The Contextual definition of Faith in Romans 4:16-23

[Thinkingstuff]

It makes no difference what you think! You have TWO conflicting teachings from your authority of "Sacred Traditions."

I'm not stating what I think. I'm stating what some early christians thought and that is not the same as Tradition. Tradition follows that which has always been believed. That is the difference. The deposit of Faith is that which was handed down by the apostles. There are clear distinctions which you have ignored. There isn't two conflicting "Sacred Traditions". One view is in error and the other view is correct in line with what has always been taught as we can see in scriptures. Just to inform you how Tradition works because you seem rather hazy on it is that Tradition that Catholics Hold to is in two formats. 1) The scriptures themselves. 2)and what has always been taught. Which is saying that scriptures was validated by the witness and teachings of the Apostles like the letter sent to Antioch. The written word was authenticated by the witnesses.

That clearly demonstrates "Sacred Tradition" is no more reliable than Jewis Traditions

Two entirely different approaches. Which its clear you haven't understood. There are no new revelation. We hold to the ancient faith that has alway been proclaimed.

You defined repentance as doing that sin NO MORE!

I defined repentance as turning totally around from your sins. To not do them again but people while working to sin no more backslide and that can be forgiven. However, to not turn from your sin and not work against it isn't repentance. Its living in sin. You have mistaken what I said. Therefore the rest of your argument is a non-sequitur.

I will take this challenge any time of the day - you just put up the scriptures you think teach that nonsense!

Did I challenge you? I just stated the fact. You are the one thats taking a confrontational stance. But if you want to throw your misintepreted verses agains my correctly interpreted verses you can do so but the outcome is already determined (hows that for a Calvinistic stance?) we will just disagree. :laugh:

It most certainly does. Remember Moses and hitting the literal rock?

The rock was an actual thing as well as a type. By hitting the rock Moses didn't offend the body of Christ he wasn't convicted for messing up the typology he was punished because of his immediate sin of pride by disobeying God's direct command to speak to the rock. And note how Moses said "I". Making it seem as if he were the one doing it. No your argument doesn't follow. Non-sequitur. We still don't execute people for burning other people in efigy. We only execute them if they actually kill someone. Moses wasn't punished for "Stricking Christ". He was punished for disobedience.

Well, I can readily identify with a "senior moment" as I have had many

More often now for me.

You have stated the Romanist problem well!!!!!!!

Thank you.

Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself as the symbolism was in the OT passover and the FULFILLMENT is in the cross. What was forshadowed (Heb. 10:1-4) COULD NEVER REMIT SIN any more than the Lord's Supper can.

So, Calvary is ineffectual? Because basically that is what you are saying since it is that sacrifice we uphold every mass not a new sacrifice.

What remits sin is the "real" and neither the passover or the supper are REAL

I don't know about you but when I eat I really eat something its not virtual. Just because Passover is a foreshadowing of Christ didn't mean it wasn't real.

but both EQUALLY symbols

both are symbols and one is also a real participation.

one pointing forward to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY

There was real remission of sin but lacked the particular grace. Jesus Sacrifice also goes back in time forgiving the Fathers (oops I sinned again calling other people fathers) as they looked forward to Christ throught the passover meal and the sacrifices offered at the temple. Remember he set the captives free.

and one point back to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY as the only REALITY FOR REMISSION is the REAL not either symbols.

Jesus really forgave the Jewish Fathers for their sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not stating what I think. I'm stating what some early christians thought and that is not the same as Tradition. Tradition follows that which has always been believed.

More Romanist mental gymnastics! How do you determine what "has always been believed"?? By seeking the interpretations of scripture by the traditional interpretations found in the "Father's." Here you have two conflicting teachings in "tradition" .

That is the difference. The deposit of Faith is that which was handed down by the apostles. There are clear distinctions which you have ignored. There isn't two conflicting "Sacred Traditions". One view is in error and the other view is correct in line with what has always been taught as we can see in scriptures.

