John 6:53

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sure totally what you are saying. I think you are trying to relate John 6 back to say the passover and/or Levitical sacrifices. Which I find interesting, I might want to go back and read them again. Perhaps I have missed something.

Anyway in thinking about this I thought of another possibility. That would be that the “eat my flesh/drink my blood” in John 6:53 does relate to communion but not exclusively to communion.

That would fit better how God has worked in my life because I know that my journey with Jesus Christ started apart from any communion experience. I know that I received the life of Jesus Christ the day that my journey with Him started, and per John 6:53 in some sense I must have been eating His flesh ande drinking His blood at that point in time (otherwise I would not have had life).
I believe that it would be appropriate to say “I believe that …”. No one says that you cannot come to become familiare with Christ outside the Eucharist. Who would disagree that we are moved to know God by God, on our own we can do nothing. To believe that you are getting familiar is not completion of the journey!👍
 
In another thread it was suggested that I break my silly questions to a new thread. So doing. Note I am doing so with reservations. It has been my experience in starting threads here that I just can’t keep up with all the responses.

The text

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…
The flesh that Jesus is talking about is His words Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This is confirmed by Jesus is Jn6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And Peter in Jn.6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

These words of Jesus are also the keys to the kingdom of heaven Matt16:19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is with these keys that Jesus charges Peter that he can either bind a person to heaven, preach the Gospel or loose him from heaven, not preach the Gospel.
 
The flesh that Jesus is talking about is His words Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This is confirmed by Jesus is Jn6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And Peter in Jn.6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

These words of Jesus are also the keys to the kingdom of heaven Matt16:19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is with these keys that Jesus charges Peter that he can either bind a person to heaven, preach the Gospel or loose him from heaven, not preach the Gospel.
Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood. Why would He use those words when you can’t eat the words of eternal life? Why did Christ place so much importance on the last supper.
You might also be assuming that the idions we use today such as eating up His words would apply back then, unfortunately that probably isn’t the case. When Christ said eat flesh he wasn’t making an idiom as to eating up the word made flesh, it meant eating flesh and drinking blood. If it were as simple as that and not literally eating Christ’s flesh, then Christ would have stopped the many disciples that left because of this teaching and explained it to them.
 
Hey AmateurPianist, I think that is all of them.
(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.
Of course I agree with #1.Scripture even uses the word Eucharist, which is merely the Greek for thanksgiving, something I did not know as a former protestant: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168
(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.
This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist in my humble opinion. No one of course has the right to say, “therefore they do not have the life of Christ.” Let’s not forget about the good thief who never received the Eucharist. 👍

With that said, in theory, Jesus did in fact establish just one church and is the high priest, (according to the order of Melchizedek, which is to last forever) - of just one church so the question is:

Is it logical to assume that Jesus would want His one Priesthood to remain in His one church? That’s for each and every Christian to decide.
(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.
In my humble opinion, this Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. “All who participate in communion are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not…” - seems a rather nonchalant approach and I doubt this was the plan of Jesus.
(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).
In my opinion this Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Honestly, I can’t think of any other scriptural means other than the perpetual priesthood in the order of Melchizedek which finds its fulfillment in Jesus.👍
(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.
This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture tells us that Jesus’ flesh is real food and that His blood is real drink, as well as, for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself - so scripture is not silent regarding the real presence. 👍

Also, absolutely nowhere does the NT explicitly or implicitly teach that the Real Presence is false and that the communion is only symbolic.
 
Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood. Why would He use those words when you can’t eat the words of eternal life? Why did Christ place so much importance on the last supper.
You might also be assuming that the idions we use today such as eating up His words would apply back then, unfortunately that probably isn’t the case. When Christ said eat flesh he wasn’t making an idiom as to eating up the word made flesh, it meant eating flesh and drinking blood…
In Matt.13 Jesus gives 4 or 5 parables all having to do with the preaching of the word or the result of not hearing and accepting the word. His disciples ask Him why He preaches in parables. Let’s take a look.

