Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[LetsObeyChrist]

mrS4ntA:

Remember too that the confused disciples going to Emmaus had “their eyes opened” only when the Resurrected Christ performed the Eucharist.

If the breaking of the bread – the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood – is not so important, why the prominency in this account and the rest? why the stressing in St Paul’s letter and the rest? why the recurring theme in Revelation? why the symbolism of the types in OT also point to the Eucharist?

Your interpretation of the figurative Eucharist left soo many loop holes and questions unanswered…

As interpreting the Eucharist as Christ meant it does not render it unimportant, your argument is a “straw man.”

The Eucharist is very important, and it is also very important we not yoke unto it Dark Ages philosophical speculation of transubstantiation, a theory not in the NT at all.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:

LetsObeyChrist:

It is non analogous because, you are comparing dissimilar items, the VERB Turning on with a NOUN, Rain. Therefore the middle term cannot possibly be distributed.

The act of turning on the hose doesn’t get your lawn wet as rain does, it only allows water to enter the hose, unlike my syllogism where both eating (verb) and believing (verb) Christ results in life eternal.

If, as you would have it, “Turning on the hose results in my lawn getting wet”, then the LOGICAL subject is “Turning on the hose.” It does not matter that the subject contains a verbal construction from the perspective of the logical form (furthermore, it is still the grammatical subject), ; it can still be represented by, say, X results in Y–which is the logical form I needed to demonstrate the invalidity of your original argument. By the way, the “middle term” would be the part about the lawn and not the hose or the rain (Try putting it in standard form to see for yourself.).

Then He says His WORDS are spirit and life (= not flesh)

For His words “eat my flesh” to be “spirit and life” they must be symbols of spirit and life and not flesh.

If you want to make your case for that, you should use a valid form of argument. An invalid argument does not argue against the truth of the conclusion-- a point I have to stress again and again to my students.
I agree my syllogism was invalid, but as you say, the conclusion it reached remains sound:

Only the ACT of believing in Christ results in life.

“Eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” words that refer to an ACT that results in life.

Therefore

The ACT of “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to the ACT of believing in Christ.

Now the middle term is distributed throughout.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

I agree my syllogism was invalid, but as you say, the conclusion it reached remains sound:

Only the ACT of believing in Christ results in life.

“Eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” words that refer to an ACT that results in life.

Therefore

The ACT of “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to the ACT of believing in Christ.

Now the middle term is distributed throughout.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ did correct their interpreting eating literal flesh profits, gives eternal life.

Well, now you’ve got another problem. :banghead:

If the phrase “eat the flesh and drink the blood” is being used figuratively, then it had an idiomatic meaning among the Jews of the time, just as it has for Arabs (also a Semetic people) today. The phrase, figuratively used, means to inflict a serious injury upon someone, particularly through a defamatory lie, or some kind of false accusation.

So to take it figuratively (and may I note in passing how strange I find it that John 6 is almost the only biblical passage that, along with the words of institution at the last supper, that sola scriptura advocates take figuratively ), one would have to conclude that Jesus was saying, to use the modern idiom, that to have eternal life in him, they had to trash him. Not a very satfying interpretation, I’d suggest.

The more replies you post, the clearer it becomes that you are undertaking an exercise in eisegesis, not exegesis.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

and it is also very important we not yoke unto it Dark Ages philosophical speculation of transubstantiation, a theory not in the NT at all.

Your history is a little off.

Ignatius of Antioch
“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 *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

He knew the Apostles and he believed in the Real Presence.
Or how about St Justin…

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 * and is thereby living as Christ 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (*First Apology **66 [A.D. 151]).
You need to find out just exacly what the Ancient Church believed.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

oat soda:

The catechism says to properly interpret scripture, you must read the new testament in light of the old, and the old in light of the new. The eucharist is prefigured in the old testament. for instance:

the offering of Melchizedek: Gen 14:18-20

16 Exodus 15:16 “and moses said to them: this is the bread, which the lord hath given you to eat”.

the sacrifice of the covenant on the mountain of sinai: Ex 24:3-8

Sacrafice for sin. Levitivus 6:29

the manna in the desert. Ex 16:2-4

Elijah strengthened by bread from heaven: III Kings 19:4-8

The banquet of wisdom: Prov 9:1-6

The prophecy of Malachi Mal 1:11:

The paschal lamb and the unleavended bread: Exodus 12,13:18
“you shall eat unleavened bread”.

