Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reply to porthos11: #174

As far as I’m concerned, taking all cultural and historical facts:

Think like a Jew:

Eating flesh != believing

Eating flesh is NEVER associated with believing in teachings; it is a violent expression of inflicting physical harm, as already cited several times.

Context is definitive, in Christ’s preaching elsewhere “Eating the Bread of” = “Believing the Doctrine of”:

Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Spirit != symbolic

Nowhere in the NT does spirit ever equal symbolic. In fact, “the words I spoke to you are spirit and life” for a Catholic only serves to REINFORCE the literalness of Jesus’ words. The flesh that “profits nothing” is not HIS flesh, it’s our flesh. It means that in our own human understanding, we cannot grasp the mystery, we need to see it with spiritual understanding.

Jesus said of his flesh that is is “food indeed” that we should eat lest we be deprived of eternal life. Then he goes on to say that HIS flesh actually profits nothing?

So how do we understand that Jesus’ words are spirit and life? He has given us a teaching that enables us to spiritually understand how his flesh will give us life. This not reading in any interpretation, THIS is what the entire context says.

No Jesus was not talking symbolically. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, rabbis were obligated to correct misunderstandings. Jesus was no exception. In fact, he had to correct his dimwitted disciples on several occasions (the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod; “our friend Lazarus is sleeping,” incidentally, also in John’s Gospel). He did not do so in this case.

At first read your interpretation seems reasonable, but when one carefully observes the context it becomes less likely than what I proposed.

It should be noted you contradict yourself, against your assertion “spirit” cannot be symbolic your argument is using both “spirit” and “flesh,” (nouns) SYMBOLICLY to mean “spiritual” and “carnal, fleshly” understanding and not referring to literal spirit and flesh.

“It is the spiritual understanding that quickens, the fleshly understanding profits nothing.”

Thus you rewrote the nouns as adjectives and inserted the word “understanding.”

Rewriting scripture is not interpreting it.

However what tips the scale against your interpretation is the next words Christ says:

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.

The subject is NOT their carnal understanding as opposed to a spiritual understanding, Christ’s own words are being described as spirit and life.

That means what preceded this was in reference to His own words (eat my flesh &c) and not their understanding.

His words cannot mean the flesh quickens or that eating flesh profits as it is the Spirit who quickens so eating literal flesh would not profit in this regard at all.

Context “thinking like a Jew.” Eating literal blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 7:27; 17:14 ) for life and spiritual profit, is against the law of Moses therefore Christ would not force these disciples to do what their conscience told them is sinful (1 Cor 10:29 cp Ac 15:20).

PLUS, the witness of the early Church, especially Ignatius who was already a bishop when at least one apostle was STILL ALIVE!

Ignatius’ figures of speech makes it more likely he interprets the Eucharist symbolically:

…there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life.
 
Reply to porthos11: #174

As far as I’m concerned, taking all cultural and historical facts:

Think like a Jew:

Eating flesh != believing

Eating flesh is NEVER associated with believing in teachings; it is a violent expression of inflicting physical harm, as already cited several times.

Context is definitive, in Christ’s preaching elsewhere “Eating the Bread of” = “Believing the Doctrine of”:

Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Spirit != symbolic

Nowhere in the NT does spirit ever equal symbolic. In fact, “the words I spoke to you are spirit and life” for a Catholic only serves to REINFORCE the literalness of Jesus’ words. The flesh that “profits nothing” is not HIS flesh, it’s our flesh. It means that in our own human understanding, we cannot grasp the mystery, we need to see it with spiritual understanding.

Jesus said of his flesh that is is “food indeed” that we should eat lest we be deprived of eternal life. Then he goes on to say that HIS flesh actually profits nothing?

So how do we understand that Jesus’ words are spirit and life? He has given us a teaching that enables us to spiritually understand how his flesh will give us life. This not reading in any interpretation, THIS is what the entire context says.

