priests, whatever.

WHILE the Apostles are still alive.

JOHN the apostle dies 100ad. He OUTLIVED CLEMENT I !



Tell us Clement is nobody. Make it a whole lot easier like falling dominoes you lose Irenaeus and Tertullian, then you lose Jerome, YOU HAVE NO BIBLE without Clement.

 

[utilyan]

For some pseudo Protestants Luther may be some pope; but not for true Protestants.

Well what are "TRUE" protestants like yourself protesting against? What TRUE religion are you reformers trying to Reform?

 

[DHK]

Trust the Bible for sure, but then we get to whose interpretation of the Bible do we trust? Certainly not yours or any other of the rejectionists who twist and turn it to arrive at the conclusions they so desire.

You have to do better than that.
Why wouldn't you trust my interpretation. Give me one good reason. It is simply because I left the RCC? That is straightforward prejudicial bias and nothing more! You have no reason and have not given any reason. You can't refute my posts and have not done so.
If I am wrong then show me from the Bible where am I am wrong. If you can't show me from the Bible where I am wrong then there is no good reason for you to reject my position is there?

 

[DHK]

LOL, Backwards theology reading everything backwards. THE DEAD BODY ALONE.


"No bishop was appointed by the apostle. The so-called doctrine of "apostolic succession" is a man-made and false doctrine. It is contrary to what the Bible teaches."

Not a surprise from the man who doesn't know who his MAMA's "offspring" is.

Acts 1
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Here they are assigning Bishopick held by Judas under his BISHOP OFFICE.

What a ridiculous answer! Surely you know better than to use English words when the Christ and the disciples spoke Greek. They did not speak "KJVism". Yet you use an English word to try and prove your point! Amazing!!

Do you know how many translations use this word "bishoprick"? Do you even know what the word means. Let's consider other translations. Keep in mind I haven't found a translation other than the KJV that uses the word. It is possible there is, but I haven't seen it. However:

(ASV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.

(Darby) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it; and, Let another take his overseership.

(EMTV) For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his homestead become desolate, and let no one dwell in it'; and, 'May another take his office of overseer. '

(ESV) "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'

Even the older Geneva:
(Geneva) For it is written in the booke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be void, and let no man dwel therein: also, Let another take his charge.

(ISV) "For in the Book of Psalms it is written, 'Let his estate be desolate, and let no one live on it,' and 'Let someone else take over his office,'

(YLT) for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.
--Translation after translation gives the meaning of the word as: office, overseer, or something similar. Not one gives it as bishoprick, and the word certainly does not mean "A bishop's office." That is so funny. When the KJV was written, in 1611, the word "bishop" meant simply "overseer" and was just another term for "pastor." It was not a different office than the pastor's. It was the same.

That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

There are The Twelve apostles, and no more. Their names are written on the foundations of the new Jerusalem in heaven. Whose names will be written there?
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb
--Which apostles? Who are they? Not one of them is a pope--not even one. They Bible knows no such thing. The person that took the "apostleship" of Judas was Matthias. The other eleven have been previously listed.

Heres another DAMNING verse (pun intended)

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

The ministry and apostleship Judas FELL. If he never had it, he never fell from it. If your at bottom of the ladder and laying on the ground.........there is no falling to be done.

Judas quit his Job. You can't quit a job you never had.

Jesus made him an apostle and gave him the duty of being the treasurer. So what are you talking about? You are not making sense. Jesus gave him opportunity after opportunity to repent, but he never did. He died without genuine repentance, and thus his position had to be filled with a true believer who was a witness of the resurrection, the first and most important qualification of being an apostle. That qualification alone discredits all the Popes.

Episkopos that is Greek for BISHOP. The bible didn't fall out the sky written in English.

It means "overseer." That is the duty of a "pastor."

1 Timothy 3
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Overseer is episkopēs = BISHOP.

No. First, the word "bishop" has been redefined by the RCC, and your understanding of the word is in correct.
Second, that is not the meaning of the word "episkopos." It is overseer.
I refer you to Thayer's Lexicon:

G1984
ἐπισκοπή
episkopē
Thayer Definition:
1) investigation, inspection, visitation
1a) that act by which God looks into and searches out the ways, deeds character, of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly, whether joyous or sad
1b) oversight
1b1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
1b2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
Part of Speech: noun feminine

"No bishop was appointed by the apostle."

