Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BobCatholic:
So at the wedding of Cana, Christ turned water into wine. Was He required to actually provide the grapes? Or was this a supernatural miracle?

So God, is unable to multiply the Body and Blood of Christ like the loaves in the feeding of 5000, so that all may partake. Your faith in God is lacking. We believe with God all thinks are possible.

Now, since you noticed I’m actually posting in this thread, would you mind tackling my posts? Thanks
I know God can do anything except evil being of impeccable character.

Therefore your argument is a “genetic fallacy.”

As for replying to posts an inspection of this thread would uncover my methodical approach, I am answering every post directed to me save the most banal or, as in one case, after removal of the ad hominem there was nothing left to reply to. (Usually along with ad hominem there is a point made in its midst).

I am currently answering #166 so it will take some time before I am on this page.
 
40.png
Mystagogy:
Well, seems to me that Peter had something to say about personal interpretation, but skipping over to the “symbolic meaning” of "eat my flesh, check out (for example) Psalms 27:2 where David is talking about evildoers assailing him. There are two common translations, “uttering slanders against me” (the MEANING of the phrase) and “to eat up my flesh” the word for word, or ‘literal’ translation.

A literalist might point to persons really gnawing on the meat from King David, but we don’t see that or any evidence of that in the Bible, we really should rely on ‘what the author meant’ – and in those days, we know that “eat my flesh” was an expression meaning “slander me” just like today, “raining cats and dogs” mean “a heavy downpour of rain.”

I don’t see in any of my Bibles where Jesus said that this expression has a NEW meaning.

One would think that he’d have the courtesy to explain that to persons that he expected to pass that information on for 60 years until the books which would eventually be put into the Bible were all written. Or at least, we would expect that information to be passed on by faithful men teaching faithfully if all that Jesus said and did could not be contained in all the libraries of the world.
Taking your last first, Jesus did directly refute the idea eating His literal flesh would profit them or give them life:

DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

That “eat my flesh” does not mean “slander me” in this context is clear when we insert that suggested meaning in the verse and observe it doesn’t make sense:

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye SLANDER ME… ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso SLANDER ME… hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

56 He that SLANDER ME… dwelleth in me, and I in him.

&C.

Rather Christ’s own figurative usage of eating bread = believing doctrine makes sense in this context, then ingesting flesh and blood are also figurative:

Matthew 16:6-12 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, *It is *because we have taken no bread. 8 *Which *when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake *it *not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade *them *not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It certainly is correct the text shows neither the disciples who left or those who remained with Jesus realized His words were figurative, AT THAT TIME.

However it is obvious from the inclusion of verse 63 (=64 in Douay Rheims) they did realize this after.

It seems certain Christ adapted Jeremiah 15:16 to His own situation as the Word of God made flesh to save them who ingested this bread = believed His doctrine:

Jer 15:16

16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.(KJV)
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is “profitable for doctrine” which is like saying all verses of scripture are like pieces of a puzzle, all of them help complete the picture.

Apparently you believe “majority rules” (good for democracy) is a valid tool for analysis and explanation of Biblical phenomena!

Can you document other doctrines, which can be realized through that very process?

It is evident you don’t have a clue what “blood of the New Testament” means and I find that very interesting. Is that true for all Catholics, don’t any have a clue what this means or is it just you?

KJV Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

KJV Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

KJV Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
As usual you try to twist my response into a non-sequitar. Despite your attempts at insulting me, I can assure you I am well acquainted with covenant theology (from what I’ve read of your posts, likely far moreso than you are), and understand what blood of the new covenant means. But, per you MO, you address an issue that was not being discussed to try to score points.

Since you seem so forgetful, I’ll remind you what I was specifically addressing. You used an isolated verse from Luke to ‘prove’ that Jesus couldn’t have meant that the wine had become his literal blood. I was simply putting your isolated scripture passage in context of the other Gospel renderings, and the rendering made by Paul for this particular phrase. I simply wanted to show that Christ did indeed say ‘This is my blood’, Nothing more. It has nothing to do with biblical ‘democracy’ or anything else. Just putting some of the other pieces of the puzzle on the table so someone reading your original post wouldn’t be misled.