No Jesus was not talking symbolically. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, rabbis were obligated to correct misunderstandings. Jesus was no exception. In fact, he had to correct his dimwitted disciples on several occasions (the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod; “our friend Lazarus is sleeping,” incidentally, also in John’s Gospel). He did not do so in this case.

At first read your interpretation seems reasonable, but when one carefully observes the context it becomes less likely than what I proposed.

It should be noted you contradict yourself, against your assertion “spirit” cannot be symbolic your argument is using both “spirit” and “flesh,” (nouns) SYMBOLICLY to mean “spiritual” and “carnal, fleshly” understanding and not referring to literal spirit and flesh.

“It is the spiritual understanding that quickens, the fleshly understanding profits nothing.”

Thus you rewrote the nouns as adjectives and inserted the word “understanding.”

Rewriting scripture is not interpreting it.

However what tips the scale against your interpretation is the next words Christ says:

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.

The subject is NOT their carnal understanding as opposed to a spiritual understanding, Christ’s own words are being described as spirit and life.

That means what preceded this was in reference to His own words (eat my flesh &c) and not their understanding.

His words cannot mean the flesh quickens or that eating flesh profits as it is the Spirit who quickens so eating literal flesh would not profit in this regard at all.

Context “thinking like a Jew.” Eating literal blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 7:27; 17:14 ) for life and spiritual profit, is against the law of Moses therefore Christ would not force these disciples to do what their conscience told them is sinful (1 Cor 10:29 cp Ac 15:20).

PLUS, the witness of the early Church, especially Ignatius who was already a bishop when at least one apostle was STILL ALIVE!

Ignatius’ figures of speech makes it more likely he interprets the Eucharist symbolically:

…there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life.

CONTINUED
 
I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.1-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, VII

Fire, water, food, bread, blood, all symbols of other things. Note “blood…is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

Christ Himself defined the intent of this context:

John 6:27-29 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

Christ did NOT offer another way to heaven (cp Rm 3:20,28; 4:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:9; 2 Tm 1:9), He did not say eating His flesh would quicken and profit in regard:

Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH ON ME hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

Both Jesus and His apostles are consistent, ONLY the ACT of obedient belief in Christ results in quickening by the Holy Spirit, flesh eating cannot profit in this regard:

John 3:6-7 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.

Therefore when Christ says the ACT of “eating and drinking His body and blood quickens and is profitable” He must be speaking figuratively, otherwise He contradicts Himself.

I myself once lost my faith in the Eucharist and tried to get around this solid teaching and justify my erroneous belief that is was only a symbol. I knew these objections, but upon studying John 6 and 1 Cor 11 in their proper historical, liguistic, and cultural contexts, I could not dispute its reality.

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The bread and wine cannot be Christ for one doesn’t experience Christ to remember Christ just as one does not eat steak in remembrance steak.

Paul’s comparison of “partaking of the body and blood” 1 Cor 13:15f to Israel’s eating of sacrifices (vs 18) proves Paul did not believe “real presence:”

18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

By comparing the koinwnia (vs 16) believers have in Christ’s body and blood via the Eucharist with the koinwnos Israel has with the altar via the Sacrifices, Paul identifies partaking species as symbolic as no one in their right mind would believe Israel ate “transubstantiated altar” when they ate the sacrifice.

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning (diakrinw) the Lord’s body.

252 diakrinw means “make a distinction,” it is a decision, not an experience.

If the species were actually the body and blood of Christ then making a distinction is unnecessary, then it is what it is.

That mental judgment deciding this “is the body and blood of Christ” is necessary is proof it is so “spiritually speaking” and not the substance itself.
 
Reply to porthos11: #174

As far as I’m concerned, taking all cultural and historical facts:

Think like a Jew:

Eating flesh != believing

Eating flesh is NEVER associated with believing in teachings; it is a violent expression of inflicting physical harm, as already cited several times.

