Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

---

There was no assertion of negation. The assertion was that YOUR assertion that the bread was Jesus' literal flesh because "those were his direct words" is faulty, because Jesus' also used direct words about "drinking water" to the lady at the well, yet he was clearly being symbolic. YOU'RE the one making the claim that Jesus was being literal in John 6, which would be inconsistent with the entire Gospel of John. So the burden of proof is on YOU that all of the sudden Jesus switches from talking symbolically which he did in the entire book of John (it was a theme) to talking literally in John 6. You just aren't making your case. All the other arguments (law against drinking blood, Judas not being saved, Council of Jerusalem forbidding the eating of blood, etc.) make it clear that the apostles knew that Jesus was being symbolic, not literal.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Your view is perfectly expressed in verse 52

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

Jesus then says it AGAIN in verse 55

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

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

---

And do you know what YOU perfectly represent? This:

"This is why I speak to them in parables (i.e. symbolism): "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." - Jesus, in Matthew 13:13.

The funny thing here is that you're using the "those were Jesus' exact words" argument, when you were already shown that Jesus "exact words" about the living water were clearly symbolic, to which you AGREED were symbolic - despite the fact that Jesus NEVER said anything about symbolism or "this REPRESENTS...." there either. So you're in total logical contradiction. Your argument fails.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

---

The only flaw is in your argument. You're picking and choosing the conditions under which Jesus repeating something automatically turns it into something literal, and when it does not.

Clearly, Jesus repeating a symbolism over and over does NOT necessarily mean he was being literal, as his "sheep" symbolism to Peter clearly showed.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

Simple YES or NO question

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

---

Yes, they may have. They also may have thought he was being symbolic, but in doing so he was being way too lofty about himself, saying he "came down from heaven" as if he was divine, and that no one can have eternal life unless through him. Because of this the Jews were scoffing. Remember, Jesus had a lot of Jewish "disciples", i.e. followers who didn't understand who he was or what he was really there to do. Many still thought of him as the EARTHLY messiah who would establish the EARTHLY kingdom of the Jews that would rule the earth. They weren't thinking of it being in spiritual terms, and they certainly had no idea whatsoever that Jesus was supposed to be tortured and killed. They had NO idea that through Jesus' body being sacrificed, THAT was the way for eternal life to come to all of us. That was God's hidden plan. And Jesus giving up his body for sacrifice so that we would live eternally - THAT was the whole meaning of all the "eating his flesh" he was talking about. He was pointing to his bodily sacrifice, through which we would live forever - not physically, but spiritually. We "eat" his flesh by believing in what he did, and "taking it" in as if spiritual "food", food that gives us eternal life.

You Roman Catholics just completely miss the whole meaning of what Jesus was saying about him being the "bread of life". You believing that he was talking about actual physical eating just shows that you are blinded to the truth. This is EXACTLY what Jesus meant when he said that such symbolism would make people "hear and see, but never understand".

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

A few verses later, verse 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

If the eating of Jesus' flesh was literal, then performing this physical act was absolutely required and necessary for salvation.

Yet, NOWHERE does Paul ever urge Christians that they MUST eat communion bread that was blessed by a priest, otherwise their faith was in vain. You would think that if salvation entirely rested upon this, that Scripture would be absolutely and explicitly clear that this must be done, or all is lost. You would think that this admonition would appear SOMEWHERE in Paul's letters to the churches, in the most explicit terms possible to not risk misunderstanding. You would think that wherever Paul said "believe in Jesus, and you will be saved" he would also add "but PLEASE DON'T FORGET to eat the bread, otherwise you still go to Hell."

But it doesn't. Not in Paul's letters, not in Peter's, John's, or James' either. No mention of the ONE THING THAT YOU MUST PHYSICALLY DO, OTHERWISE YOU GO TO HELL. The Roman Catholic view is utter nonsense and it completely belies common sense, logic, and an honest reading of the New Testament.

Coke Be said:

---

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

---

So.... in the Roman Catholic view, it's "pastoral" to prevent people from taking the Eucharist, thus sending them to Hell?

The restriction was "temporary"? What if someone died before the restriction was lifted?

Just admit it - your view is completely nonsensical.

Coke Bear said:

---

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

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

---

Foods. Not blood. Blood was not a food in Hebrew Law. The Torah's laws restricting its consumption were separate from the dietary laws.

Judas does NOT demonstrate that OSAS is unbiblical. You are assuming he was saved to begin with, which Scripture clearly says was not the case.