More mental gymnastics! The interpretation of Scripture is the object and traditions of the Father's is the instrument used by Rome to determine the right interpretation. Tradition offers two conflicting interpretations of scritpure NOW you have to seek ANOTHER authority to determine between which reading of tradition is the proper interpretation of Scripture. Hence, you have built LAYERS of interpretative authority around the Word of God EXACTLY AS THE JEWS DID which Jesus and Paul condemned.

Just to inform you how Tradition works because you seem rather hazy on it is that Tradition that Catholics Hold to is in two formats. 1) The scriptures themselves. 2)and what has always been taught. Which is saying that scriptures was validated by the witness and teachings of the Apostles like the letter sent to Antioch. The written word was authenticated by the witnesses. Two entirely different approaches. Which its clear you haven't understood. There are no new revelation. We hold to the ancient faith that has alway been proclaimed

No, it is not just TWO witnesses. "What has always been taught" is just another sub-layer of interpretative problems for Rome. They reject that the Holy Spirit in the believer is sufficient to interpret scripture and so they demand the sublayer of "tradition." Tradition is again full of contrasts which drives them to another sublayer "counsels" for determining conflicts in tradition. Ultimately "tradition" involves all conflicting interpretations while it is the Pope in counsel with the bishops to be the final arbritator of traditions to establish "the tradition" singular.

The rock was an actual thing as well as a type.

What oxymoronic thinking! The LITERAL rock provides the basis for the METAPHORICAL type. The rock is LITERAL whereas the type is METAPHORICAL. The first is material in substance while other is immaterial and conceptional. Rome's explanation depends upon GREEK PHILOSOPHY to justifiy itself rather than Bibical revelation.

So, Calvary is ineffectual? Because basically that is what you are saying since it is that sacrifice we uphold every mass not a new sacrifice.

More oxymoronic rationale! You have reversed what I stated and placed it in my mouth. The cross is effectual but the passover and mass are not, but are EQUALLY incapable of conferring LITERAL remission of sins as types cannot convey anything but CONCEPTIONAL truth.

I don't know about you but when I eat I really eat something its not virtual. Just because Passover is a foreshadowing of Christ didn't mean it wasn't real.

More oxymoronic rationale. The MATERIAL food is the type or means to convey a IMMATERIAL conceptional truth. The rock in the wildereness which Moses struck is not LITERAL Christ but METAPHORICAL Christ. Thus it was not MATERIAL Christ but MATERIAL rock used to convey METAPHORICALLY a immaterial CONCEPT of truth.

both are symbols and one is also a real participation.

More oxymoronic rationale. Both are symbols and symbols cannot convey any real participation at all as unbelievers equally participated as beleivers in the Passover and every other ceremonial rite. Actual participation depends upon faith and not faith in the MATERIAL SUBSTANCE used for the type but the IMMATERIAL truth conveyed METAPHORICALY by the substance.

Jesus really forgave the Jewish Fathers for their sins.

Notice you identified real remission with a WHO not with a WHAT. Hebrews 10:1-4 deals with the WHAT whereas Acts 10:43 deals with the WHO. The WHAT cannot convey remission of sins to anyone at anytime - Heb. 10:1-4. It is FAITH in the WHO that conveys real remission of sins - Acts 10:43.

It is not the MATERIAL passover lamb and blood that is transformed into the real blood and body of Christ by an act of faith but it is faith in the real Christ that the lamb and blood convery only METAPHORICALLY that obtains real remission of sins.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

More Romanist mental gymnastics! How do you determine what "has always been believed"??

That is simple! From Scriptures, the testimony of those believing it consistently from the begining. And what the Magisterium has always taught evidenced in the councils going back to the begining.

By seeking the interpretations of scripture by the traditional interpretations found in the "Father's."

The fathers are a witness to what was believed. The Church has always codified its beliefs and you can search out each one. I think you have this issue. Being baptist you feel you must reconstruct what happened 2,000 years ago as your group has just recently appeared in the grand scheme of things. The Catholic Church does not have this issue. There is no reconstructing as things have always been passed down. Therefore you can actually do research and find what early christians believed and held to consistantly over the years. Where as other things have come and gone and come back again in a different format. Like the Montanist who were charismatic and legalistic and did a lot of speaking in tongues and false prophesying etc.... and it has come again in a different format called pentacostalism which came out of the Holiness movement.

