John 6 -- full of symbolism.

[utilyan]

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. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,


1 Timothy 3

" 8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.............."

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.



If it all refers to the same office........why repeat....and compare the deacon having likewise requirements of a bishop.


There is more then one office.

 

[The Biblicist]

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. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,


1 Timothy 3

" 8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.............."

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.



If it all refers to the same office........why repeat....and compare the deacon having likewise requirements of a bishop.


There is more then one office.

First, who said that "deacon" is the same office as "Bishop"?????? I said the terms "presbuterous....episkapous....poimneo" all refer to the same office in Acts 20:17,28. There is no mention of "diakonoi" in Acts 20:17, 28.

Second, do you really expect different moral, home and doctrinal qualifications for Bishops than for Deacons?????? Should qualifications for one be morally high while the other morally low???????

Third, where do you find "pope...cardinal....archbishop....Priest" anywhere in the New Testament as titles or descriptions for any kind of church office???

 

[utilyan]

First, who said that "deacon" is the same office as "Bishop"?????? I said the terms "presbuterous....episkapous....poimneo" all refer to the same office in Acts 20:17,28. There is no mention of "diakonoi" in Acts 20:17, 28.

Second, do you really expect different moral, home and doctrinal qualifications for Bishops than for Deacons?????? Should qualifications for one be morally high while the other morally low???????

Third, where do you find "pope...cardinal....archbishop....Priest" anywhere in the New Testament as titles or descriptions for any kind of church office???

Its first on the same page where it says The Bible is the only absolute final authority.

It was a pleasure researching the answers I learned a lot.




Acts 15

2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Stop right there, They have scripture. There is no having to consult and having a final judgment from the Apostles and Elders.

Why can't they settle it in their church with scripture alone?

When your little congregation is in dispute.....Who you got to go to?




Acts 15

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them,


Oh no there is none of this. This never nor could happen in your fantastic church. IF your congregation has an issue tough, they have to settle it with scripture, they can't introduce out of scripture doctrine.

Here we see the power the power to bind and loose. The elders and apostles didn't open up a old testament and say......well it says here gentile don't have to. Nope.

Joe Blow couldn't stand up in this meeting and say well guys we pagans think that holy spirit says we should worship ten more gods, because he is not hold a important or CARDINAL office in the church the church. Your heart is CARDINAL to keeping your blood pumping. You might have cardinal rules at home.

Look you say your are right and I am wrong, I say you are wrong and I am right. As a church how do we decide? Lets hold a meeting I got 1.2billion votes ready to tell you, you are wrong. You might not recognize me. You would only consider particular folks as CARDINALS in your own magisterium circle. I can't walk in and have a authoritive say in your congregation.



The TITLES is the church's discretion. If God wants he can have Batman and Robin for titles.

Jesus Christ himself is high priest. Believe me he has an office and believe me it is higher.

See little knick-knack like the one I give with Jesus, Points how flawed an un-thought out theology is.

When you make absolute statements make sure they are absolute

Everything after the gospels is overkill, if you don't think there is a office of the church.


1 Corinthians 4

14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Oh no Paul..... I call no man father.

Maybe Paul is GOD is that why he calls himself father?



"presbuterous....episkapous....poimneo"

None of the above is a minister? How do you say minister in their language? Hint: deacon.

I want you to YELL "presbuterous" Without saying PRIEST. And then acknowledge they may be called "priest" in English......in differ languages its differ things.

Again look up "priest etymology" etymology and your going to find presbyter.

presbyteros > presbyterus > presbyter > prester > priest


For bishop:
Epi means "upon". Skopus means "to see" like scope or telescope.
episkopos > episcopus > piscop > biscop > bishop

Diakonos is an office. It even means DIA "through" Konos "common" that's "servant".

Pope means PAPA. That's just affection, He is Bishop of Rome



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?

That's a clear hierarchy. Tell him . Yes all are apostles........there is only one office.

 

[The Biblicist]

As usual you ignore the evidence placed before, change the subject and run like a rabbit.