Matt.13
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

In the beginning of Jn.6 is the account of Jesus feeding the multitude. In this account and in the accounts in the synoptics there is always a statement like Jn.6:11

11And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

This seems like a rather innocuous statement but it is important because the account of the feeding of the multitude is what is called a life parable, in other words, it is a parable not only of words, but of actions, so the actions of Jesus are symbolic. For instance, let’s go a little farther and see if we can figure it out.

The multitude wants to take Jesus by force to make Him their king, but He goes up into the mountains to pray. His disciples go to Capernaum by ship, on the way Jesus appears to them. He comes into the boat and immediately they are at the other side. The multitude follows and there is this exchange.

25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Matt.6
28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

In Matt 6:33 Jesus tells us exactly what we should be seeking.
So, what we can take from this so far is that the bread that Jesus fed the multitude, the bread that they ate with their mouths is not the bread that we should seek after, but the meat (bread) that we eat with our minds, our understanding, our hearts. Got an idea what that bread is yet? Let’s go on.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them, **This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. **
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
**35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. **

So the bread that comes down from heaven is not bread that we eat with our mouths, but bread that we eat with our hearts. Bread that the Father gives that we might never be hungry again. Bread that we BELIEVE IN.
 
So, Richard, you are telling me that for more than 1500 years until protestant churches came along, we were all worshipping bread? I fail to believe that Christ would let His church fall prey to the gates of Hell like that.

I also don’t like your use of those verses because your climax and main point is completely out of context. Matthew 6 only has 34 verses and you make appear as if those two sets of verses at the end go together. So, let’s look at the last verse with the context of the rest of the chapter.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world
The bread that I will give is my flesh. His flesh is the bread of life. It is reiterated at the last supper when Christ says the blessing, breaks the bread and gives it to his disciples saying, “This is my body which will be given up for you.” Why would He say that bread was like His body which would be crucified in the next couple of days? How is bread in any way like his body? How can that teach anything unless He was implementing a sacrament relating to his earlier teaching that
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world
. Otherwise Christ seems to be wasting his breath to make a confusing analogy.
 
Heuchler;8485913]So, Richard, you are telling me that for more than 1500 years until protestant churches came along, we were all worshipping bread?
I guess even Ignatius, a pupil of the apostles, worshiped mere bread as well, if he is correct. :eek:
I also don’t like your use of those verses because your climax and main point is completely out of context. Matthew 6 only has 34 verses and you make appear as if those two sets of verses at the end go together. So, let’s look at the last verse with the context of the rest of the chapter. The bread that I will give is my flesh. His flesh is the bread of life. It is reiterated at the last supper when Christ says the blessing, breaks the bread and gives it to his disciples saying, “This is my body which will be given up for you.” Why would He say that bread was like His body which would be crucified in the next couple of days? How is bread in any way like his body? How can that teach anything unless He was implementing a sacrament relating to his earlier teaching that . Otherwise Christ seems to be wasting his breath to make a confusing analogy.
Because, like me, as a former protestant, it goes against the Protestant’s (not all) - understanding/interpretation of scripture.
 
This is what happens when you step away for a day or two. A few comments…
Hey AmateurPianist, I think that is all of them.

Of course I agree with #1.Scripture even uses the word Eucharist, which is merely the Greek for thanksgiving, something I did not know as a former protestant: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168
Of course you would since this is the position of the Catholic church
This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist in my humble opinion. No one of course has the right to say, “therefore they do not have the life of Christ.” Let’s not forget about the good thief who never received the Eucharist. 👍
But the Scripture says "you have no life in yourself. But good point on the thief on the cross who never had communion but did in fact receive life. If I am to apply John 6:53, he must have in some sense “eat my flesh and drink my blood” although obviously not through communion. That is why I think there is more than one meaning to this phrase.
With that said, in theory, Jesus did in fact establish just one church and is the high priest, (according to the order of Melchizedek, which is to last forever) - of just one church so the question is:

