“Actually “living water” was first used in Jn. 4,...”
All very true, but in no way in conflict with anything I wrote. There seems a very common thing on FR, where one person says, “A” and another says, “B” as if B is the negation of A, without demonstrating that A and B cannot be true.
“Yet we need more revelation to better understand how we receive this living water, which your text of John 7 partially provides, and more is later given, showing that the Holy Spirit is given as a result of believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)”
Again, you here insist without basis that because C follows A, C cannot follow B.
“For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
“In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded.”
Was not the Temple actually destroyed? In fact, before Rome demolished the rocks that comprised it, the Temple was already functionally destroyed: “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split”
Where you keep insisting that because something has material meaning, it cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, and where it has a spiritual meaning, it cannot have a material meaning. But you keep citing examples where it is very plain that it has both meanings.
The Nicodemus example is great! Nicodemus doesn’t mistake the physical for the spiritual; he mistakes the very meanings of words! Jesus uses here an idiom that exists in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic... The idiom is sort of preserved in English, but English grammar forces one to choose one of two meanings, and Protestants have chosen to translate it according to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Jesus says a man must be “born over.” He means “born from above,” not “born a second time” as he makes very clear in John 3:5-7, where he speaks of being born from Heaven.
And yet still, once introduced, Catholic bibles didn’t purge this Protestant translation because it’s NOT heresy, it only leads to heresy from out-of-context proof-texting. Indeed, the act of baptism/chrismation is indeed being born “anew.”
Your use of “my meat is to do the will of He who sent me” simply cannot be associated with consuming the eucharist/lord’s supper/communion, even though that lousy translation makes a modern English ear want to associate it with “my flesh.” Meat, here, means sustenance, or even more closely, what someone craves. In modern Greek, the word now even means “stink,” “rot,” or even “fetish.”
It it you who did not negate my argument for in response you argue that "the bible was quite clear the sense in which he meant, “I am the living water” since the hearers in John 7 did not think Jesus was speaking absurdly but knew exactly what he meant then it cannot be that, as I argued, that Jesus used the physical to led spiritually seeking souls to the spiritual, and requires more revelation, for in chapter and verse I showed that many times, and thus that this spiritual seeking is what the carnally minded Jews did not do.
You have nowhere shown that what i said cannot be true. Sometimes the Lord did immediately reveal the meaning of His language to disciples, but at other times as shown, He used figurative language which was puzzling or misunderstood and separated the true seekers from those who were not. Thus Catholics do not understand John 6 in the light of the rest of Scripture, in which spiritual life is nowhere obtained by literally consuming anything physical, but which is obtained by believing the gospel message, and then living by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) with doing the will of the Father being one's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) as Jesus lived by the Father as we are to live by Him. (Jn. 6:57) for His words are spirit, they are life, (Jn. 6:63)
Moreover, contrary to what you argue re. John 7:37-40, that "they knew exactly what he meant: When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, “Surely this man is the Prophet we’ve been expecting” so that there was no physical leading to spiritual, yet believing Christ was the Prophet in response to His discourse - which actually begins in v.16 - does not mean they really understood what living water mean, much less what you imagine this living water metaphor means, being LITERALLY true as part of the eucharist/communion/lord’s supper.
Surely as I argued, further revelation would be needed for that, yet as said, the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) the word of God what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Was not the Temple actually destroyed? In fact, before Rome demolished the rocks that comprised it, the Temple was already functionally destroyed: “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split”
Yes, the Temple was actually destroyed but that was not at Christ's death or in 70AD as it is not the meaning of John 2:19-21: Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
The actual destruction spoken of was one that required rebuilding, being raised up, and Scripture clearly states he spake of the temple of his body and nowhere indicates the curtain of the temple being torn was what Jn. 2 refers to no matter if we try to force it. Only one temple is prophetically referred to and fulfilled. In addition, since Rome does not believe in the the 1,000 year reign of Christ then it does not hold that it will be built again either!
Where you keep insisting that because something has material meaning, it cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, and where it has a spiritual meaning, it cannot have a material meaning. But you keep citing examples where it is very plain that it has both meanings.
No, I am not the one who believes that because something has material meaning, it necessarily cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, it necessarily cannot have a material meaning, for instead that is what your church does, as with the 1,000 year reign of Christ for instance. But as you just demonstrated, you deny that destroying the Temple in John 2 only has a metaphorical meaning.
The Nicodemus example is great! Nicodemus doesn’t mistake the physical for the spiritual; he mistakes the very meanings of words! Jesus uses here an idiom that exists in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic... The idiom is sort of preserved in English, but English grammar forces one to choose one of two meanings, and Protestants have chosen to translate it according to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Jesus says a man must be “born over.” He means “born from above,” not “born a second time” as he makes very clear in John 3:5-7, where he speaks of being born from Heaven.
No, I do not think Nicodemus was ignorant of the word the Lord chose to use here which is translated as "again," for though as we read on, it should be "from above," yet the word "anōthen" has a range of meaning flowing from "above," as in "beginning," as used in DRB: "from the beginning [anōthen] (if they will give testimony) that according to the most sure sect of our religion I lived, a Pharisee." (Acts 26:5) Or as we would say, "from the top" but Paul was not saying "from above" as in Heaven but according to strict usage for then he was. And it is used as "again" in the DRB in "you desire to serve again [anōthen]?" (Galatians 4:9) as in like before.
Thus Nicodemus mistook this "from the beginning" sense speculating the one had to be born physically as in the beginning, but as Nic. stayed with him the Lord clarified this with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the act of baptism/chrismation is indeed being born “anew.”
Meaning regenerating ritual (ex opere operato = by the act itself]) even for those who cannot obey the stated requirements for baptism of wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) versus penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) and by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) on His account. Thanks be to God. But that is another debate.
Your use of “my meat is to do the will of He who sent me” simply cannot be associated with consuming the eucharist/lord’s supper/communion, even though that lousy translation makes a modern English ear want to associate it with “my flesh.” Meat, here, means sustenance, or even more closely, what someone craves. In modern Greek, the word now even means “stink,” “rot,” or even “fetish.”
Wrong: it is irrelevant what it means today, and it is used for the manner of spiritual food that the disciples in 1Cor. 10:3 were not ready for, and in regards to dietary laws in the OT in Heb. 9:10, and for what we are to share in Lk. 3:11 and for normal sustenance, not out of lust, in many other places. And the point was that as Jesus lived by the Father so we are to live by Him. (Jn. 6:57) living by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) with doing the will of the Father being one's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) for His words "are spirit, they are life," (Jn. 6:63) being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) To the glory of God.