Context is definitive, in Christ’s preaching elsewhere “Eating the Bread of” = “Believing the Doctrine of”:

Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Spirit != symbolic

Nowhere in the NT does spirit ever equal symbolic. In fact, “the words I spoke to you are spirit and life” for a Catholic only serves to REINFORCE the literalness of Jesus’ words. The flesh that “profits nothing” is not HIS flesh, it’s our flesh. It means that in our own human understanding, we cannot grasp the mystery, we need to see it with spiritual understanding.

Jesus said of his flesh that is is “food indeed” that we should eat lest we be deprived of eternal life. Then he goes on to say that HIS flesh actually profits nothing?

So how do we understand that Jesus’ words are spirit and life? He has given us a teaching that enables us to spiritually understand how his flesh will give us life. This not reading in any interpretation, THIS is what the entire context says.

No Jesus was not talking symbolically. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, rabbis were obligated to correct misunderstandings. Jesus was no exception. In fact, he had to correct his dimwitted disciples on several occasions (the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod; “our friend Lazarus is sleeping,” incidentally, also in John’s Gospel). He did not do so in this case.

At first read your interpretation seems reasonable, but when one carefully observes the context it becomes less likely than what I proposed.

It should be noted you contradict yourself, against your assertion “spirit” cannot be symbolic your argument is using both “spirit” and “flesh,” (nouns) SYMBOLICLY to mean “spiritual” and “carnal, fleshly” understanding and not referring to literal spirit and flesh.

“It is the spiritual understanding that quickens, the fleshly understanding profits nothing.”

Thus you rewrote the nouns as adjectives and inserted the word “understanding.”

Rewriting scripture is not interpreting it.

However what tips the scale against your interpretation is the next words Christ says:

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.

The subject is NOT their carnal understanding as opposed to a spiritual understanding, Christ’s own words are being described as spirit and life.

That means what preceded this was in reference to His own words (eat my flesh &c) and not their understanding.

His words cannot mean the flesh quickens or that eating flesh profits as it is the Spirit who quickens so eating literal flesh would not profit in this regard at all.

Context “thinking like a Jew.” Eating literal blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 7:27; 17:14 ) for life and spiritual profit, is against the law of Moses therefore Christ would not force these disciples to do what their conscience told them is sinful (1 Cor 10:29 cp Ac 15:20).

PLUS, the witness of the early Church, especially Ignatius who was already a bishop when at least one apostle was STILL ALIVE!

Ignatius’ figures of speech makes it more likely he interprets the Eucharist symbolically:

…there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life.

CONTINUED
 
I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.1-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, VII

Fire, water, food, bread, blood, all symbols of other things. Note “blood…is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

Christ Himself defined the intent of this context:

John 6:27-29 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

Christ did NOT offer another way to heaven (cp Rm 3:20,28; 4:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:9; 2 Tm 1:9), He did not say eating His flesh would quicken and profit in regard:

Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH ON ME hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

Both Jesus and His apostles are consistent, ONLY the ACT of obedient belief in Christ results in quickening by the Holy Spirit, flesh eating cannot profit in this regard:

John 3:6-7 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.

Therefore when Christ says the ACT of “eating and drinking His body and blood quickens and is profitable” He must be speaking figuratively, otherwise He contradicts Himself.

I myself once lost my faith in the Eucharist and tried to get around this solid teaching and justify my erroneous belief that is was only a symbol. I knew these objections, but upon studying John 6 and 1 Cor 11 in their proper historical, liguistic, and cultural contexts, I could not dispute its reality.

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The bread and wine cannot be Christ for one doesn’t experience Christ to remember Christ just as one does not eat steak in remembrance steak.

Paul’s comparison of “partaking of the body and blood” 1 Cor 13:15f to Israel’s eating of sacrifices (vs 18) proves Paul did not believe “real presence:”

18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

By comparing the koinwnia (vs 16) believers have in Christ’s body and blood via the Eucharist with the koinwnos Israel has with the altar via the Sacrifices, Paul identifies partaking species as symbolic as no one in their right mind would believe Israel ate “transubstantiated altar” when they ate the sacrifice.

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning (diakrinw) the Lord’s body.

252 diakrinw means “make a distinction,” it is a decision, not an experience.

If the species were actually the body and blood of Christ then making a distinction is unnecessary, then it is what it is.

That mental judgment deciding this “is the body and blood of Christ” is necessary is proof it is so “spiritually speaking” and not the substance itself.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Christ did NOT . . . say eating His flesh would quicken and profit in regard:
Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Jesus said that if you “eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood had eternal life”.

John 6:53-55
“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

Also, you mentioned Ignatius of Antioc (AD c40-107), who was the first Christian to be fed to the lions in the coliseum, and a contemporary of the Apostles; I suggest that we may learn something by examining what the early Church believed about the subject.

“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 . . . . 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” (St Ignatius *Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, circa A.D. 135)

I understand that our arguments will not change your opinion. However, you should know that this is the common understanding from the very beginning of the Church. This is what was taught by the Apostles and those who are obedient to Jesus Christ.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
 
Dear LetsObeyChrist:

Thank you for responding to my prior post questioning you on what “TRUE BELIEF” is. Your responses in Post #352 and 353 don’t seem to answer the question, though. First, you indicate that “true belief” = obedience to the word of God when you state that “believe” and “obey” are synomous as indicated in John 3:36. Although as a Catholic I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, I am confused by your later statement in Post #353. In your discussion about baptism, you state that “when one really believed they were inspired to act on that belief…” Here it is obvious you are stepping away from your first definition of what “true belief” is. In fact, you contradict yourself.

The Catholic position sees faith and works, or belief and obedience, whichever phrase you prefer, as two blades in the same pair of scissors. It’s impossible to ask which blade is more important because the two work together. Originally, you seem to be taking the Catholic position. But, when you later state that it is true belief that then leads to obedience, as the believer is so inspired to act, you contradict yourself.

Moreover, your problem remains the same in terms of defining your salvation as it relates to Our Lord Jesus Christ. You still insist that “true belief” in Jesus is what is necessary. Again, I agree, the Catechism agrees, the Catholic Church agrees, but the Catholic Church at least tells us what that belief entails. It tells us who the messenger of salvation is and what that message is. Your system tells us absolutely nothing. I challenge you to argue with a Mormon that he does not have true belief in the notion that “Jesus is the only begotten son of the Eternal Father, Saviour of the World,” as you say.

You state that “believing in another Jesus does not save no matter how fervently one believes.” I agree, and I am also wondering what sort of Jesus you “believe in”? It seems clear that you believe in a Jesus who didn’t mean what He said in John 6. You believe in a Jesus who didn’t mean what He said at the Last Supper. You believe in a Jesus unlike the one St. Paul believes in as evidenced in 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Cor. 11. You believe in a Jesus unlike the one that the early Christian Church believed in as evidenced by the writings of the early Fathers.

I continue to pray for you!
Fiat
 
Gerry Hunter:
The assertion “that means His words are not literal” have been shown to be at variance with the exegesis of the Church and Church Fathers from the beginning of the Church. The assertion is a change introduced into the faith. In response to that change, to protect the faith, the doctrines were set down by the Magisterium, many centuries after they had been received and accepted…SNIP
Click to expand...
Incorrect, while it is possible to find the exegesis among the ECFs, scripture alone is the reason why I believe it.