I

Acts 15

2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Stop right there, They have scripture. There is no having to consult and having a final judgment from the Apostles and Elders.

Why can't they settle it in their church with scripture alone?

When your little congregation is in dispute.....Who you got to go to?

They did not have any New Testament Scripture dealing with New Testament church doctrine or polity. They had an apostle and yet that did not settle it did it? It is the congregation that made the decision here. The word translated "determined" infers a church business meeting determined by vote. The term "brethren" is used synonmous in the context of Acts 14:27-15:3 with "church...disciples....brethren.....church"

Acts 15

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them,


Oh no there is none of this. This never nor could happen in your fantastic church. IF your congregation has an issue tough, they have to settle it with scripture, they can't introduce out of scripture doctrine.

The problem with your argument is that the apostles are the primary instruments for producing New Testament Scriptures and acted as prophets according to Christ's prediction in John 14-17. We do not live during the period of incompleted Scripture and or the foundational period of apostles and prophets. We live after their foundational work and office is fulfilled with the completion of the Biblical canon. So you are comparing apples with oranges. By the Way James did quote scripture to support Paul and Peter's testimonies. Again, it is "the whole church" with its leadership that acted as final authority to James's conclusion. By the way, James and not Peter was recognized as the leader - ooops so much for Catholic papal authority based on Peter. Moreover, Rome was a GENTILE congregation under the apostolic authority of Paul not Peter or James.


Rome has no authority to add to change the church government and officers as revealed in scripture. That simply proves they are not the New Testament congregation built by Christ. It is likeness, not difference with the New Testament congregation that defines Christ's congregation

1 Corinthians 4

14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Oh no Paul..... I call no man father.

Maybe Paul is GOD is that why he calls himself father?

Can't read too well can you? He never exhorted or commanded them to call him "father" or any other title. He is clearly using "father" in the sense of instrumentality, as he was the human instrument God begot them through the preaching of the gospel. So there is nothing here to support your papal theory.

By the way, what happened to your belief in the supremacy of Peter???? Are you now admitting Paul rather than Peter is the supreme Pontiff???? I noticed you can't find Peter using this language about himself???

"presbuterous....episkapous....poimneo"

None of the above is a minister? How do you say minister in their language? Hint: deacon.

Are your really so ignorant of scripture that you do not realize the term diakonoi can be used in a general sense for any person doing anything anywhere whether that person is a Christian or lost person?????? The point is that diakonos is distinguished from the office of presbuteros in Philippians 1:1 and therefore with regard to church office it is not the primary description of the office of presbuteros but a general description for laymen or officers.

I want you to YELL "presbuterous" Without saying PRIEST. And then acknowledge they may be called "priest" in English......in differ languages its differ things.

Again look up "priest etymology" etymology and your going to find presbyter.

presbyteros > presbyterus > presbyter > prester > priest

You are only advertising your ignorance. The point is that the BIBLE never uses that term for any New Testament congregational OFFICE. The only OFFICE the Bible ever uses it for is the Old Testament preisthood and Jesus Christ. Metaphorically it is used for the common congregational member (1 Pet. 2:5) inclusive of all members equally. Sorry there are no "popes..cardinals, archbishops and Priests" as OFFICES in the New Testament congregation which proves Rome is apostate and an amalgamation of Babylonian mystery religion (Rev. 17:5) where you do find these same titles.

For bishop:
Epi means "upon". Skopus means "to see" like scope or telescope.
episkopos > episcopus > piscop > biscop > bishop

Diakonos is an office. It even means DIA "through" Konos "common" that's "servant".

Pope means PAPA. That's just affection, He is Bishop of Rome

All just rubbish! It is not the meaning or general application of these terms, but it is the Biblical application to OFFICES in the congregation where your error lies.

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?

That's a clear hierarchy. Tell him . Yes all are apostles........there is only one office.