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--The word elder refers to pastors. They ordained elders/pastors in every church that they started. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and in that time established over 100 local churches, ordaining a pastor in each one before he left.

True FOR YOU. Because that is not your church in the bible.

Our church follows the Bible; that is why I can back my position with Scripture and you cannot.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). POPE CLEMENT I

What language was this originally written in?
Who translated it? When was it translated it?
Obviously the word "bishop" was in vogue at that time, and as in the 17th century had a different meaning than it does now.

From wiki:

Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.[3]
Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter,[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third[2][4] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter.


You have to claim the the HOLY TEACHINGS of THE WORD of GOD.......NEVER WORKED not ONCE. In regards to choosing Bishops, Deacons, priests, whatever.

WHILE the Apostles are still alive.

JOHN the apostle dies 100ad. He OUTLIVED CLEMENT I !

The Bible has outlived John, all the Apostles, all the ECF, and is our inspired authority, God's revelation to mankind today. It has proven you wrong time after time after time. It has proven you wrong again today.

Tell us Clement is nobody. Make it a whole lot easier like falling dominoes you lose Irenaeus and Tertullian, then you lose Jerome, YOU HAVE NO BIBLE without Clement.

He and they are nothing in the sight of God, and in the authority of His Word. God rules. The ECF have no power or authority whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Metaphors of saving faith – eating and drinking


30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


The self-confessed unbelievers thought faith in Christ could be induced by seeing Christ perform a miracle and so they quoted and then misapplied Psalm 78:24 attributing manna from heaven as a miracle performed by Moses when in truth it was a miracle directly from God. Remember, it is these same unbelievers who had come to Christ for food (v. 26). However, Christ reminded them that bread which came down from heaven in the time of Moses was physical and only sustained physical life temporarily as all those partook of that bread physically died. In direct contrast Jesus claims that God had sent him down from heaven as the true bread that provides eternal life. They asked Jesus to give them that bread and Jesus replied:


34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


He first introduces the metaphor “I am the bread of life” which is a similar metaphor to these other metaphors:


1. "I am the light of the world" - Jn. 8:12

2. "I am the door" - Jn. 10:9

3. "I am the true vine" - Jn. 15:1


The fact that Christ is neither literal "bread" or a literal "light" or a literal "door" or a literal "vine" demands he is speaking metaphorically or else we have complete nonsense.


They had asked him – “give us this bread” and he then proceeds to tell them how they can partake of this metaphorical bread by metaphorically eating and drinking which he defines as believing in him or coming to him by faith for eternal life - “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

The hunger and thirst is satisfied fully by coming to him or believing in him. This proves drinking and eating are metaphors for coming to him or believing in him for eternal life. He first introduces himself in metaphorical terms "I am the bread of life" and when asked how they could partake of this bread, he responds in equal metaphorical terms of eating and drinking.Hence, eating and drinking is how food is partaken and brought within the physical body, and such terms understood metaphorically is how Christ is partaken and brought into the human soul. This is the meaning, as he immediately applies it negatively in the very next verse "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not" meaning they metaphorically refused to eat or drink of him.


He uses this same “bread of life” metaphor again without the metaphors of eating and drinking but by literally stating eternal life is obtained by believing in him:


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth upon me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.


So once again the partaking of Christ is literally explained as believing in him and the metaphors of eating and drinking had previously been literally explained as coming to Christ in faith for eternal life (v. 35). So he continues:


51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.



Failing to perceive the repeated explanation of the eating and drinking metaphors, these unbelieving Jews were confused by it. However, he goes on to provide further explanation that should have shown them that he was speaking spiritually rather than literally.


57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


He explains that those who eat him shall live by him even as the Son lives by the Father. The Son did not literally eat and drink the Father in order to live by him and neither do we literally eat and drink the Son to live by him. The Son lives by the Father through spiritual rather than physical means. Likewise, we live by the Son through spiritual partaking rather than physical partaking. He further explains:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. – v. 63


The only “flesh” Christ had referred to in the immediate context is his own flesh or his own physical body. Literally eating his flesh would profit them nothing. The life he was speaking about was spiritual and it was received through his words not through his physical substance. It is his words that “are spirit, and are life.” Peter understood exactly what it meant when Peter replied to Christ:


67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

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

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


It was by faith in the gospel he preached that brought eternal life. That gospel simply declared that anyone who partook of him or believed in him by faith would have eternal life:


35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


Sacramentarians interpret his words exactly as these unbelievers and false professing disciples interpreted them – literally and physically instead of metaphorically and spiritually.


Moreover, the very phrase that has been used consistently to describe the latter end of all those coming to Christ by faith is later attached to the metaphor of eating and drinking of him.


54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


In the previous context this same phrase is used only to describe those coming to Christ by faith for eternal life:


1. John 6:37, 39


37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


2. John 6:40


40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

3. John 6:44


44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Finally, the blood was still running in the veins when Christ spoke these words, as well as, when he instituted the Lord's Supper later. Therefore, it was not possible for those listening to Christ in John 6 to obey this command if it was to be understood literally. The only possible way to obey his command was for it to be understood metaphorically. Likewise, in Matthew 26:12-30 when the Lord actually instituted the Supper there was not possible way for them to properly obey such a command if they were to literally eat his flesh and literally drink his blood as literal blood was still flowing in the veins of his literal body at the time he instituted the Supper. The only possible way that first Supper could be scripturally observed is in remembrance of the only way they had partaken of him and that was by faith in the gospel as they presently understood it – faith in him for remission of sins and eternal life.

OBJECTIONS? If it be asked why then didn't these unbelievers understand him or why were they confused if he made clear indications that he was using metaphors, the answer is they did not have eyes to see and ears to hear just as Jesus plainly describes their condition in John 12:
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus is not puffed up, snooty, impatient or a megalomaniac.
Look up the word SADIST. That God is not. I'm sure you get a lot of spiritual points for quickly concluding the least merciful path as God's. Doesn't that strike you odd? how quickly you attribute evil to God and accept it?
I know the attitude your trying to project on Jesus......I met that kind of person before.....then they grew up.
Like a cross between a Nazi and Emo. That's not Jesus.
Tell me, if God is the greatest teacher in the universe and hypothetically you/we were the dumbest. Who is going to win this? Does he have the capability to teach you or not?
Your answers tell me no. God is too weak.
Had Jesus been metaphorical NO one would have left. And previously it is show these same disciples had metaphorical experience from Jesus. Even right after the boat ride. They understood when Jesus is being symbolic.
There is no scandal to be found from a metaphorical presentation of John 6.
I find your defense laughable same guy who claimed that when a drunk says Jesus is Lord its nothing. But oh.....now the holy spirit isn't with these disciples for not accepting a simple metaphor that isn't even close to greater metaphorical claims made previously.
No.
Even PETER pleaded with GOD three times when it came to eat something he didn't want to.
And your saying there is no chance this is whats is going through these disciples.
Btw, On the first plea....... Jesus could have said well where is your faith alone nope I'm not wasting my time on this ....... "he hath blinded peter's eyes".....
Good thing Jesus wasn't a Baptist. Peter would have been dumped on a curb quite a few times.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus is not puffed up, snooty, impatient or a megalomaniac.
Look up the word SADIST. That God is not. I'm sure you get a lot of spiritual points for quickly concluding the least merciful path as God's. Doesn't that strike you odd? how quickly you attribute evil to God and accept it?
I know the attitude your trying to project on Jesus......I met that kind of person before.....then they grew up.
Like a cross between a Nazi and Emo. That's not Jesus.
Tell me, if God is the greatest teacher in the universe and hypothetically you/we were the dumbest. Who is going to win this? Does he have the capability to teach you or not?
Your answers tell me no. God is too weak.
Had Jesus been metaphorical NO one would have left. And previously it is show these same disciples had metaphorical experience from Jesus. Even right after the boat ride. They understood when Jesus is being symbolic.
There is no scandal to be found from a metaphorical presentation of John 6.
I find your defense laughable same guy who claimed that when a drunk says Jesus is Lord its nothing. But oh.....now the holy spirit isn't with these disciples for not accepting a simple metaphor that isn't even close to greater metaphorical claims made previously.
No.
Even PETER pleaded with GOD three times when it came to eat something he didn't want to.
And your saying there is no chance this is whats is going through these disciples.
Btw, On the first plea....... Jesus could have said well where is your faith alone nope I'm not wasting my time on this ....... "he hath blinded peter's eyes".....
Good thing Jesus wasn't a Baptist. Peter would have been dumped on a curb quite a few times.

