curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD, I see you ignored this part:

'And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.'


Or have you simply decided that anyone who is not cheering your attacks must also be attacked?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD, I see you ignored this part:

'And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.'


Or have you simply decided that anyone who is not cheering your attacks must also be attacked?

---

And I see you ignored my question...yet AGAIN.

Thank you for proving my point. If you are too cowardly to stand up for such an obvious truth, then what makes you think you are in position to judge and criticize others for what you perceive to be their Christian shortcomings?

Until you stop being afraid and actually stand for something, and answer that question, please, you shouldn't be judging others' about their Christianity, you need to be looking within yourself.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD, I see you ignored this part:

'And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.'


Or have you simply decided that anyone who is not cheering your attacks must also be attacked?

---

And I see you ignored my question...yet AGAIN.

Thank you for proving my point. If you are too cowardly to stand up for such an obvious truth, then what makes you think you are in position to judge and criticize others for what you perceive to be their Christian shortcomings?

Until you stop being afraid and actually stand for something, and answer that question, please, you shouldn't be judging others' about their Christianity, you need to be looking within yourself.

---

BTD is still playing the Pharisee, I see.

Listen sir, you have zero authority to demand anything. And I react badly to bullies and thugs, so if you imagine you are doing anything better than proving yourself an hypocrite, you are quite wrong.

I have some experience worth sharing, and some insights worth the read. So do you, so does Coke Bear, so does Frodo, so does CurtPenn. I have been reading this thread to gain wisdom and glean knowledge.

But how you go about your testimony says as much as what you say.

You have proven nothing except that when your pride gets riled you kick Jesus out the door and go full rant on anyone around you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

All you have, all you are in this thread, BTD, is insults, hatred and attacks.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm sure the unbiased readers will be able to make up their mind.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm sure the unbiased readers will be able to make up their mind.

---

Just answer the question. If you have the truth on your side, you have nothing to fear. If you don't then it would make sense that you would avoid the question.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm sure the unbiased readers will be able to make up their mind.

---

Just answer the question. If you have the truth on your side, you have nothing to fear. If you don't then it would make sense that you would avoid the question.

---

I will remind you of what I told your fellow Inquistionist:

'I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.'

A lot of that applies to you also, Frodo.

You show deliberate malice towards brothers in Christ, simply because your ego got hurt.

You act as if bullying people is a proper form of discussion, and never, ever apologize for your deliberate arrogance.

You reek of hatred, not compassion or love.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm sure the unbiased readers will be able to make up their mind.

---

Just answer the question. If you have the truth on your side, you have nothing to fear. If you don't then it would make sense that you would avoid the question.

---

I will remind you of what I told your fellow Inquistionist:

'I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.'

A lot of that applies to you also, Frodo.

You show deliberate malice towards brothers in Christ, simply because your ego got hurt.

You act as if bullying people is a proper form of discussion, and never, ever apologize for your deliberate arrogance.

You reek of hatred, not compassion or love.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

Indeed. As are we all. I do so enjoy irony.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

Indeed. As are we all. I do so enjoy irony.

---

Except some of us actually have a biblical stance and aren't picking and choosing for ourselves.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

Indeed. As are we all. I do so enjoy irony.

---

Except some of us actually have a biblical stance and aren't picking and choosing for ourselves.

---

Too funny. I, too, have a Biblical stance.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---