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 |
SD
Logical, in that those premises lead to that conclusion.
GIGO
That will be your undoing in the end.
BigMack
Duh....that's the point, he had no mother or physical father to pass their sin nature on to him, but he did just fine with out their help.
Why would we be different then him, we don't need help from our parents, and just as Adam, we'd do it anyway.
Adam received none (except from Eve I guess). He came up with it all by himself.
Eve had nothing to do with Adams nature, his physical body and human nature is all he needed.
It's what causes all men to sin, not some contaminate passed on through the blood.
It's human nature, and both men and women are born with it, except Mary of course. :-)
SD
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. (John 10:7)
Dave, do you read this literally?
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.
How would such a statement fit into the context of the discussion ?
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.
Not so! Many times JESUS privately explained to His disciples statements which had been unclear to, ... both, the disciples and the multitudes.
Again, with me?
Yes, pretty much. He is literally a passageway through whom the sheep enter Heaven.
SD
John 6:
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Are you suggesting you eat the words? Maybe you should consider eating your own words.
Dave speak.
BigMack
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.
OK, it is the spirit that gives life. When the spirit leaves our body it is useless. The words that Jesus speaks are all about our spirit and our life.
In other words, the things Jesus said are how we obtain spirit and life, how we maintain the "quickening" in our bodies.
It is the things of the soul (spirit) that are important. Things of the flesh (body) are not, for they don't lead us to anything eternal.
So, Jesus is telling us that His Words are extremely important, that they are the stuff of our very SOuls and Lvies.
On this I think we all agree.
The only difference is that I take this importance of His Words and therefore interpret Him with the insistence He had to be taken literally.
Others take this insistence that the words are Spirit and Life as a clue to interpret the words figuratively. It is this that I still do not understand.
Jesus is not saying that His Own Flesh is worthless. He is instead saying "think about the important, spiritual things, not the low fleshy things." Because those fleshy thing will get you nothing.
Then, He says that His Words are the Spirit and Life. He nowhere contrasts His Words and His flesh, as you like to believe. He says "focus on the spiritual, not the fleshy; and my words are the key to life and spirit."
SD
No. Stop the bibliolotry. Jesus insists that we take His Words seriously. Very seriously. Life and Spirit seriously. That means that we determine what He meant by the words.
And it is clear by His repeated insistence that He meant that His Flesh was True Food. That unless we ate His Flesh we would have no life.
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?
JESUS commissioned and ordained the Apostles ministry.
There is no evidence of JESUS ordaining such a ministry to extend beyond the lives of the Apostles.
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?
Peter, when directing the selection of another to take Judas' place as an apostle, specified that such a person must have been a witness of the resurrection.Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
You said that, I didn't. Mary gave Him his humanness, and in that sense he became related to all of us, and Adam as well.
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?
By not allowing the lust of his human body to control His actions as Adam and all mankind since have failed to do.
I'm continually amazed at how little you people have thought through the implications of what you say.
It's good that we keep you in total amazement Dave. Lol
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.
So we aren't capable of committing sin unless it's been passed on to us from someone else, is that right?
If it weren't for Adam, I'd have been perfect. YehhhhRight Lol
JH :-)
Well, IMRight isn't around right now. ;o)
Yes, pretty much. He is literally a passageway through whom the sheep enter Heaven.
That is not a literal reading. The way you are reading this is the way the NCs read John 6. Let's juxtapose these verses.
So 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 you ... For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:53,55)
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep ... I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved (John 10:7,9)
A literal reading of the first is that you literally have to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood, that his flesh is actual, literal food, and his blood is actual, literal drink. A literal reading of the second is that Jesus is an actual, physical door through which one needs to pass.
There is no reason to favor a literal reading of one and not the other. The structure of the statements is identical. The only difference is that one has been "fleshed out" (pardon the pun) sacramentally, and the other has not. One can imagine a sacramental implementation of John 10:7, where the door to the church (or, even better, to the sanctuary), is literally understood to be Jesus, Really Present under the Accidents of the wood and the hardware.
Or, you could read both passages figuratively.
The only difference is that I take this importance of His Words and therefore interpret Him with the insistence He had to be taken literally.
You interpret nothing JESUS says figuratively ?
... for instance ..I am the vine, ye are the branches ... ?
Logic isn't that hard to understand. Adam and Eve had no inborn Original Sin. Yet they managed to commit sin.
In fact, they committed the Original Sin.
So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that someone has to have inherited sin in order to be capable of committing sin?
No, it doesn't. Not at all.
Try again.
SD
don't be silly. We were talking about this certain passage. Doesn't verse 63 have some relation to the rest of John 6? If you want to argue that it is unrelated to the Bread of Life discourse above, I'll go along with that.
SD
I think I agree. Given the text itself and no other guidance. Both use language the same way.
I don't have a problem admitting that Tradition colors the way the text is read.
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.