Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
So now God has taken on all the outward appearances of... bread.

This is exactly what He has done. He is the manna come down from heaven. The miracle from heaven demanded of by the Pharisees which they would never partake in.

You are reacting to this teaching just as the disciples who walked away from Jesus. "This is a hard thing, and who can consider it?"

As I pointed out in my previous post, Jesus made it clear when He was speaking in parables and when He spoke plainly. As much as you don't believe there is evidence Jesus was being literal, there's not one iota of evidence that He was speaking in riddles.

It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants will subject themselves to a bloody fight that the entire Bible is to be taken literally except -- EXCEPT -- John chapter 6. Everything else MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY -- except John 6.

But this just conforms with Martin Luther's M-O that if you don't agree with it, deny it came from God.

153 posted on 12/08/2005 4:55:57 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]


To: Rutles4Ever; SoothingDave; blue-duncan
It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants will subject themselves to a bloody fight that the entire Bible is to be taken literally except -- EXCEPT -- John chapter 6. Everything else MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY -- except John 6.

That is a bit of a hyperbole. Protestants don't believe that Christ became a "vine" or a "door". Where the context is one of obvious metaphor (like in John 6) it is not to be taken literally.

If you accept the literality of John 6 when it comes to Jesus becoming bread at the Eurcharist, then you must also take the statements in John 6 literally where Jesus states that "I am the bread". He did not claim that he would become bread at some point in the future. If that verse was meant to be taken literally, then Christ was then literally claiming to be made of bread at the time the statement was made. IOW if Christ becomes bread at the eurcharist, then he was Bread when he walked on the earth. That may account for the reason why the Eucharist tastes like... bread.

The Catholics obviously do not take Jesus references to being bread literally in John 6. The only time they take it literally is where Jesus says you have to eat him. Well if that was meant to be taken literally, then at the incarnation Jesus did not take on Human flesh, he only appeared to take on human flesh. In reality then John 1:14 should read: "and the Word was made bread." The "accidents" or appearances of Christ looked like a real human being, but the fact was that Jesus was nothing more than a loaf of Bread in the shape of a Jewish man.

156 posted on 12/08/2005 5:58:25 AM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson