BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus unequivocally states that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood you HAS eternal life, and he WILL raise you (John 6:54). If you are saying that the Eucharist is Jesus' literal flesh and blood, and you can eat his flesh and drink his blood.... but NOT have eternal life and NOT be raised, then you are directly contradicting what Jesus declares to be true.

---

You are assuming that whoever also means those who do not follow him, an incorrect assumption. The early church guarded communion so closely that non members were dismissed before communion was served. You are also inserting the word "once" into his statement. You have eternal life so long as you continue in the partaking. You partake unworthily and may be damned. You stop partaking, you starve to death (spiritually) just as if you would physically if you stopped eating and drinking. You are also assuming "where" - with Him in heaven. If you make a practice of partaking unworthily, you may just be raised up on the last day only to be given a boarding pass to the lake of fire where the worm dieth not.

Those are a whole lot of bad assumptions. This isn't rocket science, but is illustrative of what happens when you try and reverse engineer Christianity from Bible verses without knowing your family's history.

---

Communion is a means to grace for disciples and non-disciples. The table belongs to God not the church and God welcomes all to Jesus' meal.

---

Faith is the means to grace. Communion is for the body of believers with that faith. You are correct that God welcomes all to Jesus' meal... but many refuse to come. And some come, but on their own terms, without wearing the required covering (Matthew 22:11-14). Those who put their trust on their own merits or who believe in a false Jesus and/or false gospel (such as believing in a non-supernatural, non-Creator God and an allegorical Jesus who didn't really physically rise from the dead - what you believe) are the ones who are trying to get in the feast wearing what they want instead of what has been provided. Jesus tells us that these people will be cast out.

---

Luke14: The Parable of the Great Banquet

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"
God's table open to all

---

Now read the continuation of that parable in Matthew 22:

**************

"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

**************

Yes, as I had agreed, God's table is open to all.
But those who come wearing their own righteousness/false Jesus will be cast out.

---

You are conflating Mt and Lk. Each has a different reason for writing the parable as they do.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus unequivocally states that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood you HAS eternal life, and he WILL raise you (John 6:54). If you are saying that the Eucharist is Jesus' literal flesh and blood, and you can eat his flesh and drink his blood.... but NOT have eternal life and NOT be raised, then you are directly contradicting what Jesus declares to be true.

---

You are assuming that whoever also means those who do not follow him, an incorrect assumption. The early church guarded communion so closely that non members were dismissed before communion was served. You are also inserting the word "once" into his statement. You have eternal life so long as you continue in the partaking. You partake unworthily and may be damned. You stop partaking, you starve to death (spiritually) just as if you would physically if you stopped eating and drinking. You are also assuming "where" - with Him in heaven. If you make a practice of partaking unworthily, you may just be raised up on the last day only to be given a boarding pass to the lake of fire where the worm dieth not.

Those are a whole lot of bad assumptions. This isn't rocket science, but is illustrative of what happens when you try and reverse engineer Christianity from Bible verses without knowing your family's history.

---

Communion is a means to grace for disciples and non-disciples. The table belongs to God not the church and God welcomes all to Jesus' meal.

---

Faith is the means to grace. Communion is for the body of believers with that faith. You are correct that God welcomes all to Jesus' meal... but many refuse to come. And some come, but on their own terms, without wearing the required covering (Matthew 22:11-14). Those who put their trust on their own merits or who believe in a false Jesus and/or false gospel (such as believing in a non-supernatural, non-Creator God and an allegorical Jesus who didn't really physically rise from the dead - what you believe) are the ones who are trying to get in the feast wearing what they want instead of what has been provided. Jesus tells us that these people will be cast out.

---

Luke14: The Parable of the Great Banquet

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"
God's table open to all

---

Now read the continuation of that parable in Matthew 22:

**************

"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

**************

Yes, as I had agreed, God's table is open to all.
But those who come wearing their own righteousness/false Jesus will be cast out.

---

You are conflating Mt and Lk. Each has a different reason for writing the parable as they do.

---

It's not conflating, it's called "harmonizing".

And regardless of what their reasons for writing the parable were, that does NOTHING to erase what was said in Matthew. It's right in front of you, in print, in the Gospels. You have to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize it away so it'll fit your theology.

Perhaps. The Bible is the Living Word of God. The same passage which has never changed, can be interpreted differently, especially after one or a variety of life experiences.

Christ was aware of the various intellectual levels and life experiences of His people. He also was aware that some would misinterpret some of His teachings for more than one reason. You know that He lost some followers after he said that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, as they took Him literally. However, further on in The Bible, He gives an explanation of that passage.

Now, I would like to hear your feedback on my thoughts and perhaps we can both share and grow a little in His Word.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus unequivocally states that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood you HAS eternal life, and he WILL raise you (John 6:54). If you are saying that the Eucharist is Jesus' literal flesh and blood, and you can eat his flesh and drink his blood.... but NOT have eternal life and NOT be raised, then you are directly contradicting what Jesus declares to be true.

---

You are assuming that whoever also means those who do not follow him, an incorrect assumption. The early church guarded communion so closely that non members were dismissed before communion was served. You are also inserting the word "once" into his statement. You have eternal life so long as you continue in the partaking. You partake unworthily and may be damned. You stop partaking, you starve to death (spiritually) just as if you would physically if you stopped eating and drinking. You are also assuming "where" - with Him in heaven. If you make a practice of partaking unworthily, you may just be raised up on the last day only to be given a boarding pass to the lake of fire where the worm dieth not.

Those are a whole lot of bad assumptions. This isn't rocket science, but is illustrative of what happens when you try and reverse engineer Christianity from Bible verses without knowing your family's history.

---

Communion is a means to grace for disciples and non-disciples. The table belongs to God not the church and God welcomes all to Jesus' meal.

---

Faith is the means to grace. Communion is for the body of believers with that faith. You are correct that God welcomes all to Jesus' meal... but many refuse to come. And some come, but on their own terms, without wearing the required covering (Matthew 22:11-14). Those who put their trust on their own merits or who believe in a false Jesus and/or false gospel (such as believing in a non-supernatural, non-Creator God and an allegorical Jesus who didn't really physically rise from the dead - what you believe) are the ones who are trying to get in the feast wearing what they want instead of what has been provided. Jesus tells us that these people will be cast out.

---

Luke14: The Parable of the Great Banquet

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"
God's table open to all

---

Now read the continuation of that parable in Matthew 22:

**************

"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

**************

Yes, as I had agreed, God's table is open to all.
But those who come wearing their own righteousness/false Jesus will be cast out.