Here you have two conflicting teachings in "tradition" .

No because one is not tradition the other was a belief that some held. That's like saying Arius' belief was a Tradition when it was condemned by the Church even though it once again reared its ugly head with the Jehovah's witnesses.

More mental gymnastics!

Never. Pure fact.

The interpretation of Scripture is the object and traditions of the Father's is the instrument used by Rome to determine the right interpretation.

Again you are showing your problem of relying on attempting to reconstruct something from the passed rather than have a teaching consistently passed down. The Church already has its beliefs and it says if you don't believe us we can show you the fathers had the same beliefs.

Tradition offers two conflicting interpretations of scritpure

Pure fabrication another evidence that you still don't know how Tradition works.

NOW you have to seek ANOTHER authority to determine between which reading of tradition

Not at all as the teaching is already present. It has always been present. What is clear is that all the shepherd has done was revealed what some believed but that wasn't what was handed down from the begining.

No, it is not just TWO witnesses. "What has always been taught" is just another sub-layer of interpretative problems for Rome

Not at all because they can use the consistent teaching to show it has always been believed. Where you come into problems is by reconstructing the past. Let me give you another example. In the 1800 Napolean found the rosetta stone. Now up until then the ancient Egyptian Language written in hyrogliphics was not understandable. No one knew what the symbols meant as the Ancient Egyptian Empire had ceased to be and had for centuries been gone. No one wrote or spoke that ancient language. Now Greek on the other hand was maintained and passed on from one generation to the other primarily by Catholic Monks and so people knew how to read Greek. People could read the Ancient Greek even though the modern equivalent had changed. But we know what the Ancients writings were and meant because it was passed down from one generation to the other. The rosetta stone had the Ancient Greek language on it as well translating the Ancient Egyptian Hyrogliphs so we attempted to reconstruct what those symbols mean as applied to other writings but we didn't always get it right. That is how Tradition works. The Catholic Church's Tradition in this example would be the Greek language passed down. The baptist faith is attempting to decipher the hyrogliphs with out the rosetta stone or the Greek language.

What oxymoronic thinking!

Not at all. Moses isn't guilty of striking Jesus. He is guilty of pride and disobeying God. You would have me believe that he was guilty of striking Christ. However, that is not the case As God told him exactly why he was punished. It wasn't for the reprentation of Christ but the disobedience to God. He didn't respect God and included himself with God when he said.

“Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?”

Not recognizing God's Holiness or Seperatness from himself in front of the People.

More oxymoronic rationale! You have reversed what I stated and placed it in my mouth

Yuck! I've done no such thing! It certainly is what you imply by your statement.

The cross is effectual

Good we agree therefore we can offer that sacrifice for each of our sins now an forever which the mass does!

More oxymoronic rationale.

You like that word oxymoronic don't you. But it isn't the truth. Its not an oxymoron that Jesus turned water into wine. Its not oxymoronic that Jesus said

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

More oxymoronic rationale.

That word again! Wow.

I think you think by insulting me you uplift yourself. Sorry it doesn't work that way. You just reveal who you are. I can both be myself and represent my self. Ask any attorney.

 

[Yeshua1]

It makes no difference what you think! You have TWO conflicting teachings from your authority of "Sacred Traditions." That clearly demonstrates "Sacred Tradition" is no more reliable than Jewis Traditions and that is precisely why neither Christ or the Apostles quoted them as authority or as helps to interpret scriptures.





You defined repentance as doing that sin NO MORE! Now you claim one must only "continue to turn" from sin and that some sins need "practice" turning from them. Yes, I believe that and that is precisely what the Bible calls PROGRESSIVE sanctification or as one popular writers puts it "Three steps forward and two steps back."


I will take this challenge any time of the day - you just put up the scriptures you think teach that nonsense!




It most certainly does. Remember Moses and hitting the literal rock? He messed up the typology of progressive sanctification and turned it into a repeated salvation by his actions (just as Rome does) and he was refused to enter the promised land in perfect keeping with the messed up typology. God takes typology serious as the whole point of typology is the correct actions to convey the correct truth! If the actions are wrong error is conveyed and if the type is salvation than a false salvation is conveyed. Open and known sin and sinner partaking the supper violates the type of the Lord's Supper. Open division and known heresies in the partaking assembly violate the symbolism of the "one" bread.