Coke Bear said:

---

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

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

---

Nothing you're saying here indicates that the bread and wine are necessarily the literal body and blood of Jesus. As in all your other "evidence", you are merely reading your assumptions into them.

Regarding the Passover in the OT - you do realize that the entire meal involved symbolism, don't you? Different foods represented different parts of Jewish history. The Jews were to eat in remembrance of that history. Just as Jesus said to eat the bread and wine in remembrance of him. Jesus was instituting a new symbolism of the Passover meal, so that we remember what Jesus did for us at the cross. Jesus wasn't saying his body and blood were literally the bread and wine, any more than the Passover meal was literally the different parts of Jewish history.

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

Coke Bear said:

---

BTW, what's the name of your church?

---

I have repeatedly answered this.

The church I belong to is the church of Jesus Christ. My fellow members are all over the world. They consist of all who believe in Jesus Christ and who only look to him and only trust in him for their salvation. The lone Afghani believer in his village, having to hide his faith from murderous Muslims, who has never been water baptized or taken the Eucharist, but who believes in Jesus with all his heart - he is my brother. The African tribeman who has never read the Bible, who's never been to church, but who heard the gospel and believed, and who knows of no way to worship God but to perform tribal dances he knows, but do it in the name of Jesus and out of joy in the Lord - he is my brother in Christ. The small group of Chinese believers who gather in secret because of persecution, who have no money, no pastor or priest to lead them, and no church building so they meet at each others' houses - but they love each other, and help each other, and they share one Bible that they read from and then rely on the Holy Spirit to guide their understanding - these are my brothers and sisters in Jesus who will be in heaven one day. Even though they've never been water baptized, never taken the Eucharist, and who don't even know of certain doctrines like the Trinity.

One of the biggest failings of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy is the emphasis and reliance on Christianity being an institution, rather than recognizing what the true body of Christ, i.e. his Church, actually is.

If someone is trusting in their Church for salvation then they are not trusting in Christ and they are not saved. If they are trusting in anything other than Christ for salvation they are not saved.

I hope you all had a great weekend

Christ is the head of the church he founded and He is the source of salvation. The problem with DIY Christianity is that you abandon the tools He left you to train for and run your race.

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

This is more than just a metaphor. The church He founded is your local national guard armory.

Realitybites said:

---

Christ is the head of the church he founded and He is the source of salvation. The problem with DIY Christianity is that you abandon the tools He left you to train for and run your race.

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

This is more than just a metaphor. The church He founded is your local national guard armory.

---

What is DYi Christianity?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Christ is the head of the church he founded and He is the source of salvation. The problem with DIY Christianity is that you abandon the tools He left you to train for and run your race.

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

This is more than just a metaphor. The church He founded is your local national guard armory.

---

What is DYi Christianity?

---

As far as he is concerned, DIY Christianity is any Protestant congregation

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

What is DYi Christianity?

---

Basically the descendants of Zwingli and Calvin.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

What is DYi Christianity?

---

Basically the descendants of Zwingli and Calvin.

---

You have a lot to clean up in your own house, before you can speak with credibility on your brothers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There was no assertion of negation. The assertion was that YOUR assertion that the bread was Jesus' literal flesh because "those were his direct words" is faulty, because Jesus' also used direct words about "drinking water" to the lady at the well, yet he was clearly being symbolic. YOU'RE the one making the claim that Jesus was being literal in John 6, which would be inconsistent with the entire Gospel of John. So the burden of proof is on YOU that all of the sudden Jesus switches from talking symbolically which he did in the entire book of John (it was a theme) to talking literally in John 6. You just aren't making your case. All the other arguments (law against drinking blood, Judas not being saved, Council of Jerusalem forbidding the eating of blood, etc.) make it clear that the apostles knew that Jesus was being symbolic, not literal.

---

We've had this conversation before, and I demonstrated that Jesus did INDEED speak literally in John:

3:15 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" Baptism is necessary for salvation.
4:26 - Then Jesus declared, "I, the one speaking to youI am he." Jesus confirms to the woman at the well that he is the messiah.
8:11 - "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." the fact that the Jews picked up stones to kill him shows that they understand this reference.
11:25 - "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
11:43 - When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!"
14:6-7 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well.
14:26 - But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Clearly, your argument that talking "symbolically which he did in the entire book of John" is incorrect. Jesus spoke figuratively and literally throughout the entire book of John.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And do you know what YOU perfectly represent? This:

"This is why I speak to them in parables (i.e. symbolism): "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." - Jesus, in Matthew 13:13.

