BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

---

Quote:

---

64 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. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

---

Quote:

---

67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God."

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Greek word for "spirit," pneuma, is not a synonym for symbol. For example, the Bible says that "God is spirit" (John 4:24) and that angels are "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:14). Does that mean God and angels are mere symbols? Of course not.

---

Quote:

---

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

---

Quote:

---

"The flesh" is a New Testament phrase that is often used to describe human nature apart from God's grace (see Mark 14:38; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:1). What Jesus means is that without God's grace, belief in the Eucharist is impossible. If his disciples are to believe his teaching, they must avail themselves to that grace.

Jesus' words are of the Spirit and therefore can only be accepted by the power of the Spirit. This is why Jesus places the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood as the bookends of his teaching: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (v. 44) and "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (v. 65).

Therefore, Jesus' teaching that his words are spirit and life does not contradict the Catholic literal interpretation.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

---

You have neglected the next few passages:

Quote:

---

64 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. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

---

Jesus knew what people would not understand. The apostles didn't fully understand how, but they took Him literally.

He even asked them in the next passages:

Quote:

---

67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God."

---

He could have called the other disciples back, but he didn't. He let them go. He keep the 12 with Him so that he could institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

This paragraph is from an article on Catholic Answer from apologist and author Karlo Broussard:

Quote:

---

Second, the Greek word for "spirit," pneuma, is not a synonym for symbol. For example, the Bible says that "God is spirit" (John 4:24) and that angels are "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:14). Does that mean God and angels are mere symbols? Of course not.

---

Quote:

---

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

---

Listed below is his (Karlo's) refutation on the common Protestant misunderstanding of the passage in John:

Quote:

---

"The flesh" is a New Testament phrase that is often used to describe human nature apart from God's grace (see Mark 14:38; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:1). What Jesus means is that without God's grace, belief in the Eucharist is impossible. If his disciples are to believe his teaching, they must avail themselves to that grace.

Jesus' words are of the Spirit and therefore can only be accepted by the power of the Spirit. This is why Jesus places the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood as the bookends of his teaching: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (v. 44) and "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (v. 65).

Therefore, Jesus' teaching that his words are spirit and life does not contradict the Catholic literal interpretation.

---

Scripture, tradition, and history all reveal the truth about the Eucharist.
(Edited to include link of article)

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

"....whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

That's the very beginning of his whole discourse. Question: have you ever gotten hungry for food and thirsty for drink since coming to Jesus? Was Jesus lying? Think about it.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

"....whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

That's the very beginning of his whole discourse. Question: have you ever gotten hungry for food and thirsty for drink since coming to Jesus? Was Jesus lying? Think about it.

---

is it possible that he was talking about the afterlife when we would not thirst or hunger?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

"....whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

That's the very beginning of his whole discourse. Question: have you ever gotten hungry for food and thirsty for drink since coming to Jesus? Was Jesus lying? Think about it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

---

Before we begin a discussion on Purgatory, what do you this it is?

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

"....whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

That's the very beginning of his whole discourse. Question: have you ever gotten hungry for food and thirsty for drink since coming to Jesus? Was Jesus lying? Think about it.

---

Just your usual pointless blather. Think about that.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

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."

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

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

---

"....whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

That's the very beginning of his whole discourse. Question: have you ever gotten hungry for food and thirsty for drink since coming to Jesus? Was Jesus lying? Think about it.

---

Just your usual pointless blather. Think about that.

---

It's obvious when you realize the point I've made and can't argue against it. You lash out just like this.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Do you know who Melchizedek is?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "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."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "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."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "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."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

If we are to truly take Jesus at his literal word, then it IS ABSOLUTELY salvivic. Read what you just quoted: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". This would be clearly indicating that eating his flesh (literally, according to you) is an absolute requirement for salvation.

You say you take him at his literal word, but then you don't.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Salvation is by Grace through faith without works.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Who exactly was counting Quentin Tarantino as some kind of religious authority?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

John 6:53

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Salvation is by Grace through faith without works.

---

---

joseywales said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Salvation is by Grace through faith without works.

---

---

And where in the human evolution did man fall from grace and needed saving from sin. Our human genus hime sapiens has only been here for about 300,000 years so was it during that time or maybe before us during the Neanderthals and a few others or maybe back when we first decided to come down out of trees and walk on two legs...people please, religions across the world are all manmade and come from cultures long ago when generally we were scientific illiterate and superstitious. Almost of all of us have Neanderthal DNA in us and one other human type. And go get some microndial DNA test and find out what part of Africa you came from.
Embrace knowledge, then if you choose to still believe your gonna live forever them more power to you, I as a former Christian of 30 years lI can no longer bury my head in the proverbial sand. Have the courage to challenge ancient superstitions. Life is a wonderful thing enjoy every moment and stop letting powerful institutions tell you what is right and wrong, who to have sex with and condemning you for being human and that you keed saving. Every part of Christianity and Islam and the Jewish faiths all come from previous cultures religious practices. Virgin births, man in God's form , sacrificing to God's with a man in God's form, etc etc.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Who exactly was counting Quentin Tarantino as some kind of religious authority?

---

That's not the point. A lot of people believe that the line in the movie is really in the Bible.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "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."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

If we are to truly take Jesus at his literal word, then it IS ABSOLUTELY salvivic. Read what you just quoted: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". This would be clearly indicating that eating his flesh (literally, according to you) is an absolute requirement for salvation.

You say you take him at his literal word, but then you don't.

---

If Jesus had said "unless you eat the flesh of Son of Man... you do not have eternal life", then you would be correct. However, that is not what he said, is it? One can be saved but distant spiritually, that is without life. Hence the importance of Communion. I am taking Him at His word. You are not.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "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."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

If we are to truly take Jesus at his literal word, then it IS ABSOLUTELY salvivic. Read what you just quoted: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". This would be clearly indicating that eating his flesh (literally, according to you) is an absolute requirement for salvation.

You say you take him at his literal word, but then you don't.

---

If Jesus had said "unless you eat the flesh of Son of Man... you do not have eternal life", then you would be correct. However, that is not what he said, is it? One can be saved but distant spiritually, that is without life. Hence the importance of Communion. I am taking Him at His word. You are not.

---

"You have NO LIFE in you." As in none whatsoever. Not "spiritually distant", but spiritually DEAD. Someone who has eternal life can't be characterized in this way.

So no, you are not taking him at his word, you are dancing around it.

---