Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Thank you no, that is not how one should read the Bible. You can't break it down, and you can't interpret it your self.
Look at the way he states the argument each time. He goes from the blatant to the metaphor and the metaphor is what trips them up.
Why? because He was being blatant? Why would He switch around on them, to confuse them on purpose?
The Jews didn't understand but the disciples understood fullwell that the whole time he was saying "Hey, You have to believe in me to be saved".
So? And what was it they would not believe? [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
And the understanding of the statement ticked them off. You might as well say the figured him for a quack or a blasphemer.
What are you saying? Did they understand or not? Read V52 as I quoted above. It seems to me that in your rush to break up the Scriptures and understand them by yourself, you haven't read them in full and in context.
How about Mark? He was in Rome with Peter too? Bother Peter And Paul say he was with them, but one was in Babylon the other in Rome?
"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.'"
Compare that verse with verse 54:
"He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."
In other words:
"eats My flesh" = "comes to Me" (result: shall not hunger, i.e., "have eternal life")
"drinks My blood" = "believes in Me" (result: shall not thirst, i.e., "have eternal life")
Talk about the Great Communicator; that was Jesus!!
Anyway, thanks again.
Yes, Christ's flesh is TRUE (real) food, and His blood is TRUE (real) drink. I think that what He is saying here is much more than we think! He is saying that His "flesh" and "blood" are more REAL than just physical food and drink. Physical food and drink only provide temporal & physical life, while His "flesh and blood" (representing His death and the shedding of His precious blood) provide eternal life.
Perhaps they would understand if you defined "baptist" for them!!
Just curious..what does Matt. 23:9 mean to a Catholic? Seriously.
You're right about one thing. His Flesh and Blood are more real than just physical food and drink. They are food and drink for the soul. But the point is is that they are REAL food. Just as a Domino's pizza is real food for the flesh, Christ's Body and Blood are real food for our spirit. How do we partake of this real food for the soul? Jesus told us when He said, "Take, eat. This is My Body."
All this controversy over "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" somehow implying that Spirit=symbolic while flesh=literal is wrong headed.
As far as I know, nowhere in the Scriptures is "spirit" synonymous with "symbolic". Also, if the flesh "is of no avail", then we are all in a boat load of trouble. The reason why is the Incarnation. God took on flesh to redeem Man(oh, how non-PC). If the flesh is of no avail, then the Crucifixtion and our subsequent Redemption was meaningless.
Unless...the meaning you guys are trying to give to v.63 isn't what Jesus was trying to say. Remember, to metaphorically say "Eat my flesh" means to persecute and destroy me. Realize that the spiritual is more real than the monitor you're looking at right now.
I found an outstanding website, at least from my prospective, on the Eucharist. I goes into better detail on John 6 than I possibly can(I don't want to be charged with blatant plagiarism. :)) It also has references to 400 years of Patristic testamony concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Anyway, here it is: Addressing Protestant Text Criticism of John 6
His Flesh is true food. His Blood is true drink
I'm unclear on what it is that you keep referrring to here and why.
What..so now we pit Peter against Paul?
Peter doesn't even count as an apostle if Paul doesn't talk about him much?
The only time I can think of is early in Galatians. Do I get extra credit?
Is this a trick question? Like you think that the English word "father" is somehow covered by this proscription in a way that "teacher","doctor","pastor","Mr or Mrs" etc. is not?
Excellent quote from St. John Chrysostom. He’s one of my favorites. Also demonstrates the high regard Catholics have for the scriptures. However, my point was Luther claimed everybody could interpret scripture for themselves and did not need the teaching authority of the Church. In St. John Chrysostom’s day, this was unheard of.
I was trying to establish some type of historical linkage from the time of the Apostles to the present for your denomination. But since both of you claim to be non denominational and non Protestant you’ve answered my question. Thanks.
Oh by the way, the Council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine. It’s primary purpose was to refute Arianism. I also find it interesting we have documentation of the Catholic Church refuting this heresy and no record of a non Catholic Christian Church refuting it. Where were you guys?
Go back and read my post again, I didn't say he did. Now try and find those non-Greek manuscripts and then you'll have a case. Until then, there are 2 different Greek words used by the writer, Matthew - who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You do believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the NT, don't you?
So you explain away the first 1500 years of Christendom as God teaching us a lesson? Wow. Who were these few men that God worked with that we should be indebted to?
Also, if you want to read about what a sweetheart Cromwell was here’s a link. There are many more but I don’t think swapping reformation horror stories is going to be very productive.
AHHHHHHHHH a dogma on which we agree:>)
Morning Mom! Have you come to play or just observe?
Read it and weep - ALL early Christians and Nazarenes were (cover your ears, Soothing Dave, :) - BAPTISTS!!! Your Catholic(sic) sect did not begin until about 250 A.D.
No matter how many times you try to contradict it, it is still the TRUTH!!!
And no matter how many times you say it, or how loudly, without any historical evidence of the existence of such Christians in that time period you are simply wasting good air.
EVIDENCE, man! EVIDENCE! And not phony made-up, "the evil Catholics destroyed it all except for this magazine article referring to the destroyed evidence" evidence! Real, accountable, actually in existence evidence.
Now, in this post we are told by you that that your "catholic"(sic) church "wrote the Scriptures!" How amazing! And all along I thought the Scriptures stated they were written by men inspired by God. (I did not know the Scriptures said the RCC was their author. Where does it say that, SD? Also, SD, where does Scripture say there was an RCC in the First Century? Thanks -:)
Actually where in Scripture does it say who the author of any of the books are? But that's another thing.
Yes, indeed. The original Church of God, the Combined Catholic/Orthodox Church's members wrote, compiled and canonized the Bible. The NT, anyway.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.