It is more of the same - from you, refusing to allow anything that refutes your tradition as your predetermined conclusion is that your are right because your church is right. And indeed, she said so herself.
Leaving the two pages of fluff and random scripture quotes, this is your substantive answer:
Meaning an RC being true to form.
seen in Scripture is much figurative use of eating and drinking, including that of men being called "bread" and drink being called the blood of men, (Jn. 4:34) and words of God being "eaten."
That is nothing of the kind:
Since your refuse to see what was clearly substantiated, why should i even try to do so again? It's true then. David and Israel engaged in transubstantiation, or these text have no bearing in the Lord instituting Christianized endocannibalism to gain spiritual qualities what are never received by physically eating, and kosher disciples simply go along with it. Sure. The danger of cults is that they will believer and follow men or hierarchy over Scripture.
[34] Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work. (John 4) Where is "figurative use" here, especially of the Eucharistic food Jesus is about to give?
Where is "figurative use"??? So its also true. The Lord literally consumed the will of the Father. And invoking "Eucharistic food Jesus is about to give" is a case of reading into Jn 6, which Jn. 4:34 works to interpret, as do other cases of figurative use of food and eating and drinking.
the rest of Scripture no one is ever shown obtaining life in them, becoming spiritually alive, by physically eating, but by believing the gospel message.
Right, but a part of that message is John 6 and the doctrine on the Eucharist.
Means that it MUST be teaching contrary to the rest of Scripture, while your own literal interpretation (not belief in Eucharist, no spiritual life in you) is consequently contrary even to what your modern church espouses. Many RCs are much sedevacantists in details.
You read "believing the gospel message" and think Protestant faith. Think whole entire Catholic faith, because nowhere did Christ said "some stuff that I told you is really a figure; please ignore it".
A sophist false dilemma and i think you know it. Christ being referred to a a lamb, a temple, the door, the light, provider of living water, etc. in John, all employ physically figurative language, understood spiritually, as is being the bread of life by which one gains life and lives thereby. Not be becoming Catholic cannibals.
the Lord revealed what was meant to those who walked with Him, as is the case in Jn. 6
When St. Paul mush later describes a Eucharist celebrated and corrects the celebration y insisting that the congregation "discerns the body", -- that is the faith of the Church at that point. Jesus did explain, and the disciples became priests and did as He commanded them to do.
What blatant Catholic compulsion of Scripture to conform to Rome! The "body" Paul refers to is clearly the church, as shown , while there simply is no Paul or another NT pastor even shown dispensing bread let alone turning it into human flesh, nor are they even once called "priests," and you have been shown before this is a contrivance, based upon imposed functional equivalence. But as Rome decrees Truth by fiat, so her lemmings declare they must be right. Such are in need of deprogramming.
This Word was made flesh
Correct. You forgot whose side you are arguing? Adn if not, where is your plausible evidence of figurative use of "meat" and "flesh" in John 6?
Are you now blind? That is what you asked before and i which showed you. But eyes they have, yet they see not.
As for "indeed," (alēthōs: Jn. 6:55) that simply means "of a truth,"
Yes. That is supposed to negate what Christ said?
Now you are misconstruing what i said, What is at issue is what Christ said does and the meaning alēthōs means your use of cannot be sustained.
St. Paul cites the words of Christ at the Last supper,
And that's all you need to see to dismiss what is clearly shown in context, that the " not discerning the body" referred to was the church! Even when RC commentary affirms me on this issue. It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself .. The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (
The Corinthians indeed were not discerning the nature of the Eucharist, but that nature is that it is Christ's body and not food for the stomach, as the text of Paul's speech shows. It is also consistent with the distinctions made in John 6,
As the text of Paul's speech shows?! That is simply ABSURD!
The table of the Lord in 1Cor. 11:17-34 is clearly described as communal meal, in which rather than supposing the Lord's supper was not food for the stomach, some were going ahead and eating up food and thus "shame them that have not," not effectively recognizing them as part of body Christ died for and which they are sppsd to be showing but were not.
And which Paul condemns and the Lord chastises them for, and thus they are told not to come hungry so they do not come together unto condemnation. The idea that there were being censured for not realizing the nature of the elements as not being for the stomach is simply foreign to the context, and is simply an example of more mere compulsive Catholic assertions dismissing what is before them and compelling texts to conform to Rome.
The Holy Scripture is not a riddle that without a Protestant pastor cannot be figured out.
Correct, much less is Rome needed for assurance Truth, which is a fundamental fallacy you operate out of.
Which reminds me, you did not even touch the Last Supper subject. "This is my body, which is given for you".
Did not touch it? The very issue is what these words mean in the light of all Scripture, and context, which disallows physical eating giving spiritual life, much less human flesh, and thus likewise "This is my body, which is given for you" such is representative of Christ, like as water was of the blood of men, and people were bread, and the word was eaten, etc. It is clear to him that understands the abundant use of metaphors.
So Christ, according to the Protestant charlatans, gave not His body but some allegory on the Cross? Or, since we are to understand that it is faith that we symbolically eat in the Eucharist, Christ's faith died on the Cross?
This is more sophistry, using another false dilemma and more misrepresentation. Recognizing bread and wine as representing the Lord's body is just the opposite of making the latter the allegory(!), not does Jn. 6 mean faith is eaten (!), but that Christ in His totality is given for man, and He is to be internally received by faith, just as one physically consumes food, and thus live by Christ as Christ lives by the Father.. (Jn. 6:57) His "meat" being doing the Father's will.
Your argumentation remains absurd and even insolent, and is an argument against Rome in both content and spirit, and provides no warrant for more patient endurance and use of time. /p>
No, Jn. 4:34 is clearly figurative, but it has nothing to do with John 6 where Christ is speaking not of food He would eat, but of the food He will give and insists it is "food indeed".
Christ being referred to a a lamb, a temple, the door, the light, provider of living water, etc. in John, all employ physically figurative language, understood spiritually, as is being the bread of life
The metaphors you list are clearly that, but Christ did not attempt to dispel the concern of the Jews regarding His body in the Eucharist; If He meant it figuratively as well , He would have. You don't have a plausible explanation why.
The "body" Paul refers to is clearly the church
How is it "clearly", when Paul makes a reference at Christ's body given up for the Church in the previous verse. He did not give up the Church, he gave up His body, i.e. His life FOR the Church. You fail to read the text as it is written.
the meaning alēthōs means your use of cannot be sustained.
"αληθως" means "in truth" or "indeed" so Jesus says that His flesh is in truth food, just as the Church teaches.
clearly shown in context
Been there. Not "clearly"; the opposite is true from context, because it is Jesus' body Jesus talked about at the Last Supper.
some were going ahead and eating up food
Ignoring the explanation of Christ that the Eucharist is not to feed the stomach.
The very issue is what these words mean in the light of all Scripture
In the light of the insistence of Christ that His body is "food indeed" it means what He says without equivocations.
Your argumentation remains absurd and even insolent
I read what is written and believe it like written. You problem is with the Holy Scripture, not me.