Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Like the priest who does and goes to heaven and says "AHHHH! There's an 'R' there! It's celebrate!"
sigh
This is the danger when Havoc comes around. All of a sudden eveyone forgets they are interpreting the Scripture and starts feeling that to disagree is to insult God.
Jesus, in this passage, is telling his disciples not to be venal men who lust after power and position.
That there has to be someone in charge is self-evident. The Church the Lord started is not anarchical.
SD
That sounds good, but what about the part of that same verse that says "the flesh profiteth nothing."
I think it means that our own bodies, our own flesh, will not profit from taking the Eucharist.
This might be viable if the phrase was ...... nothing profits the flesh ...But, that isn't what it says. It says ...... the flesh profits nothing ...Flesh is the subject (effector) ... profits is the verb (effect) ... nothing is the object (effectee).
So, what JESUS is saying is that ... the flesh (whose flesh ... His flesh ... that's the flesh that He's been talking about) ... profits ... nothing (or nobody).
JESUS goes on to say ...... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Just to be sure ... I checked this against the following translations ...King James Version
6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
American Standard Version
6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.
Bible in Basic English
6:63 The spirit is the life giver; the flesh is of no value: the words which I have said to you are spirit and they are life.
Darby's English Translation
6:63 It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.
Douay Rheims
6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
Noah Webster Bible
6:63 It is the spirit that reviveth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Weymouth New Testament
6:63 It is the spirit which gives Life. The flesh confers no benefit whatever. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are Life.
World English Bible
6:63 It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
Young's Literal Translation
6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;
Later, in this same conversation, JESUS asks His remaining disciples if they, too, will leave Him (for some had gone away as a result of His teaching).
Peter responds to Him ...John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.Peter says that they (the remaining disciples) have noone else to go to ... for only JESUS has the words of life. Peter, then, goes on to affirm that they believe JESUS testimony of Himself ... that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Notice that Peter does not say to JESUS that he has the flesh of life, but rather ... the words of life.
Certainly you don't feel we are constantly digging up and replacing the original foundation?
That there has to be someone in charge is self-evident. The Church the Lord started is not anarchical.
Is not JESUS the Head of the Church ?
Is He not capable of directing His Church ?
I know you don't, and neither did the scribes and Pharisees and those who had the millstones about their neck, and that's why they didn't want the change Christ offered them, they preferred the devil they knew.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast; not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Paul wasn't keeping this or any Jewish feast, and he never recommended that any Gentile keep them either.
In Exodus 12, the Paschal lamb was slain every year to cleanse out the leaven of sin. Jesus died once for all, and the yearly sacrifice was done away with.
Today, it’s a daily cleansing from within, and it’s up to each one of us to cleanse his own heart, and not to do it as ancient Israel did, which was strictly a physical cleansing of the leaven from the dough, it was a type, but today we keep it from within.
V-8 - but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Paul gave the Gentiles the true meaning of the unleavened bread. It’s no longer bread with out the leavening, but its every man filled with sincerity and truth.
1 Cor 8 is not about a Jewish feast, it’s about fornication in the church. Paul used the leavening to make a point that it couldn’t be left in the church or everyone there would become effected, and the feast of UB was a good example of how sin would grow.
As far as I can tell, there is no Jewish feast coming up when this letter was written to the Corinthians, so it’s not likely that's what influenced Paul’s analogy.
The only time Paul said he had to be in Jerusalem for a feast was in…..
Acts 18: 21. But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Notice Paul said nothing about the Gentiles or any of the other Christians going along with him, and the reason he had to go was because he had taken a vow, and it was to end at this feast, and it was probably Pentecost.
Now notice Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Also Galatians 1:18 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
For a Jew who you claim attended all the Jewish feast, here are 17 years that Paul told us he never went up to Jerusalem period, so he certainly wasn’t attending the many yearly feast that had to be kept in Jerusalem.
JH :-)
OK, I'll buy that. It is an awkward phrase.
So, what JESUS is saying is that ... the flesh (whose flesh ... His flesh ... that's the flesh that He's been talking about) ... profits ... nothing (or nobody).
Here's where I rent my garment. If Jesus' flesh does no good for nobody, then the Crucifixion is pointless.
If His Flesh is good for nothing, it would certainly not serve as a vessel for God to become incarnate in.
So, I can't buy this explanation. It is nonsensical. Jesus tells us how his Flesh is given for the Life of the World, and then He says that his Own Flesh is worthless.
Peter says that they (the remaining disciples) have noone else to go to ... for only JESUS has the words of life. Peter, then, goes on to affirm that they believe JESUS testimony of Himself ... that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Yes, but those words have a meaning. If I affirm that your words are very important, this does nto mean that I dismiss what you say, rather that I pay very close attention to what you say.
SD
The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Seriously, yes the Apostles were chosen by Jesus to lead His Church and to become with Him the foundation.
Certainly you don't feel we are constantly digging up and replacing the original foundation?
The foundation remains the Apostles and Jesus. To believe that there is no more need for Apostles is to believe we can remove the foundation. Rather, the foundation remains the Apostles and their successors.
SD
Then what of the Apostles? Didn't they fit into the equation somewhere? Does their existence void the idea of Jesus being the Head?
No, of course not. Still, the only question remains, did the Apostles' authority dissipate or does it still exist?
And where in the Bible is it shown that the Apostles authority was to die with them?
SD
SD
The same place Adam got his, from being made of the earth, and his earthly body and human spirit telling him what it wants to eat.
Adam had no mother, and he was the first to sin, so how did his sin get passed on to him?
JH :-)
Here's where I rent my garment. If Jesus' flesh does no good for nobody, then the Crucifixion is pointless.
If His Flesh is good for nothing, it would certainly not serve as a vessel for God to become incarnate in.
So, I can't buy this explanation. It is nonsensical. Jesus tells us how his Flesh is given for the Life of the World, and then He says that his Own Flesh is worthless.
Here, ... He is speaking to the question of the moment ... (that which had the disciples in consternation) ... of the literal eating of His flesh, ... rather than of His Incarnation or Sacrifice.
Think that through again. How could ANY sin "get passed on to him" unless it came from God?
Adam received none (except from Eve I guess). He came up with it all by himself.
Look, we are operating at a severe disadvantage. I can only go by what is said here and who voices opinion about it.
SD
The same place Adam got his, from being made of the earth, and his earthly body and human spirit telling him what it wants to eat.
This Jesus is then totally unrelated to any other human being.
So how, exactly, does His Sacrifice redeem us, those of us related to Adam and Eve? How can He represent us, How can He be the bridge between broken man and righteous Creator, if He is not one of us?
I'm continually amazed at how little you people have thought through the implications of what you say.
Adam had no mother, and he was the first to sin, so how did his sin get passed on to him?
Adam and Eve had no original sin. Nothing got "passed on" to them. They committed the original sin of disobeying God. This deprived them of fellowship with God and this lack of fellowship has been passed on to all of us from them.
SD
That's what happens when you get caught in the spin cycle.
Here, ... He is speaking to the question of the moment ... (that which had the disciples in consternation) ... of the literal eating of His flesh, ... rather than of His Incarnation or Sacrifice.
No, sorry. Still not buying it. He says the spirit is what gives life and the flesh does not "profit" anything. Well, this is true. Without the spirit within we are bags of bones.
If Jesus had meant to be clear that He was speaking figurative He would have (1) said so unambiguously and (2) called back the crowds that misunderstood Him.
He did neither of those things. Because He was not speaking figuratively.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.