No, it is not a heirachy at all. The context is about spiritual gifts and the Corinthians had elevated the gift of tongues above all else. Paul is merely giving the proper PRIORITY of spiritual gifts. Notice that apostles, prophets, teachers all are gifted men involved with providing or teaching scripture. Paul is merely demonstrating that spiritual gifts that make the Word of God, scripture the emphasis are to be regarded superior to other spiritual gifts as "miracles, the gifts of healing, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues....interpret"

Your interpetation is proven wrong as miracles, healings, tongues, interpretation have nothing to do with church government but with spiritual gifts. Study a little bit more harder.

Now try to deal directly with my former posts. That would be something new for you!

 

[utilyan]

As usual you ignore the evidence placed before, change the subject and run like a rabbit.



They did not have any New Testament Scripture dealing with New Testament church doctrine or polity. They had an apostle and yet that did not settle it did it? It is the congregation that made the decision here. The word translated "determined" infers a church business meeting determined by vote. The term "brethren" is used synonmous in the context of Acts 14:27-15:3 with "church...disciples....brethren.....church"








The problem with your argument is that the apostles are the primary instruments for producing New Testament Scriptures and acted as prophets according to Christ's prediction in John 14-17. We do not live during the period of incompleted Scripture and or the foundational period of apostles and prophets. We live after their foundational work and office is fulfilled with the completion of the Biblical canon. So you are comparing apples with oranges. By the Way James did quote scripture to support Paul and Peter's testimonies. Again, it is "the whole church" with its leadership that acted as final authority to James's conclusion. By the way, James and not Peter was recognized as the leader - ooops so much for Catholic papal authority based on Peter. Moreover, Rome was a GENTILE congregation under the apostolic authority of Paul not Peter or James.


Rome has no authority to add to change the church government and officers as revealed in scripture. That simply proves they are not the New Testament congregation built by Christ. It is likeness, not difference with the New Testament congregation that defines Christ's congregation






Can't read too well can you? He never exhorted or commanded them to call him "father" or any other title. He is clearly using "father" in the sense of instrumentality, as he was the human instrument God begot them through the preaching of the gospel. So there is nothing here to support your papal theory.

By the way, what happened to your belief in the supremacy of Peter???? Are you now admitting Paul rather than Peter is the supreme Pontiff???? I noticed you can't find Peter using this language about himself???





Are your really so ignorant of scripture that you do not realize the term diakonoi can be used in a general sense for any person doing anything anywhere whether that person is a Christian or lost person?????? The point is that diakonos is distinguished from the office of presbuteros in Philippians 1:1 and therefore with regard to church office it is not the primary description of the office of presbuteros but a general description for laymen or officers.



You are only advertising your ignorance. The point is that the BIBLE never uses that term for any New Testament congregational OFFICE. The only OFFICE the Bible ever uses it for is the Old Testament preisthood and Jesus Christ. Metaphorically it is used for the common congregational member (1 Pet. 2:5) inclusive of all members equally. Sorry there are no "popes..cardinals, archbishops and Priests" as OFFICES in the New Testament congregation which proves Rome is apostate and an amalgamation of Babylonian mystery religion (Rev. 17:5) where you do find these same titles.




All just rubbish! It is not the meaning or general application of these terms, but it is the Biblical application to OFFICES in the congregation where your error lies.





No, it is not a heirachy at all. The context is about spiritual gifts and the Corinthians had elevated the gift of tongues above all else. Paul is merely giving the proper PRIORITY of spiritual gifts. Notice that apostles, prophets, teachers all are gifted men involved with providing or teaching scripture. Paul is merely demonstrating that spiritual gifts that make the Word of God, scripture the emphasis are to be regarded superior to other spiritual gifts as "miracles, the gifts of healing, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues....interpret"

Your interpetation is proven wrong as miracles, healings, tongues, interpretation have nothing to do with church government but with spiritual gifts. Study a little bit more harder.

Now try to deal directly with my former posts. That would be something new for you!

"He is clearly using "father" in the sense of instrumentality, as he was the human instrument God begot them through the preaching of the gospel. So there is nothing here to support your papal theory."

Which is what? that the pope is your biological father as opposed to "sense of instrumentality"?

Backwards is backwards. Paul ain't Baptist.



"No, it is not a heirachy at all."

There are not 1000 apostles. There are 12. These are church offices even given thrones.