Is it logical to assume that Jesus would want His one Priesthood to remain in His one church? That’s for each and every Christian to decide.
Of course I too believe there is just one church. It just doesn’t exist in one organization. But we have been round-n-round on this before and I am nt interested in getting back on this merry go round.
In my humble opinion, this Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. “All who participate in communion are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not…” - seems a rather nonchalant approach and I doubt this was the plan of Jesus.
Of course that would be your position since it is also the position of your church. But it seems reasonable to me. I haven’t read in Scripture an explicit command to believe that communion is the literal flesh and blood of Chris (the best is the transitive “is”).
Also, absolutely nowhere does the NT explicitly or implicitly teach that the Real Presence is false and that the communion is only symbolic.
I think this is a true statement. If anybody believes that Scripture does disprove the Real Presence I am all ears,
 
The flesh that Jesus is talking about is His words Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This is confirmed by Jesus is Jn6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And Peter in Jn.6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

These words of Jesus are also the keys to the kingdom of heaven Matt16:19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is with these keys that Jesus charges Peter that he can either bind a person to heaven, preach the Gospel or loose him from heaven, not preach the Gospel.
This is nice, but ultimately it is your opinion.

I do not think the audience that originally was listening to Jesus speak thought that is what he was saying.

I think it is good when reading Scripture to mentally put myself in that setting and interpret it according to the setting in which it happens.
 
I believe that it would be appropriate to say “I believe that …”. No one says that you cannot come to become familiare with Christ outside the Eucharist. Who would disagree that we are moved to know God by God, on our own we can do nothing. To believe that you are getting familiar is not completion of the journey!👍
Agree that the journey is ongoing. But it did have a distinct starting point and it did not start with communion. It also did not start with Baptism but I do not want to get into that here either. It actually started in a dormitory room in college with one other student, but that is a separate issue.
 
Hey AmateurPianist…🙂
Of course you would since this is the position of the Catholic church
True. 👍 Actually though, the catholic understanding of the Eucharist, the one priesthood of Jesus in Jesus’ one church started growing on me as a former protestant. 🙂
If I am to apply John 6:53, he must have in some sense “eat my flesh and drink my blood” although obviously not through communion. That is why I think there is more than one meaning to this phrase.
That was what I thought too long ago, that is, until I read what the early church leaders, from the latter part of the 1st century to the 4th century had to say about it. I figured if anyone could be trusted on the matter it would have to be men like Ignatius of Antioch. 👍
Of course I too believe there is just one church. It just doesn’t exist in one organization.
Well, I am not really sure how the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, the Pentecostal church, the 7th day Adventist church, the Presbyterian church etc etc, could all constitute the one church founded by Jesus, but like you said, we have been round-n-round on this…
Of course that would be your position since it is also the position of your church. But it seems reasonable to me. I haven’t read in Scripture an explicit command to believe that communion is the literal flesh and blood of Chris (the best is the transitive “is”).
My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink seems rather compelling to me. The following passage clinched it for me:

*So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
*

Plus, Jesus’ hearers certainly believed that Jesus was speaking literally. They responded by saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? In the cases where Jesus says He is a door or a vine, we find no one asking, how can this man be a door made out of wood? How can this man claim to be a plant? It was clear from the context that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, just as it was clear from the context of John 6 that Jesus was speaking literally, which was why the grumbled over and over.

What I found interesting, as a former protestant, was the fact that the word spirit is never used anywhere in the bible to mean symbolic. John 4 for example, says that God is spirit. Should we infer from that that the HS is symbolic? Nah… Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit. Are angels merely symbols? Nah…Even Jesus said, The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, as opposed to the words that I have spoken to you are symbolic and life.
 
But what you are writing prompts a question in my mind. Who is the first church father that specifically related John 6 to communion?
AmateurPianist—

I’d be interested in the answer to your question, too–“Who is the first church father that specifically related John 6 to communion?” That 's not at all a challenge, but rather a sincere question.

I had read St. Augustine’s sermon from John 6 quite awhile ago. I could very well be wrong, and I should read it again but it was really long, however I wouldn’t assert that Augustine related it specifically to the Eucharist. Again, my memory is fuzzy on that, though.

On the other hand, here’s a link to New Advent for the place where St. Augustine says John 6’s command to “eat My flesh and drink My blood” is an example of a time to not take the words literally. The link goes to his treatise “On Christian Doctrine”; then please scroll down to chapter 16. www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
 
This is nice, but ultimately it is your opinion.

I do not think the audience that originally was listening to Jesus speak thought that is what he was saying.

I think it is good when reading Scripture to mentally put myself in that setting and interpret it according to the setting in which it happens.
I praised your interest in education when you first poste, however around post #24 here is what you said and you then sat in the trenches with your belief and are not getting educated, you are defending your belief and attacking all attempts to educate. You are dishonest. Well meaning, loving people, whose posts I have read in other areas have offered you a sincere attempt at “education”…you appear not to be interested in education.
Yes that is the issue. If John 6 does refer to communion then you have to deal with two things;
(1) the tension between 6:53 and 635, 40, 47)
(2) who just does not have life in themselves (at a minimum this would be the Quakers and maybe some other groups who do not observe communion at all)
I am not convinced the “Why didn’t Jesus tell them that he was only speaking figuratively” argument" when they were leaving Him is all that weighty for a number of reasons…first and foremost is that the Lord doesn’t have to tell us His reasons when He does something and such a question is ultimately speculative.
Go back and read your intent. All attempts to eductate you have been met with the usual reasons why your fallible beliefs, your fallible interpretations cause you to defend why you cannot accept what you said you wanted an education about. You are dishonest. Does Protestant thought promote dishonesty?

I recall learning about evolution. I did not agree with evolution. I listened, I asked questions and when I finally had it under my belt I was educated. I never in my education sat in the class offering opposition and reasons for my discounting what it was I was to be educated about. Is this how you learn? Rather I should ask what is your style of learning?👍
 
I praised your interest in education when you first poste, however around post #24 here is what you said and you then sat in the trenches with your belief and are not getting educated, you are defending your belief and attacking all attempts to educate. You are dishonest. Well meaning, loving people, whose posts I have read in other areas have offered you a sincere attempt at “education”…you appear not to be interested in education.
Umm…before you start accusing me of being dishonest…please go back to that post and see who I was responding to. And then so the post that I was responding to. You might be surprised.

I was reading his post and honestly could not figure out how he got from A to B.

And next time please read before you start levelling charges of dishonesty.
 
Umm…before you start accusing me of being dishonest…please go back to that post and see who I was responding to. And then so the post that I was responding to. You might be surprised.

I was reading his post and honestly could not figure out how he got from A to B.

And next time please read before you start levelling charges of dishonesty.
Forgive me if I wrongly inferred you were dishonest. Riddle me this, Amateur Pianist, you constantly refer to Scripture. I have yet to see you or anyone demonstrate to me that you accurately read Scripture, that you truly can validate Scripture, and in truth since your bias is based on a book, you never say how that book is truly the word of God…your designation is AOG…I went to the AOG website and found this…
  1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
    us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
    36:2).
  1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
    without value.
Admiration and use of the Authorized Version, popularly known as the King James Version (KJV), was quite uniform until the flurry of new English-language translations began appearing in the 1940s. At that time there was considerable alarm over the Revised Standard Version (RSV) because it appeared to water down cherished core beliefs about the person of Christ. To this day neither the RSV nor its NRSV successor has been well received in the Assemblies of God. More recently an Evangelical publisher acquired the rights to the old RSV text and subsequently commissioned a committee of Evangelical scholars to remove the liberal bias of the RSV. The improved translation, the English Standard Version (ESV) was published in 2001.
😃

The original scriptures are innerrant. You only have a translation. Translations by AOG admission are subject to error. The King James is suggested to be accurate and yet that was produced by a Worldy King, an authority, things Protestants abhor. On whose authority was this translation, not Scripture, translation, produced and how can we know that it is truly the word of God?🤷

AOG states without the originals inerrancy is without value. Where are the original Scripture? How can you be sure that the book you cite and use is truly the word of God. This book you read, use to profess your beliefs and on which you rely.

Beyond that, prior to this website, translations were thought to be in error…

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF
No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. That concept has become the
platform of debate for many who declare that therefore the precision of a
translation is less important than its relevance to today’s needs. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.We now examine the problem of whether any translation is divinely
inspired. Obviously, if no manuscript in the original language is a perfect
27
reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any
translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect. .
😃

Riddle me this…how do you do it? If no translation is perfect, if it is not self authenticating then you are not reading Scripture, just a book with a title suggesting you believe that to be true.:eek:
 
Forgive me if I wrongly inferred you were dishonest. Riddle me this, Amateur Pianist, you constantly refer to Scripture. I have yet to see you or anyone demonstrate to me that you accurately read Scripture, that you truly can validate Scripture, and in truth since your bias is based on a book, you never say how that book is truly the word of God…your designation is AOG…I went to the AOG website and found this…

😃

The original scriptures are innerrant. You only have a translation. Translations by AOG admission are subject to error. The King James is suggested to be accurate and yet that was produced by a Worldy King, an authority, things Protestants abhor. On whose authority was this translation, not Scripture, translation, produced and how can we know that it is truly the word of God?🤷

AOG states without the originals inerrancy is without value. Where are the original Scripture? How can you be sure that the book you cite and use is truly the word of God. This book you read, use to profess your beliefs and on which you rely.

Beyond that, prior to this website, translations were thought to be in error…

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

😃

Riddle me this…how do you do it? If no translation is perfect, if it is not self authenticating then you are not reading Scripture, just a book with a title suggesting you believe that to be true.:eek:
I have no idea what you are asking. How do I do what?
 
Forgive me if I wrongly inferred you were dishonest. Riddle me this, Amateur Pianist, you constantly refer to Scripture. I have yet to see you or anyone demonstrate to me that you accurately read Scripture, that you truly can validate Scripture, and in truth since your bias is based on a book, you never say how that book is truly the word of God…your designation is AOG…I went to the AOG website and found this…

😃

The original scriptures are innerrant. You only have a translation. Translations by AOG admission are subject to error. The King James is suggested to be accurate and yet that was produced by a Worldy King, an authority, things Protestants abhor. On whose authority was this translation, not Scripture, translation, produced and how can we know that it is truly the word of God?🤷

AOG states without the originals inerrancy is without value. Where are the original Scripture? How can you be sure that the book you cite and use is truly the word of God. This book you read, use to profess your beliefs and on which you rely.

Beyond that, prior to this website, translations were thought to be in error…

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

😃

Riddle me this…how do you do it? If no translation is perfect, if it is not self authenticating then you are not reading Scripture, just a book with a title suggesting you believe that to be true.:eek:
Hey Cop

What in the world is your point with all this? Do you not believe that the bible is the word of God and inerrant or is it just your intent to denigrate AP’s faith in it? I thought this thread was suppose to be on Jn.6:53???
 
I have no idea what you are asking. How do I do what?
I understand your dilema. When you quote 1Timothy 3:16 as validating the Bible, you always, like all Protestants, to go back and read what was written before. So if you go back and read what was written before as you should you don’t have to read between the lines, just the lines.
On whose authority was this translation, not Scripture, translation, produced and how can we know that it is truly the word of God?
Where are the original Scripture? How can you be sure that the book you cite and use is truly the word of God. This book you read, use to profess your beliefs and on which you rely
Riddle me this…how do you do it
?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top