The funny thing here is that you're using the "those were Jesus' exact words" argument, when you were already shown that Jesus "exact words" about the living water were clearly symbolic, to which you AGREED were symbolic - despite the fact that Jesus NEVER said anything about symbolism or "this REPRESENTS...." there either. So you're in total logical contradiction. Your argument fails.

---

This discourse was NOT a parable. This was a dialogue explaining a metaphor (I am the bread of life). Your analogy fails here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The only flaw is in your argument. You're picking and choosing the conditions under which Jesus repeating something automatically turns it into something literal, and when it does not.

Clearly, Jesus repeating a symbolism over and over does NOT necessarily mean he was being literal, as his "sheep" symbolism to Peter clearly showed.

---

Actually, no. I am using proper CONTEXT of the scriptures to demonstrate what Jesus was ACTUALLY doing. I am NOT cherry-picking verses out of context. Nor am I using "word counting" to attempt to prove my point.

Coke Bear said:

---

Simple YES or NO question -
Did the disciples that left him in John 6:66 believe Jesus literally?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, they may have. They also may have thought he was being symbolic, but in doing so he was being way too lofty about himself, saying he "came down from heaven" as if he was divine, and that no one can have eternal life unless through him. Because of this the Jews were scoffing. Remember, Jesus had a lot of Jewish "disciples", i.e. followers who didn't understand who he was or what he was really there to do. Many still thought of him as the EARTHLY messiah who would establish the EARTHLY kingdom of the Jews that would rule the earth. They weren't thinking of it being in spiritual terms, and they certainly had no idea whatsoever that Jesus was supposed to be tortured and killed. They had NO idea that through Jesus' body being sacrificed, THAT was the way for eternal life to come to all of us. That was God's hidden plan. It really seems like your view is dancing all over the place here.

---

First, they were not offended (v61) because of symbolism. They were offended because of the context of his speech. John even says this in the previous verse 60

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

They understood perfectly what Jesus meant.

Secondly, you are trying to claim that Jesus meant that his flesh was symbolic but he is literally divine. This is a contradiction of its own. You are reading YOUR view into their understanding, which doesn't rationally make sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Jesus giving up his body for sacrifice so that we would live eternally - THAT was the whole meaning of all the "eating his flesh" he was talking about. He was pointing to his bodily sacrifice, through which we would live forever - not physically, but spiritually. We "eat" his flesh by believing in what he did, and "taking it" in as if spiritual "food", food that gives us eternal life.

---

This is where you really start to go astray. In the resurrection, we WILL have our physical bodies. Not just spiritual bodies. They will be glorified, but body and soul will reunite. Your "symbolic-only" view COMPLETELY disregards the context of the entire chapter. It certainly discounts what Jesus commanded the apostles to at the Last Supper.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You Roman Catholics just completely miss the whole meaning of what Jesus was saying about him being the "bread of life". You believing that he was talking about actual physical eating just shows that you are blinded to the truth. This is EXACTLY what Jesus meant when he said that such symbolism would make people "hear and see, but never understand".

---

I love the irony of you using this quote.

• Jesus says it's His Body and Blood.
• His disciples believed him EVEN you said so.
• The apostles believed and Paul confirms it in 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.
• Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John, who wrote the book in question), in AD 107 said,

"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, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"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" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

The Real Presence of the Eucharist was believed universally in the Church for the first 1500 years, yet we Catholic "are blinded to the truth"?

Please explain how Ignatius of Antioch misunderstood his teacher.
And explain how ALL of Christianity believed this for those 1500 years, but were wrong.

I believe it is your views that "hear and see but never understand."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the eating of Jesus' flesh was literal, then performing this physical act was absolutely required and necessary for salvation. You don't trust the words of Jesus.

---

I feel sorry for you. Does he not say that? Do you not trust the words of Jesus?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yet, NOWHERE does Paul ever urge Christians that they MUST eat communion bread that was blessed by a priest, otherwise their faith was in vain. You would think that if salvation entirely rested upon this, that Scripture would be absolutely and explicitly clear that this must be done, or all is lost. You would think that this admonition would appear SOMEWHERE in Paul's letters to the churches, in the most explicit terms possible to not risk misunderstanding. You would think that wherever Paul said "believe in Jesus, and you will be saved" he would also add "but PLEASE DON'T FORGET to eat the bread, otherwise you still go to Hell."

