Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST 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 |
Thanks for not giving us the "long version." ;-)
SD
As Havoc might say, it sounds like you are using "carnal reason" here. Because you can not imagine that God gave His Flesh for us to eat, because you find it "straining" your "intelligence," you turn your back on the gift God gave us.
Tell me, doesn't the idea of God lowering himself to be man straing your intelligence? Does the idea of God dying strain your intelligence?
SD
You should have been here yesterday. We were discussing this very passage and I was wondering why Jesus' words being "spirit and life" means that they are not to be taken literally. Even though Jesus repeats time and again that His flesh is real food?
SD
Dave? Are you so dense you don't know what the gift of God is? He sent his son that whosoever believes on Him will have eternal life. You've turned your entire belief system into a little round wafer.
You must poo and you must pee or you will die. Get it?
Not the same.
Not the same because it isn't a parallel arguement. The paralled would be. "If you poo or pee on the dining room table you make a terrible mess" Which Does imply "if you do not poo or pee on the table you do not make a terrible mess." Hmm?
Indeed. How do you think I participate in that event?
You've turned your entire belief system into a little round wafer.
You've turned your entire belief system into a rejection of the Incarnation.
SD
Taught by whom? Paul makes it clear in Gal. 1:11,12 that he didn't learn his gospel and doctrine from men, nor was he taught it at a seminary, nor by the Apostles only by direct revelation from Christ in heaven's glory. What the Apostles were teaching was the law, not grace.
That doesn't mean they had nothing of worth to say. It means they were in agreement.
You're reading something in here that isn't here. They were not in agreement, that's why Paul went to Jerusalem in the first place and why he spoke to certain of the leaders of the Little Flock in private.
Paul was able to shed light on things they didn't understand fully. That doesn't mean they didn't teach the same things. It just means some understood better than others in certain things and they challenged each other to go to God in these things. You aren't illustrating a misalignment of teaching. You are illustrating a differential of spiritual awaredness and understanding.
Then why did the Apostles "loose" themselves from their commission to go into all the world, which they hadn't done as yet, and "bind" themselves to only go to the circumcision? That's because the little flock was still operating under the law program, not the grace program given to Paul to take to the heathern. That's Scriptual, not speculation.
Again, if it don't line up with what they taught and what God's word already said, it's bunk! If you're being led to believe something that falls in the bunk category, you'd best be examining what you believe and takin it to God, cause God don't sow confusion.
I guess I believe in bunk then. If you want to operate under the Jewish law system, that's your option and freedom. I choose to live in grace. God says law and grace don't mix. Rom. 4:5,6 and 11:6. I take that as meaning we need to be in one program or the other and not try to blend programs. You're right, God don't sow confusion, man does a good enough job at that with a little help from the Deceiver.
Read it again. It basically says exactly what I said. They cannot stand without each other because they are from the same source for the same purpose. They are the same thing - God communicating to His people (which by definition is an infallible communication). How He chooses to communicate the message does not change the message. They cannot be "compared" (is A>B or A=B or A What did Augustine have to say about church authority?
Because, Dave, you can't simply disregard 2000 years of belief without a "scriptural snippet." Just a spoonful of scripture makes the dogma go down.
There is probably just going to be a disagreement on how the language in John 6 goes from symbolic to non-symbolic. The importance of the Greek words used, especially in John 6:49-58 is useful.
I would point out that I cannot find an instance in which the NT cites "spirit" in a symbolic sense, either in referring to the Holy Spirit or anything else designated as spirit. Christ did not say "My flesh is spirit", which would have been symbolic. He said "My words are spirit and life".
Why so the language in verse 63? The Holy Spirit gives life and leads us to a life changing understanding of the words of Christ, as shown in John 3:6-8.. Likewise, interpretations of "... the flesh counts for nothing..." and claims that by those words, Christ is discounting a literal interpretation John 6:54-58 I believe are erred. Verse 63 is not discussing the blood and body of Christ, it is addressing the disbelief of the Jews introduced in verse 60.
John uses double entendre throughout John 6. St. Augustine understood that. I don't believe that Catholics view the Eucharist as some "magic" food with benefits derived by merely eating. One must believe.
You said that my belief that the Body of Christ received during Communion contains His Blood is not found in Scripture. I showed otherwise, by pointing out to you that there was a resurrection and Jesus' Body and Blood are no longer seperate.
S
No wrong. Rejecting the incarnation would be like priests willfulling remaining homos. Or anyone willfully continuing to live in sin.
Amen! And thanks!
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.