A few quotes:

And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Book I, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, p. 219)

He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing; " but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; "and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.”-Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter XXXIX (Ibid., Vol 3., p. 572)

Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them… This, then, in brief, is the interpretation of the Passover sacrificed for us, which is Christ, in accordance with the view taken of it by the Apostles, and with the Lamb in the Gospel. For we ought not to suppose that historical things are types of historical things, and material things of material, but that material things are typical of spiritual things, and historical things of intellectual.-Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, 10th Book, c.13 (Ibid., Vol 9, p. 390)

Now the wood signifies the cross, and the bread His body; for He Himself is the food and the life of all who believe in the flesh which He bare, and on the cross upon which He was suspended.-Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book IV, Of True Wisdom and Religion, Chap XVIII-(Ibid., Vol 7, p. 121)
 
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was with God in the beginning…”

“… and the Word became flesh.”

You were saying the flesh of the Word enfleshed profiteth nothing? :rolleyes:
 
Incorrect, while it is possible to find the exegesis among the ECFs, scripture alone is the reason why I believe it.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not incorrect. It is proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church, which is protected from teaching error.

Someone suggested that LOC be permitted a chance to respond to the posts he has prompted. It would be good if he started doing so in a non-selective manner. Very early on, he was asked to set out the basis for his statement that Holy Scripture is inerrant and inspired. Try as we might, we can’t find his response in the thread.

It is quite insightful when people argue from a source whose authority and legitimacy they are unable to establish.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
porthos11: #177:
We are not talking about “eating”, the phrase in question is “eating flesh”.

Eating can indeed be a metaphor for believing or accepting (e.g. a teaching).
Click to expand...
Eating FLESH nowhere means this. Interpreting it as believing in teachings is an artificial understanding and is not consistent with Jewish linguistics, since the phrase has a cultural metaphorical meaning attached to it.Your quotation from Jeremiah nowhere refers to eating flesh. Micah 3:3 does…Comparing Micah 3:3 and Jn 6:54ff underscores this EATING is not symbolic of the same ACT.

In Micah evil princes (vss 1-2) rob the material goods of the poor (vss 2-3; cp Ps 14:4; 30:14) but God won’t rise to help them as they these poor are wicked also. They are divinely condemned to this fate.

DRA Micah 3:1 And I said: Hear, O ye princes of Jacob, and ye chiefs of the house of Israel: Is it not your part to know judgment, 2 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. 4 Then shall they cry to the Lord, and he will not hear them: and he will hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved wickedly in their devices.

Robbery and condemnation are NOT in John c.6 where eating the Manna/Bread from heaven results in life to the world (Jn 6:51f), quickens unto eternal life and is spiritually profitable.

In Jesus’ preaching “eating the bread of the Pharisees” refers to believing in their teaching (Mt 16:11f) and His apostles speak of eating/drinking milk/meat meaning understanding simple/complex doctrine (1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12f); In 1 Pet 2:2 “milk” is the Word of God.

When interpreting this expression directly (vss 61f) Jesus says:

DRA John 6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

There are at least 3 suggested interpretations:

#1)Vs 63 These disciples are blind to Christ’s Messianic signs (Jn 6:26-36). Jesus wonders if His ascension into heaven would be enough to convince them (cp Lk 16:31) to believe and accept they must do this to have life.

Vs 64 “It is the spiritual understanding that quickens, the fleshly understanding profits nothing.”

#2) “If the disciples had just proceeded to take the flesh off the body of Christ right there and drink His blood, they would have done nothing supernaturally beneficial. Jesus is saying, “It’s the Spirit that gives life,” and so wait until the Spirit is given. When I breath my spirit upon the Cross. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.”-Scott Hahn

#3) Vs 63: these disciples are blind to Christ’s Messianic signs (Jn 6:26-36). Jesus wonders if even His ascension would be enough to convince them (cp Lk 16:31) to believe and therefore reasonably interpret His words.

Vs 64 Certainly Eating Flesh does not quicken or profit therefore the words are not flesh, they are spirit and life. For words to be “spirit and life” they aren’t literal, they must be symbols having spiritual meaning (1 Cor 10:3) distinct from their carnal or outer flesh meaning.

#1 cannot be correct as the nouns “spirit” and “life” are not adjectives modifying the understanding of the disciples, it is Christ’s very “Words Are spirit and life.”