---

You are committing another strawman fallacy here. Where have I (or the Catholic Church) ever use these terms of absolutes?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it doesn't. Not in Paul's letters, not in Peter's, John's, or James' either. No mention of the ONE THING THAT YOU MUST PHYSICALLY DO, OTHERWISE YOU GO TO HELL. The Roman Catholic view is utter nonsense and it completely belies common sense, logic, and an honest reading of the New Testament.

---

Strawman fallacy. You are misrepresenting the Catholic argument AGAIN.

Please cite the specific CCC reference that confirms your claims that one will GO TO HELL if they don't consume the Eucharist.

You are trying to lead people away from the Church that Jesus founded with falsifications.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So.... in the Roman Catholic view, it's "pastoral" to prevent people from taking the Eucharist, thus sending them to Hell?

The restriction was "temporary"? What if someone died before the restriction was lifted?

Just admit it - your view is completely nonsensical.

---

No, I never claimed that "blood" in Acts 15 was the Eucharist. You are getting twisted around your "defense".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing you're saying here indicates that the bread and wine are necessarily the literal body and blood of Jesus. As in all your other "evidence", you are merely reading your assumptions into them.

---

No, you are discounting the evidence (both biblical and historical) because they don't fit your flawed theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding the Passover in the OT - you do realize that the entire meal involved symbolism, don't you? Different foods represented different parts of Jewish history. The Jews were to eat in remembrance of that history. Just as Jesus said to eat the bread and wine in remembrance of him. Jesus was instituting a new symbolism of the Passover meal, so that we remember what Jesus did for us at the cross. Jesus wasn't saying his body and blood were literally the bread and wine, any more than the Passover meal was literally the different parts of Jewish history.

---

You are conflating the remembrance and the original sacrifice. The original Passover consisted of the sacrifice and the EATING of the lamb. This is WHAT provided salvation from death. Just like today, Jesus meant what he said in John 6 about those that eat his flesh and drink his blood having everlasting life.

At the Last Supper, Jesus is both sacrifice and meal at the last Supper. He offers up his body and the apostles ate of it.

Symbolism-alone is unbiblical.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BTW, what's the name of your church?

---

I have repeatedly answered this.

The church I belong to is the church of Jesus Christ. My fellow members are all over the world. They consist of all who believe in Jesus Christ and who only look to him and only trust in him for their salvation. The lone Afghani believer in his village, having to hide his faith from murderous Muslims, who has never been water baptized or taken the Eucharist, but who believes in Jesus with all his heart - he is my brother. The African tribeman who has never read the Bible, who's never been to church, but who heard the gospel and believed, and who knows of no way to worship God but to perform tribal dances he knows, but do it in the name of Jesus and out of joy in the Lord - he is my brother in Christ. The small group of Chinese believers who gather in secret because of persecution, who have no money, no pastor or priest to lead them, and no church building so they meet at each others' houses - but they love each other, and help each other, and they share one Bible that they read from and then rely on the Holy Spirit to guide their understanding - these are my brothers and sisters in Jesus who will be in heaven one day. Even though they've never been water baptized, never taken the Eucharist, and who don't even know of certain doctrines like the Trinity.

One of the biggest failings of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy is the emphasis and reliance on Christianity being an institution, rather than recognizing what the true body of Christ, i.e. his Church, actually is.

---

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER said that those people won't be saved. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

Second, the "church of Jesus Christ" is the Catholic Church. Not some nebulous, invisible, amalgamation of "believers." Jesus' mission was to redeem and save humanity and to establish the Kingdom of God. He came to earth and established a Church to do this. This has been historically understood as the Catholic Church. He made Peter their leader. The bible clearly shows that the Church had offices and even its first council when the Christians needed to settle doctrinal disputes.

Your "Kumbaya" "love and help each other" sounds great, but what happens when the lone Afghani believer, African tribesmen, or the Chinese believer doesn't agree with something you believe? Who gets to decide what is the correct interpretation? Is it you? What authority do YOU have? You have already stated that you are not infallible in your interpretations.

If you are infallible then you have made yourself pope of your own church.

An infallible book is worthless without an infallible interpreter.

" the Church that Jesus founded with falsifications."

a good description of parts of Roman Catholicism, well done.

Only false churches have popes, seeing as they are picked by men.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BTW, what's the name of your church?

---

I have repeatedly answered this.