---

You are conflating Mt and Lk. Each has a different reason for writing the parable as they do.

---

It's not conflating, it's called "harmonizing".

And regardless of what their reasons for writing the parable were, that does NOTHING to erase what was said in Matthew. It's right in front of you, in print, in the Gospels. You have to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize it away so it'll fit your theology.

---

conflating or harmonizing one is not allowing the integrity of one text to stand for itself in the meaning in that text; this is exegesis, that the text might interpret you here. There is an integrity to each of the gospels. Very many cases harmonizing does not serve the text well.

For me, it matters that we should be mindful of what it is we seek

If we seek to be the people God means us to be, and so we turn away from mistakes, from unworthy thoughts, words and actions and genuinely endeavor to become better people, I have no doubt God hears and responds in Love.

If someone just wants to keep doing what he likes and try to cover it with excuses and empty philosophy, that leads to a different end, because such people have rejected God, no matter how often they use His name and quote whoever they think makes them look good.

BUDOS said:

---

Perhaps. The Bible is the Living Word of God. The same passage which has never changed, can be interpreted differently, especially after one or a variety of life experiences.

Christ was aware of the various intellectual levels and life experiences of His people. He also was aware that some would misinterpret some of His teachings for more than one reason. You know that He lost some followers after he said that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, as they took Him literally. However, further on in The Bible, He gives an explanation of that passage.

Now, I would like to hear your feedback on my thoughts and perhaps we can both share and grow a little in His Word.

---

Welcome back, your hiatus was short-lived.

If you were serious about growing and sharing in the Word and having a discussion you would have engaged my questions from before. I'd engage your thoughts, but are we going to see another duck and run again?

Regarding your thoughts here: "interpreted differently" is wrong and dangerous if it's interpreted incorrectly. The fact that Jesus had one interpretation in mind for the "eating of his flesh" and that people misinterpreted him (interpreted "differently") should point to that. What's highly interesting about your point is that the Catholic Church has taken the literal interpretation of Jesus' words there, thus misinterpreting even Jesus' own explanation of the misinterpretation!

"Interpreting differently" is also the calling card for liberal Christianity, as well as for all those who want to twist God's word to their despicable ends. In fact, there's a fella here posting among us right now in this thread who, "after his life experiences" as you say, has interpreted the bible thusly: God is NOT supernatural, He did not literally create the universe and earth, Jesus was NOT supernatural and never performed miracles, and he did NOT physically rise from the dead. See the problem?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus unequivocally states that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood you HAS eternal life, and he WILL raise you (John 6:54). If you are saying that the Eucharist is Jesus' literal flesh and blood, and you can eat his flesh and drink his blood.... but NOT have eternal life and NOT be raised, then you are directly contradicting what Jesus declares to be true.

---

You are assuming that whoever also means those who do not follow him, an incorrect assumption. The early church guarded communion so closely that non members were dismissed before communion was served. You are also inserting the word "once" into his statement. You have eternal life so long as you continue in the partaking. You partake unworthily and may be damned. You stop partaking, you starve to death (spiritually) just as if you would physically if you stopped eating and drinking. You are also assuming "where" - with Him in heaven. If you make a practice of partaking unworthily, you may just be raised up on the last day only to be given a boarding pass to the lake of fire where the worm dieth not.

Those are a whole lot of bad assumptions. This isn't rocket science, but is illustrative of what happens when you try and reverse engineer Christianity from Bible verses without knowing your family's history.

---

Communion is a means to grace for disciples and non-disciples. The table belongs to God not the church and God welcomes all to Jesus' meal.

---

Faith is the means to grace. Communion is for the body of believers with that faith. You are correct that God welcomes all to Jesus' meal... but many refuse to come. And some come, but on their own terms, without wearing the required covering (Matthew 22:11-14). Those who put their trust on their own merits or who believe in a false Jesus and/or false gospel (such as believing in a non-supernatural, non-Creator God and an allegorical Jesus who didn't really physically rise from the dead - what you believe) are the ones who are trying to get in the feast wearing what they want instead of what has been provided. Jesus tells us that these people will be cast out.

---

Luke14: The Parable of the Great Banquet

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"
God's table open to all

---

Now read the continuation of that parable in Matthew 22:

**************

"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

**************

Yes, as I had agreed, God's table is open to all.
But those who come wearing their own righteousness/false Jesus will be cast out.

---

You are conflating Mt and Lk. Each has a different reason for writing the parable as they do.

---

It's not conflating, it's called "harmonizing".

And regardless of what their reasons for writing the parable were, that does NOTHING to erase what was said in Matthew. It's right in front of you, in print, in the Gospels. You have to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize it away so it'll fit your theology.

---

conflating or harmonizing one is not allowing the integrity of one text to stand for itself in the meaning in that text; this is exegesis, that the text might interpret you here. There is an integrity to each of the gospels. Very many cases harmonizing does not serve the text well.

---

Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text.

Regardless, it still remains that what you're saying here is inconsequential - it does NOTHING to erase what was said in Matthew's parable. God is CLEARLY saying that although all are invited, some will try to attend through their own way, instead of the way God has provided, and they will be cast out.

All of you realize the Bible is not an historical document but a book written for a certain faith. All religions have them...that part of the world at that time was very uneducated and illiterate unlike China for example. Tell your friend a story tell them to wait a day and tell it to someone else and then repeat the exercise 12 times and listen to the 12th person..word of mouth is not eye witness testimony. Paul's letters are historical and he never met Jesus only a vison...he may have been an actual person but I can guarantee you the coming back from the dead is pure fabrication and is the same vein as other mythologies. There is zero actual evidence. And do you really think of there is a god who created the trillions of galaxies we now know about that he had his Creations fight wars to eliminate all other bilef systems...Islam and Christianity are here today because we indoctrinate children before they have the capacity to questions such things, and those two faiths are left because they won the wars fought against the infidels etc etc...it is tiresome

Good thoughts. And unfortunately that type of person too often fails to perceive that is his problem. Perhaps on a similar level Christ was attempting to get the Jewish religious leaders to get the message. Hmmmm, and the rich ruler parable may apply.
Too many of us wrap ourselves up in our own version and interpretation of His teachings, and are unwilling to sincerely accept anyone else's, while simultaneously lying to ourselves that we do.

joseywales said:

---

All of you realize the Bible is not an historical document but a book written for a certain faith. All religions have them...that part of the world at that time was very uneducated and illiterate unlike China for example. Tell your friend a story tell them to wait a day and tell it to someone else and then repeat the exercise 12 times and listen to the 12th person..word of mouth is not eye witness testimony. Paul's letters are historical and he never met Jesus only a vison...he may have been an actual person but I can guarantee you the coming back from the dead is pure fabrication and is the same vein as other mythologies. There is zero actual evidence. And do you really think of there is a god who created the trillions of galaxies we now know about that he had his Creations fight wars to eliminate all other bilef systems...Islam and Christianity are here today because we indoctrinate children before they have the capacity to questions such things, and those two faiths are left because they won the wars fought against the infidels etc etc...it is tiresome

---

Hello Josey. You keep throwing out the same unsupported claims over and over, and pay no attention to the responses.

