Most Protestant Say John 6 Is Symbolic

[jim1130]

This probably explains why there are so many different non-Catholic churches. People decide what the Bible says and then identify a church that aligns with their beliefs.

But what you fail to understand is that they have the Holy Spirit inside them and great teachers around them which God gave to equip the saints. The evangelical world has been led by the Holy Spirit to marvelous unity on the essential issues of the Christian faith. To deny this is to hide from what is happening in glorious fashion in all corners of the planet.

Reverand Wright from Obama’s old church carries the same unifying message as Rick Warren?

Well, based on your position, then, the Catholic Church, with its adherence to scripture, is just as right as the evangelical world so what is your argument since the Catholic Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Surely the recent revelation to the evangelical world does not mean that the previous 1900+ years were incorrect, does it?

You know, there is a forest among those trees.

 

[jim1130]

But what you fail to understand is that they have the Holy Spirit inside them and great teachers around them which God gave to equip the saints. The evangelical world has been led by the Holy Spirit to marvelous unity on the essential issues of the Christian faith. To deny this is to hide from what is happening in glorious fashion in all corners of the planet.

One other thing: Southern Baptists believe that once saved-always saved means you have NO chance of losing salvation (100% guarantee) whereas Free Will Baptists believe you can lose your salvation.

An essential issue with two differing positions? Which is correct?

 

[mfbukowski]

One of the ways we use our brains is to listen to others, particularly those more knowledgable, or closer to the historic events, in this case, the ECF’s.

Luther had every reason to side with Zwingli - political, personal - and stick his finger in the eye of Rome on this issue. He didn’t.
He couldn’t. The words of Christ, and the ECF’s were, to him, too clear.

Luther

Jon

I’m not a great fan of Luther.

It’s amazing to me that people put down Joseph Smith for the things he allegedly did in his life, but think Luther was the greatest thing since… well whatever.

If Luther said that (I believe you that he did) then that just shows he was mistaken.

 

[mfbukowski]

In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level.

But this is precisely my point. Jesus was condemning those who thought mistakenly that we were to eat his flesh because doing so “profited nothing”. Those who thought it was necessary to eat his flesh left.

Catholics believe it is necessary to eat his flesh.

Transubstantiated flesh, but flesh nevertheless. I am saying this attitude is a misunderstanding of this very scripture. Perhaps my point is now clearer.

It seems that the doctrine of transubstantiation was manufactured to justify a way to eat his flesh without being cannibals. I think that is what Augustine was saying in the segment I quoted earlier.

I agree with John 6 that it is not necessary to eat his flesh, but to remember him and know that he is in us and we are in communion with him.

 

[mfbukowski]

This probably explains why there are so many different non-Catholic churches. People decide what the Bible says and then identify a church that aligns with their beliefs.

It’s really a question of trust. Do you trust the brain God gave you or do you abdicate that responsibility to “experts”? It is similar to conservatism or liberalism politically. Of course we don’t want to go there.

That is why I believe we can find the true church only by witness of the spirit-- God telling you which church is true.

 

[mfbukowski]

'Those who didn’t understand his true meaning were not worthy to be followers." PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU KNOW THIS

You wouldn’t believe if I told you. I asked my 6 year old son that once and he said “my brain told me”. I congratulated him.

 

[mfbukowski]

have you ever read this verse? blind leading the blind. won’t both fall into the pit?

Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth."

It’s very true. So stop surpressing the truth.

 

[mfbukowski]

So what you are saying is that His flesh does not profit anything, but then later at the Cross does

You can not have it both ways. Either His flesh profits nothing, therefore the whole blood bought belief goes out the window, or you have interpreted this verse incorrectly. Which is it?

God bless

I think I said it better in post 84. My question to you was, what is meant in John 6 where he says “the flesh profiteth nothing?” Yes of course the atonement is the central event of Christianity

 

[mfbukowski]

When Philip met the Ethiopian who had a question about the Scriptures in the Book of Acts; how did Philip respond? Did he ask what the Ethiopian thought and then tell him he had a brain and to use it or did he sit down and explain the verse?

So please, if you would, answer my question.

God bless

Fine. Trust whom you will for your interpretation. Find your guide. But you are still using your own inspiration to find your guide whoever it is, the Catholic church or Martin Luther or Rajneesh. God bless you. You want a guide, pick one. Mine is the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonNC]

If Luther said that (I believe you that he did) then that just shows he was mistaken.

If he was mistaken, then so was virtually all of Christianity, east and west, up until Zwingli.

I’m not a great fan of Luther.

It’s amazing to me that people put down Joseph Smith for the things he allegedly did in his life, but think Luther was the greatest thing since… well whatever.

You not being a fan of Luther does not place you in an exclusive club.
Luther certainly had his warts, some of them magnified by the fact that he was a product of his time, some of which offends our modern sensibilites (mine included). I don’t know enough about Joseph Smith to criticize.

Jon

 

[mfbukowski]

you’re welcome and i’ll pray for you too. i’m a cradle catholic but not a good one; missed a lot of Sunday mass, cheated on my wife until the Holy Spirit convicted me 7 yrs ago and showed me the light. it’s a long story but God is truly good and saved a lost soul. i used to believe that the bread and wine were only symbolic until i had a friendly discussion w/ a former lutheran converted catholic who believed in the true body and blood of Jesus. that night i could not sleep. i did a lot of research and w/ the Holy Spirit’s leading he opened my eyes to believe in Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity when receiving communion.
God bless.