We have bread and wine as an offering and as food from heaven, and eating flesh for the remission of sins, sacrifice and offering. When Jesus said “Take, eat this is my Body, this is my Blood”, he was alluding to all of these prefigurements in the Old Testament and was not talking figuratively. He does not say “this represents my body” or “here is my body” but “this is my body”. No competent speaker would ever talk like that, least of all the Lord.

Nothing you cited in the OT supports your interpretation of Christ’s words as meaning the bread and wine are transubstantiated Christ.

Not one verse.

If these are transubstantiated Christ, really Christ’s body and blood, then when we eat the Eucharist we are sharing in His actual body and blood.

Yet that is denied by the apostle Paul when he illustrates the participation we have in Christ’s body and blood as like the participation with the Altar the Jews had when they ate the sacrifices:

1 Cor 13:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.

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

He is directly comparing the koinwnia (vs 16) believers have in Christ’s body and blood with (vs 18) the koinwnos Israel according to the flesh have with the altar.

It is obvious this sharing, participation must be spiritual as none in their right mind would believe the Israelites ate “transubstantiated altar” when they ate the sacrifices.

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

Meaning: 1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer 2) to learn by discrimination, to try, decide 2a) to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute 3) to withdraw from one, desert 4) to separate one’s self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend 5) to be at variance with one’s self, hesitate, doubt

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

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

porthos11:

In Semitic cultures, the expresstions “to eat flesh” and “drink blood” means to inflict serious bodily injury. That is why we cannot believe that the Jews understood Jesus metaphorically because he would in effect be saying “unless you assault and severely torture me, you have no life in you,” which of course is utter nonsense. That’s why the Jews were disgusted; they understood him literally, and correctly, and since they were unable to stomach the idea of cannibalism, they left. Nowhere did the Jews ever equate phago (eat) or trogo (chew) with believe.

See Micah 3:3 for Jewish use of the expression.
Any other verse of Scripture that show the word “spirit” meaning only figurative"?

Incorrect, the expression is explained in the context. Christ is using Jer 15:16 as His foundation:
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.

Being called by God’s name = saved; Christ applied this concept of eating God’s Word to Himself as the Word of God among men and says ingesting Him (the true bread from heaven) results in eternal life, salvation.

The phrases “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to belief in Christ for only belief in Christ gives one eternal life.

The flesh profits nothing in this regard at all:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, *they *are spirit, and *they *are life.

We can verify that fact by inserting the exegesis into the text and see if it fits the context:
John 6:51-65 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man BELIEVETH ON ME (eat of this bread), he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye BELIEVETH ON ME (eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,) ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth me,) even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth of this bread) shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Here the contrary is seen, Eating the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees does not result in life:

Matthew 16:6-13 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.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

This is like saying …
Driving my car to work results in my arriving at work.
Riding the bus to work results in my arriving at work.
Therefore driving my car = riding the bus.

…umm, I don’t think so.

This DOES prove that the result is the same under each component scenario, It DOES NOT prove that the two scenarios are the same in their components.

In strictly non religiouis terms, your example of Eating and Believing produce the same RESULT. That does not mean they are the same thing. Under your scenario it would be more correct to say that two separate actions (Eating and Beleiving) produce the same result without saying anything about their equivalence. Another example…

Drinking water sustains life
Eating food sustains life
Therefore eating food = drinking water

…Again do you see how two separate things can have the same effect without being the exact same thing? And in this example the anology fits even better as these two different components which help produce the same effect are also complementary. This should be rewritten as…

Drinking water sustains life
Eating food sustains life
Therefore both drinking water AND eating food contribute to sustaining life.