GAME OVER.

 

[The Biblicist]

"He is clearly using "father" in the sense of instrumentality, as he was the human instrument God begot them through the preaching of the gospel. So there is nothing here to support your papal theory."

Which is what? that the pope is your biological father as opposed to "sense of instrumentality"?

Try a little honesty please! You know very well the term "pope" is used as a TITLE for a CHURCH OFFICE whereas Paul is not referring to any title or church office but is using "father" merely as a metaphor to describe himself as the human instrument through whom God empowered the gospel for their new birth. If you can't understand the difference you shouldn't be posting but be quiet and try to learn something.

Paul ain't Baptist.

As a matter of Fact Paul is "Baptist" in doctrine and practice.

"No, it is not a heirachy at all."

This is why you shouldn't be posting because you prove over and over again you know nothing about proper exegesis. Any capable exegete or expositor can easily see the context is about spiritual gifts and their priority as "tongues" is no part of a church heirarchy, nor "miracles" nor interpretation of tongues. Paul is prioritizing gifted men and gifts.

There are not 1000 apostles. There are 12. These are church offices even given thrones.

GAME OVER.

The game should be over for you as you don't believe the scriptures and have no business trying to teach what you obviously do not understand. Yes, the limit is 12 as 12 are given to be a witness to Israel and Paul is the apostle to Gentiles and "the last of all" to see the resurrected Christ and the true apostle over the church at Rome and all other Gentile congregations. Yes there are only twelve and not 1000 apostles as foundations in the New Jerusalem. Yes, the limit is twelve as you NEVER read more than 12 given to Israel anywhere at any time from 26 A.D. to the time of the writing of book of Revelation. yes, the office is limited to the first century by the very nature of the qualifications demanded to fill that office - eye witness of the resurrected body of Christ and personal instruction by Christ (Acts 1;21-22). Yes, there are but 12 thrones but NOT DURING THE CHURCH AGE but after the coming of Christ in the age to come. yes, the game is over for your nonsense.

 

[utilyan]

Try a little honesty please! You know very well the term "pope" is used as a TITLE for a CHURCH OFFICE whereas Paul is not referring to any title or church office but is using "father" merely as a metaphor to describe himself as the human instrument through whom God empowered the gospel for their new birth. If you can't understand the difference you shouldn't be posting but be quiet and try to learn something.

As a matter of Fact Paul is "Baptist" in doctrine and practice.


This is why you shouldn't be posting because you prove over and over again you know nothing about proper exegesis. Any capable exegete or expositor can easily see the context is about spiritual gifts and their priority as "tongues" is no part of a church heirarchy, nor "miracles" nor interpretation of tongues. Paul is prioritizing gifted men and gifts.



The game should be over for you as you don't believe the scriptures and have no business trying to teach what you obviously do not understand. Yes, the limit is 12 as 12 are given to be a witness to Israel and Paul is the apostle to Gentiles and "the last of all" to see the resurrected Christ and the true apostle over the church at Rome and all other Gentile congregations. Yes there are only twelve and not 1000 apostles as foundations in the New Jerusalem. Yes, the limit is twelve as you NEVER read more than 12 given to Israel anywhere at any time from 26 A.D. to the time of the writing of book of Revelation. yes, the office is limited to the first century by the very nature of the qualifications demanded to fill that office - eye witness of the resurrected body of Christ and personal instruction by Christ (Acts 1;21-22). Yes, there are but 12 thrones but NOT DURING THE CHURCH AGE but after the coming of Christ in the age to come. yes, the game is over for your nonsense.

We can even look at the commentary of the opposition and even they admit there is different offices.

Even the Church Fathers themselves rarely some Joe off the street but clergy in profession and even talking about offices.


You know how many congregations agree as you do? Zero. partly because you can't even NAME yourself, no one even knows what you are.

Absolutist in doctrines, you are the extremist, Westboro, hypercalvinist. Its not a surprise because they are taking your teachings to their LOGICAL, CONSISTENT outcome.