Again, nice try, but no dice.
 
Little Mary #167:
John 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

John 1:14 : ***And the Word became flesh ***and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

NABJn 1:14 doesn’t say ***And the Word became flesh ***and made his dwelling among us, and we ate him,

**So what is your point?

**
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
It appears you have the situation reversed, it is clear God’s love has less effect upon the believer in real presence Eucharist than among those bound by the wine to “the New Testament in my blood” (Lk 22:20).
How is this clear? Do you know the hearts of the believers in the real presence? Do you suppose that the believers in the real presence believe ONLY in that and not the beleif that our Protestant brothers and sisters have as well? How do you know we don’t have both?
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Luke 22:20 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Which is a greater manifestation of love? Ingesting transubstantiated Christ giving one a sensible Jesus (whose body and blood are experienced by senses) or being bound by the symbolic blood of the New Testament resulting in Christ’s indwelling who then Personally guides even babes so they know the Scripture (2 Ti 3:15) and are made wise into salvation:
You appear to be evidencing a gnostic tendency here. It is not spirit vs. body. We are embodied souls. Our bodies are not shells that hold our spirit. The two are interrelated so deeply as to be inseperable. Christ apparently saw the body as important enough to raise His up, glorify it and promise us the same. We are sharers in the new covenant, AND Christ can indwell in us, AND we can partake of his body and blood as he commanded. These are not either or propositions as you seem to think.
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
In other words, Which is the greater expression of God’s love?

a)Catholics partake of their real presence Eucharist don’t have their salvation secured thereby and the Bible remains unclear to them.

b)Those who know the teaching of the Eucharist, believe in God’s New Covenant thereby experience the indwelling of Christ who grants them the experience of the ASSURANCE of their salvation (eternal security) because they know the New Covenant of God promised their sin would be remembered no more and God would unveil the Bible so even the least of them would Know God (Jer 31:34) and so be fully equipped for every good work God led them to do.

Answer: b
First, you have now brought in another topic (eternal security) which deserves it’s own thread. But beyond that the two classifications you have wrought are utterly false and are merely your personal perceptions of the Catholics and Protestants positions.

You have boiled Catholicism down to ONLY the Eucharist, and further stated that the bible is unclear to Catholics, on the basis that they don’t agree with your interpretation. Catholicism is much deeper than just the Eucharist (though it is vitally important). To represent it as you have done is simply fallacious. I’d suggest you go read the Catechism if you want to understand Catholic belief before attacking it on such overly simplified grounds.

Additionally non-Catholic Christians don’t have such clarity as you imply in option b. If God has unveiled the bible-assuming that you can prospectively apply Jer 31:34 to a set of books not even written yet-and non-Catholic Christians are fully equipped to know God, then why the division and confusion in Protestantism over so many fundamental issues? Even on the Eucharist there are Protestant denominations that believe in Consubstantiation (Anglican, Lutheran), vs your purely symbolic meaning. There is division over the meaning, form, and efficacy of baptism, the relationship between faith and works, etc., etc., etc. The evidence of the Protestant experience defies your neat packaging of such as you do in option b.
 
KevinfrasierResponses in red

So, concede or disprove:


Truth = Truth
False = False (or Lie)
.: Truth <> Lie

This is fallacious. If done syllogistically, there is no middle term and the conclusion does not follow. If done in modern symbolic logic, then conclusion does not follow as there is no infreence rule that links your premises and conclusion. Also, there is a possible (philosophy of logic) problem with using “=” (presumably for identity) and mutual implication (IFF or <>).

Truth <> False
False = Lie
.: False + False = False
.: True + True = True
.: False + True = False (or Lie)

Since your first premise here apparently comes from the argument above, it is not demonstrated and as it violates the rule of bivalence, there is no reason to accept it. The multiple conclusions do not logically follow from the premises stated in any case. They are, however, truths of truth-functional logic (truth tables).