I can understand that you do not believe, but doesn't it strike you as strange that you spend so much effort mocking someone else's choice?

For my part, I don't bother chasing down people where they gather just to harass them for their beliefs. Just seems odd that you care so much about something you say you don't care about.

joseywales said:

---

All of you realize the Bible is not an historical document but a book written for a certain faith. All religions have them...that part of the world at that time was very uneducated and illiterate unlike China for example. Tell your friend a story tell them to wait a day and tell it to someone else and then repeat the exercise 12 times and listen to the 12th person..word of mouth is not eye witness testimony. Paul's letters are historical and he never met Jesus only a vison...he may have been an actual person but I can guarantee you the coming back from the dead is pure fabrication and is the same vein as other mythologies. There is zero actual evidence. And do you really think of there is a god who created the trillions of galaxies we now know about that he had his Creations fight wars to eliminate all other bilef systems...Islam and Christianity are here today because we indoctrinate children before they have the capacity to questions such things, and those two faiths are left because they won the wars fought against the infidels etc etc...it is tiresome

---

peace be with you

Psalm 31:9-10
Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress;
My eye is wasted away from grief, my soul and my body also.
For my life is spent with sorrow
And my years with sighing;
My strength has failed because of my iniquity,
And my body has wasted away.

Science and its methodology has its place and can prove many things, which we frequently accept as truth. At times, perhaps due to lack of sufficient evidence, a theory is formed, hopefully awaiting additional evidence to add to our knowledge such as climate change. I respect science. I respect that our knowledge is and always will be limited. Therefore there are things we don't know, although we have theories, some of which become beliefs.

Creation itself is an example, with science attempting to explain exactly how the Big Bang happened and how all the coincidences had to happen for it to occur as it did. Rarely does one hear from one of these theorists the odds of each of these events occurring in exactly the perfect order for us to appear. To be clear the odds are against all those coincidences occurring in that order. But science appears to struggle with proving where those gases for Big Bang came from, since most of science claims that you can't create something from nothing. I agree.

Then there are hundreds of Biblical prophecies, which statisticians have proven are not possible, yet these forecasted events did in fact occur. But perhaps we should take up that question another time.

Humans will always have limited knowledge; however, He does not.
Some say that the math speaks for itself, as the odds appear to be on His favor. Some of us add differently than others , which tends to divide us. Perhaps we should subtract those from the equation, since they divide us, and then multiply the rest by the common denominator. I guess we will all figure it out .

BUDOS said:

---

Good thoughts. And unfortunately that type of person too often fails to perceive that is his problem. Perhaps on a similar level Christ was attempting to get the Jewish religious leaders to get the message. Hmmmm, and the rich ruler parable may apply.
Too many of us wrap ourselves up in our own version and interpretation of His teachings, and are unwilling to sincerely accept anyone else's, while simultaneously lying to ourselves that we do.

---

We should never accept the interpretation of others that have been clearly shown to conflict or contradict the clear teaching of Scripture.

The Christian is under no obligation to "sincerely accept anyone else's" interpretation. The Christian is obligated to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Avoiding questions and running away from your "interpretations" fails that test. It means you feel you have to hide something. People with the truth don't do this.

Budos and OldBear -

What is your view of someone else's interpretation, that person being Waco1947, who believes God did NOT create the heavens and the earth, Jesus did NOT perform miracles, and Jesus did NOT physically rise from the dead?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Budos and OldBear -

What is your view of someone else's interpretation, that person being Waco1947, who believes God did NOT create the heavens and the earth, Jesus did NOT perform miracles, and Jesus did NOT physically rise from the dead?

---

BusyTarpDuster, I look at this from the fact that we are not a body of authority, but a forum. Frankly, a lot of things get posted here which are in error to some degree, depending on the limits of the writer's education and perspective. Things are further complicated by the stubborn refusal by some to really do anything but argue a point. Sometimes you have to accept that you cannot force understanding.

So the question comes down, I believe, to what we can hope to accomplish. I have not seen anyone here change their opinion in any major way, and when someone makes a statement that collides with what Scripture says, especially Christ's instructions, all we can do i believe is show what Scripture says and cite it in context so other readers will see the contradiction for themselves and not be misled.

As for those whose posts claim things not of Christ, I pray that God will open their eyes, and try not to engage in useless bickering. I have not been so good at that last part in the past but I am trying to do better in future.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And by "twisting scripture", do you mean like what you Catholics have to do in order to get verses that have an angel holding a bowl of prayers, to somehow authomatically mean they were the recipients of those prayers, and can hear and know them?

---

You realize that this is metaphorical language. Angels don't have bodies. They don't have arms and they don't have ears. They are pure spirit. How do you think that angels communicate to one another? They have some type of telepathy to communicate thoughts. The Church has believed from the beginning that the angels can hear our prayers as indicated in Revelation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Who's doing that? Stay focused, please. The question to you was where do Catholics get that breaking a commandment will send a person to hell even after they've become a Christian and have placed their faith in Jesus?

---

St Paul send this message to the Corinthians (who were believers that were not living properly) 1 Cor 6:9-10
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

That sounds to most that those believers are breaking commandment and they wont enter the kingdom of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Those quotes don't show that. Shepard of Hermas is not scripture. Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus aren't saying anything about a mortal sins sending a believer in Jesus to hell. Justin Martyr is taking about Satan there.

---

All the sudden, history doesn't matter? (Not that you were correct about it concerning the Deuterocanon.) Ignatius and Irenaeus are talking about sinning (falling from grace), repenting, and then attaining God and everlasting Glory. Justin Martyr is talking about ANYONE who turns away.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The early church fathers were not infallible. An innovation is an innovation if it is not from Scripture, no matter how early.

The gospel I'm talking about is literally what the New Testament teaches. It isn't from the 1500's.

---

That is rich.
Please find sources from the early Church that backs your claim.

The reality is that your false belief was made up in the 16th century.

