Indeed. And it is simply not logical that Jesus would have us become cannibals.
2. There is nobody (Protestant or Roman Catholic or any other faith I know of that denies Jesus used figurative language - so don’t imply that without asserting it - and if that’s not what you did your comment is meaningless.
Oh, I know that both do. That was my point.
3. The question remains as to whether John six in this regard is figurative.
No question in my mind Jesus was speaking of spiritual things, not physical.
4. The scritpure does backflips to keep you from allegorizing here.
I disagree. The 'real' Jesus is refering to here is what is eternal, not what is physical. After all, what is saved but our soul/spirit. Putting some food into your body that then is digested and passes out of the body isn't going to save.
5. “And some ceased to follow him ...”
Sorry, that doesn't mean He was being literal. That just means they MISunderstood Him, and He didn't correct them. Wasn't the only time He did that.
6. Origin an others did cut off their offending parts
So they took it literally.
7. The Church outlawed this practice expressly and rendered a definitive conclusion as to the interpretation of that passage re: cutting of members
I agree that they should have outlawed the practice. Jesus was speaking figuratively there, to show the seriousness of sin. Just as He was speaking figuratively when saying we would eat His flesh and drink His blood, so we would remember His atonement for our sins on the cross when we celebrate communion.
8. Prots have no way to know if there is a definitive interpretation and each new generation of Prots needs to decided what is right in their own eyes.
LOL Well, this 'Prot' knows that the definitive interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit, not from some guy that is elected. (I recall a guy named Mathias that was elected by the apostles, but it seems God had a different idea and chose Paul.)
9. I’m not an RC
If you say so.
10. The Church knows of four primary senses for the interpretation of scripture. 1. Literal 2. Moral 3. Sacramental 4. Spiritual/mystical
Seems like you're actually pointing to classifications of scripture. Again, the only way to truly interpret scripture is by the Holy Spirit. (And by the way, all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
11. RCs and Prots are both stuck on this because they live in a 2D world on these matters instead of 4D
LOL So tell me, what is your take on the verse in question that would be different from RCs and Prots?
I disagree. The ‘real’ Jesus is refering to here is what is eternal, not what is physical. After all, what is saved but our soul/spirit.
You realize this is heresy even for a Protestant don’t you? Oh, that’s right, the Holy Spirit is the only interepter and He told you this.
RE: My take:
The Lord is speaking to the community, as He often did and we over-individualize His words and create false dichotomies.
Spiritual does not exclude Physical. Specifically, do you believe Jesus still has a human body in heaven? If so, is it spiritual or physical? Answer is He DOES have a human body and it is physical and spiritual. He feeds us with His resurrected body because we ARE His body. He saved body, soul and spirit. Not soul or soul and spirit.
This whole reality is spiritually discerned in community in the Spirit. No individual isolated from the body will understand it even if in the end He takes some number of such into heaven. They will understand it then.
There is a new creation ‘in Christ.’ It is of a completely different aeon (the eighth day.) Trying to impose 7th day logic on this passage doesn’t work.