God = Truth
Christ = God
.: Christ = Truth

This conclusion could have been supported by Scripture (“I am the way, the truth…”). Here the argument is problematic as “God” in the first premise seems to refer to the trinity while “God” in the second refers to the second person of the trinity and not the trinity as a whole (which would confuse the persons). Why not just support the conclusion from Scripture?

Christ = Truth
Truth <> Lie
.: Christ cannot lie

Again, the conclusion could be supported better. The second premise is false and has been dealt with above.

If Words of Christ = Truth
“This IS my Body & Blood” = Claim of Christ
.: Truth = Claim of Christ


If your assertion is

Symbol = Truth
Eucharist = Symbol
Eucharist <> Claim of Christ

The premises need to be limited. Strictly speaking a symbol points to something beyond itself, which is not always a claim. In any case the premises and conclusion are ambiguous.

Then a Non Sequitur arises as a corollary of your assertion:
Claim of Christ = Lie
Because this is not true. Not even exegetically or hermaneutically. Right, Herman?

The whole chain of your argument depended on an invalid inference which lead you to a false premise, questionable assumptions, etc. Therefore the conclusion does not logically follow.

Marty’s house of cards all fall down. Game over. So:

A Challenge. Show logical error in this post or concede that your assertion “Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ” is false. That will mean you won, btw.

I have shown at least some of the logical problems with the argument. The crucial conclusion is invalidly drawn and moreoever is false (as it violates a basic principle of logic). Moreover, your conclusion “True <> False” would lead to the conclusion that since, as you say, Christ is “Truth” that he is also “False” which refutes, not LOC, but Christianity.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
I know God can do anything except evil being of impeccable character.
Good. We agree on something 🙂

.
I am currently answering #166 so it will take some time before I am on this page.
OK. I’ll subscribe to this thread and await your response then. No hurry 🙂
 
I enjoyed reading David Brown’s posting on the logic of the arguments. I guess in his line of work it flowed rather naturally. 🙂

I’m not hopeful of it carrying the day with LOC, though. Extreme Protestants distrust reasoning from the deposit of the faith to doctrinal conclusions, and some have said some rather nasty things about the Church’s doing so. And his comments about accidents and form suggest that he makes up “philosophy” as he goes along, much as he does doctrine.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry Hunter: #168:
St. Paul the Apostle took the Eucharist quite seriously – too seriously for a mere symbol.

In 1 Corinthians 11, after recounting the events of the institution at the last supper, he wrote:

27 Therefore, if anyone eats of the bread or drinks from the cup of the Lord unworthily, he sins against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let each one, then, examine himself before eating of the bread and drinking from the cup. 29 Otherwise, he eats and drinks his own condemnation in not recognizing the Body.

Consider two people who have had a falling out. Now, let’s assume one is so angry that he rips the head off a picture of the other, and trashes it. Compare that with the case where he might have literally torn the head off the other person. In the second case, that would be murder, a clear sin against the body of the person for sure. In the first case, the head is also torn off, but torn off a picture – a symbol. No third party would get too worked up over that.

But St. Paul is talking about sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, and eating and drinking one’s own condemnation. He can’t have been talking about a symbol.

The Protestant reformers did more than throw out the baby with the bathwater when they rejected the Eucharist and real presence. They threw out baby, water, tub, and all.

But for those who desire to partake in this most exquisite gift, it is still available, in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,

Gerry
Context:

NAB 1 Corinthians 11:24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

If all of Christ is in the Eucharist then it is impossible we eat the bread in remembrance of Christ, for then it is an encounter with Christ.

In other words, if you grasp hold of your loved one and kiss that is in meeting/greeting, not in remembrance of.

Observe in the verses you cited the bread and the cup of the Lord are mentioned and these are the body and blood of Christ via “discernment.”

If I look upon the bread and wine and by “discernment” judge it is the body and blood of Christ it isn’t that literally, it is only so symbolically.