Your list of insults, and repetitive over dramatic sarcasims reveal to every reader you are completely rendered helpless and can't provide a reasonable contextual based response. So I simply repeat what you can't disprove:


He first introduces himself in metaphorical terms "I am the bread of life" and when asked how they could partake of this bread, he responds in equal metaphorical terms of eating and drinking.Hence, just as physical eating and drinking is how food is partaken and brought within the physical body, so also metaphorical eating and drinking (i.e. believing) is how Christ is partaken by the soul. This is the meaning, as he immediately applies it negatively in the very next verse "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not" meaning they metaphorically refused to eat or drink of him.

They had asked him – “give us this bread” and he then proceeds to tell them how they can partake of this metaphorical bread by metaphorically eating and drinking which he defines as believing in him or coming to him by faith for eternal life - “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Verse 35 is indisputably clear that thirst and hunger are quenched not by LITERALLY consuming him but by coming to him in faith for eternal life. Again this is made clear as Verse 47-48 completely omits the metaphorical eating drinking language and plainly says it is by believing in him that eternal life is obtained in direct reference to "the bread of life"

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth upon me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

In verse 44 he plainly tells why unbeleivers can come to him in faith and why unbelievers can't understand what he says because it requires the father drawing them (v. 44) meaning they must be internallly taught by the Father and the evidence that such were not drawn by the Father is that they could not understand his words while Peter an the eleven could. The same is still true today, his words are still misinterpreted by those the Father has never taught as they still interpret them literally when it is plain from the context they are metaphorical. The same is still true today of those the Father has taught, they can see it is believing in him according to his "words" that obtains eternal life rather than literally eating his flesh - "as the flesh profiteth nothing" as Peter says "thou has the words of eternal life and WE BELIEVE and art sure thou are the Christ.." His words are crystal clear concerning how eternal life is obtained:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth upon me hath everlasting life.

 

[utilyan]

What a ridiculous answer! Surely you know better than to use English words when the Christ and the disciples spoke Greek. They did not speak "KJVism". Yet you use an English word to try and prove your point! Amazing!!

Do you know how many translations use this word "bishoprick"? Do you even know what the word means. Let's consider other translations. Keep in mind I haven't found a translation other than the KJV that uses the word. It is possible there is, but I haven't seen it. However:

(ASV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.

(Darby) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it; and, Let another take his overseership.

(EMTV) For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his homestead become desolate, and let no one dwell in it'; and, 'May another take his office of overseer. '

(ESV) "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'

Even the older Geneva:
(Geneva) For it is written in the booke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be void, and let no man dwel therein: also, Let another take his charge.

(ISV) "For in the Book of Psalms it is written, 'Let his estate be desolate, and let no one live on it,' and 'Let someone else take over his office,'

(YLT) for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.
--Translation after translation gives the meaning of the word as: office, overseer, or something similar. Not one gives it as bishoprick, and the word certainly does not mean "A bishop's office." That is so funny. When the KJV was written, in 1611, the word "bishop" meant simply "overseer" and was just another term for "pastor." It was not a different office than the pastor's. It was the same.


There are The Twelve apostles, and no more. Their names are written on the foundations of the new Jerusalem in heaven. Whose names will be written there?
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb
--Which apostles? Who are they? Not one of them is a pope--not even one. They Bible knows no such thing. The person that took the "apostleship" of Judas was Matthias. The other eleven have been previously listed.


Jesus made him an apostle and gave him the duty of being the treasurer. So what are you talking about? You are not making sense. Jesus gave him opportunity after opportunity to repent, but he never did. He died without genuine repentance, and thus his position had to be filled with a true believer who was a witness of the resurrection, the first and most important qualification of being an apostle. That qualification alone discredits all the Popes.

It means "overseer." That is the duty of a "pastor."


