Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.

Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:

"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but 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." - John 4:13-14

Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?

---

Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?

The claim was that "spirit" meant "symbol". I clearly does not.

---

Wanna answer the question, or do you have to play games of avoidance like many of your Catholic brethren?

---

Quite frankly, I'm NOT playing games. Your question has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

He was implying that "Spirt" had a correlation with "symbol". I simply challenged him to show me anywhere in the bible where pneuma ever meant "symbol." I'll ask the same of you. Please show me where this happens in the Bible.

John 6:63 is not a negation of Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse. Jesus is emphasizing that true life and understanding comes through the (Holy) Spirit, inviting a deeper, spiritual comprehension of his words.

Finally, just because Jesus uses a metaphor in John 4 doesn't means that he's using one in John 6.

---

So you agree, then, that Jesus wasn't talking about literal water in John 4, even if those were his direct words. Thanks.

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

I already explained to you that your question is irrelevant - "Spirit" does not have to correlate with "symbol" in order for Jesus to have been talking symbolically. You are making yet another one of your non sequiturs.

And you still are dodging the points about Judas Iscariot not being saved and the Acts 15 Jerusalem council instructing Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.

Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:

"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but 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." - John 4:13-14

Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?

---

Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?

The claim was that "spirit" meant "symbol". I clearly does not.

---

Wanna answer the question, or do you have to play games of avoidance like many of your Catholic brethren?

---

Quite frankly, I'm NOT playing games. Your question has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

He was implying that "Spirt" had a correlation with "symbol". I simply challenged him to show me anywhere in the bible where pneuma ever meant "symbol." I'll ask the same of you. Please show me where this happens in the Bible.

John 6:63 is not a negation of Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse. Jesus is emphasizing that true life and understanding comes through the (Holy) Spirit, inviting a deeper, spiritual comprehension of his words.

Finally, just because Jesus uses a metaphor in John 4 doesn't means that he's using one in John 6.

---

So you agree, then, that Jesus wasn't talking about literal water in John 4, even if those were his direct words. Thanks.

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

I already explained to you that your question is irrelevant - "Spirit" does not have to correlate with "symbol" in order for Jesus to have been talking symbolically. You are making yet another one of your non sequiturs.

And you still are dodging the points about Judas Iscariot not being saved and the Acts 15 Jerusalem council instructing Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

---

No, thank you.

You just demonstrated that neither you, nor he can show that "Spirit and life" mean symbolic.

Which was his ORIGINAL point. You completely dodged what was originally proposed by him and refuted by my post.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.

Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:

"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but 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." - John 4:13-14

Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?

---

Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?

The claim was that "spirit" meant "symbol". I clearly does not.

---

Wanna answer the question, or do you have to play games of avoidance like many of your Catholic brethren?

---

Quite frankly, I'm NOT playing games. Your question has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

He was implying that "Spirt" had a correlation with "symbol". I simply challenged him to show me anywhere in the bible where pneuma ever meant "symbol." I'll ask the same of you. Please show me where this happens in the Bible.

John 6:63 is not a negation of Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse. Jesus is emphasizing that true life and understanding comes through the (Holy) Spirit, inviting a deeper, spiritual comprehension of his words.

Finally, just because Jesus uses a metaphor in John 4 doesn't means that he's using one in John 6.

---

So you agree, then, that Jesus wasn't talking about literal water in John 4, even if those were his direct words. Thanks.

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

I already explained to you that your question is irrelevant - "Spirit" does not have to correlate with "symbol" in order for Jesus to have been talking symbolically. You are making yet another one of your non sequiturs.

And you still are dodging the points about Judas Iscariot not being saved and the Acts 15 Jerusalem council instructing Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

---

No, thank you.

You just demonstrated that neither you, nor he can show that "Spirit and life" mean symbolic.

Which was his ORIGINAL point. You completely dodged what was originally proposed by him and refuted by my post.

---

I didn't dodge anything. I clearly answered that your question made no sense, as it is a complete non sequitur.
You're arguing a losing point, especially since I'm showing you how very unlikely it is that your literal interpretation is correct. I think you know this, by the way you keep dodging my points about Judas and Acts 15. Got an answer?