#2 cannot be correct as SPIRIT and FLESH are in opposition to each other and not united in two tier ministry: “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Objectively, #3 is correct.
 
porthos11: #177:
We are not talking about “eating”, the phrase in question is “eating flesh”.

Eating can indeed be a metaphor for believing or accepting (e.g. a teaching).
Click to expand...
Eating FLESH nowhere means this. Interpreting it as believing in teachings is an artificial understanding and is not consistent with Jewish linguistics, since the phrase has a cultural metaphorical meaning attached to it.Your quotation from Jeremiah nowhere refers to eating flesh. Micah 3:3 does…Comparing Micah 3:3 and Jn 6:54ff underscores this EATING is not symbolic of the same ACT.

In Micah evil princes (vss 1-2) rob the material goods of the poor (vss 2-3; cp Ps 14:4; 30:14) but God won’t rise to help them as they these poor are wicked also. They are divinely condemned to this fate.

DRA Micah 3:1 And I said: Hear, O ye princes of Jacob, and ye chiefs of the house of Israel: Is it not your part to know judgment, 2 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. 4 Then shall they cry to the Lord, and he will not hear them: and he will hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved wickedly in their devices.

Robbery and condemnation are NOT in John c.6 where eating the Manna/Bread from heaven results in life to the world (Jn 6:51f), quickens unto eternal life and is spiritually profitable.

In Jesus’ preaching “eating the bread of the Pharisees” refers to believing in their teaching (Mt 16:11f) and His apostles speak of eating/drinking milk/meat meaning understanding simple/complex doctrine (1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12f); In 1 Pet 2:2 “milk” is the Word of God.

When interpreting this expression directly (vss 61f) Jesus says:

DRA John 6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

There are at least 3 suggested interpretations:

#1)Vs 63 These disciples are blind to Christ’s Messianic signs (Jn 6:26-36). Jesus wonders if His ascension into heaven would be enough to convince them (cp Lk 16:31) to believe and accept they must do this to have life.

Vs 64 “It is the spiritual understanding that quickens, the fleshly understanding profits nothing.”

#2) “If the disciples had just proceeded to take the flesh off the body of Christ right there and drink His blood, they would have done nothing supernaturally beneficial. Jesus is saying, “It’s the Spirit that gives life,” and so wait until the Spirit is given. When I breath my spirit upon the Cross. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.”-Scott Hahn

#3) Vs 63: these disciples are blind to Christ’s Messianic signs (Jn 6:26-36). Jesus wonders if even His ascension would be enough to convince them (cp Lk 16:31) to believe and therefore reasonably interpret His words.

Vs 64 Certainly Eating Flesh does not quicken or profit therefore the words are not flesh, they are spirit and life. For words to be “spirit and life” they aren’t literal, they must be symbols having spiritual meaning (1 Cor 10:3) distinct from their carnal or outer flesh meaning.

#1 cannot be correct as the nouns “spirit” and “life” are not adjectives modifying the understanding of the disciples, Christ’s very “Words Are spirit and life.”

#2 cannot be correct as SPIRIT and FLESH are in opposition to each other and not united in two tier ministry: “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Objectively, #3 is correct.
 
Obviously, the wisest person on Earth will never be able to change LOC’s mind. So perhaps we should concentrate on changing his heart. And the best way I know how to go about changing someone’s heart is:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen

I hope that everyone who has participated in this form will pray a rosary for LOC, perhaps even offering a novena or a day of fasting for his conversion.

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do no have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing symbol. And if I have the gift of prophesy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; or I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

God bless you LOC! I hope one day we will meet in heaven!
 
Gerry Hunter:
…Very early on, he was asked to set out the basis for his statement that Holy Scripture is inerrant and inspired.
Click to expand...
I notice that LOC likes the King James Version. As a Baptist, I really like it too – the original 1611 Authorized King James Version. It is online at ebible.org/bible/kjv/

The Authorized King James Version included the Deuterocanonical books. I’ve only recently started reading the Deuterocanonical books. I really like the books of Tobit and Judith. I haven’t read all of Maccabees yet.