Most translations render DIAKRINW as “discerning” not “recognizing”

NAB 1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

VUL 1 Corinthians 11:29 qui enim manducat et bibit indigne iudicium sibi manducat et bibit non diiudicans corpus

DRA 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Most translations render DIAKRINW as “discerning” not “recognizing”
Now you’ve got it - Discerning or Recognizing the Body and the Blood of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27
27 Therefore, if anyone eats of the bread or drinks from the cup of the Lord unworthily, he sins against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let each one, then, examine himself before eating of the bread and drinking from the cup. 29 Otherwise, he eats and drinks his own condemnation in not recognizing the Body.

Paul is unambiguous here. If anyone doesn’t recognize they’re eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ, he eats and drinks his own condemnation.

If you don’t agree, how do you explain this statement of Paul?
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Context:
NAB 1 Corinthians 11:24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

If all of Christ is in the Eucharist then it is impossible we eat the bread in remembrance of Christ, for then it is an encounter with Christ.

In other words, if you grasp hold of your loved one and kiss that is in meeting/greeting, not in remembrance of.
Once again, the problem is the denial of the sacramental aspects of the mystery.

At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ was present both physically and, after the words of institution, sacramentally in the changed bread and wine. He can do that because he is God the Son.

When we eat the body and blood of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament – which is to truly eat it – we commemorate his physical presence on earth.

Those who refuse to consider the sacramental aspects of the Christian faith will never grasp this reality. Being a mystery, no one will fully comprehend it.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
David Brown:
I have shown at least some of the logical problems with the argument. The crucial conclusion is invalidly drawn and moreoever is false (as it violates a basic principle of logic). Moreover, your conclusion “True <> False” would lead to the conclusion that since, as you say, Christ is “Truth” that he is also “False” which refutes, not LOC, but Christianity.
I’m not trying to refute LOC, but his assertion, that Christ was playing word games by not saying exactly what he meant in the Bible. He doesn’t respond to my posts, even after I responded to the one he asked for.

Maybe the red will get his attention.
 
40.png
jmm08:
You can never win an intellectual argument against somebody who has had an experience (unless you have also had the experience).

The Test
LetsObeyChrist:
Go for the experience (go to a Roman Catholic church and sprinkle some holy water on yourself making the sign of a cross on yourself). Go inside and sit through Mass. Pray a little prayer “Lord Jesus Speak to me”. If you are right, you won’t hear anything to change your mind anyway. Last week my local priest had a sermonette (I think RCs call them homilies) about abortion and how life is sacred (see, that wouldn’t have changed your mind – so you have nothing to fear). The weekday Mass takes less than an hour.
Sprinkle yourself with the Holy Water both coming in to the Church and leaving the Church. And then come back and continue your arguments.
If you refuse to sprinkle some Holy Water on yourself, then I think many Roman Catholics will see something that would prove their point of view.

I don’t see where LetsObeyChrist responded at all regarding Holy Water. If it is only water, what is there to be afraid of? Catholics tell me those who are demon possessed don’t want anything to do with Holy Water.

I had another private miracle last night:
Last night, just before going to sleep, I prayed some “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys”. I tried to remember, but I couldn’t remember St. Augustine’s name (he had prayed “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.”) So instead I prayed to and reminded Bishop Sheen that he said “and who in the name of God has not [sinned]?” – his “Suffering” telecast. And I asked Bishop Sheen how he was able to get over sin in his life. With my eyes still closed and without delay, the instant reply was a very dim and very brief red flash of light. It looked like the small red light near the front of the Catholic Church Sanctuary. My mind knew the answer right away. Bishop Sheen made a Holy Hour before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament each day (Eucharistic Adoration).

Only “ears that hear and eyes that see” will see this as a miracle. Skeptics will use a “scientific explanation” (everybody sees little blips of light often when their eyes are closed – especially when it is dark). The envious will say I am making it all up.