The problem I see Coke Bear, is that you do not hold your own claims to that same standard.

You are claiming Jesus meant what you claim, with no specific statement by Christ to support it. You presume Christ meant what you want to believe.

Now you may be right, or you may be wrong. But attacking the spirit of the argument with two levels of standard does not help you here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

---

Yes, John does use a great deal of "symbolic language" in his Gospel. However, that does not mean that the ENTIRE chapter is ONLY using "symbolic language."

John 3:5 Baptism
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world…"
John 5:19-29 The Authority of the Son
John 5:39-47 Witnesses to Jesus
John 7:10-24 Jesus at the Festival of Booths
John 8:1-11 Woman caught in Adultery
John 8:21-30 Jesus foretelling his death
John 8:39-59 Jesus and Abraham

I could list several more (John 9, 11, 12, 13, etc.), but the point is that just because Jesus uses "symbolic language" in John doesn't mean that the entire book, or for the sake of our argument John 6 is symbolic language.

When one looks honestly looks at the "symbolic language" famous "I am" verses
John 10:9 "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd"
John 15:5 - "I am the vine, you are the branches"

NO ONE thought that he meant that his was a literal gate or vine or shepherd. They understood him to be speaking metaphorical.

Contrast that to the (no-less than 6 times) that Jesus commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They are all shocked. Even his closest apostles didn't' fully understand yet. Make NO doubt, they ALL knew that he wasn't speaking metaphorical.

We know this because they all walked away because he meant it in a non-metaphorical sense.

John 6:66 - Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus NEVER corrects them in their thinking.

Jesus fulfills this at the Last Supper when he says, "This IS my Body" and "This IS the cup of my Blood."

He never says, "this is a symbolic presentation". No, he is fulfilling the Passover meal, which interestingly has NO mention of the Passover lamb.

Go back to the original Passover. What were the Hebrews to do?

Take an unblemished, male lamb into their home for a week. Feed it. Care for it. Then sacrifice it. Spread the blood on the door posts.

What was the most important part of the sacrifice? The meal.

They were commanded to eat ALL of the lamb. That is what was required for everyone's deliverance. It wasn't JUST the sacrifice. If that was the case, then only the person who actually killed the lamb or maybe the person(s) that spread the blood on the doorpost would be delivered.

They HAD to eat the pascal sacrifice for deliverance.

God, in his infinite wisdom, being outside of time and space, knew that Jesus would be the "Lamb of God" as John the Baptists says, "Behold the Lamb of God" in John 1:29.

Today, as Jesus mentioned in John 6, we are called to eat of the same Lamb of God for our deliverance, for everlasting life.

One last point, going back to the OT and typology. We know that the new "types" are ALWAYS superior to the old types foretold in the OT.

In John 6:50-51 Jesus contrasts himself to the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert. He says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever"

The manna (the bread from heaven) was a miraculous bread that has not been seen again until Jesus (bread from heaven) was born.

(Speaking of being born what does Bethlehem mean? "House of Bread"
Where was he laid? In a manger
What does "manger" mean? "To eat."
God was screaming this from the very beginning.) All we need to do is listen to his words.

Turning our attention back to the manna, which was miraculous, if Jesus meant that the Eucharist was ONLY a symbol, then it would be INFERIOR to the miraculous manna in the OT. That can't be possible. The new "types" are always superior to the old.

The Eucharist is a miracle that happens at every mass.

The earliest Church fathers also believed this from the beginning. It was never NOT held until after the "reformation."

So yes, for those reasons (and many others) I take Jesus at HIS word that he was speaking literally in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6.

I will answer your Acts 15 comment in another post. I have to do get some work done today.

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.

---

With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -

a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood

- a man-made tradition?

---

Jesus also never called it the Eucharist and never intended for his terminology to be taken literally. Christian's do not become cannibals when partaking.