To get much from the Deuterocanonical books, this is my opinion so far:
1) It is important to have a very good understanding of the Old Testament. Having read it all at least once.
2) Not be a new convert to Christianity. Probably at least five to ten years of being a Christian, reading and understanding the Gospels and New Testament.
3) Some gray hair. It helps if you are older. I’m almost 50.

The book of Tobit greatly increases the depth of my understanding regarding how evil it was for King Jeroboam to corrupt Judiasm. (And I think a Roman Catholic corollary to this would be how evil it is to distort Christianity).

2 Maccabees chapter 7 is obviously referred to by Hebrews 11:35 “… Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.” Where else is such torture in the Bible – where those already being tortured were still given another chance by their tormentors to get out?

So why did the KJV translators do such a good work translating the Bible if they also translated and included the Deuterocanonical books in their same work? If you suppose that the Deuterocanonical books are best discarded and never looked at.

With at least one of the newer Protestant translations of the Bible, I think one of the biggest scandals in God’s eyes is how the translators preferred their own denominational teachings to the actual original language and therefore changed a few words here and there (quite infrequently perhaps, but also very destructive). As long as the different word still produced a statement of something that was true (then it was OK). Alternative readings in the margin. Some alternative readings (that are too different than their own Protestant ideas were not included at all). The scandal is that sometimes the result didn’t include the original truth put in the Bible by God. And so many sola scriptura people depend on that written truth to understand. Those who stick to sola scriptura need to be greatly warned that they must use a correct translation of the Bible.

To know about and fully understand something, it must be brought down to your level. We know that God’s thoughts are far above our thoughts. And that we cannot search His ways. When we choose to love God, we are brought up. This is far better than trying to bring God down.
 
Obviously, the wisest person on Earth will never be able to change LOC’s mind. So perhaps we should concentrate on changing his heart. And the best way I know how to go about changing someone’s heart is:
Click to expand...
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen
Click to expand...
I hope that everyone who has participated in this form will pray a rosary for LOC, perhaps even offering a novena or a day of fasting for his conversion.
Click to expand...
If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do no have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing symbol. And if I have the gift of prophesy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; or I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
Click to expand...
God bless you LOC! I hope one day we will meet in heaven!
Click to expand...
That is quite possibly the most inspired post I have read in this now over 400 message thread. I second that:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen

Obviously nothing anyone can say here will change LOC’s mind, and likewise he won’t change ours. What it comes down to is his interpretation of the Gospel vs the Church’s.

Faithful Catholics will believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit who preserved from error the Traditions handed down to her, while Sola Sripturists will only accept their own interpretation of scripture as revealed truth from God.

In addition to whatever was posted here, here is a link catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp whatever its worth, to the best explanation I have found as to why Catholics believe what they do about the Eucharist. And here is another good one davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm
 
Panis Angelicas:
Unfortunately, your interpretation does not concur with those of the Apostles, who were there with Jesus at that time.

Pax Christi. <><
Click to expand...
Nor does** LetsObeyChrist’s** interpretation concur with the early Church Fathers. The Fathers of the Church wrote because they wanted the Church to obey Christ. Here’s a taste of what the Fathers had to say in the early years of our Church:

**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.) **

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 Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup ***IN *THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…(Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

**ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) **

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Sacrament of Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)

bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
 
Panis Angelicas:
Unfortunately, your interpretation does not concur with those of the Apostles, who were there with Jesus at that time.

Pax Christi. <><
Click to expand...
Nor does** LetsObeyChrist’s** interpretation concur with the early Church Fathers. The Fathers of the Church wrote because they wanted the Church to obey Christ. Here’s a taste of what the Fathers had to say in the early years of our Church:
**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.) **

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 Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup ***IN *THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…(Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

**ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) **

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Sacrament of Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)
 
Gerry Hunter:
No, it’s not incorrect. It is proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church, which is protected from teaching error.