The church I belong to is the church of Jesus Christ. My fellow members are all over the world. They consist of all who believe in Jesus Christ and who only look to him and only trust in him for their salvation. The lone Afghani believer in his village, having to hide his faith from murderous Muslims, who has never been water baptized or taken the Eucharist, but who believes in Jesus with all his heart - he is my brother. The African tribeman who has never read the Bible, who's never been to church, but who heard the gospel and believed, and who knows of no way to worship God but to perform tribal dances he knows, but do it in the name of Jesus and out of joy in the Lord - he is my brother in Christ. The small group of Chinese believers who gather in secret because of persecution, who have no money, no pastor or priest to lead them, and no church building so they meet at each others' houses - but they love each other, and help each other, and they share one Bible that they read from and then rely on the Holy Spirit to guide their understanding - these are my brothers and sisters in Jesus who will be in heaven one day. Even though they've never been water baptized, never taken the Eucharist, and who don't even know of certain doctrines like the Trinity.

One of the biggest failings of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy is the emphasis and reliance on Christianity being an institution, rather than recognizing what the true body of Christ, i.e. his Church, actually is.

---

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER said that those people won't be saved. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

Second, the "church of Jesus Christ" is the Catholic Church. Not some nebulous, invisible, amalgamation of "believers." Jesus' mission was to redeem and save humanity and to establish the Kingdom of God. He came to earth and established a Church to do this. This has been historically understood as the Catholic Church. He made Peter their leader. The bible clearly shows that the Church had offices and even its first council when the Christians needed to settle doctrinal disputes.

Your "Kumbaya" "love and help each other" sounds great, but what happens when the lone Afghani believer, African tribesmen, or the Chinese believer doesn't agree with something you believe? Who gets to decide what is the correct interpretation? Is it you? What authority do YOU have? You have already stated that you are not infallible in your interpretations.

If you are infallible then you have made yourself pope of your own church.

An infallible book is worthless without an infallible interpreter.

---

You are illustrating precisely the failure of Roman Catholicism to understand that the body of Christ, aka his "Church", is not an institution run by fallible men. It is the entire body of believers that is headed by Jesus, guided by his Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

If there are disagreements between Christians regarding what Scripture means, it does not require a man-made teaching office run by fallible men that claims infallible authority over Scripture as well as the conscience of all other men. This is the primary error of the Roman Catholic Church. All her apostasy starts there, really.

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Simple YES or NO question -
Did the disciples that left him in John 6:66 believe Jesus literally?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, they may have. They also may have thought he was being symbolic, but in doing so he was being way too lofty about himself, saying he "came down from heaven" as if he was divine, and that no one can have eternal life unless through him. Because of this the Jews were scoffing. Remember, Jesus had a lot of Jewish "disciples", i.e. followers who didn't understand who he was or what he was really there to do. Many still thought of him as the EARTHLY messiah who would establish the EARTHLY kingdom of the Jews that would rule the earth. They weren't thinking of it being in spiritual terms, and they certainly had no idea whatsoever that Jesus was supposed to be tortured and killed. They had NO idea that through Jesus' body being sacrificed, THAT was the way for eternal life to come to all of us. That was God's hidden plan. It really seems like your view is dancing all over the place here.

---

This is where you really start to go astray. In the resurrection, we WILL have our physical bodies. Not just spiritual bodies. They will be glorified, but body and soul will reunite. Your "symbolic-only" view COMPLETELY disregards the context of the entire chapter. It certainly discounts what Jesus commanded the apostles to at the Last Supper.

---

There's no going astray here. Just your lack of understanding. Jesus was telling the Jews that the physical kingdom was not yet to come at that time, as they were expecting. It was to be a spiritual kingdom first..... then later, in the future, it would become a physical kingdom on earth with believers who have immortal physical bodies, bodies which have a spiritual quality too. It's a mystery that will be unveiled in the future, and it doesn't need to be understood fully at this time. The point was that Jesus talking about "eating his flesh" was pointing to his bodily sacrifice - that would be the beginning of the fulfillment of all of this. And the Jews who were followers, i.e. "disciples", could not understand.

CokeBear, it's clear that you're just repeating yourself, and going in circles. You reading your presumptions into the the very text that you present as "evidence" of your view. Your reasoning and logic are both so flawed that it's very painful to deal with, and very unfruitful at this point to engage, if I'm being honest. You're just putting arguments out there, just to put them out there, it seems.