Jesus did not literally become a door, a vine, a Lamb, or a Shepard but a He frequently described Himself in such terms.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

---

Yes, John does use a great deal of "symbolic language" in his Gospel. However, that does not mean that the ENTIRE chapter is ONLY using "symbolic language."

John 3:5 Baptism
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world…"
John 5:19-29 The Authority of the Son
John 5:39-47 Witnesses to Jesus
John 7:10-24 Jesus at the Festival of Booths
John 8:1-11 Woman caught in Adultery
John 8:21-30 Jesus foretelling his death
John 8:39-59 Jesus and Abraham

I could list several more (John 9, 11, 12, 13, etc.), but the point is that just because Jesus uses "symbolic language" in John doesn't mean that the entire book, or for the sake of our argument John 6 is symbolic language.

When one looks honestly looks at the "symbolic language" famous "I am" verses
John 10:9 "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd"
John 15:5 - "I am the vine, you are the branches"

NO ONE thought that he meant that his was a literal gate or vine or shepherd. They understood him to be speaking metaphorical.

Contrast that to the (no-less than 6 times) that Jesus commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They are all shocked. Even his closest apostles didn't' fully understand yet. Make NO doubt, they ALL knew that he wasn't speaking metaphorical.

We know this because they all walked away because he meant it in a non-metaphorical sense.

John 6:66 - Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus NEVER corrects them in their thinking.

Jesus fulfills this at the Last Supper when he says, "This IS my Body" and "This IS the cup of my Blood."

He never says, "this is a symbolic presentation". No, he is fulfilling the Passover meal, which interestingly has NO mention of the Passover lamb.

Go back to the original Passover. What were the Hebrews to do?

Take an unblemished, male lamb into their home for a week. Feed it. Care for it. Then sacrifice it. Spread the blood on the door posts.

What was the most important part of the sacrifice? The meal.

They were commanded to eat ALL of the lamb. That is what was required for everyone's deliverance. It wasn't JUST the sacrifice. If that was the case, then only the person who actually killed the lamb or maybe the person(s) that spread the blood on the doorpost would be delivered.

They HAD to eat the pascal sacrifice for deliverance.

God, in his infinite wisdom, being outside of time and space, knew that Jesus would be the "Lamb of God" as John the Baptists says, "Behold the Lamb of God" in John 1:29.

Today, as Jesus mentioned in John 6, we are called to eat of the same Lamb of God for our deliverance, for everlasting life.

One last point, going back to the OT and typology. We know that the new "types" are ALWAYS superior to the old types foretold in the OT.

In John 6:50-51 Jesus contrasts himself to the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert. He says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever"

The manna (the bread from heaven) was a miraculous bread that has not been seen again until Jesus (bread from heaven) was born.

(Speaking of being born what does Bethlehem mean? "House of Bread"
Where was he laid? In a manger
What does "manger" mean? "To eat."
God was screaming this from the very beginning.) All we need to do is listen to his words.

Turning our attention back to the manna, which was miraculous, if Jesus meant that the Eucharist was ONLY a symbol, then it would be INFERIOR to the miraculous manna in the OT. That can't be possible. The new "types" are always superior to the old.

The Eucharist is a miracle that happens at every mass.

The earliest Church fathers also believed this from the beginning. It was never NOT held until after the "reformation."

So yes, for those reasons (and many others) I take Jesus at HIS word that he was speaking literally in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6.

I will answer your Acts 15 comment in another post. I have to do get some work done today.

---

The fact that not everything Jesus said was symbolic, is not support for Jesus being literal in John 6.

Jesus saying to eat his flesh is taking his "I am the bread of life" symbolism further. Jesus isn't an actual loaf of bread. Eating his flesh is symbolically eating this symbolic bread. So if the bread isn't literal, neither is eating his flesh. This is just pure common sense, and your interpretation is merely you reading into it what you want to be there.

Jesus repeating the symbolism over and over doesn't change it to being literal. This is a completely made up hermeneutic. Jesus repeated the symbolism of "feed my sheep" to Peter three times. He wasn't telling Peter to literally tend to his flock of lambs back at his ranch.