In John 15, Jesus discusses what happens to those believers that fall away due to sin:
John 15:5-6 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
Individuals that are the branches are those believers in Christ. Those believers that sin are cut off from Christ and thrown into the fire.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your thoughts here: "interpreted differently" is wrong and dangerous if it's interpreted incorrectly. The fact that Jesus had one interpretation in mind for the "eating of his flesh" and that people misinterpreted him (interpreted "differently") should point to that. What's highly interesting about your point is that the Catholic Church has taken the literal interpretation of Jesus' words there, thus misinterpreting even Jesus' own explanation of the misinterpretation!

---

The only misinterpretation here is by Protestants. This has been believed and practiced for nearly 2000 years.

Jesus said want he meant and meant what he said.

He states, no less than six times, to eat his flesh.

He was serious. In 6:53, Jesus begins with "Amen, Amen …" John uses the Greek verb "phago" for "eating". When the Jews express incredulity, Jesus ratchets up the language in in verse 54. John uses the much more graphic word "trogo" for eating which means "to chew on" or to "gnaw on," as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.

The Jews hear what he meant, they were shocked, and they walked away. He didn't call them back. He let them go.

Peter and the apostles, obviously, don't fully understand, but they stay when Peter affirms that Jesus has "the words of eternal life."

Now, the famous Protestant "gottcha" verse in 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Protestants claim that "spirit and life" mean symbol. This is a false and poor interpretation of the word spirit

Protestants claim that "spirit" means "symbol". This is false and wishful thinking. John uses the word "pneuma" here for spirit. Is it NOT synonymous for "symbol". It is used many times to refer to the spirit in heaven.

"The flesh is of no avail" First, Jesus would never contradict himself after he spent multiple verses stating what he stated.

Second, Jesus does NOT say "MY flesh is of no avail". He says, "THE flesh." Jesus is using a common New Testament phrase, "the fl;esh", 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).

The Eucharist is SO important to our Christian faith that all three synoptic gospels describe it.

Jesus was serious when he said, "This IS my body" in those passages.

https://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/



Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
Published: March 10, 2006 In: Price Tags
TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the word find their center and become popular."
PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)
Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor who wrote a letter to Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worshiped Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government acknowledged Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and set a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sand in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to any wicked deeds, not to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny any trust when they should be call to deliver it up, after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food "but food of an ordinary but and innocent kind."
BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.)
The Babylonian Talmud is a Rabbinic commentary of the Jewish scriptures (Tanach: Old Testament). They are a look into what is a hostile source was saying about Jesus. They could not deny the miracles but claimed that it was sorcery rather than admit to what was a known fact.
" On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because He has practiced sorcery (an admission of his miracles) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the even of the Passover."
The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a
LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)
a Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day " the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.
LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)
Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum.
"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted."
THALLUS: (52 A.D.)
One of the first secular writers that mentioned Christ. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Unfortunately, his writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, a Christian who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun (Luke 23:44-45).
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.
PHLEGON: (1st Century)
A secular historian wrote a history named, "Chronicles." This original work has been lost, Julius Africanus preserved a small fragment in his writings. Phlegon mentions the eclipse (Matthew 27:45) during the crucifixion of Jesus.
"During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."
Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.
SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)
A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the "disturbances" caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors.
"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome]." Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.
Life of Claudius, 25:4.
In another work Suetonius wrote about the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens.
"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief."
Lives of the Caesars, 26.2
TOLEDOTH YESHU: (6 Century)
This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th century.
Mentions the empty tomb and that the Jewish leaders found it empty. That Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover and that He claimed to be God. That Jesus performed sorcery, he healed, and that he taught Rabbis. All of this from a hostile source, with the references above it is a historical fact that Jesus did miracles. His enemies could not refute it, rather they explained it away as sorcery!
CELSUS: (2nd Century)
Criticizes the Gospels, unknowingly reinforces the authors and the content, he alludes to 80 different quotes in the Bible. Admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the 2nd century.
JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.)
Emperor of Rome mentions the Gospels, miracles and other facts about Jesus. Julian had struggled to end the power of Christians in the Roman Empire. Since the day fifty years earlier that Constantine conquered in the sign of the cross, Christian influence had steadily grown. As Julian lay dying from a mortal wound he made the following remark:
"As he bled, the dying emperor groaned, "You have conquered, O Galilean," referring to Jesus Christ.
CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.)
Clement affirms the Resurrection, Gospels and that Jesus was sent to earth by God to take away our sins.
"Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, the first being Peter. Did he know Peter and Paul? It is completely possible that those two Spirit-filled men taught him. Clement even wrote a letter to the Corinthian church that echoed the teachings of the apostles."
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: (50-107 A.D.)
Disciple of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, who was martyred for his faith in Jesus. He was obviously convinced that Jesus really had lived and that Jesus was all that the apostles has said He was.
"…nearness to the sword is nearness to God; to be among the wild beasts is to be in the arms of God; only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ. I endure all things that I may suffer together with him, since he who became perfect man strengthens me…We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians."
While the emperor Trajan was on a visit to Asia Minor, he arrested Ignatius. When the bishop confessed his faith in Christ, the Emperor sent him in chains to Rome to die. He was hustled to the arena at once and thrown to two fierce lions who immediately devoured him.
QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.)
Bishop of Athens and a disciple of the apostles. Church historian Eusebius has preserved the only work that we have from Quadratus.
"The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our times."
Eusebius, IV, III
EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.)
Mentions the Resurrection, miracles, content of the Gospels and the crucifixion of Jesus.
ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)
Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D.
"The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching…He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth.
And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."
Carey, "Aristides," 68.
JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.)
Justin Martyr is regarded as one of the greatest early Christian apologists. He was born around 100 A.D and was beheaded for his faith in Jesus in 167 A.D. He mentions as facts many things about Jesus and Christianity, such as: The Magi (wise men who brought gifts from Arabia), King Herod, His crucifixion, His garments parted among the Roman soldiers, the apostles leaving him on the night of his arrest, his fulfilled prophecies, His resurrection and His ascending into heaven among many others. These quotes can be found in his debate with Trypho the Jew.
HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century)
Eusebius draws the conclusion that Hegesippus was a Jew that wrote five books called, "Memoirs." Only fragments remain of his original work in the writings of Eusebius. They show that Hegesippus traveled extensively trying to determine if the stories of Jesus and the apostles were true. He found that they were accurate, even in the troubled church in Corinth.
"The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord."
Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9.22.2.
TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.)
Trajan is a Roman Emperor who wrote a letter [see letter] in response to the Governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger. Pliny needed advice in dealing with "Christians" who renounced their belief in Jesus due to fear of torture and execution.
MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century)
Pascal (Pensees) mentions a quote of Augustus Caesar as an evidence to the murder of the 7-20 male babies (this is based on the population of Bethlehem in 4-6 B.C., which was 700-1,000 people) by King Herod in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16).
King Herod heard that a king was to be born and his fear and mental instability caused him to kill these male children under two years of age. King Herod killed his Wife, mother in law, and three sons. This is in character with his life of murder and paranoia. King Herod's reign was described by his enemies as, "He stole to the throne like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog."
Saturnalia, lib. 2, ch.4.
HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.)
Justin Martyr quotes this Roman Emperor's letter to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia Minor. This letter deals with accusations from pagans against the Christians.
"I have received the letter addressed to me by your predecessor Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man; and this communication I am unwilling to pass over in silence, lest innocent persons be disturbed, and occasion be given to the informers for practicing villainy. Accordingly, if the inhabitants of your province will so far sustain this petition of theirs as to accuse the Christians in some court of law, I do not prohibit them from doing so.
But I will not suffer them to make use of mere entreaties and outcries. For it is far more just, if any one desires to make an accusation, that you give judgment upon it. If, therefore, any one makes the accusation, and furnishes proof that the said men do anything contrary to the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion to the offences.
And this, by Hercules; you shall give special heed to, that if any man shall, through mere calumny, bring an accusation against any of these persons, you shall award to him more severe punishments in proportion to his wickedness."
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapters, 68-69.
JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD)
Juvenal makes a reference of the tortures of Christians by Nero in Rome.
"But just describe Tigellinus and you will blaze amid those ******s in which men, with their throats tightly gripped, stand and burn and smoke, and you trace a broad furrow through the middle of the arena."
Satires, 1, lines 147-157.
SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.)
Seneca mentions the cruelties that Nero imposes upon Christians.
"The other kind of evil comes, so to speak, in the form of a huge parade. Surrounding it is a retinue of swords and fire and chains and a mob of beasts to be let loose upon the disemboweled entrails of men. Picture to yourself under his head the prison, the cross, the rack, the hook, and the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat. Think of human limbs torn apart by chariots driven in opposite directions, of the terrible shirt smeared and interwoven with inflammable materials, and of all the other contrivances devised by cruelty, in addition to those which I have mentioned!"
Epistulae Morales, Epistle 14, "On the Reasons for Withdrawing from the World."
HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305)
A quote by Eusebius preserves some of the text of this lost work of Hierocles, Philalethes or Lover of Truth. In this quote, Hierocles condemns Peter and Paul as sorcerers. Again, their miracles could not be denied, rather they claimed that they used sorcery.
"And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards."
Eusebius, The Treatise of Eusebius, ch. 2.
ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD)
A letter from the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to the general assembly in Asia Minor. This letter says that the officials in Aisa Minor were getting upset at the Christians in their province, and that no changes are to be made in Antoninus' method of dealing with them.
"The Emperor Caesar Titus AElius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia, greeting: I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to it that such offenders should not escape.
For if they had the power, they themselves would much rather punish those who refuse to worship them; but it is you who bring trouble on these persons, and accuse as the opinion of atheists that which they hold, and lay to their charge certain other things which we are unable to prove.
But it would be advantageous to them that they should be thought to die for that of which they are accused, and they conquer you by being lavish of their lives rather than yield that obedience which you require of them. And regarding the earthquakes which have already happened and are now occurring, it is not seemly that you remind us of them, losing heart whenever they occur, and thus set your conduct in contrast with that of these men; for they have much greater confidence towards God than you yourselves have.
And you, indeed, seem at such times to ignore the gods, and you neglect the temples, and make no recognition of the worship of God. And hence you are jealous of those who do serve Him, and persecute them to the death.
Concerning such persons, some others also of the governors of provinces wrote to my most divine father; to whom he replied that they should not at all disturb such persons, unless they were found to be attempting anything against the Roman government. And to myself many have sent intimations regarding such persons, to whom I also replied in pursuance of my father's judgment.
But if any one has a matter to bring against any person of this class, merely as such a person, let the accused be acquitted of the charge, even though he should be found to be such an one; but let the accuser he amenable to justice."
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 70.