Well, I can readily identify with a "senior moment" as I have had many.




You have stated the Romanist problem well!!!!!!! Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself as the symbolism was in the OT passover and the FULFILLMENT is in the cross. What was forshadowed (Heb. 10:1-4) COULD NEVER REMIT SIN any more than the Lord's Supper can. What remits sin is the "real" and neither the passover or the supper are REAL but both EQUALLY symbols - one pointing forward to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY and one point back to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY as the only REALITY FOR REMISSION is the REAL not either symbols.

the Council of trent defined the Eucherist as being the "propiation towards God" everytime it gets re enacted...

How can THAT be memorial form only?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is simple! From Scriptures, the testimony of those believing it consistently from the begining. And what the Magisterium has always taught evidenced in the councils going back to the begining.


The fathers are a witness to what was believed. The Church has always codified its beliefs and you can search out each one. I think you have this issue. Being baptist you feel you must reconstruct what happened 2,000 years ago as your group has just recently appeared in the grand scheme of things. The Catholic Church does not have this issue. There is no reconstructing as things have always been passed down. Therefore you can actually do research and find what early christians believed and held to consistantly over the years. Where as other things have come and gone and come back again in a different format. Like the Montanist who were charismatic and legalistic and did a lot of speaking in tongues and false prophesying etc.... and it has come again in a different format called pentacostalism which came out of the Holiness movement.

No because one is not tradition the other was a belief that some held. That's like saying Arius' belief was a Tradition when it was condemned by the Church even though it once again reared its ugly head with the Jehovah's witnesses.

Never. Pure fact.

Again you are showing your problem of relying on attempting to reconstruct something from the passed rather than have a teaching consistently passed down. The Church already has its beliefs and it says if you don't believe us we can show you the fathers had the same beliefs.

Pure fabrication another evidence that you still don't know how Tradition works.
Not at all as the teaching is already present. It has always been present. What is clear is that all the shepherd has done was revealed what some believed but that wasn't what was handed down from the begining.

Not at all because they can use the consistent teaching to show it has always been believed. Where you come into problems is by reconstructing the past. Let me give you another example. In the 1800 Napolean found the rosetta stone. Now up until then the ancient Egyptian Language written in hyrogliphics was not understandable. No one knew what the symbols meant as the Ancient Egyptian Empire had ceased to be and had for centuries been gone. No one wrote or spoke that ancient language. Now Greek on the other hand was maintained and passed on from one generation to the other primarily by Catholic Monks and so people knew how to read Greek. People could read the Ancient Greek even though the modern equivalent had changed. But we know what the Ancients writings were and meant because it was passed down from one generation to the other. The rosetta stone had the Ancient Greek language on it as well translating the Ancient Egyptian Hyrogliphs so we attempted to reconstruct what those symbols mean as applied to other writings but we didn't always get it right. That is how Tradition works. The Catholic Church's Tradition in this example would be the Greek language passed down. The baptist faith is attempting to decipher the hyrogliphs with out the rosetta stone or the Greek language.

Not at all. Moses isn't guilty of striking Jesus. He is guilty of pride and disobeying God. You would have me believe that he was guilty of striking Christ. However, that is not the case As God told him exactly why he was punished. It wasn't for the reprentation of Christ but the disobedience to God. He didn't respect God and included himself with God when he said. Not recognizing God's Holiness or Seperatness from himself in front of the People.


Yuck! I've done no such thing! It certainly is what you imply by your statement.
Good we agree therefore we can offer that sacrifice for each of our sins now an forever which the mass does!


You like that word oxymoronic don't you. But it isn't the truth. Its not an oxymoron that Jesus turned water into wine. Its not oxymoronic that Jesus said

That word again! Wow.

I think you think by insulting me you uplift yourself. Sorry it doesn't work that way. You just reveal who you are. I can both be myself and represent my self. Ask any attorney.

can ANY RCC Council proclaim ANYTHING per doctrines/practices, and be inspired of/by the lord?