Jesus allowing people to misunderstanding his words does not mean he was being literal either. This is another completely made up hermeneutic. Jesus allowed the woman at well to continue in her misunderstanding, and he also allowed those who thought "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" was talking about the literal temple, and he didn't correct them either.

Jesus was greater than the Passover lamb. "Eating" Jesus, the Passover lamb, had a more significant, spiritual, and eternal meaning than the regular Passover lamb. Therefore, it involved a spiritual kind of eating, not a physical one. That makes it FAR superior to the physical eating of the regular Passover lamb.

Your problem is thinking that "eating" Jesus spiritually is LESS than eating something physically, like the Passover lamb or the manna. Your simply choosing to look at it that way. It's completely wrong, though. Spiriual is GREATER than the physical, because as Jesus said, it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no benefit.

Finally, we know Jesus couldn't have been literal, because the apostles would have broken the Law against drinking blood, Judas would have been saved since he partook in the Last Supper meal, but Jesus make it clear he wasn't, and the apostles in Acts 15 told the Gentile believers not to drink blood. I'm sure you'll attempt a ridiculous, twisting, nonsensical argument around this, full of ad hoc non sequiturs, that you got from your apologetic superiors. I'll be waiting for the circus.....

historian said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.

---

With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -

a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood

- a man-made tradition?

---

Jesus also never called it the Eucharist and never intended for his terminology to be taken literally. Christian's do not become cannibals when partaking.

Jesus did not literally become a door, a vine, a Lamb, or a Shepard but a He frequently described Himself in such terms.

---

Easy to see, but a truth about the human heart - if one wants to believe something, they will find a way. "The heart is deceitful above all things" - Jeremiah 1:7

Romans 10:9-10, 13 KJV
[9] that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I hope you all had a great Sunday.

1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

historian said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.

---

With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -

a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood

- a man-made tradition?

---

Jesus also never called it the Eucharist and never intended for his terminology to be taken literally. Christian's do not become cannibals when partaking.

Jesus did not literally become a door, a vine, a Lamb, or a Shepard but a He frequently described Himself in such terms.

---

I think this is the case where people who allegorize parts of the Bible that they should take literally are now taking literally parts of the Bible that should be allegorized or spiritualized. Jesus specifically said that the words that He was speaking were Spirit and
Life.

Some great insight needed.

Tomorrow is Sunday found a great Bible Church and a tent

A tent?

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles, British Loyalist Clergyman

This sentiment has often been adapted to the choice Western Christians have been given - to be ruled by a Pope a thousand miles away (Roman Catholicism) or 3000 popes one mile away (Protestantism/Evangelcalism). This is a false choice. The real choice is to be ruled by scripture and apostolic tradition 2000 years away (Orthodoxy).

Have a good Sunday.

The Church of Antioch

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

The Serbian Orthodox Church

The Orthdox Church in America

The Church of Macedonia

The Church of Romania

Greek Orthodox Church

You got it half right - you must be aligned with Scripture.

Realitybites said:

---

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles, British Loyalist Clergyman

This sentiment has often been adapted to the choice Western Christians have been given - to be ruled by a Pope a thousand miles away (Roman Catholicism) or 3000 popes one mile away (Protestantism/Evangelcalism). This is a false choice. The real choice is to be ruled by scripture and apostolic tradition 2000 years away (Orthodoxy)

---

Bad analogy, as Protestantism doesn't mean you're ruled by "3000 popes", since no protestant church believes in the ruling authority of a pope. Neither does being in one protestant church mean that you have to "submit" to the authority of all the other 2,999 "popes" in the area. This is a nonsensical statement.

"The real choice is to be ruled by scripture and apostolic tradition..." - Scripture IS apostolic tradition, and apostolic tradition IS scripture. Anything outside of Scripture can not be reliably traced to apostolic tradition, since Scripture is the only thing we have that contains everything that we know came from the apostles.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What this does show, however, is that the whole gospel of John is suffuse with symbolic language by Jesus. It's the theme for the entire book (bread of life, gate of salvation, the good shepherd, living water). Therefore, a symbolic interpretation of John 6 would be completely consistent with the theme of the whole book, and is therefore the proper way to read it, as the apostle John intended. This also shows that you have an inconsistent hermeneutic when you interpret John 6 literally, and really no basis for which to suddenly switch from a symbolic interpretion in chapter 4 to a literal one just two chapters later.