No. First, the word "bishop" has been redefined by the RCC, and your understanding of the word is in correct.
Second, that is not the meaning of the word "episkopos." It is overseer.
I refer you to Thayer's Lexicon:

G1984
ἐπισκοπή
episkopē
Thayer Definition:
1) investigation, inspection, visitation
1a) that act by which God looks into and searches out the ways, deeds character, of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly, whether joyous or sad
1b) oversight
1b1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
1b2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
Part of Speech: noun feminine


Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--The word elder refers to pastors. They ordained elders/pastors in every church that they started. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and in that time established over 100 local churches, ordaining a pastor in each one before he left.

Our church follows the Bible; that is why I can back my position with Scripture and you cannot.


What language was this originally written in?
Who translated it? When was it translated it?
Obviously the word "bishop" was in vogue at that time, and as in the 17th century had a different meaning than it does now.

What you said:
"No bishop was appointed by the apostle."

"No. First, the word "bishop" has been redefined by the RCC, and your understanding of the word is in correct.
Second, that is not the meaning of the word "episkopos." It is overseer. "

"Surely you know better than to use English words when the Christ and the disciples spoke Greek."

Well your seeking of accuracy is very commendable.

Bishop is overseer. And you can go to Catholic website and see just that.

The word means overseer. When you say "No bishop was appointed by the apostle." You are saying "No OVERSEER was appointed by the apostle."

Here is a link to translator: From English to Greek.

https://www.google.com/#q=bishop+in+greek



English: Bishop,

Greek:
επίσκοπος
επίσκοπος
More
epískopos


Brother we are saying there is a office of Episkopos. That is GREEK for Bishop. You can call all our Episkopos, Episkopos all you want.

We've always used the tilte Episkopos exactly as in the bible. It just so happens to become bishop when rendered in English.


You want to see the word we use in Roman Catholic LATIN:
Episcopus,


The same thing.



You want the English translation to be Overseer , it already is , if you knew what a bishop is. You go take that up with Webster.


Our brothers and sisters can look up the etymology.

Etymology means, 1. the derivation of a word.

Derivation means where it comes from.


Bishop comes from OLDE English bisceop

Meaning.....WATCHER as in OVERSEER.

Based on the greek word episkopos.


You can google all this information........google is friend.

you type www.google.com on the search you type in bishop etymology.

Then hit search


Its pretty useful in showing the origins of the English language

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother we are saying there is a office of Episkopos. That is GREEK for Bishop. You can call all our Episkopos, Episkopos all you want.

We've always used the tilte Episkopos exactly as in the bible. It just so happens to become bishop when rendered in English.


You want to see the word we use in Roman Catholic LATIN:
Episcopus,


The same thing.



You want the English translation to be Overseer , it already is , if you knew what a bishop is. You go take that up with Webster.


Our brothers and sisters can look up the etymology.

Etymology means, 1. the derivation of a word.

Derivation means where it comes from.


Bishop comes from OLDE English bisceop

Meaning.....WATCHER as in OVERSEER.

Based on the greek word episkopos.


You can google all this information........google is friend.

you type www.google.com on the search you type in bishop etymology.

Then hit search


Its pretty useful in showing the origins of the English language

Acts 20:17,28 prove that all three terms "episkopos, poimneo and presbuteros" all refer to the same office. Those who aspired to that office had to be spiritual mature (presbuteros) as they were placed in a position by the Holy Spirit to "oversee" the flock which their primary task was to "feed" or "pastor" the flock.

There are no Popes, Cardinals, Arch Bishops, Priests with regard to ministerial offices found in the New Testament but there are some of these very terms used in Babylonian Mystery religions (Rev. 17:5).

 

[The Biblicist]

Concerning the office of "apostle" the practice of the New Testament was that when one of the twelve were vacated by death that vacated office was filled by those who met the qualifications listed in Act 1:21-22. As DHK pointed out the New Jerusalem's foundation is characterized by TWELVE apostles demonstrating there is no apostolic succession found in scripture of ONE apostle. James was the apostle in charge of the first council of the congregation in Jerusalem not Peter. Peter denied he held any higher office of authority over others (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

Furthermore, one of the qualificaitons is to be an eyewitness of his resurrected body (Acts 1:22) and Paul claims he was the "last (eschatos) OF ALL" to have seen the resurrected body of Christ. Hence, there could not be any apostolic succession beyond the limits of available eye witnesses of his resurrected body. No "pope" claims to have been an eye witness of the resurrected body of Christ and therefore no "pope" can be a successor to the apostolic office.