If I accepted your teaching, they would have nothing on me and you would swear I sound 10 times as crazy as they sound. Thankfully folks don't have the common sense and consistency to be worst then the bubble they are already stuck in or always too cowardly then to veer off into the realm of thinking for their own self.

You are even arguing that I'm incapable of exegete of scripture. Namely that I require YOU as authority.

If I believe in faith alone, would I be whining about what you believe? No I'd be whining to God since its not by my power and its all on him whether you get anything right. This is called being consistent.

 

[The Biblicist]

We can even look at the commentary of the opposition and even they admit there is different offices.

Even the Church Fathers themselves rarely some Joe off the street but clergy in profession and even talking about offices.

Here is your probelm! You don't love the scriptures at all! Your authority is the traditions of uninspired men. "the commentary of the opposition" are reformed Catholics who still continue to carry false doctrines learned from their harlot mother.

You know how many congregations agree as you do? Zero. partly because you can't even NAME yourself, no one even knows what you are.

Your are advertising your ignorance. Again, you shouldn't be posting but learning from others. The "congregational" form of church government is held by many, many different denominations who believe in just two church offices (elders, deacons). To name a few, there are the varieties that go under the name of "Baptists" (Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, Conservative Baptists, etc.)and then there is "the assembly of God" and "church of Christ" and etc. Most "evangelical" denominations believe in just two church offices.

I have identified us many times but you either can't read or understand - we are the ancient Anabaptists that even Cardinal Hosius, as well as the Reformers (Zwingli, Bullinger, etc.) admitted that can be traced back to the third century. We are those Rome has killed and perverted their beliefs in order to turn over and condemn by the legal arm of Rome to death.

Absolutist in doctrines, you are the extremist, Westboro, hypercalvinist. Its not a surprise because they are taking your teachings to their LOGICAL, CONSISTENT outcome.

When the Bible does not support your errors, the only weapons you have left are insults and lies. Everyone reading these posts can plainly see you cannot answer the scriptures that have been set before you clearly. You can only reply by insults and lies.

You are even arguing that I'm incapable of exegete of scripture. Namely that I require YOU as authority.

Where did I ever quote myself as final authority? Answer - never! I simply quoted scriptures and pointed out the grammatical and contextual based truths which you could not demonstrate to be wrong by contextual based evidence. Instead, you made assertions that contradicted scriptures, and asserted unbiblical traditions and then lowered your defense by insults and lying. THAT IS THE PROOF YOU ARE NOT A CAPABLE EXEGETE - YOUR OWN RESPONSES!

If I believe in faith alone, would I be whining about what you believe? No I'd be whining to God since its not by my power and its all on him whether you get anything right. This is called being consistent.

But I don't believe in faith alone and never have said I did. Again, you are making false accusations. What I have clearly and repeatedly stated is that I believe in JUSTIFICATION by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works, but not justifcation by faith that is without regenerative sanctification "unto good works" - Eph. 2:10.

Again, this shows you should be asking questions and learning instead of advertising ignorance and misrepresentations.

 

[BobRyan]

In John 6 nobody BITES Christ!!

The faithLESS disciples of John 6 - leave... taking Jesus too literally.

The faithFUL disciples in John 6 - point specifically to the point Christ makes that HIS WORD is life - and that literal flesh is worthless.

And so then the faithLESS disciples taking Christ too literally leave.

But the faithFUL disciples in John 6 - remain .. the same ones that Jesus explained the symbol of bread to in Matt 16- remain.

Nobody biting Christ.

And Jesus then asks the faithFUL if they want to take the course of the faithLESS in John 6 who were taking him too literally. The answer from Peter is not "No we choose to bite you" but rather "you have the WORDS of LIFE!" being said right after Christ said "eating literal flesh is worthless - rather it is my WORDS that have spirit and LIFE".

It just does not get any easier than that!

John 6

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.”
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

once 'again' you totally ignore the teaching of Christ showing that eating literal flesh is pointless.

how many times shall we quote John 6 - before you can bring yourself to quote it?

Are you saying Jesus COMMANDED them to eat his FLESH and then right after tells them it is pointless to do it?

If they all starting biting Christ - there would be no cross and no last supper - and we both know it.

Please be serious.


He never says "MY FLESH is SPIRIT". he says : "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"

His entire argument in John 6 is what it is one must do to have life. He points out that His WORDS are that which gives life - not eating literal flesh.

And so Peter REPEATS the lesson (hint: while not biting Christ) -- that the WORDS of Christ are what gives life - and not - BITING Christ!

Only the faithLESS disciples go to the "biting Christ" discussion as they LEAVE.

================================= page 1 --- post 1

Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

 

[utilyan]

In John 6 nobody BITES Christ!!

The faithLESS disciples of John 6 - leave... taking Jesus too literally.

The faithFUL disciples in John 6 - point specifically to the point Christ makes that HIS WORD is life - and that literal flesh is worthless.





once 'again' you totally ignore the teaching of Christ showing that eating literal flesh is pointless.

how many times shall we quote John 6 - before you can bring yourself to quote it?




If they all starting biting Christ - there would be no cross and no last supper - and we both know it.

Please be serious.


He never says "MY FLESH is SPIRIT". he says : "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"

His entire argument in John 6 is what it is one must do to have life. He points out that His WORDS are that which gives life - not eating literal flesh.

And so Peter REPEATS the lesson (hint: while not biting Christ) -- that the WORDS of Christ are what gives life - and not - BITING Christ!

Only the faithLESS disciples go to the "biting Christ" discussion as they LEAVE.

================================= page 1 --- post 1

Christ is adamant that they eat. And they do not bite him. Neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples bite Him. Yet He keeps telling them that if they want eternal life they must now eat that bread that already came down out of heaven.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the literal flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”


The focus is away from the literal eating of bread -- and towards the WORDS and BELIEF that gives life.

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

"You do not want to go away also, do you?”

That is not a praise from Jesus Christ. What is troubling the Apostles?


See if there was claim from Christ's side of the debate that he was being symbolic......NO one would have left. He's been symbolic before, and no one left.


There is a HARD SAYING, something hard for them to even listen to. Unthinkable. Something that clearly even troubles the apostles. Jesus knows what they are thinking.

Jesus is not a respecter of persons being against people of lesser intellect. He always corrected mistaken notions. We see this with Nicodemus and the disciples.

Even the more literal notion: "... the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

The BREAD that he gives is HIS FLESH.

We are saying that really happens, don't see us leaving.

If it turns out to be symbolic......whoops, we still wouldn't leave.

But what if its the other way around?

If the bread really is 100% his body could you accept that?


Even Peter argues with God over lesser things:

Acts 10

13A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.




Think of the miracle of ascending to heaven Jesus uses this as PROOF:

John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?


So after they see Jesus ascending to heaven,

Are you saying Jesus is going to say "SEE I told you I was being symbolic" See I told you it was fake and not really my flesh?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Laymen are given a wafer -- they may not touch their Jesus themselves -- and are ordered, Eat, you eat Christ! They like the priest crush the cookie Jesus between their teeth; they all crucify the Christ anew. And though on their walls hang pictures and in their cathedrals' glass coffins lay Jesus', bleeding real blood, no blood issues from mouth corners of the chewing gullible. But what a messy bloody pulp their Jesus was on the cross! O, idolaters! Abscheulich, gross, afskuwelik. Beyond words!

Why don't you order the Thomas', Come, put your finger in my cookie's hole, and see it's Me, your Jesus in REAL FLESH!? You lying blasphemers!

 

[DHK]

Even Peter argues with God over lesser things:

Acts 10

13A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

But Peter disobeyed. He was not willing to eat the food that God had cleansed. God offered him food, and he would not eat (whether in a vision or not in a vision is irrelevant). Peter would not eat that which was unclean.
Up to that point Peter would not associate with that which was unclean "the Gentile."
God was teaching him a lesson.

In John 6 Jesus is but a metaphor, "the living bread which came down from heaven," the "manna", "the flesh and blood", all of which they must believe on to have eternal life. Why do you believe you must enter the door (i.e. Christ) instead of eating him, or literally taking a door knob and walking through him. You believe it is a metaphor. This teaching was hard for them to accept as well.
That is why he spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

The same is true today. They don't want to understand the truth.