---

I will answer your Acts 15 comment in another post. I have to do get some work done today.

---

I've been waiting weeks for a response. Have your apologetic sources come up with one yet?

Still nothing but silence from those who believe the drinking of Jesus' blood was literal at the Last Supper. Can anyone who believes that explain why, then, the apostles in Acts 15 forbade us Gentile Christians from drinking blood?

This is pretty significant, after all. Because the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy proclaim an ANATHEMA on all who don't believe in the drinking of literal blood at communion, aka the Eucharist. Quite the conundrum.

Realitybites said:

---

A tent?

---

Ha Ha , I just saw that. That's what I get for using auto text. I meant to find a good bible church and attend

Realitybites said:

---

The real choice is to be ruled by scripture and apostolic tradition 2000 years away

---

You were Protestant when Protestant wasn't cool.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A tent?

---

Ha Ha , I just saw that. That's what I get for using auto text. I meant to find a good bible church and attend

---

Ah. I was wondering if it was an obscure reference to Saint Paul.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

---

To you as well.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

---

To you as well.

---

Thank you

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The fact that not everything Jesus said was symbolic, is not support for Jesus being literal in John 6.

---

It doesn't negate it either. You made the claim that it was symbolic because he uses metaphors in other parts of John. I simply demonstrated that the logic of your assertation was incorrect.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus saying to eat his flesh is taking his "I am the bread of life" symbolism further. Jesus isn't an actual loaf of bread. Eating his flesh is symbolically eating this symbolic bread. So if the bread isn't literal, neither is eating his flesh. This is just pure common sense, and your interpretation is merely you reading into it what you want to be there.

---

Just like the followers who left Jesus because they didn't understand, you too, do not understand or believe what Jesus said.
Jesus does say, "I am the Bread of Life." (John 6:48) He then immediately compares it to manna, in verses 49 - 50

"Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. "

That is the metaphor, the symbolism comparing himself to the manna which came down from heaven, just as he did. Jesus didn't use a metaphor to describe a metaphor. He used a metaphor to describe a reality. Jesus then tells us EXACTLY the bread is in verse 51 -

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread IS my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Your view is perfectly expressed in verse 52

" Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus then says it AGAIN in verse 55

"For my flesh IS real food and my blood IS real drink."

He NEVER says, "this REPRENSENTS my flesh" or "this is a SYMBOL of my blood." You continue to deny the very words of Jesus. Why??? Do you not love him enough to believe in what he says?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus repeating the symbolism over and over doesn't change it to being literal. This is a completely made up hermeneutic. Jesus repeated the symbolism of "feed my sheep" to Peter three times. He wasn't telling Peter to literally tend to his flock of lambs back at his ranch.

---

This is a flawed analogy here. Jesus gave Peter reaffirm his love for Jesus to restore him after his three-fold denial. Jesus here also confirms his leadership, entrusts him with the pastoral care of Jesus' followers, and puts him at the forefront as the first among the apostles underscoring his primacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus allowing people to misunderstanding his words does not mean he was being literal either. This is another completely made up hermeneutic. Jesus allowed the woman at well to continue in her misunderstanding, and he also allowed those who thought "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" was talking about the literal temple, and he didn't correct them either.

---

Simple YES or NO question

Did the disciples that left him in John 6:66 believe Jesus literally?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus was greater than the Passover lamb. "Eating" Jesus, the Passover lamb, had a more significant, spiritual, and eternal meaning than the regular Passover lamb. Therefore, it involved a spiritual kind of eating, not a physical one. That makes it FAR superior to the physical eating of the regular Passover lamb.

---

Wow! Now that's some "ad hoc non sequitur" right there!