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your thoughts here: "interpreted differently" is wrong and dangerous if it's interpreted incorrectly. The fact that Jesus had one interpretation in mind for the "eating of his flesh" and that people misinterpreted him (interpreted "differently") should point to that. What's highly interesting about your point is that the Catholic Church has taken the literal interpretation of Jesus' words there, thus misinterpreting even Jesus' own explanation of the misinterpretation!

---

The only misinterpretation here is by Protestants. This has been believed and practiced for nearly 2000 years.

Jesus said want he meant and meant what he said.

He states, no less than six times, to eat his flesh.

He was serious. In 6:53, Jesus begins with "Amen, Amen …" John uses the Greek verb "phago" for "eating". When the Jews express incredulity, Jesus ratchets up the language in in verse 54. John uses the much more graphic word "trogo" for eating which means "to chew on" or to "gnaw on," as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.

The Jews hear what he meant, they were shocked, and they walked away. He didn't call them back. He let them go.

Peter and the apostles, obviously, don't fully understand, but they stay when Peter affirms that Jesus has "the words of eternal life."

Now, the famous Protestant "gottcha" verse in 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Protestants claim that "spirit and life" mean symbol. This is a false and poor interpretation of the word spirit

Protestants claim that "spirit" means "symbol". This is false and wishful thinking. John uses the word "pneuma" here for spirit. Is it NOT synonymous for "symbol". It is used many times to refer to the spirit in heaven.

"The flesh is of no avail" First, Jesus would never contradict himself after he spent multiple verses stating what he stated.

Second, Jesus does NOT say "MY flesh is of no avail". He says, "THE flesh." Jesus is using a common New Testament phrase, "the fl;esh", 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).

The Eucharist is SO important to our Christian faith that all three synoptic gospels describe it.

Jesus was serious when he said, "This IS my body" in those passages.

---

Then If Jesus' meaning is literal here, that whoever eats his real flesh has eternal life, then how can there be any "mortal sin" that sends someone to hell after they've eaten his flesh in the Eucharist? And why can't an unbeliever just steal some of the bread and wine from the Eucharist and eat and drink it, to get saved? Why can't the whole world be saved this way?

It seems you Catholics take him literally, until you can't.

Waco1947Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous. [/quote said:

---

Forgive me if I'm not understanding your assertion here.

If you are implying that Constantine influenced or "forced an outcome" of the Nicaean Council, then you have never read any true scholarly books about the council.

The Arians and the false belief that denied the divinity of Jesus was spreading rapidly thru the East. Constantine wanted the questioned settled and called the Council. He did not want division in during his rule. He did not want division in during his rule.

