“It doesn’t take a rocket (or in this case a Bible) scientist to realize that, on closer analysis, the Church used bits and pieces of the NT to formulate the doctrine (just as the heretics did), taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and discarding or ignoring those parts that did not “fit in.”
I would argue that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the Church made up some doctrines without reference to the scriptures, and then has trouble finding any support for those doctrines, and is puzzled by scripture that conflicts with it.
You write “It is equally clear that the Gospels present Jesus’ body as something real, physical, edible and nutritious in the “real” or literal sense. Jesus calls his flesh “real food” and his blood “real drink” [cf John 6:55]. I mean, how much more literal does it have to get?”
Well, for starters, “35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” In what sense is that literal? Coming and believing means your hunger and thirst will be satisfied, as in John 4 where he told the woman, “”Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
That obviously is not talking about physical water, and two chapters later, when he says “”I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”, it seems pretty obvious to me.
And I have this advantage - it leaves no conflict between Jesus and Paul. You find a conflict because you make the words of Jesus physical - but the conflict is one you create, rather than one that must exist.
When Jesus said, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever”, did he mean that they will PHYSICALLY live forever, and never die? Or did he teach the resurrection?
In Matt 22, we find “But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
So in John 6, Jesus is NOT saying they will live PHYSICALLY forever, but that our spirits will receive a new body that will live forever, after death. And if he isn’t speaking of physical eternal life, why do you have him speaking physically of his body being bread?
“That’s right, “spiritual body” is not to be found anywhere except in Pauline Epistles.”
Odd, then, that Jesus taught the resurrection, and hell and used parables with people living after death.
I agree that pagans who entered the church often went off in a pagan way, interpreting things improperly. But why would I give the uninspired words of church fathers precedence over the God-breathed words of scripture?
In Matthew 16, we find “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
Again, we have the resurrection. Life after death. The physical body dies, but the person does not.
The scriptures are not that hard to understand, unless you bring pagan ideas back into them, and then complain that they don’t fit...
That's because John says that Jesus taught more than was written down (although Luke disputes it)
Besides, where does it say in the Bible that everything had to be referenced in the Bible?
Well, for starters, “35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst
Yes, and your Protestant Random Verse Generator (PRVG) either doesn't pick up everything or you decided to drop what he says 16 verses later, to wit:
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." [John 6:51]
And I have this advantage - it leaves no conflict between Jesus and Paul. You find a conflict because you make the words of Jesus physical - but the conflict is one you create, rather than one that must exist.
It seems you have the advantage of allowing yourself to believe the verses you just drop (because they don't fit) never existed. :)
When Jesus said, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
You (or your PRVG) conveniently left out all the preceding verses that deal with him being understood literally, which mention flesh,
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
[The Jews are taking him literally...gee what were they thinking?!]
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
I can't imagine it getting more literal.
did he mean that they will PHYSICALLY live forever, and never die? Or did he teach the resurrection?
These verses are probably a compilation of folk sayings stitched together, because they make very little sense. To me, they sound like something a man would write in a state trance, psychosis, or just plain intoxication.
Odd, then, that Jesus taught the resurrection, and hell and used parables with people living after death
It's odd to call spirit a "body," and no one else in the Bible but (on-again-off-again Gnostic) Paul does.
Again, we have the resurrection. Life after death. The physical body dies, but the person does not.
Well verse 54 says "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"
Being raised doesn't necessarily mean being resurrected. The Greek word anisthemi has all sorts of other possible meanings. What happens to people who are still risen and very much alive on the last day? Do they have to die first so they can be resurrected? The NT also has Jesus telling his disciples that they will not taste death before he returns.
Luke's narrative of Lazarus and the rich man shows the Jewish Christians believed in afterlife consistent with the beliefs of Judaism. They did not believe the dead are really "dead" and gone, just stuck in Sheol!
Jesus' second coming will break the chains of death and release all who are dead, and destroy Sheol. But the wicked will be sent to the lake of fire as punishment—which is rather silly considering that everyone is already judged (cf Heb 9:27), and the guilty are just being shuffled to a different prison for no apparent reason!
So, basically what Jesus is telling them here is that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood (a new covenant he is making) he will pull out (free them) from that shady underworld on the last day.
The scriptures are not that hard to understand, unless you bring pagan ideas back into them, and then complain that they don’t fit...
Scriptures are like a Leggo game; thousands of little pieces that can be put together. What you make out of them is entirely up to you.