Saint Paul even tells us so. In 1 Cor 10:2-4

They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

It was spiritual food (manna) and drink (the water from the rock). They ate and drank them.

A few verses later, verse 16

" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

After Jesus had ascended, the first Christians were practicing what Jesus said to do. This wasn't just a "spiritual" intaking of Christ. It was the physical eating and drinking of Jesus.

Again, in verses 18-22, St Paul is discussing food offered to idols and the sacrifices the offer to demons. These are acts of physically eating and drinking. Not "just spiritual" eating and drinking.

At the end of 1 Cor 10, verse 31 absolutely concludes that this is physical eating and drinking of any food whether it is was sacrificed to an idol or demon (that is NOT God)

"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Your "spiritual-alone" eating and drinking are completely nonsensical. Jesus presents them as two different acts, yet you claim that it's supposed to be "spiritual"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your problem is thinking that "eating" Jesus spiritually is LESS than eating something physically, like the Passover lamb or the manna. Your simply choosing to look at it that way. It's completely wrong, though. Spiriual is GREATER than the physical, because as Jesus said, it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no benefit.

---

Once again, you are reading YOUR view into what the bible and history says otherwise.

Some much is wrong with your flawed understanding here.
1) "Spirit that gives life, the flesh is no benefit." This "Spirit" is the Holy Spirit - the source of the understanding and graces from this teaching which is contrasted to the "flesh", which is man's earthly mindset which is insufficient for understanding this. I'd dare say this this may be why you don't accept this teaching. Your heart has been hardened from accepting the TRUTH. Ask the Holy Spirit for Wisdom in this teaching.
2) If you believe Jesus was talking about HIS flesh being of "no avail", then you have just denied the sufficiency of Jesus' death and resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins and our salvation. Obviously, he does NOT mean HIS flesh is of no benefit.

So, who's flesh is Jesus referring to in verse 63?

In verses 64-65, Jesus says-

"Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

Once again, ask the Holy Spirit for belief in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Finally, we know Jesus couldn't have been literal, because the apostles would have broken the Law against drinking blood, Judas would have been saved since he partook in the Last Supper meal, but Jesus make it clear he wasn't, and the apostles in Acts 15 told the Gentile believers not to drink blood. I'm sure you'll attempt a ridiculous, twisting, nonsensical argument around this, full of ad hoc non sequiturs, that you got from your apologetic superiors. I'll be waiting for the circus.....

---

LAWS - Matt 7:18-19 - "Thus he declared ALL foods clean." There was no law breaking here.

JUDAS This demonstrates that OSAS, is completely unbiblical. Judas walked away from Jesus. He never said that would reject him. In fact, John 1:11 says, -

"He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him." Judas did take communion, proceeded to reject him (committed an unrepentant mortal sin), and was damned. OSAS is false and unbiblical.

ACTS 15 - The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom. 14:1-14, 1 Cor. 8:1-13).

I laid out an extremely logical argument for the Real Presence using John 6 and linking it back to the OT in the Passover. John even calls Jesus the Lamb of God. I also demonstrated that Luke 1 is foreshadowing the Eucharist as well. I'll add one more reference

In Hebrews 5:6, the sacred author, "quoting Psalm 110:4, says of Jesus, "You are a priest in the order of Melchizedek." As you know Melchizedek was a priest and a king. He was the first figure to bless bread and wine and offer them. This is a priestly action. It is a precursor to the Eucharist. Melchizedek's offering anticipates the spiritual significance of Christ's ultimate sacrifice.

You choose not to accept this reality even though it has been believed since the beginning of Church.

Finally, with respect to your sarcastic comment about "apologetic superiors"; I will consult the Bible, the CCC, and other Catholic sources to ensure that I am providing authentic Catholic teachings. I do NOT make up my own religion based on my OWN interpretations of the bible.

I trust the authority of the nearly 2000-year-old magisterium of the Church that Jesus created. Where is your authority? Why should I, or anyone here, trust what YOU believe the bible says?