…Which would be closer to the Catholic understanding of your original argument which should more accurately read…

Eating Christ results in life
Believing in Christ results in life
Therefore both eating Christ AND believing in Christ work to result in life.

You are correct that my syllogism was invalid, however its conclusion remains sound as I will show.

Your theory both eating flesh and believing in Christ saves was rejected by Christ Himself in context.

Eating flesh does not quicken, is of no avial in this regard:
NAB John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and 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.

As only believing in Christ results in the Spirit quickening unto Eternal life, for Christ’s words "“eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” to be “spirit and life” to us they must be figures of speech meaning “believe in Christ so the Spirit can quicken unto Eternal life.”

So my syllogism should have been as follows:

Only the ACT of believing in Christ results in life.

“Eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” words that refer to an ACT that results in life.

Therefore

The ACT of “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to the ACT of believing in Christ.

Now the middle term is distributed throughout.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Your history is a little off.

He knew the Apostles and he believed in the Real Presence.

Or how about St Justin…

You need to find out just exacly what the Ancient Church believed.

You are reading transubstantiation into their words. To prove your point, find an ECF that uses the word transubstantiation or exposits its meaning.

Did you ever consider the fact you believe in a symbolic Eucharist just as do many Protestants.

Whereas they see a spiritual connect to Christ’s body and blood, Transubstantiation says the connect is not in the accidents, only in the substance (which is unseen and not experience in this dimension).

Therefore the bread and wine (the accidents) are only symbols of the body and blood of Christ (the substance) for these exist in a different dimension than the one we inhabit.

In both there is no real connection to the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Poisson]

LetsObeyChrist:

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

How does this verse (52)make sense in your context of eating his flesh and drinking his blood?
Is this Jew also taking him out of context?
Did everyone who left also take him out of context?

 

[Poisson]

LetsObeyChrist:

You are reading transubstantiation into their words. To prove your point, find an ECF that uses the word transubstantiation or exposits its meaning.

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

There’s a lot more where that came from:
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[twf]

LetsObeyChrist: In symbolic terms the phrase ‘to eat ones flesh and drink ones blood’ did indeed mean to inflict grievous injury. The Jews knew this…the context told them nothing different. If it is so obvious that Christ meant belief, why did they assume he meant it literally and left him? In fact, Christ even asked the apostles if they’d leave him as well. Why did he do this? He knew that they believed in Him…so why would He ask them if they’d leave over the teaching that you must believe in Christ to be saved? It makes no sense. Christ first speaks of belief, but then he moves on. Faith must come first, so He spoke of faith first of all…but then He moved into the Eucharist.

Please answer the following points:

1. Why did Jesus question the Apostles on whether or not they would leave Him as well? They already believed in Him, so why would He suggest that this would be a hard teaching for them to accept if that is all it meant?
2. Why did Jesus use a metaphor that the Jews and all ancient audiences would clearly take as literally, for the symbolic meaning meant to inflict grave harm?
3. Why did St. John choose such literal language when writing his Gospel in the Greek? If it was meant to be symbolic, why did he not simply choose the standard word ‘to eat’? First John has Jesus using the word phago, which simply means to eat (verses 23 to 53), but to, as to emphasize the point, it changes to a much more graphic and literal word to drive the point home to the grumbling Jews. John then moves on to use the word trogo…which conveys the idea of ‘gnawing’ and ‘chewing’. This is not the vocabulary that would be chosen when speaking symbolically.
4. When the Jews grumble about how such a thing is possible (to eat His flesh and drink His blood) Christ just re-emphasizes the point again and again, using literal language. Why?
5. Why did Paul say that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to ‘sin against the body and blood of the Lord’? (1 Cor. 11:27) If it is symbolic, why would God strike you down over it (1 Cor. 11:30) and hold you accountable for profaning the Lord’s body and blood?
6. If the Eucharist is symbolic, why did John see Christ as a Lamb who was slain, standing before the Father? This suggests that His sacrifice is being made present before the Father for all eternity (of course, His work is done, but the sacrament transcends space and time). (Revelation 5:6)
7. The fact that Christ is said to be a priest forever suggests a sacrificial ministry…if the Eucharist is symbolic, is He still functioning as a priest? (Hebrews 6:20)
8. Why is there still an altar in Heaven? (Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7).
9. Why does Paul call the Eucharistic table an altar? (Hebrews 13:10)
10. Why is it that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (You saw a couple quotes earlier in this thread). St. Ignatius was taught by St. John himself…why would he and the Church be so wrong on such an important issue so quickly? (Only a couple decades after the apostle died, we have St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, explaining to us that orthodox Christianity maintains that the Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of our Lord). Why did it take so many centuries for Christians to properly understand this passage if your interpretation is so elementary? (I’m sure there were various sects that may have denied the Real Presence…but they would be heretics that you would not want to be associated with, so this does not help your case).
    (continued)