Didn't martin Luthor believe that IF it is a choice between the Bible and traditions/Councils etc, HAVE to stand on the Bible?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the Council of trent defined the Eucherist as being the "propiation towards God" everytime it gets re enacted...

How can THAT be memorial form only?

It's not re-enacted. It holds up that same sacrifice 2,000 years ago and makes it present. Let me explain it very simply so you can get the idea. A poor example but sufficient to explain. Its like a time machine that takes us back to that very moment and we lift up that sacrifice one sacrifice. Or how about this example a little bit better. its like a radio broad cast it has at one point in time sent a signal and that signal goes out over the distance (In stead of distance think time) and the radio's receive that signal as it goes out. Its not a new broadcast every time a radio picks up that transmition but the same original broadcast. Its not being done anew everytime someone turns on the radio.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not at all as the teaching is already present. It has always been present.

The scriptures make the teaching present then and forever. However, what Rome has done is to invalidate the scriptures for the child of God by stepping between the Child of God and the Scriptures and claim that the Holy Spirit cannot teach the child of God the scriptures except through the Roman Catholic Church.

Rome's procedure in coming to what they believe is a correct interpretation of those scriptural teachings is the INDIRECT process of evaluating what the so-called interpretations of the "Father's" through church counsels in conjunction with the Pope and thus the Magisterium. I say "indirect" because they do not go directly to the scriptures but through uninspired writings (traditions of the Father's) to arrive at what they believe the scriptures teach.

If the interpretations of the Father's were complete or consistent there would be no need for a counsel of Bishops with a Pope to determine how scriptures should be or should not be interpreted.

Furthermore, this is a total rejection of the individual priesthood of the believer and direct leadership of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14,16; 1 Jn. 2:27).

Let me give you another example. In the 1800 Napolean found the rosetta stone. Now up until then the ancient Egyptian Language written in hyrogliphics was not understandable. No one knew what the symbols meant as the Ancient Egyptian Empire had ceased to be and had for centuries been gone. No one wrote or spoke that ancient language. Now Greek on the other hand was maintained and passed on from one generation to the other primarily by Catholic Monks and so people knew how to read Greek. People could read the Ancient Greek even though the modern equivalent had changed. But we know what the Ancients writings were and meant because it was passed down from one generation to the other. The rosetta stone had the Ancient Greek language on it as well translating the Ancient Egyptian Hyrogliphs so we attempted to reconstruct what those symbols mean as applied to other writings but we didn't always get it right. That is how Tradition works. The Catholic Church's Tradition in this example would be the Greek language passed down.

This analogy is better suited to expose the error of Rome than to support it and better suited to commend the Baptist faith then to condemn it.

If the Bible had been written in Egyptian "hyrogliphics" and only Rome (Nepolian) had discovered how to decode it through "Greek" (Tradition) and "hebrew" (Magesterium) that would be the proper analogy for Roman Catholicsm.

However, the Bible was not written in Egyptian Hyrogliphics but in Greek and Hebrew which were CONTINUING cultural languages by NON-believers (Grecians; Jews) and thus the truth of scriptures were evidential by simply learning and studying the langauges it is found in WITHOUT NEPOLIAN - and WITHOUT the Rosetta Stone. - This is the baptist faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If the Bible had been written in Egyptian "hyrogliphics" and only Rome (Nepolian) had discovered how to decode it through "Greek" (Tradition) and "hebrew" (Magesterium) that would be the proper analogy for Roman Catholicsm.

I think its a great analogy because the Egyptian Hyrogliphs represent the culture, context, and thoughts of a society far removed from ourselves. And the Greek which you correctly point out as Tradition maintains what that had always been.