Look what "personal interpretation" has done to us. Baptist preachers used to justify slavery using the Bible. People now justify abortion, same-sex attraction, divorce, etc. using the Bible. This is what happens when everyone wants to be their own pope of their own church. They get to believe whatever they want. If one doesn't agree with what their pastor says, they find an abandoned Pizza Hut or strip-mall and start their own church with their own beliefs.

BTW, what's the name of your church?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

The mistake you ignore, Coke Bear, is that when men turn from God they listen to other men or themselves. This is exactly what happens if/when a Roman Catholic decides the Pope is more important than God, and ignores Scripture because of that.

There have been good, even great Popes, faithful to Christ and trustworthy servants of the Lord. But there have been many who faltered, made mistakes. Some were even evil.

No, I am not going to name the ones who fell away into perdition, any more than I will name here the false ministers of other denominations. But Roman Catholics fall prey to Pride, Greed, Lust and all the other temptations just as much as do Protestants. Even David, the most beloved King of Israel, fell into sin. Even Solomon, called the wisest of Kings, fell into sin. It's arrogance and then some to pretend the Popes do not also fall into sin, some beyond redemption.

Scripture alone may be misinterpreted, if one reads it seeking only advantage and to support human opinion. But discounting it is foolhardy, and demoting it below human rank is sinful of itself.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

---

That verse is not saying that you are saved by Works. It's saying that true faith produces good works. It's a difficult passage on it's own, but when compared to the rest of Scripture, it's obvious that Salvation is by GRACE through FAITH alone, but true faith produces good works because when you truly believe something, you act upon that belief. Read the ENTIRE book of Romans. It's crystal clear that we are not Justified by works. James says that IF we truly have Faith (Which results in Salvation on it's own) we will produce good works as an outward proof that we are saved.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

---

Of Course it's not saying that. But it also can't be taken out of context. Faith without works is dead.

No free rides

---

FALSE. IT'S ALL FREE:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Ro 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

---

Wrong but wishing you all the best on that

---

You think the Scriptures are wrong do you? I think you are wrong and I hope you turn to Christ for Salvation rather than yourself before it's too late.

Righteousness doesn't come by the Law, Good deeds, ect. It comes ONLY by Grace through Faith Alone in Christ and His Death and Resurrection to pay for our sins. He gets the credit, NOT us.

Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

If we trust in our works of righteousness such as being Circumcised, Christ will profit us nothing:

Ga 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

(KJV)

---

Both these things are true:

(1) No matter how hard we try or we work we cannot claim righteousness or salvation through those efforts.

The fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism is that it claims that the Church has a treasury of merit from which merit is dispensed based upon the work of the individual Roman Catholic.

(2) In the absence of all effort or works (that is to say obedience) on our part, we cannot claim righteousness or salvation through Christ's effort.

The fatal flaw of evangelicalism is that it claims that we in fact can do this.

Both these modernist positions directly conflict with the ancient Christian doctrine of the first millenium.

This is why Orthodoxy will be the sole remaining representative of Christianity in the west in the future. The internet has made it impossible to hide history anymore.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The mistake you ignore, Coke Bear, is that when men turn from God they listen to other men or themselves. This is exactly what happens if/when a Roman Catholic decides the Pope is more important than God, and ignores Scripture because of that.

There have been good, even great Popes, faithful to Christ and trustworthy servants of the Lord. But there have been many who faltered, made mistakes. Some were even evil.

No, I am not going to name the ones who fell away into perdition, any more than I will name here the false ministers of other denominations. But Roman Catholics fall prey to Pride, Greed, Lust and all the other temptations just as much as do Protestants. Even David, the most beloved King of Israel, fell into sin. Even Solomon, called the wisest of Kings, fell into sin. It's arrogance and then some to pretend the Popes do not also fall into sin, some beyond redemption.

---

I'm not sure where you've heard or read that the Popes do not also fall into sin. No Catholic has EVER claimed that. Pope JPII, a truly amazing man (and now Saint) went to confession every week.