It may seem off topic. But if transubstantiation is not true, then there can be no Eucharistic Adoration because the Eucharist would only be symbolic. And Bishop Sheen would not have been able to gain freedom from his sins by practicing idolatry.

Jesus was accused of blasphemy. That is saying you are God (it is a sin only if you are not God – which is everybody else except Jesus). From the Protestant point of view (symbolic), Eucharistic Adoration looks like idolatry. But there again, you can never win an intellectual argument against somebody who has had an experience (unless you have also had the experience).
 
40.png
kevinfraser:
I’m not trying to refute LOC, but his assertion, that Christ was playing word games by not saying exactly what he meant in the Bible. He doesn’t respond to my posts, even after I responded to the one he asked for.

Maybe the red will get his attention.
Sorry kevinfrasier. I thought you were trying to refute LOC and challenging to respond to the argument you gave, which is why I posted.

LOC has been very nice in responding to me when I was critical of some points of logic in his argument. He has a lot of posts to try to get through and I would imagine he is as frustrated as everyone else.
 
metal1633: #170:
Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *
4:33–32 ).

Odd: “if the Lord were from other than the Father?” That would explain how someone can say anything they desired, even lies, so what was Irenaeus’ point?

If Christ were not God how could he rightly say the bread is His body?

Huh? Perhaps you can explain his argument, it appears too confused to me.

If I were Irenaeus the argument would be"How could Christ who definitely is God the Son of the Father and therefore cannot lie say the bread and wine are His body and blood if they are not?"

However the premises is incorrect, it is clear all Christ says (“This cup *is *the new testament in my blood… …I am the bread from heaven…)” and by the apparent contradiction (“eat my flesh for life…it is the spirit who quickens, the flesh profits nothing at all”) that the same words must refer to different things (sometimes are figurative) otherwise some or all that He says is in error and therefore could not be spoken by The Eternal Son of God who cannot lie or make mistakes.

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Where is it said our blood flows from the Eucharist cup? Clearly Piosity has inspired babble not found in the Bible:

NKJ Proverbs 10:19 In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips *is *wise.

If Cyril’s flesh were “capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him”

Where is his flesh now?

It should be self evident Infinite God cannot occupy the space of anything finite for then all room for the latter ceases to exist.

There is no space in the infinite for anything finite to exist.

In other words, Wherever God’s infinite substance is, no space remains for anything else. The finite is always obliterated by the infinte.

This concept is fundamental to the idea of Christ’s two natures which are not (nor cannot) be fused or commingled.

If any here had trouble picturing this, the analogy of thought to brain is helpful. While thoughts inhabit the organ of the brain the substance of thought and substance of brain never mingle or become confused.

Monophysite like Eucharist is a gross error of elementary logic.

SNIP

I must repeat a fundamental fact, citing ECF’s and papal representatives for “real presence” is immaterial to a sola scripturaist like myself.

It is my proposition Christ spoke figuratively when He said the species were His body and blood. The only way to prove or disprove that is by appeal to the data of Scripture.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Would you please cite the exact words where Christ distinguishes the flesh He commanded they eat and the other flesh you say He speaks about. I can’t see that in the context.
John 6:54:* Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day.*

**John 6:63: **It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.
On the contrary Christ is responding to their objection against eating His literal flesh.
Where? Please cite exact words.

Notwithstand that, based on what you wrote here, I’ll give you this: Yes, He did respond to their objection, but He never stated that He really meant something else.
They objected to His saying they had to eat His flesh. For Him to talk about someone else’ flesh would be response one expects from a loon, someone detached from reality.
I never said he was talking about someone else’s flesh.:confused:

It is the spirit that gives the flesh life. And every hour of every day, from the rising of the sun to its setting, at the point of the miracle, when bread and wine are changed to body and blood, we have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
 
I must repeat a fundamental fact, citing ECF’s and papal representatives for “real presence” is immaterial to a sola scripturaist like myself.
It is my proposition Christ spoke figuratively when He said the species were His body and blood. The only way to prove or disprove that is by appeal to the data of Scripture.
I hope you are not disappointed to learn that you are not the arbiter of materiality. 😦

And an appeal “to the data of Scripture” is an appeal only to a part of the deposit of the faith – a part that post-dates the belief in the doctrine of the real presence itself.