The Fathers are the witness to that consistent belief and some Fathers didn't always hold to what had always been taught like Tertullian. Where you are mistaken is that you believe he hold the Fathers on Equal level to the Scriptures and to Tradition. This just isn't so. We hold them as witnesses to both the scripture and Tradition and when they spoke on Tradition we see evidence of early belief in it. When they erred and went away like Tertullian we site that as well. Its not that we align our Tradition with the Early Fathers but we see them as a witness to the Fathers aligning themselves to the Tradition that was passed on. Despite what you believe the Eucharist was always believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ from its inception by our Lord. That was given to us from the begining and was carried down we see by the writings of the ECF that they held witness to this fact. The ECF didn't give us this Tradition. It was always believed and that is how it works.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Fathers are the witness to that consistent belief

I believe the "Father's" provide the record of apostasy. The better and more accurate analogy for Rome is the Jewish religion at the time of Christ and the traditions of the elders.

Despite what you believe the Eucharist was always believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ from its inception by our Lord.

I understand this is your sincere belief. However, this teaching originates not from scriptures but from paganism and defended by Greek philosophy. Any attempt to defend this from the gospel of John is simply dishonest and based purely upon eisgetical methods of interpretation. There is absolutely no objectivity in Rome's approach to John 6. Simple honesty with this chapter will not even come near to teaching such a doctrine.

John 6:29-70 is a developmental teaching on the nature of saving faith. The analogies are simple. Coming to Christ or Faith in Christ is partaking of the spiritual life of Christ and analogous to partaking food and drink for physical life. Christ had not shed his blood when he commanded them to partake of him but Peter understood the analogy completely and confessed they had already partaken of Christ in this manner while Christ denied that some of his own professed disciples had actually partaken of Christ in this manner. Peter understood that these were "words" of life to be believed or partaken of by faith but did not know anything about the Lord's Supper or even the cross. So the forced application by Rome could make absolutely no sense to any of the audiance he was speaking to but made plenty of sense to Peter and those disciples who had partook of him by faith through the words spoken to them. They had received His Word and they were clean by the Word (Jn. 15:3). Eternal life was by faith in the word of the Gospel and the gospel was about Him - Jn. 3:15-16.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe the "Father's" provide the record of apostasy. The better and more accurate analogy for Rome is the Jewish religion at the time of Christ and the traditions of the elders.

you are permitted your opinion though I believe it to be entirely wrong as there is no real documents that go against these writers of the Early Church save those of the universally accepted heresies of the Gnostics.

I understand this is your sincere belief. However, this teaching originates not from scriptures but from paganism and defended by Greek philosophy.

Entirley untrue.

Any attempt to defend this from the gospel of John is simply dishonest

Not dishonest but assertained from the plain reading of Johns text. I don't have to do flips just rely on the written word. Because it clearly defends the early belief of the Eucharist.

and based purely upon eisgetical methods of interpretation.

Not at all to say Jesus didn't say "truelly you must eat my flesh" and make it mean something entirely different fall under eisgetical method. Whereas the plain reading of the text is closer to the exegetical method you should you. I come at the passage objectively. You come at it in pretext.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not at all to say Jesus didn't say "truelly you must eat my flesh" and make it mean something entirely different fall under eisgetical method. Whereas the plain reading of the text is closer to the exegetical method you should you. I come at the passage objectively. You come at it in pretext.

Not so! The audiance hearing his words were commanded to eat his flesh. He did not use the FUTURE tense but the PRESENT tense and mode of command. Your intepretation is IMPOSSIBLE for the present audiance to obey.

However, Peter had already understood what he meant and obeyed it. Christ makes it perfectly clear what he meant and anyone without bias can easily see what he meant - to eat and drink is to partake of Christ by faith - it is just that clear and that simple:

Jn. 6:35 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.

This is so straightforward and simple even a child can see it. Peter saw it clearly:

Jn. 6:68 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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

However, your interpretation is FORCED and IMPOSSIBLE for the audiance to have obeyed when commanded. No FUTURE tense is used by Christ. Christ provides the explanation before he gives the command and John 6:60-70 is all about those who did not obey and those who did obey this command and it has NOTHING to doe with the Lord's Supper which would not be institituted or even known by anyone until two and half to three years later.

Anyone who is objective and honest with this scripture would not even DREAM of such a Rominish interpertation if exegesis was their method instead of eisgesis.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not so!

Yes so!