He did address the Council at it's opening and then sat in the corner in a small chair indicating he was not the focal point or the director.

He was instrumental in Christianity flourishing as the Edict of Milan in 313 allowed Christians to practice their religion without molestation.

Waco1947 said:

---

"Harmonizing the bible is the proper way to treat the text, because the bible really has only ONE Author, and it's all His message, it's all His text."

Says who? There can be no dialogue if you believe God is the author behind every single oral transmission, every re-write of the copyists, Constantine forcing out an outcome, translations of the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic and extant texts. That's ludicrous.

---

If that's ludicrous, if God wasn't behind every single one of them, then you're saying the Bible isn't God's word.

And that would destroy your own theology, false though it is already. This is what makes your beliefs so ironic and nonsensical - you quote the very bible that you say is corrupt to support your theology.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your thoughts here: "interpreted differently" is wrong and dangerous if it's interpreted incorrectly. The fact that Jesus had one interpretation in mind for the "eating of his flesh" and that people misinterpreted him (interpreted "differently") should point to that. What's highly interesting about your point is that the Catholic Church has taken the literal interpretation of Jesus' words there, thus misinterpreting even Jesus' own explanation of the misinterpretation!

---

The only misinterpretation here is by Protestants. This has been believed and practiced for nearly 2000 years.

Jesus said want he meant and meant what he said.

He states, no less than six times, to eat his flesh.

He was serious. In 6:53, Jesus begins with "Amen, Amen …" John uses the Greek verb "phago" for "eating". When the Jews express incredulity, Jesus ratchets up the language in in verse 54. John uses the much more graphic word "trogo" for eating which means "to chew on" or to "gnaw on," as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.

The Jews hear what he meant, they were shocked, and they walked away. He didn't call them back. He let them go.

Peter and the apostles, obviously, don't fully understand, but they stay when Peter affirms that Jesus has "the words of eternal life."

Now, the famous Protestant "gottcha" verse in 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Protestants claim that "spirit and life" mean symbol. This is a false and poor interpretation of the word spirit

Protestants claim that "spirit" means "symbol". This is false and wishful thinking. John uses the word "pneuma" here for spirit. Is it NOT synonymous for "symbol". It is used many times to refer to the spirit in heaven.

"The flesh is of no avail" First, Jesus would never contradict himself after he spent multiple verses stating what he stated.

Second, Jesus does NOT say "MY flesh is of no avail". He says, "THE flesh." Jesus is using a common New Testament phrase, "the fl;esh", 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).

The Eucharist is SO important to our Christian faith that all three synoptic gospels describe it.

Jesus was serious when he said, "This IS my body" in those passages.

---

Using the word "trogo" was appropriate, because that aptly described what was going to happen to Jesus' body during his torture and crucifixion. The "eating" of his flesh means to "take in" the benefit from Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our eternal life spiritually (believe, put faith in), just as we take the benefit from breaking down food in our bodies physically in order to sustain our physical life. Jesus is saying it's this spiritual "eating" is what gives eternal life, not physical eating. Physical eating in this fallen world only sustains physical life for a while, but we all still die eventually. "The flesh" includes HIS flesh. He is saying ALL physical eating, whether it's his literal flesh, or yours, or mine, or any other food substance, does not give you eternal life. It's just digesting physical stuff, in order to sustain the physical stuff of your body.

If Jesus was serious when he said "This is my body" in the gospel of John, then also in the gospel of John was he serious when he said "I am the door" a few chapters later? Are we to worship a certain door? And just a couple of chapters before, was Jesus serious when he tells the disciples that he has "food to eat that you know nothing about" (John 4:32)? Was he talking about physical food there?

And again... if Jesus "meant what he said" as you say, then clearly WHOEVER eats his flesh HAS eternal life. His direct words. No ifs, ands, or buts. So why can't any unbeliever eat the Eucharist and be saved? How can there be "mortal sin" for anyone who has already taken part in the Eucharist? Either your literal interpretation of "eating his flesh" is wrong, or your concepts of "mortal sin" and salvation are wrong. They both can't be true.

Tomorrow is Sunday find a good Bible believing Church in attend

A correct understanding of the Bible begins with the understanding that all of the Bible is correct. Therefore your argument saying that Jesus is either wrong for promising eternal life to those who ate his body and drank his blood or Paul is wrong for saying those who partook unworthily are damned begins from an incorrect place.

Both Christ's statement and Paul's statement are correct, it is your understanding - OSAS - that is incorrect. As has been explained to you several times, if you *continue* in the partaking of communion without doing so unworthily you maintain that life for "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

You need to stop reading the bible through the lens of your theology and simply accept what it says in black and white, lest your scripture wielding put you in the same relationship to the New Testament that the Pharisees were with the Old.

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." (Matthew 23).

Realitybites said:

---

A correct understanding of the Bible begins with the understanding that all of the Bible is correct. Therefore your argument saying that Jesus is either wrong for promising eternal life to those who ate his body and drank his blood or Paul is wrong for saying those who partook unworthily are damned begins from an incorrect place.

Both Christ's statement and Paul's statement are correct, it is your understanding - OSAS - that is incorrect. As has been explained to you several times, if you *continue* in the partaking of communion without doing so unworthily you maintain that life for "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

You need to stop reading the bible through the lens of your theology and simply accept what it says in black and white, lest your scripture wielding put you in the same relationship to the New Testament that the Pharisees were with the Old.

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." (Matthew 23).

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

How about exercising your OWN hermaneutic of "simply accept(ing) what it says in black and white"??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A correct understanding of the Bible begins with the understanding that all of the Bible is correct. Therefore your argument saying that Jesus is either wrong for promising eternal life to those who ate his body and drank his blood or Paul is wrong for saying those who partook unworthily are damned begins from an incorrect place.

Both Christ's statement and Paul's statement are correct, it is your understanding - OSAS - that is incorrect. As has been explained to you several times, if you *continue* in the partaking of communion without doing so unworthily you maintain that life for "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

You need to stop reading the bible through the lens of your theology and simply accept what it says in black and white, lest your scripture wielding put you in the same relationship to the New Testament that the Pharisees were with the Old.

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." (Matthew 23).

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

How about exercising your OWN hermaneutic of "simply accept(ing) what it says in black and white"??

---

Here is the key to understanding the passage and why you are confused about it


John 6:60-63 KJV

[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL things, not physically eating His flesh. Jesus Himself explained that. Transubstantiation is not true.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A correct understanding of the Bible begins with the understanding that all of the Bible is correct. Therefore your argument saying that Jesus is either wrong for promising eternal life to those who ate his body and drank his blood or Paul is wrong for saying those who partook unworthily are damned begins from an incorrect place.