You should be aware that Catholics will NOT accept your proposition that Holy Scripture is the sole source of the faith. You would have us find all three cube roots of minus one while demanding that only the real, but not the complex, numbers be used. And we will not accept that you are right simply because we cannot follow your directions to restrict the solution set and find the roots at the same time.

We hold to the belief in the Real Presence on the evidence of Holy Scripture and Apostolic teaching (aka Tradition), and taken together, they are conclusive, and have been considered so since the Last Supper.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
IMPORTANT NOTE I have a suggestion. I have no authority here whatsoever, but out of Catholic charity I am proposing that we slow down on the posting in this thread and give LOC a few days to catch up. It’s all of us against LOC, which is hardly fair. We need to respect LOC for having the resolution to respond to each and every post.
Just my humble opinion.
In Christ,
Tyler
 
40.png
metal1633:
Again you assume your own conclusion, placing your interpretation in the mouth of the Lord. In spite of the fact that the metaphor is BREAD and Jesus Himself explains the metaphor as meaning His FLESH. “I am the Bread from Heaven.”=Metaphor. “The Bread I give is my Flesh”= metaphor explained.

Its REAL Simple. No grammatical gymnastics involved
I agree it is simple , Christ did explain what Bread stood for. He also explained what Flesh stood for against their literal interpretation and no grammatical gymnastics needed to see this.

In context Christ is addressing what offended them, “Doth this (eat my flesh) offend you?”

John 6:60-63 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this (eat my flesh), 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 (eat my flesh) offend you? {offend: or, scandalize, or, cause you to stumble} 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.

Against the idea He said eating literal flesh profits or quickens Jesus says it is the Spirit that give life and flesh profits nothing. This agrees with His teaching elsewhere:

DRA John 3: 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breatheth where he will and thou hearest his voice: but thou knowest not whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Christ then says, still in response to what scandalized them “: the words that I speak unto you, *they *are spirit, and *they *are life.” In context “the words” = “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood for quickening and profit.”

The only way all the following statements can ALL be true: “eating flesh to quicken and profit unto life; eating flesh cannot quicken or profit unto life” is that “flesh” is being used differently, both literally and figuratively.

Literal flesh eating doesn’t profit unto life because what is born of flesh is flesh.

Therefore these as these words Christ spoke “are spirit and life,” they cannot be “flesh.”

What is “flesh?” It is that which encases the spirit and life, hiding them from plain view. The outer covering, the flesh of these words is not what Christ meant, when He uses them they are “spirit and life” = figurative of the meaning within the flesh.

This really is simple, Christ expressly rejected their literal interpretation of eat my flesh, He was not referring to the outer flesh of those words but to their spirit and life.
 
twf said:
IMPORTANT NOTE I have a suggestion. I have no authority here whatsoever, but out of Catholic charity I am proposing that we slow down on the posting in this thread and give LOC a few days to catch up. It’s all of us against LOC, which is hardly fair. We need to respect LOC for having the resolution to respond to each and every post.
Just my humble opinion.
In Christ,
Tyler

Thank’s for realizing the work this entails. What I would like to see is a “tree” displaying all posts that are in response to each other, a thread of their own as it were.

Perhaps if enough Posters requested that it might be done.

As it is right now it is hard to follow the discussion as the relationship of posts to each other is completely lost.

While one might watch for replies by refreshing the last page, and so carry on a “live” discussion, if they leave that page to review the history of the discussion it is possible other posts “bury” the reply and it be missed.

In other words, while dumping all posts under one title is fine when only two posters are present, during heavy use it is not.

A “tree” that displays the relationship of posts to each other allows for easy review of the entire discussion and might lessen posts of repetitive material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top