 

[twf]

1. Why have all ancient and apostolic Christian traditions always maintained that the Eucharist is the true flesh and body of the Lord (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian)? Protestants and Catholics have been apart for a mere 500 years…the Assyrians have been in schism for 1500 years, 3 times as long, yet they also have no doubt in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they have maintained the ancient teachings of the apostles in this regard.

I’m a former Evangelical myself, and forgive me if my style above seems to confrontational. I truly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a immeasurable gift. Besides objective arguments, there are also subjective ones. The Eucharist has had a profound impact on many holy people…and many of the saints had a profound devotion to Christ in the Eucharist. Many people have experienced Christ in a very real way through the Eucharist. Many others have witnessed incredible Eucharistic miracles. (Such as the multiplication of the Consecrated Wine, for example, as one of our fellow boarders reported he had witnessed).

I hope you are blessed in your journey, as you seek to grow closer to our Lord. Please keep in mind, though, that regardless of how thorough and scholarly a defence of the Real Presence may be, the Eucharist is a mystery, and as such, the mortal mind will never fully comprehend the miracle that occurs during the consecration.

 

[twf]

No, we do not believe in a symbolic Eucharist. We can not detect with our five senses the attributes of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but we do truly receive into our bodies the ‘body, blood, soul, and divinity’ of our Lord, and we are truly nourished by such. It is truly the body and blood of Christ in a physical sense…not just a spiritual sense. The bread and wine has literally been turned into the literal physical body and blood of Christ (al beit, in a sacramental, not natural, mode), but God has simply left the accents unchanged. The accents are of no consequence (besides their symbolic value)…accents, in metaphysics, do not determine the substance. The physical substance is the body and blood of Christ, but the accents of the body and blood of Christ in this sacramental mode are simply those of bread and wine.

I’m still very new at this, I’m sure someone else out there can do a better job of explaining the metaphysics and theology behind it. On the other hand, we can take the approach that our Eastern brethern do, and simply accept in faith that Christ said it is so, and not worry about how it is so, but simply know that it is so.

Love in Christ through Mary, and all the saints and angels.

 

[porthos11]

LetsObeyChrist:
Incorrect, the expression is explained in the context. Christ is using Jer 15:16 as His foundation:
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.

Nope, sorry, that doesn’t cut it. :nope: Jeremiah is clearly referring to the consumption (eating) of God’s word, not flesh.

We are talking about the Jewish understanding of eating FLESH, not the dabar (the Hebrew concept of the spoken/written Word). And to eat flesh metaphorically in Jewish culture is still to assault/inflict serious injury to a person; it is nowhere considered a good thing.

So since the Jews knew the metaphorical meaning, they did indeed understand Jesus literally, and were repulsed by it. Hence their abandonment. Only those who remained would see later at the Last Supper that he made it humanly possible to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

I agree my syllogism was invalid, but as you say, the conclusion it reached remains sound:

Only the ACT of believing in Christ results in life.

“Eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” words that refer to an ACT that results in life.

Therefore

The ACT of “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to the ACT of believing in Christ.