 

[utilyan]

Laymen are given a wafer -- they may not touch their Jesus themselves -- and are ordered, Eat, you eat Christ! They like the priest crush the cookie Jesus between their teeth; they all crucify the Christ anew. And though on their walls hang pictures and in their cathedrals' glass coffins lay Jesus', bleeding real blood, no blood issues from mouth corners of the chewing gullible. But what a messy bloody pulp their Jesus was on the cross! O, idolaters! Abscheulich, gross, afskuwelik. Beyond words!

Why don't you order the Thomas', Come, put your finger in my cookie's hole, and see it's Me, your Jesus in REAL FLESH!? You lying blasphemers!

When Jesus points to a cup and says that's my blood, I believe him.

YOU need a DNA TEST.


God overrides all reality. You would have to deny his omnipresence #1, #2 his WORD.


If Jesus Christ was before you all scientific proof would indicate he is 100% human, Nothing would say he is God. But he is God because God says he is.

You would say WELL Jesus is only God symbolically, No he really is God on the exact same principle the bread and wine is God, that is God calls the shots not your perception.

 

[The Biblicist]

When Jesus points to a cup and says that's my blood, I believe him.

YOU need a DNA TEST.

No, it is YOUR interpretation that is being doubted. When Christ said "I am the vine" do you believe he is a literal grape vine???? He said "I am the door"! Do you believe he is a literal wooden door? Anyone who knows the common use of language understands that metaphorical use of language also requires state of being verbs ("is..am..are..was..."). Hence, when he said "this IS my blood" there is a legitimate grammatical grounds to question whether he is speaking metaphorically or literally. You demand he is speaking literally but there is as much (if not more) evidence he is speaking metaphorical. Hence, a DNA test would be reasonable to determine if Jesus is speaking literal or metaphorical. If metaphorical then your view should and would not pass a DNA test. This is not a question of faith, but a question of proper interpretation.

God overrides all reality. You would have to deny his omnipresence #1, #2 his WORD.

God does not override reality! He creates reality and works in reality as he is as much real as the sun is real. Just becomes something is not physical substance does not deny it is real. To claim that the wine in the cup must be Christ's literal blood when the very same language can honestly and legitimately be understood metaphorically is simply dishonest scholarship.

If Jesus Christ was before you all scientific proof would indicate he is 100% human, Nothing would say he is God. But he is God because God says he is.

We don't confuse the humanity of Christ with his deity and yet we do not deny Christ was God in the flesh. So, his physical body is not God as God "is spirit" and yet God has taken upon himself the body of man. The point is that your argument is worthless as it confuses his humanity with his deity. Jesus is MORE than flesh and so flesh alone is not proof that he is God.

 

[utilyan]

No, it is YOUR interpretation that is being doubted. When Christ said "I am the vine" do you believe he is a literal grape vine???? He said "I am the door"! Do you believe he is a literal wooden door? Anyone who knows the common use of language understands that metaphorical use of language also requires state of being verbs ("is..am..are..was..."). Hence, when he said "this IS my blood" there is a legitimate grammatical grounds to question whether he is speaking metaphorically or literally. You demand he is speaking literally but there is as much (if not more) evidence he is speaking metaphorical. Hence, a DNA test would be reasonable to determine if Jesus is speaking literal or metaphorical. If metaphorical then your view should and would not pass a DNA test. This is not a question of faith, but a question of proper interpretation.


God does not override reality! He creates reality and works in reality as he is as much real as the sun is real. Just becomes something is not physical substance does not deny it is real. To claim that the wine in the cup must be Christ's literal blood when the very same language can honestly and legitimately be understood metaphorically is simply dishonest scholarship.




We don't confuse the humanity of Christ with his deity and yet we do not deny Christ was God in the flesh. So, his physical body is not God as God "is spirit" and yet God has taken upon himself the body of man. The point is that your argument is worthless as it confuses his humanity with his deity. Jesus is MORE than flesh and so flesh alone is not proof that he is God.