Both Christ's statement and Paul's statement are correct, it is your understanding - OSAS - that is incorrect. As has been explained to you several times, if you *continue* in the partaking of communion without doing so unworthily you maintain that life for "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

You need to stop reading the bible through the lens of your theology and simply accept what it says in black and white, lest your scripture wielding put you in the same relationship to the New Testament that the Pharisees were with the Old.

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." (Matthew 23).

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

How about exercising your OWN hermaneutic of "simply accept(ing) what it says in black and white"??

---

Here is the key to understanding the passage and why you are confused about it


John 6:60-63 KJV

[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL things, not physically eating His flesh. Jesus Himself explained that. Transubstantiation is not true.

---

You're not following. I'm not arguing that eating Jesus' flesh is literal. I'm showing that a literal interpretation would contradict their beliefs on salvation and mortal sin. Look at the previous posts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using the word "trogo" was appropriate, because that aptly described what was going to happen to Jesus' body during his torture and crucifixion. The "eating" of his flesh means to "take in" the benefit from Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our eternal life spiritually (believe, put faith in), just as we take the benefit from breaking down food in our bodies physically in order to sustain our physical life. Jesus is saying it's this spiritual "eating" is what gives eternal life, not physical eating. Physical eating in this fallen world only sustains physical life for a while, but we all still die eventually. "The flesh" includes HIS flesh. He is saying ALL physical eating, whether it's his literal flesh, or yours, or mine, or any other food substance, does not give you eternal life. It's just digesting physical stuff, in order to sustain the physical stuff of your body. .

---

Wow! Now that's some reading into scripture. You back must be sore from the twisting that it took to construe his words in that direction.

No where in Church history has someone used that theory. Please cite someone in the first 1400 years of Christianity that held your belief.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John, said in 110 AD-
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible"

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"

Justin Martyr 155 AD
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

Augustine -
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).


There's no way that the Holy Spirit would allow Christian to become corrupted (at all) less than the first generation after the Apostles.

I can dozens of other Church fathers thru history that will ALL claim the same.

Let's back up and look at the words of Paul writing to the Corinthians in his first epistle 10:16

" Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

Of course, he then affirms it again in 1 Cor 27-30

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

From Carlo Broussard, "The phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder. This language appears in the Old Testament, when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom): "you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you" (Ezek. 35:27)."

One cannot be "guilty" of killing a symbol.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus was serious when he said "This is my body" in the gospel of John, then also in the gospel of John was he serious when he said "I am the door" a few chapters later? Are we to worship a certain door? And just a couple of chapters before, was Jesus serious when he tells the disciples that he has "food to eat that you know nothing about" (John 4:32)? Was he talking about physical food there? .

---

This is a very valid, yet common Protestant objection. We know that Jesus meant (eating His flesh) literally because of the completely different reactions in those passages.

When Jesus says, "I am the door", no one believes that he means it literally. Same with John 15 when he states that "I am the vine." No one freaks outs over these sayings.

Contrast that to John 6:52
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus doubles-down and says it again, using "trogo" "gnaw on". He says "eat my flesh" 6 times! And then in Verse 60
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""

Jesus let's everyone know in verse 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.

What did the thousands of disciples that had been following him from months and even year do next?
Verse 66 - "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Jesus let them go. He doesn't call them back.

Finally, I'd encourage all to read the full Bread of Life Discourse John 6:25-70 (KJV).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again... if Jesus "meant what he said" as you say, then clearly WHOEVER eats his flesh HAS eternal life. His direct words. No ifs, ands, or buts. So why can't any unbeliever eat the Eucharist and be saved? How can there be "mortal sin" for anyone who has already taken part in the Eucharist? Either your literal interpretation of "eating his flesh" is wrong, or your concepts of "mortal sin" and salvation are wrong. They both can't be true.

---

Not at all.

This is where your theology fails to understand that one can LOSE salvation. I take the Eucharist every Sunday (and most Friday's when I can get to daily mass.) Sometimes, I commit a mortal sin. I have freely cut myself off from God's grace. I repent, go to confession, and I have that free grace restored. I am back in God's friendship.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using the word "trogo" was appropriate, because that aptly described what was going to happen to Jesus' body during his torture and crucifixion. The "eating" of his flesh means to "take in" the benefit from Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our eternal life spiritually (believe, put faith in), just as we take the benefit from breaking down food in our bodies physically in order to sustain our physical life. Jesus is saying it's this spiritual "eating" is what gives eternal life, not physical eating. Physical eating in this fallen world only sustains physical life for a while, but we all still die eventually. "The flesh" includes HIS flesh. He is saying ALL physical eating, whether it's his literal flesh, or yours, or mine, or any other food substance, does not give you eternal life. It's just digesting physical stuff, in order to sustain the physical stuff of your body. .

---

Wow! Now that's some reading into scripture. You back must be sore from the twisting that it took to construe his words in that direction.

No where in Church history has someone used that theory. Please cite someone in the first 1400 years of Christianity that held your belief.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John, said in 110 AD-
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible"

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"

Justin Martyr 155 AD
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

Augustine -
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).


There's no way that the Holy Spirit would allow Christian to become corrupted (at all) less than the first generation after the Apostles.

I can dozens of other Church fathers thru history that will ALL claim the same.

Let's back up and look at the words of Paul writing to the Corinthians in his first epistle 10:16

" Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

Of course, he then affirms it again in 1 Cor 27-30

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

From Carlo Broussard, "The phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder. This language appears in the Old Testament, when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom): "you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you" (Ezek. 35:27)."

One cannot be "guilty" of killing a symbol.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus was serious when he said "This is my body" in the gospel of John, then also in the gospel of John was he serious when he said "I am the door" a few chapters later? Are we to worship a certain door? And just a couple of chapters before, was Jesus serious when he tells the disciples that he has "food to eat that you know nothing about" (John 4:32)? Was he talking about physical food there? .

---

This is a very valid, yet common Protestant objection. We know that Jesus meant (eating His flesh) literally because of the completely different reactions in those passages.

When Jesus says, "I am the door", no one believes that he means it literally. Same with John 15 when he states that "I am the vine." No one freaks outs over these sayings.

Contrast that to John 6:52
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus doubles-down and says it again, using "trogo" "gnaw on". He says "eat my flesh" 6 times! And then in Verse 60
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""

Jesus let's everyone know in verse 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.