Now the middle term is distributed throughout.

Well, almost. As given above, the middle term is “results in life” and it is not distributed (those “A” propositions again). But, if you would change the first premise to something like “The only act resulting in life is an/the act of believing,” it would be valid:
Only act resulting in life is act of believing
Act of eating…is act reslting in life
Therefore, act of eating is act of believing.
Now, with a valid form, all that remains is to establish the truth of the premises. Since your opponents assert the minor premise ("Eating…), it is unlikely they will object to that, so it looks like the first premise is what will have to be their target. Any takers?

 

[Anne_Carmel]

**General Warning: ** Please keep your posts civil and charitable. If the thread even begins to deteriorate, it will be closed.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:
Incorrect, the expression is explained in the context. Christ is using Jer 15:16 as His foundation:
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.

Being called by God’s name = saved; Christ applied this concept of eating God’s Word to Himself as the Word of God among men and says ingesting Him (the true bread from heaven) results in eternal life, salvation.

The phrases “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” must refer to belief in Christ for only belief in Christ gives one eternal life.

The flesh profits nothing in this regard at all:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, *they *are spirit, and *they *are life.

We can verify that fact by inserting the exegesis into the text and see if it fits the context:
John 6:51-65 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man BELIEVETH ON ME (eat of this bread), he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye BELIEVETH ON ME (eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,) ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth me,) even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth of this bread) shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Here the contrary is seen, Eating the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees does not result in life:

Matthew 16:6-13 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.
You assume your conclusion and then apply it the text. Then you must twist the text to say what you conclude. Why add your own words ( in bold text no less) to the text when Jesus didnt say it?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jp2fan:

Yes, also, the original Greek word for flesh used was sarx, which quite literally means a hunk of meat. Also, if you just pull out phrases and replace them with what you want the verses to say, I’m sure that you can pretty much prove anything you want. If you want to have a real discussion, then we’ll discuss real

Bible verses, not your versions of them.

jp2fanOk, discuss this one:

John 6:62-65 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 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.

If Christ was speaking about flesh not His own, or about carnal nature not on the mind of these Jews at all, then Christ is a LOON, answering questions with irrelevancies.

He is directly addressing their literalist interpretation of His saying “eat my flesh” and to that exact He says ‘it is the Spirit of God who quickens, the flesh does not profit (in this regard).’

Observe carefully what Christ goes on to say:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Question: how can the words" “eat my flesh…drink my blood” be “spirit and life?” if they aren’t symbols meaning these things?

Answer: they can’t.

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

While you are right Paul referred to the OT and not the NT, you are wrong the OT lacks all that is necessary to be made wise unto salvation.
…
While the OT may not have enough information in it to please Catholic apologists (who refuse to be satisfied), it certainly has enough in it for Paul who says it renders the man of God completely equipped for EVERY good work:

2 Timothy 3:15 - 4:1 15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 Every scripture inspired of God *is *also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

I fail to see how you have proven sufficiency of scripture to make a man “complete, furnished completely unto every good work”

It is certainly profitable AND a major contributing factor, however 2 Tim 3:15-17 does not say that that is ALL you need.

For example, similar language in 2 Tim 2:20-21 “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.”

These verses could easily be argued to say that all you have to do to be prepared unto every good work is to refrain from bad influences and behavior.

How about 2 Cor 9:8 “And God is able to make all grace abound in you: that ye always, having all sufficiently in all things, may abound to every good work,” Here we even have the word sufficient. But no word of “scripture”. Does that mean that God can prepare a person through grace without scripture? Sure does!

Again 2 Thess 2:16-17 “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.”

We have God’s grace establishing in them every good work and word. Not Scripture.

My point is if God’s grace makes us ready unto every good work. How can Scripture ALONE do so? God’s grace does come from outside the scripture, else how could someone use that grace to ***interpret ***scripture, for instance?

Scripture is an incredibly valuable, inerrant asset to Christians, but not the only source of truth. Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Thank you and God bless you.