Replies

Well, Protestants try to interpret Scripture any way they choose.

I would take issue with that to this extent - they have decided largely that they like playing in philosophy as much as you guys do. In the course of doing that, they do as you guys do - grasp at any appearance of support for any wild notion they fancy as a philosophical construct. Christians rightly divide the word. Religionists and philosophers twist it to their purposes. All of them claim they're right. But that is why the Apostles gave us clear writings that can be understood in CONTEXT. Jesus gave the truth to the Apostles; but, to unbelievers, he gave parables. Which is why the crowd didn't follow his direction to immediately eat his flesh.. present tense wasn't it - in John 6. Or are we to understand that it was literal; but, figurative rofl. Yes, I understand the games you all play in order to prop up the indefensable.

366 posted on 05/27/2004 1:25:59 PM PDT by Havoc ("The line must be drawn here. This far and no further!")

Care to try your parsing on #365?

367 posted on 05/27/2004 1:34:49 PM PDT by pgyanke ("The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God" - C.S. Lewis)

John 6:66 - "As a result of this [Jesus talking about his body being the bread of life], many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

Would his followers have left if they knew he was speaking figuratively? Wouldn't it have been easier for him to clarify that he was speaking figuratively if he was really speaking figuratively? It would have kept his followers around, after all...

John 6:52 - "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"

This would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say "Oh, it's only a metaphor," right? The very next verses:

John 6:53-55 - "Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life withing you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (emphasis mine)

Wow, look at that! He could have clarified himself easily if he was using metaphors, but instead he chose to reiterate the literal things he was saying.

374 posted on 05/27/2004 2:03:33 PM PDT by Eisenhower ("A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost)

I would take issue with that to this extent - they have decided largely that they like playing in philosophy as much as you guys do. In the course of doing that, they do as you guys do

Well folks we all thought this was aCatholic-Protestant debate. BUt NO. According to the Havoker, BOTH are WRONG. There is ONLY ONE PERSON who can lead us to God according to the avoc

419 posted on 05/27/2004 11:01:59 PM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)

And that, acording to him doesn't seem to be Christ. I as a Christian take umbrage to that!

420 posted on 05/27/2004 11:02:30 PM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794