What did the thousands of disciples that had been following him from months and even year do next?
Verse 66 - "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Jesus let them go. He doesn't call them back.

Finally, I'd encourage all to read the full Bread of Life Discourse John 6:25-70 (KJV).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again... if Jesus "meant what he said" as you say, then clearly WHOEVER eats his flesh HAS eternal life. His direct words. No ifs, ands, or buts. So why can't any unbeliever eat the Eucharist and be saved? How can there be "mortal sin" for anyone who has already taken part in the Eucharist? Either your literal interpretation of "eating his flesh" is wrong, or your concepts of "mortal sin" and salvation are wrong. They both can't be true.

---

Not at all.

This is where your theology fails to understand that one can LOSE salvation. I take the Eucharist every Sunday (and most Friday's when I can get to daily mass.) Sometimes, I commit a mortal sin. I have freely cut myself off from God's grace. I repent, go to confession, and I have that free grace restored. I am back in God's friendship.

---

Thanks for your post Coke Bear, but I have two problems with that statement.

First, the concept of separating sins into 'mortal' and 'veinal' certainly looks to be an invention of the RCC, and dangerous one. Sctipture warns that any sin can lead to destruction, and while there is a specific kind of sin mentioned by Christ, he called it 'unforgiveable' so there is no coming back from it/

Also, I really worry when someone treats reconciliation with God as if it were on the same level as getting your car serviced.

'Oh, I have a sin, I better go to confession and get that fixed'

Trivializes the matter to me and I have seen a lot of people who seem to treat their sins that casually. It's also the problem I have with Once Saved Always Saved; it leads some people to imagine that as long as they are 'in the club' it does not matter how they speak and act.

That way lies great peril.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using the word "trogo" was appropriate, because that aptly described what was going to happen to Jesus' body during his torture and crucifixion. The "eating" of his flesh means to "take in" the benefit from Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our eternal life spiritually (believe, put faith in), just as we take the benefit from breaking down food in our bodies physically in order to sustain our physical life. Jesus is saying it's this spiritual "eating" is what gives eternal life, not physical eating. Physical eating in this fallen world only sustains physical life for a while, but we all still die eventually. "The flesh" includes HIS flesh. He is saying ALL physical eating, whether it's his literal flesh, or yours, or mine, or any other food substance, does not give you eternal life. It's just digesting physical stuff, in order to sustain the physical stuff of your body. .

---

Wow! Now that's some reading into scripture. You back must be sore from the twisting that it took to construe his words in that direction.

No where in Church history has someone used that theory. Please cite someone in the first 1400 years of Christianity that held your belief.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John, said in 110 AD-
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible"

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"

Justin Martyr 155 AD
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

Augustine -
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).


There's no way that the Holy Spirit would allow Christian to become corrupted (at all) less than the first generation after the Apostles.

I can dozens of other Church fathers thru history that will ALL claim the same.

---

- Tertullian (155-220 AD): "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, 'This is My body,' that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (Against Marcion, 4.40).

- Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD): "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood" (The Instructor, 2.2)

- Origen (185-253): "We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist" (Against Celsus, 8.57)

- Cyprian (200258): "I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ" (Epistle 63.7)

- Eusebius of Caesarea (263340): "For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk" (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.7680)

- Athanasius (296-373): "[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him." (Festal Letter, 4.19)

- Augustine: "Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood" (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)...... "He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood." (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).....
"'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

You are also presupposing those church fathers you quoted (Ignatius, Justin Martyr) are speaking in literal terms, when they can be meaning it spiritually and symbolically as these others fathers I quoted clearly had.

Finally, your quote: "There's no way that the Holy Spirit would allow Christian to become corrupted (at all) less than the first generation after the Apostles" - have you read Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation??

Coke Bear said:

---

Let's back up and look at the words of Paul writing to the Corinthians in his first epistle 10:16

" Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

Of course, he then affirms it again in 1 Cor 27-30

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

From Carlo Broussard, "The phrase "guilty of blood" is a figure of speech that connotes murder. This language appears in the Old Testament, when God pronounces judgment on the inhabitants of Mount Seir (Edom): "you are guilty of blood, therefore blood shall pursue you" (Ezek. 35:27)."

One cannot be "guilty" of killing a symbol.BusyTarpDuster201

---

- You're presupposing Paul is referring to them in literal terms, the same way you are with Jesus.

- Paul didn't say "guilty of blood", he said "guilty of sinning against the blood of the Lord".

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus was serious when he said "This is my body" in the gospel of John, then also in the gospel of John was he serious when he said "I am the door" a few chapters later? Are we to worship a certain door? And just a couple of chapters before, was Jesus serious when he tells the disciples that he has "food to eat that you know nothing about" (John 4:32)? Was he talking about physical food there? .

---

This is a very valid, yet common Protestant objection. We know that Jesus meant (eating His flesh) literally because of the completely different reactions in those passages.

When Jesus says, "I am the door", no one believes that he means it literally. Same with John 15 when he states that "I am the vine." No one freaks outs over these sayings.

Contrast that to John 6:52
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus doubles-down and says it again, using "trogo" "gnaw on". He says "eat my flesh" 6 times! And then in Verse 60
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""

Jesus let's everyone know in verse 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.

What did the thousands of disciples that had been following him from months and even year do next?
Verse 66 - "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Jesus let them go. He doesn't call them back.

Finally, I'd encourage all to read the full Bread of Life Discourse John 6:25-70 (KJV).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again... if Jesus "meant what he said" as you say, then clearly WHOEVER eats his flesh HAS eternal life. His direct words. No ifs, ands, or buts. So why can't any unbeliever eat the Eucharist and be saved? How can there be "mortal sin" for anyone who has already taken part in the Eucharist? Either your literal interpretation of "eating his flesh" is wrong, or your concepts of "mortal sin" and salvation are wrong. They both can't be true.

---

Not at all.

This is where your theology fails to understand that one can LOSE salvation. I take the Eucharist every Sunday (and most Friday's when I can get to daily mass.) Sometimes, I commit a mortal sin. I have freely cut myself off from God's grace. I repent, go to confession, and I have that free grace restored. I am back in God's friendship.

---

Please stop your obfuscation, and deal with this plain logic. Show me how this is NOT contradictory:

• Jesus' words: "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"
• Your belief: "Someone can eat Jesus' flesh, and NOT have eternal life".

It's His SPIRITUAL flesh according to Christ, nit His physical flesh:


John 6:63 KJV
[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So, it's a Spiritual meaning. It has to do with those who place their Trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord to save them. Has nothing to do with Communion or Sacraments, ect.

You present some valid points with good references, as you also have done in some of your political forums.