I learned long ago, that the Holy Spirit takes us from where we are to where He wants us to be. Sounds to me, insofar as my opinion counts, which I suppose it really should not count to you anyway, you are on the right path. God Bless you! It is really not my intent to debate here or lead anyone to my pov, but to learn myself. I appear to debate at times because I want someone to try to convince me of their pov to test that pov.

But when someone asserts they have found their path, there is nothing to discuss. I disagree about the physical presence in the eucharist, but I think that God knows that is what I need to believe to not “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. I think he knows that about all of us, and the path for each of us may differ.

I personally believe one path is the “most true” and it is the one I am on. But the way you get to the truth I think is different for almost everyone.

 

[Shawnpreston]

Perhaps a reliance upon this verse alone is, like many Catholic beliefs, a bit tedious in that we often find relevance elsewhere in corresponding texts of the Bible?
Christ utilizes mud/dirt and His own saliva to heal a blind man. Why? It is because God has entered into this world in human flesh. He uses “things” like wine, his own saliva, Paul’s coat-tails, etc not to merely symbolize grace, but to administer it. God’s chosing of the accomplishment of his endeavours; not our understanding of them (like many mysteries, we are merely cognizant of them and not necessarily understanding of them to their fullest) is what counts.
Why use “things” to accomplish grace? Bibles? Liturgy? Wine and Bread? Because these are tangible things with which we can identify. We’re human. This is what we understand both symbolically and literally. God utilizes these two paradigms of human knowledge to accomplish His goal of salvation. To remove them would be to remove God from our entirely human understanding of Him.

Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus

Shawn

King George, VA

 

[mfbukowski]

If he was mistaken, then so was virtually all of Christianity, east and west, up until Zwingli.

You not being a fan of Luther does not place you in an exclusive club.
Luther certainly had his warts, some of them magnified by the fact that he was a product of his time, some of which offends our modern sensibilites (mine included). I don’t know enough about Joseph Smith to criticize.

Jon

Well, of course that is why I think a restoration of primitive christianity was necessary.

 

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps a reliance upon this verse alone is, like many Catholic beliefs, a bit tedious in that we often find relevance elsewhere in corresponding texts of the Bible?
Christ utilizes mud/dirt and His own saliva to heal a blind man. Why? It is because God has entered into this world in human flesh. He uses “things” like wine, his own saliva, Paul’s coat-tails, etc not to merely symbolize grace, but to administer it. God’s chosing of the accomplishment of his endeavours; not our understanding of them (like many mysteries, we are merely cognizant of them and not necessarily understanding of them to their fullest) is what counts.
Why use “things” to accomplish grace? Bibles? Liturgy? Wine and Bread? Because these are tangible things with which we can identify. We’re human. This is what we understand both symbolically and literally. God utilizes these two paradigms of human knowledge to accomplish His goal of salvation. To remove them would be to remove God from our entirely human understanding of Him.

Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus

Shawn

King George, VA

Not to derail the thread, but I think that Jesus was able to transform matter into different forms, as he did as Jehovah in organizing the universe. So somehow the carbon and other elements in the “mud” he created with his spittle was able to enter the blind man’s eyes and create the nerves muscles or whatever he was lacking. Just my opinion.

I basically agree with you. I think that is why he chose the commonist of foods- bread- to become a sign of his presence in the sacrament/eucharist.

But I think this attitude is contradicted when we literally believe that bread is the physical presence of his body. It almost denies the sanctity of the common by elevating it above what it really is.

God takes us as we really are-- hunks of common bread with little bits of insect larvae and a little mold here and there – and makes us like him. Celestializing the common through his grace is to me his greatest gift.

He elevated a common stable to a celestial mansion by his presence at his birth, and that is what he can do to each of us if we let him in

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think I said it better in post 84. My question to you was, what is meant in John 6 where he says “the flesh profiteth nothing?” Yes of course the atonement is the central event of Christianity

So then His flesh does profit us? I thought you said it did not

God bless

 

[mfbukowski]

So then His flesh does profit us? I thought you said it did not

God bless

No I didn’t mean to say that. I was questioning what it meant in this verse. He giving his flesh for us was the greatest gift ever.

So with that said, what DOES this verse mean then, where he says the “flesh profiteth nothing”? I agree with Augustine. What do you think?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You want a guide, pick one. Mine is the Holy Spirit.

I don’t believe it is. I think you have fallen for traditions of men.

…in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mk 7:7-8

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

No I didn’t mean to say that. I was questioning what it meant in this verse. He giving his flesh for us was the greatest gift ever.

So with that said, what DOES this verse mean then, where he says the “flesh profiteth nothing”? I agree with Augustine. What do you think?

You still have not said it in all of our discussion… Does His flesh profit us?

God bless

 

[mfbukowski]

I don’t believe it is. I think you have fallen for traditions of men.
God bless

Awwww come on dude! I could say the same about you! You are the ones with all the traditions!

 

[mfbukowski]

You still have not said it in all of our discussion… Does His flesh profit us?

God bless

What do you want from me? Do you me to say the words “his flesh profits us?” Ok so I said it your way. Does that help??

You still haven’t answered my question about what that means in John 6!