C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
What if you choose not to follow the commands of Jesus.
Will you remain in his love?
What if you don’t remain in the love of Jesus, will you go to heaven?
- Status
Will you remain in his love?
What if you don’t remain in the love of Jesus, will you go to heaven?
C
cazayoux
Guest
oops … you forgot to answer the questions.
John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
How do you interpret that verse?
I’m sure you feel that you have life in you, so how do YOU ‘eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood’?
michel
S
sandusky
Guest
By understanding that, earlier in the chapter, Christ defines **“coming and believing,” as the alleviation of “hunger and thirst” **(v 35).
C
cazayoux
Guest
now that’s what I call scriptural gymnastics.
streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch…
michel
T
tGette
Guest
Let me try: I love gymnastics!
Our Lord Jesus Christ told us that He is the Way, The Truth and…
Anyone?
THE LIFE!
So…when we eat the bread and drink the blood we consume Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). And since Jesus Christ is THE LIFE…we consume. . . . .
Anyone?
THE LIFE!
So therefore . . . we have Life in us!
A lot of Atheists/Non-believers, on the outside, appear to have a lot of life in them.
But do they have THE Life?
S
sandusky
Guest
What do you understand v35 to be saying?
C
cazayoux
Guest
John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
I take it to mean, as Jesus tells us, that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of man an drink his blood, we have no life in us.
John 6:35 is what you take out of context.
[35]Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
But if the audience thought Jesus was speaking symbolically (like you do), the why do we see them react this way …
John 6:52
[52]The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
michel
S
sandusky
Guest
v35 is what I asked about, not v 53.
C
cazayoux
Guest
apologies … noticed it after I hit the ‘submit’.
I edited to include v35.
Cheers!
michel
S
sandusky
Guest
cazayoux said:[John 6:35]
is what you take out of context.
cazayoux:
I’m not taking anything out of context. Neither am I claiming, at this point, that Jesus is speaking “symbolically,” but that He is speaking “figuratively.”
In v 35, Jesus clearly equates “coming and believing,” with alleviation of “hunger and thirst.” That is key to understanding what He later states.
Those are clearly “spiritual words,” as Jesus later states (v 63).
In the passage, from v26 forward, Jesus is observed moving between plain, literal language and figurative language.
This is observed in two verses that are parallel to one another, and in which He speaks in plain language in the one, and in figurative language in the other.**Plain language, John 6:40………………Figurative language, John 6:54
…everyone who……………………………He who
beholds the Son……………………………eats My flesh
and……………………………………………and
believes in Him……………………………drinks My blood
will have eternal life…………………….has eternal life
and……………………………………………and
I Myself will…………………………………I will
raise him up………………………………raise him up
on the last day……………………………on the last day**You as a Catholic insist that those who left, left because they understood Him to being saying that they must eat His flesh literally. I agree, but that doesn’t prove that their understanding was correct. People often misunderstood Jesus as He moved between plain and figurative language (Jn 2:19-21; 4:10, 11).
Also, He spoke figuratively, and He spoke in parables purposely to cover the truth and keep it from heart-hardened, unbelieving Jews (Mt 13:10-16).
Catholics also claim that Jesus made no attempt to correct their misunderstanding, but they are wrong. He corrects their misunderstanding in v 63, ”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
Peter understood that, vv68, 69, ”Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.”
Also, this happens well before the Last Supper, in which Jesus spoke to the apostles—believers. It is in the last supper that the “symbols” of His body and blood are connected to the bread and wine. The apostles probably remembered back to the bread of life discourse, and understand what He had meant then.
That the bread and wine are symbols is observed in the definition of a true “metaphor.”
A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.
Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.
The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door
I am the vine; you are the branches
This is my body…this is my blood
All flesh is grass
My flesh is true food
My blood is true drink
We are the sheep of His pasture
The Lord God is a Sun and Shield
His truth is a shield and buckler
You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Those listening understood Jesus to be speaking literally, which is why many abandoned him.
He did not correct their misunderstanding, if indeed it was a misunderstanding.
How is your understanding different from those who left Jesus after he told them that they must eat his flesh?
S
sandusky
Guest
Proof?
He did correct them in v63, as I stated.
I understand Jesus as the apostles did—He was speaking figuratively, not literally (cf v 63).
C
cazayoux
Guest
and during the last supper even his structure is changed.
He doesn’t say ‘i am this’ he says ‘this is me’.
a very basic difference in his words … words of Christ … whose spoke creation into existence … he says ‘this is my body’, ‘this is my blood’.
For parables, Jesus always explained them, at least to the apostles.
You say Jesus explained himself, but the apostles still didn’t get it.
They didn’t get it until they heard his words at the last supper.
this is my body
this is my blood
NOT the figurative language like the examples you gave above except for the last supper account.
michel
C
cazayoux
Guest
The apostles DIDN’T understand.
You say the explanation was in v63.
It was AFTER this explanation that people left (v66)
AFTER THAT, he turns to the still-confused apostles.
John 6:67-69
[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
They don’t understand Jesus, but know that he is THE way.
They trust him, even if they don’t understand what he meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which offended the crowd (v61).
They didn’t get clarification until the last supper when Jesus said ‘this is’.
michel
C
Contarini
Guest
In the Calvinist understanding, an elect person will (after regeneration) choose to follow the commands of Jesus. This is what irresistible grace means in Calvinism. It’s funny that you keep using the term, and yet you don’t seem to understand what it means, even after it has been explained to you repeatedly.
Edwin
S
sandusky
Guest
Nothing’s changed in Jesus’ structuring of the metaphor at the Supper.
Again, the true metaphor is identified by the verb “to be,” used to describe one thing as representing another thing.
Were I to show you a photograph of my house and state, “this is my house,” you’d have no difficulty understanding what I meant.
The same is true of the apostles.
Of course He explained it, and I told you in which verse:**John 6:63
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.**
They got what Jesus was saying in Jn 6—"You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed…." One obtains life through faith, and that faith is conferred upon an individual by the Father—that’s the whole point Christ is making from v 26 on: believe is a gift given by the Father (cf Jn 6:65).
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I understand this unbiblical heresy quite well.
My post has nothing to do with irresistible grace, however.
Many things believed by Calvinists are false, as I have consistently demonstrated on this thread.
The best defense you can provide is to claim that I am misrepresenting Calvinism while you simultaneously attempt to defend the misrepresentation as true! It’s very funny.
C
Contarini
Guest
Which illustrates, yet again, that you don’t understand irresistible grace. Grace causes people to act in a certain way by changing their inclinations and the way they view the world. It does not make how they think, feel, and act irrelevant. Yet you have persistently claimed/assumed that the Calvinist view of grace does just that.
Edwin
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Grace is not coercion, it is God’s help.
You are in denial about Calvinist doctrine for some reason.
Here’s some help:
Calvinist Definition of Grace:
Irresistible Grace
A grace that cannot be resisted and always works in the manner in which God desires. Since grace is undeserved by any person, Irresistible Grace teaches that when the Spirit of God is sent to change a person’s heart, **that person cannot resist **the change.
Catholic Definition:
II. GRACE
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved** help** that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46
S
sandusky
Guest
Actually graces is God’s unmerited favor.
Not “in denial,” but denying your straw man.
“Irresistible grace” is a way of describing the effective inward call of the elect by the HS.
Do you know what that means?- Status