Even if one accepts the idea that there was a previous gospel of Matthew in Aramaic ("Q" - which I do not) and "kephas" was used twice in the text, still the Greek text clearly distinguishes between the two as the second person singular ("you") defines the first noun while the third person singular ("this") defines the second noun. Moreover, if one was present at this conversation and heard and saw, Jesus could have simply pointed to Peter with the motion of his hand "thou art kephas" and then with the same motion of his hand pointed to himself and said "upon this kephas" I will build the congregation." However, the Holy Spirit chose to write and preserve the text in Greek not in Aramaic.

Furthermore, the anarthrous construction of "petros" found in an obvious building context sheds light on the true meaning Christ had in mind. There can be no doubt that Christ gave him this name (Jn. 1:42) with characterization in view. In the building context we have:

1. A builder identified - "I will build"
2. We have a building identified - "my congregation"
3. We have a foundation identified - "UPON this rock"

However, there is no building MATERIALS identified apart from the anarthous construct of "petros". If his name is understood to CHARACTERIZE the kind of building MATERIALS used by Christ to build his congregation then verse 18 is addressed to Peter in that characterization. This would explain why just two chapters later the PLURAL PRONOUN "you" is said to have authority to bind and loose (Mt. 18:18) rather than merely Peter.

Furthermore, this would explain why Peter himself characterized the building materials Christ uses to build his congregation as "lively STONES" (plural) - 1 Pet. 2:5 and why Peter defines Christ as the "petros" in 1 Pet. 2:8 rather than himself.

Finally, the third person singular "this" in Matthew 16:18 has for its nearest grammatical antecedent "it" in verse 17 which in turn has for its nearest antecedent Peter's profession of Christ in verse 16. Hence, The congregation of Christ is built with MATERIALS characterized by Peter as a professing believing in Christ Jesus. - case closed

 

[utilyan]

Acts 20:17,28 prove that all three terms "episkopos, poimneo and presbuteros" all refer to the same office. Those who aspired to that office had to be spiritual mature (presbuteros) as they were placed in a position by the Holy Spirit to "oversee" the flock which their primary task was to "feed" or "pastor" the flock.

There are no Popes, Cardinals, Arch Bishops, Priests with regard to ministerial offices found in the New Testament but there are some of these very terms used in Babylonian Mystery religions (Rev. 17:5).

Well under Sola Scriptura my DOG is the minister. No kidding. everyone is a one man pastor.

Prove I am not a pastor. HAH! Ridiculous. A UN-lineage of self-proclaimed authorities.


You might be Calvinist other is not. Now which of you is pastor?

Titus 1

5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

None of you were appointed by anyone with legit office.

We play the game of who elected him and who elected him. You don't get an American citizenship from the government of China, And thus you have 0 pastors.

That argument was used by the very first bishops. I studied under John the apostle.......We never heard of you.



There is no one man pastors. You don't see pastor so and so in the bible.


If we look at a church staff music minster, the youth minister, senior minister, childrend's pastor

The whole thing is going to be staffed by "pastors", But not of them will be THE Pastor.

A youth ministers still "oversees" the youth. He still a minister "deacon.

You may be the overseer of the air condition in your house, does that makes you overseer in the church?

King James bible :
1 timothy 3

1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work

Nasb
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.


You can call it whatever you want......There is an office here.




ephesians 4
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

It should say he gave all as pastors. and that's it. Pastors and some pastors and well as some pastors and pastors. And lets not forget what Jesus said.......call no man "teacher".



1 Corinthians 12
27Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?


No Paul.......there is just Pastor. There is no firsts.




I can get thousand people to put their hands on my shoulder and claim I am the apostle. Does that make me the apostle? Am I there ordained so?


Hey bible says we have apostles. We see them replaced.

1 timothy 5
17The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. 21I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. 22Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.



Titus 1

5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,


Look I'm the apostle.......I have not appointed any of you......Game over.

If there is no authority there is no one person appointing others.


"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2). --Ignatius of Antioch.


We see a Paul refer to himself as deacon, Yet Paul is an apostle.

.....will post very clear distinction next.