Someone suggested that LOC be permitted a chance to respond to the posts he has prompted. It would be good if he started doing so in a non-selective manner. Very early on, he was asked to set out the basis for his statement that Holy Scripture is inerrant and inspired. Try as we might, we can’t find his response in the thread.

It is quite insightful when people argue from a source whose authority and legitimacy they are unable to establish.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
I have selected to answer this, departing from answering every post in the order they were posted, only to note this method I’ve chosen is the least “selective.”

In other words I am answering all in the order they were posted, I just finished #177 so have lots to go before I return here.

That will give you lots of time to answer the following dilemma no other believer in a magisterium has been able to answer:

What I now say applies to all religious Magisterium whether they be Roman Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness’ Governing Body:

All Magisterium pronouncements are either Superfluous or Pernicious as these must either agree or disagree with Scripture.

If in agreement then their output is superfluous; if in disagreement then such teaching is pernicious as it contradicts God’s Word.

Therefore all Magisterium are worse than worthless as nothing good ever comes into existence because of them, yet they live off the fat of the land consuming the substance of the people.
 
Ah! - the beauty of being protestant. You can make the bible say anything that you want it to. Sooo many denominations with difffering views. I know - I once was one. Finally saw the light - hope that you will too some day.
Oh - and by the way - yes lets obey Christ.

👍
[/quote]

Sola scripturaist denominations agree more about what Scripture says than the thousands of Catholic Orders do with each other. Indeed, the plethora of Catholic opinion on almost any subject (save the 20 odd verses infallibly defined) far exceeds that found among sola scripturaists.

I do not speak thus about those churches that adopt RCC methodology of a Magisterium with Traditions apart from scripture.

The proof of this is in any Protestant Christian book store where the systematic theologies of all major denominations can be bought. Simply compare the exposition of Scripture in these and you will note they often agree as to content but may disagree as to application or relevance.

Their agreement as to what the verse says remains constant at a very high percentage exceeding 90%.

Apart from the 20 odd verses the RCC has “infallibly defined” Catholics are “on their own” when trying to understand the rest of the Bible.

Quite frankly that renders the RCC quite lazy compared to the Jehovah’s Witnesses Governing Body. The latter has defined hundreds of verses in less than 100 years of existence while the RCC, having had centuries to work, only done about 20!

The Protestant Bible has 39 books constituting the Old Testament, divided into 929 chapters or 23,214 verses containing 593,493 words; 27 books constituting the New Testament, divided into 260 chapters or 7,959 verses containing 181,253 words.

So there are 31,173 total verses in a Protestant’s Bible.

How many of these verses were infallibly clarified by the RCC
Magisterium ?

Only about .064% of the total: A mere Twenty verses!

However even here we must note the did not rule such “official” sense precluded all other senses from existing in those passages.

Therefore rather than making sense of the Scripture they made senses!
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
What I now say applies to all religious Magisterium whether they be Roman Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness’ Governing Body:

All Magisterium pronouncements are either Superfluous or Pernicious as these must either agree or disagree with Scripture.

If in agreement then their output is superfluous; if in disagreement then such teaching is pernicious as it contradicts God’s Word.

Therefore all Magisterium are worse than worthless as nothing good ever comes into existence because of them, yet they live off the fat of the land consuming the substance of the people.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it’s safe to assume that, given the comparison with the JW’s, and the diatribe against the Magisterium (there’s only one, by the way), the only thing left to decide is what anti-Catholic sect LOC belongs to.

My guess, given the West Coast location, and the previous Bart Brewer distortion of history, is “Mission to Catholics.” :rolleyes: Any other guesses?

And we STILL don’t know the basis of the attacker for ascribing authority to Holy Scripture. :confused:

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top