"flesh alone is not proof that he is God"

You are more correct then you want to be. Your statement just needs more contemplation.

 

[The Biblicist]

"flesh alone is not proof that he is God"

You are more correct then you want to be. Your statement just needs more contemplation.

No, I said exactly what I meant and no more contemplation is necessary to mean what I said. If you had given your statement (the statement I responded to) a little more contemplation you would not have attempted to use that kind of reasoning.

 

[utilyan]

No, I said exactly what I meant and no more contemplation is necessary to mean what I said. If you had given your statement (the statement I responded to) a little more contemplation you would not have attempted to use that kind of reasoning.

Its more right then you want to be because if "flesh alone is not proof that he is God" then you don't have any grounds to deny anything God claims to be INCLUDING THIS BREAD and THIS WINE.

I'm saying YOU need to contemplate what YOU are saying.


Frequently folks limit God's knowledge. without power , and without any weight to declare anything.

That it is impossible that God is there in the flesh when he says he is. That somehow God is limited to a physical or spiritual mechanic.


John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus' word commands reality. He can tell a sick man to get up, he gets up, A dead man to awake and he awakes. Let there be light and there is light.


Jesus is the word made flesh. Because the word is flesh doesn't mean now the word is trash and no longer spirit.

When Jesus takes this bread and says this is my body, It is 100% his body.


Lets assume its your way Bib,

Can I now point to the cross and say his blood shed for us is NOTHING because none of it is GOD. That Christ offering his body and blood, lord you might as well offered me some rocks and dirt.

What does Christ offer you when he says take my body and blood? Trash or Treasure?


Even in birth place, Bethlahem , The place means House of Bread or is it House of Meat or house of flesh?


If Jesus Christ in person gave us blood. We can put it under microscope it is 100% human. And if anyone asked would hope you would say YES this is the holy divine blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus Christ in person gave us blood

<<Jesus Christ in person gave us>> ... NO <<blood>>. That's your RC biggest LIE ever with which you take virtually the whole of Protestantism for a ride.

Yes, ''we", wanted "his blood upon us", but "God had sworn with an oath ... that his soul (in Person, Jesus the Christ) shall not be left in hell; nor shall his flesh (in Person, Jesus the Christ) see corruption". Let fall Jesus Christ in person one drop of blood or fragment of flesh alive, He in both soul and flesh in Person was corruptible, corrupted, and, corrupt, and no unblemished Passover Lamb of God without spot or scar.

Therefore at every mass the RC -- you -- LIE and tell the poor ignorant believer it is Jesus' blood he is drinking.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

When Jesus points to a cup and says that's my blood, I believe him.

The RC LYING again. Quote where you read this nauseating lie of yours where Jesus <<points to a cup and says that's my blood>>.

Jesus spoke of "THIS", the total setting of the Great Controversy that was playing out "in the Kingdom of My Father". The final act had begun wherein the Christ would overcome satan, sin and Godless, to "Triumph in it" once for all. No unfinished bloody battle going on in every cathedral on earth as the RC say every Sunday, or in a sanctuary in heaven as the SDA say since 1844 to today.

 

[utilyan]

The RC LYING again. Quote where you read this nauseating lie of yours where Jesus <<points to a cup and says that's my blood>>.

Jesus spoke of "THIS", the total setting of the Great Controversy that was playing out "in the Kingdom of My Father". The final act had begun wherein the Christ would overcome satan, sin and Godless, to "Triumph in it" once for all. No unfinished bloody battle going on in every cathedral on earth as the RC say every Sunday, or in a sanctuary in heaven as the SDA say since 1844 to today.

Catholic church doesn't teach repeat sacrifice. The Catholic church also doesn't accept your prophet Ellen G White or her "Great Controversy" writings.

The Adventists faiths, SDA, Jehovah's witness, and your sda-protesting denoms.

Always depend on vilifying others. That's pathetic. And then you reinvent the wheel. Great Job figuring out Trinity is true. 1800 years after we've been saying.