The audiance hearing his words were commanded to eat his flesh. He did not use the FUTURE tense but the PRESENT tense and mode of command. Your intepretation is IMPOSSIBLE for the present audiance to obey.

He use the present tense because its a continual application. He didn't mean it to be at one point in time but it must happen at all points in time which makes it always present. You must eat his flesh. And he gave us the method in which to do it. The Jews agreed with you because they said

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Did Jesus tell them they misunderstood? NO he says directly after this question

So 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 you. 54 Whoever feeds on 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.

However, Peter had already understood what he meant and obeyed it

It is clear Peter did not understand. But chose to believe in Jesus anyway. Look at his response

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go?

Yeah he thought about leaving but despite his reservation he realized Jesus was truthful even if he gave a hard teaching. And by the signs and the evidence of Jesus Life they had come to believe who Jesus was

You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Christ makes it perfectly clear what he meant and anyone without bias can easily see what he meant - to eat and drink is to partake of Christ by faith - it is just that clear and that simple:

You dichotomize it when Jesus doesn't do that in that passage. Surely you must have faith in Jesus which he also says you must eat his flesh its very clear he isn't talking symbolically. The Jews were took him for what he said at that time and they took him literally and they said

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

They understood him at that time why can't you. And to show that he's talking about really eating him and not just a symbol He said

“Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?"

He speaks of the reality of who he is and the reality of his assending to his proper place! If they couldn't take the eating the flesh literally man would his assention to his proper place (a real event) would blow their minds! The text is very clear.

 

[The Biblicist]

What an exercise of pure mental gymnastics to escape the plain truth of this text.

Yes so!

He use the present tense because its a continual application.

No "continual" application for three years! No "all points of time" for three years! Your interpretation is nothing but pure Bunk!

It is clear Peter did not understand. But chose to believe in Jesus anyway. Look at his response

This is not his response to eating and drinking analogy but to a specific question "will ye leave me also"? This question was asked because other professed disciples left him. Stop twisting the scriptures!

Yeah he thought about leaving but despite his reservation he realized Jesus was truthful even if he gave a hard teaching

Bunk! Jesus had said that his words were "spirit...and life" (not that his literally flesh and blood are spirit and life) and Peter responded to those words "thou hast THE WORDS of eternal life" and then precisely defined what those words of life were "we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." The very same words that Jesus told him were not words he obtained from "flesh and blood" but was obtained by revelation from the Father (Mt. 16:17).

You dichotomize it when Jesus doesn't do that in that passage.

What? I simply quoted his own words where he provides the explanation for eating and drinking in this passage before he ever speaks of eating and drinking his flesh. Christ is the one who dichotomizes it and you simply refuse to accept his own interpretation of eating and drinking!

Look at the texts which precede and follow this explanation by Christ and you will see it is all about BELIEF in Him - COMING to him by faith - PARTAKING of him BY FAITH:

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.36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

They asked him to "give us this bread" and he said "I am" that bread and then he explicitly defined how to EAT and DRINK of him - "he that COMETH TO ME shall never hunger" and "he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst."

Can't get more plain than this! Only your Romanist bias keeps you from clearly seeing that he sets forth the analogous precedent before he goes on to talk about his flesh and blood as food that one must partake in order to have eternal life.

He clarifies this after the Jews and some disciples left him - "my words are spirit and they are life" (not his literal flesh and body are spirit and life) and the issue was about PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH or UNBELIEF - vv. 64-65 just as it was in the beginning of this conversation (Jn. 6:35-45).

He provides the LITERAL teaching first (Jn. 6:35-47) followed by the METPHORICAL (Jn. 6:48-59) concluded by the LITERAL (Jn. 6:60-71).

His response to those disciples who rejected this teaching was:

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

rather than saying "it is my flesh and blood which quickeneth, the words profiteth nothing; my flesh and blood are spirit and they are life"

The issue had been and still is about PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH [which is the work of God] to which he again demonstrates by returning to what he said PRIOR to the metaphorical instruction:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

When he said "you that believe not" he was not referring to refusal to LITERALLY EAT OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD but the inability to believe IN Him as the Christ "FROM THE BEGINNING" long before using this analogy for partaking of him by faith.