Nothing really needs to be said other than the apostles themselves forbade Gentile Christians from drinking blood in Acts 15. So if the Roman Catholic belief that Jesus was being literal is correct, then the apostles were essentially damning Gentiles to Hell. And your response to this? That it was the apostles being "pastoral".

Pastoral. That's your argument. It's pastoral to send believers to Hell.

Nothing more needs to be said to show that your view is utterly wrong. I think the forum recognizes it too.

I find it utterly entertaining when human beings think they can do God's jpb for him.

The secret of life is understanding love.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Only false churches have popes, seeing as they are picked by men.

---

Where is your statement found in the bible?

Jesus picked Peter to be the leader of his Church - Matt 16:18.

I see that you are still doing "drive-by's" with no sustenance, as usual.

Give some meat to your argument. Anyone can troll.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BTW, what's the name of your church?

---

I have repeatedly answered this.

The church I belong to is the church of Jesus Christ. My fellow members are all over the world. They consist of all who believe in Jesus Christ and who only look to him and only trust in him for their salvation. The lone Afghani believer in his village, having to hide his faith from murderous Muslims, who has never been water baptized or taken the Eucharist, but who believes in Jesus with all his heart - he is my brother. The African tribeman who has never read the Bible, who's never been to church, but who heard the gospel and believed, and who knows of no way to worship God but to perform tribal dances he knows, but do it in the name of Jesus and out of joy in the Lord - he is my brother in Christ. The small group of Chinese believers who gather in secret because of persecution, who have no money, no pastor or priest to lead them, and no church building so they meet at each others' houses - but they love each other, and help each other, and they share one Bible that they read from and then rely on the Holy Spirit to guide their understanding - these are my brothers and sisters in Jesus who will be in heaven one day. Even though they've never been water baptized, never taken the Eucharist, and who don't even know of certain doctrines like the Trinity.

One of the biggest failings of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy is the emphasis and reliance on Christianity being an institution, rather than recognizing what the true body of Christ, i.e. his Church, actually is.

---

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER said that those people won't be saved. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

---

Your church HAS to say that, do you not see? Because if Jesus' words are literal like you insist, then those who do NOT eat his flesh and drink his blood "have NO LIFE WITHIN THEM". Those are Jesus' "exact words", right?

If you deny this, then your church is in contradiction, yet again.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So.... in the Roman Catholic view, it's "pastoral" to prevent people from taking the Eucharist, thus sending them to Hell?

The restriction was "temporary"? What if someone died before the restriction was lifted?

Just admit it - your view is completely nonsensical.

---

No, I never claimed that "blood" in Acts 15 was the Eucharist. You are getting twisted around your "defense".

---

But you're completely dodging the point, aren't you? If the apostles understood Jesus to be literal when he commanded to drink his blood in the Eucharist, then why would they then instruct believers to abstain from doing it, especially since one can't have eternal life unless one drinks it according to your belief? HOW in the world could it be considered being "pastoral" to lead people to Hell??

It's obvious, isn't it? The apostles clearly did not take Jesus to be literal. I'm sure to the rest of the forum reading this, and anyone who is being honest that this is clearly the case. The sheer ridiculousness of your argument to get around all this, that it's "pastoral" to send people to Hell, makes it quite clear who is wrong here.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing you're saying here indicates that the bread and wine are necessarily the literal body and blood of Jesus. As in all your other "evidence", you are merely reading your assumptions into them.

---

No, you are discounting the evidence (both biblical and historical) because they don't fit your flawed theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding the Passover in the OT - you do realize that the entire meal involved symbolism, don't you? Different foods represented different parts of Jewish history. The Jews were to eat in remembrance of that history. Just as Jesus said to eat the bread and wine in remembrance of him. Jesus was instituting a new symbolism of the Passover meal, so that we remember what Jesus did for us at the cross. Jesus wasn't saying his body and blood were literally the bread and wine, any more than the Passover meal was literally the different parts of Jewish history.

---

You are conflating the remembrance and the original sacrifice. The original Passover consisted of the sacrifice and the EATING of the lamb. This is WHAT provided salvation from death. Just like today, Jesus meant what he said in John 6 about those that eat his flesh and drink his blood having everlasting life.

At the Last Supper, Jesus is both sacrifice and meal at the last Supper. He offers up his body and the apostles ate of it.

Symbolism-alone is unbiblical.

---

If you won't believe me about John chapter 6, then how about Augustine?

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16).