I won't disagree with you one bit about the Catholic Church having some truly bad men serve as the Pope. Heck, the Avignon Papacy is proof of that. There have been about 12 or so of the 266 men that led the Church that were truly bad.

But interestingly, not ONE of them ever taught anything heretical to the Christian faith. While some certainly did not lead by example or led a moral life, they never expressed heresy or contradicted any Catholic teaching.

You seem to be confusing the man with the religion. Yes, the Church has had some truly scoundrels in the Church (and most likely still has some today), but that doesn't mean that the Church itself is bad.

It merely means that we are all fallen, broken people.

You don't leave Jesus because of Judas. You don't leave the Church because of flawed humans.

The Church is not a museum for saints. It's a hospital for sinners.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture alone may be misinterpreted, if one reads it seeking only advantage and to support human opinion. But discounting it is foolhardy, and demoting it below human rank is sinful of itself.

---

Please help me understand how you believe that the Catholic Church "discounts" scripture and "demotes it below human rank".

Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its section on Scripture. I fully don't expect you to read the entire section, but I'd encourage you to browse thru some of the paragraphs. It runs from paragraph 101 thru 141. It's not very long, but it succinctly eloquates what the Church believes about the "ranking" of scripture.

The previous section in the CCC, Article 2, discusses The Transmission of Divine Revelation.

I'm happy to dialogue with you more on this, but I'd like to ask you this, honestly - What good is a Divine book without a divine interpreter?

Please note, I'm NOT claim that the Popes are divine. I'm merely claiming that the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to teach what God has revealed to us without error.

As I mentioned in the post that you responded to, open interpretation has led to people abusing scripture for their own selfish beliefs: slavery, abortion, same-sex marriages and actions, divorce, and many other disorders.

Coke Bear: " I'm merely claiming that the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to teach what God has revealed to us without error."

And that is the hubris speaking.

I get it, you Roman Catholics strongly want to cling to the fiction that Rome is closer to Christ than any of the other denominations.

That is plainly false.

And no, I also do not agree that any single denomination has the right to claim they 'got it right' more than others.

The key is the Holy Spirit.

I have seen the Holy Spirit at work many times in my life. And I have seen that Spirit present in Roman Catholics, in Southern Baptists, and in many other denominations.

Just as the Lord is not a 'respecter of persons', neither does He limit His Presence to a single group or location.

I understand this is a problem for many, in many places. Everyone wants to be the Special choice or the Most Accurate.

But Jesus chose a group of common people to be His closest followers. Not the most learned, not the most powerful, but people who most would ignore and count of no importance.

It's important for us to seek God in our hearts. That's where He waits for us.

I hope this makes sense to you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: " I'm merely claiming that the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to teach what God has revealed to us without error."

And that is the hubris speaking.

I get it, you Roman Catholics strongly want to cling to the fiction that Rome is closer to Christ than any of the other denominations.

That is plainly false.

And no, I also do not agree that any single denomination has the right to claim they 'got it right' more than others.

The key is the Holy Spirit.

I have seen the Holy Spirit at work many times in my life. And I have seen that Spirit present in Roman Catholics, in Southern Baptists, and in many other denominations.

Just as the Lord is not a 'respecter of persons', neither does He limit His Presence to a single group or location.

I understand this is a problem for many, in many places. Everyone wants to be the Special choice or the Most Accurate.

But Jesus chose a group of common people to be His closest followers. Not the most learned, not the most powerful, but people who most would ignore and count of no importance.

It's important for us to seek God in our hearts. That's where He waits for us.

I hope this makes sense to you.

---

Maybe I wasn't specific about the Holy Spirit. I never said that it was reserved for only the Catholic Church.

The Holy Spirit is actively present in the world and works in the hearts and lives of all people, even those outside Christianity.

The Catholic Church fully affirms that the HS is the divine author of Sacred Scripture in guiding the human authors to God intended to communicate for our salvation.

The Church also states that the HS aids the Church in correctly interpreting the Scriptures. This task is primarily entrusted to the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority), which ensures that Scriptural interpretation remains faithful to apostolic Tradition and Church teachings.

Do you believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth?