Seventh Day Adventists

[greggy53]

Protestant101:

May I ask why do the SDAs interpret some scripture as literal when it is symbolic and other as symbolic when it should be literal? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I think they do it so that it fits what they want to believe. To make it jive with their agenda.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hey Tom, and others who have joined his chorus:

Over the past few years, I have been over the John 6 thing with various forum members here quite a bit. You won’t be able to tell me anything I havent heard before. And you won’t be able to convince me any further than I already am - not.

If I am reading you correctly, what you are saying is that by literally eating the literal flesh of Jesus, we become like Him?

Or, are you trying to say that we are saved by literally eating His literal flesh?

I know some people of a certain nationality, and they enjoy eating barbecued dogs. Do they become like dogs, just because they eat dog flesh? Then how would we become like Jesus by eating His flesh? Character is not passed on by literally eating our Lord.

And neither is salvation. If we are somehow saved by eating His flesh; then that does away with, or lessens the need for the cross.

I have looked at John chapter 6 again last night - and I don’t see what you see. I see the symbolism of the eating of the bread or the drinking of the wine; but not all that other stuff.

I am sure the condemnations, ridicules, and other negative characterizations will now follow, but I will be patient and see if I can learn something new, and convincing.

I am sure you will try to defend this doctrine by saying how it reflects on His shed blood and whatnot; but it just doesn’t make sense, and there are only 2 or 3 texts you can use to make such a doctrine, but many others which suggest the more commonly held belief amongst Christianity that the “bread” and the “wine” are symbolic.

Adventists hold a communion service where we do partake of the “bread” and the “wine” but it is by faith that we trust in His shed blood, and we do not believe that we need to literally eat Him to be saved, or to be like Him.

Hi P101,

Yes I can affirm that you have discussed this issue over the past year and a half that I have been on this forum, and perhaps you have even discussed it a few years before that. I know you and I have discussed it in past threads, and I know that there is nothing more we can say to convince you of this blessed truth.

But it is not our words and thoughts that created this truth. It is the words and teachings of The Word Jesus Christ. At this point in time, I believe, it is only with Him whom you must talk to resolve whether or not the Catholics or the Adventists are correct in what they believe regarding this issue. And if you sincerely seek God’s truth regarding this, which I believe you do each day in your life, then when it is all said and done, only He can, and will, reveal this truth to you.

You have wrestled with us for years. You now need to wrestle with God concerning this, and not let go until He blesses you.

God bless all!!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick

Well said!

Hi P101,

Yes I can affirm that you have discussed this issue over the past year and a half that I have been on this forum, and perhaps you have even discussed it a few years before that. I know you and I have discussed it in past threads, and I know that there is nothing more we can say to convince you of this blessed truth.

But it is not our words and thoughts that created this truth. It is the words and teachings of The Word Jesus Christ. At this point in time, I believe, it is only with Him whom you must talk to resolve whether or not the Catholics or the Adventists are correct in what they believe regarding this issue. And if you sincerely seek God’s truth regarding this, which I believe you do each day in your life, then when it is all said and done, only He can, and will, reveal this truth to you.

You have wrestled with us for years. You now need to wrestle with God concerning this, and not let go until He blesses you.

God bless all!!!

God’s blessings to you!

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Nice internet yelling Marsha. I commend you, and it’s even in my favorite color.

But perhaps we are calling Jesus a liar when we say something is literal; and He really intends it as symbolic?

I wasn’t yelling. I was clearly proclaiming the Word of God. You are certainly calling Jesus a liar when He says He is speaking literally and you still insist He isn’t.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

actually sda is trinitarian. they teach the same as catholicism on this point. but they also believe that the roman church is the beast mentioned in revelation.

SDA were not ALWAYS trinitarian. They were originally semi-arian. They became trinitarian during the first half of the 20th century in order to not be considered a cult. That concession didn’t work as well as they hoped. Many Protestant denominations still consider them a cult. Interestingly, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has declared that SDAs are not a cult.

 

[happilycatholic]

Nice internet yelling Marsha. I commend you, and it’s even in my favorite color.

But perhaps we are calling Jesus a liar when we say something is literal; and He really intends it as symbolic?

Um, when someone says something literal wouldn’t it be an assumption to think it’s symbolic?

Just a thought…

HC

 

[greggy53]

…But perhaps we are calling Jesus a liar when we say something is literal; and He really intends it as symbolic?

When Jesus said: “Truthfully, truthfully I tell you”. I think the assumption must be that he intends it literally

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Greggy53,

Well said

The idea that Christ would tell us in no less then 8 different ways that He is Food and we are commanded to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have eternal life - **but, He didn’t meant it??? **

When Jesus said: “Truthfully, truthfully I tell you”. I think the assumption must be that he intends it literally

I think the real issue can be boiled down to three major elements:

1.) Christ established His Apostles as the Priests who would continue the Eucharist. Only Priests can consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

2.) By breaking with the Catholic Church, Protestants left the source from where all future Priests can come from. There is now no one who can consecrate the Eucharist.

3.) Since no one in the Protestant group can consecrate the Eucharist, it is far easier to say, “We don’t believe it and we don’t need it - we have the memorial service!” then to say something like, “We are starving and must return to the Table of Life if we are to be with Christ!”

I forget the author of this , “A lie, repeated often enough can often be believed. But, it is still a lie”… if anyone knows the author, please clue me in. Thanks

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, Greggy53,

Well said

The idea that Christ would tell us in no less then 8 different ways that He is Food and we are commanded to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have eternal life - **but, He didn’t meant it??? **

Yes; indeed, and Jesus meant it just as much when he said “do this in remembrance of Me…” (see Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24, 1 Cor. 11:25). Are you saying Jesus didn’t mean “remembrance” when He said it?

In the Book of John alone, Jesus is described in figurative terms, such as “light,” (John 9:5) “truth,” (John 8:32, 14:6)," “good shepherd,” (John 10:11), “the door,” (John 10:9) “the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25) “living water,” (John 4:10) “true bread,” (John 6:32) and a lot more.

Not one of these descriptions are intended as literal ones as in the Catholic doctrine of their Eucharist where they teach how they literally eat the literal flesh of Jesus.

We can also consider this exerpt from The People’s New Testament Commentary:

This is my body

. Not literally, as the Catholics and Luther contend, but “represents my body.” We interpret it as we do his other sayings: “The seed is the word,” “The field is the world,” “The reapers are the angels,” “The harvest is the end of the world,” “I am the door,” “I am the vine.” So, too, at this very feast, the Jew was wont to say of the paschal lamb, “This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt.” Not the same, but this is meant to represent and commemorate that. He could not have meant that the bread was his real body, because his body was present at the table breaking the loaf, and he was speaking and acting in person among them. The doctrine of the “Real Presence” is every way unreasonable.

 

[greggy53]

Yes; indeed, and Jesus meant it just as much when he said “do this in remembrance of Me…” (see Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24, 1 Cor. 11:25). Are you saying Jesus didn’t mean “remembrance” when He said it?

In the Book of John alone, Jesus is described in figurative terms, such as “light,” (John 9:5) “truth,” (John 8:32, 14:6)," “good shepherd,” (John 10:11), “the door,” (John 10:9) “the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25) “living water,” (John 4:10) “true bread,” (John 6:32) and a lot more.

Not one of these descriptions are intended as literal ones as in the Catholic doctrine of their Eucharist where they teach how they literally eat the literal flesh of Jesus.

And none were taken literally except the flesh eating statement…The Pharisees and others walked away because they all knew that Jesus was speaking literally. They knew he meant it.
At the last supper in all four gospels Jesus also says “Take this and eat it this is my body.” If all he had said was “do this in remembrance of me” then you might have a point, but in each gospel he first says: “Take ye, and eat. This is my body”. "Take this and drink it is the cup of my blood.”
I noted that you conveniently left that part of our Lords statement out of your quote.

If you won’t believe what Jesus said then consider what St Paul said when he admonished the Corinthians for partaking unworthily:

1st Cor 10:16 “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?”

It’s very clear from the above statement that St Paul believed, and the Church in Corinth believed in the Holy Eucharist.

I can’t understand how anyone can misinterpret those statements……It’s a primary reason why I left the Protestant Church and came back to the faith. No one could ever give me any good reason not to take our Lord, and St Paul at their word.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Protestant 101,

OK… let’s try again… and, I want you to know, I agree with the People’s New Testament Commentary … well at least one sentence of it! “The doctrine of the “Real Presence” is every way unreasonable.” And, the reason why I agree is because the doctrine of the Eucharist is totally not based on reason - it takes Faith… dare I say, Faith Alone in the Word of God that He not only knew what He was saying but also meant every Word of it.

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks, here…

Yes; indeed, and Jesus meant it just as much when he said “do this in remembrance of Me…” (see Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24, 1 Cor. 11:25). Are you saying Jesus didn’t mean “remembrance” when He said it? **This is really pretty slick, P101. I am surprised you were not able to stay within one text but went shopping around. John 6 stands alone in the sense that Christ is preparing us for the Last Supper. Christ’s words in John 6 repeat, and repeat, and repeat that He is talking about Himself being Food. No where else does He repeat like this. Maybe you should wonder why. **

In the Book of John alone, Jesus is described in figurative terms, such as “light,” (John 9:5) “truth,” (John 8:32, 14:6)," “good shepherd,” (John 10:11), “the door,” (John 10:9) “the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25) “living water,” (John 4:10) There is no Sacrament in the Catholic Church for LIGHT or for TRUTH or a GOOD SHEPHERD Sacrament or a LIVING WATER Sacrament. Surely if there was going to be a simple multiplicity sacraments based on misunderstood analogies there would be more then one. But, now we come to John 6 and Christ changes the way He makes His presentation - and, the fact that He continues to repeat Himself and correct the Jews as they (like you) originally thought Christ was merely using figurative languate. Christ stops them in their tracks. This is no metaphor - “My Flesh is REAL FOOD” Surely, when these statements are being made someone must have said, “My God, He’s serious!” This is the point where they (and, apparently you) walk away. Why? Well go back to your obvious source: the People’s NT Commentary - they give you the answer in black and white - it just does not make sense. So, either you have the Faith to submit your reason to Christ’s Authority, or you don’t. And, there hangs the tale.
“true bread,” (John 6:32) and a lot more. **This quote from John 6 repeats in different forms throughout. How many times do you think Christ repeated “light” to His listeners? Any idea why? Because they understood what He was saying. Any idea why he repeated "Food " in John 6 - because they didn’t until the end. And, in the end, they rejected Him and His Doctrine because it was "UNREASONABLE’. Don’t you see what is going on - our Faith in Christ is not based on REASON - it is based on Christ. **

Not one of these descriptions are intended as literal ones as in the Catholic doctrine of their Eucharist where they teach how they literally eat the literal flesh of Jesus. This is where you get sloppy in your logic. There is a real difference between Christ’s use of figurative language and when He is being literal. If you lump them all togethr, then you will miss the point - Guranteed! If you take the time to analyze John 6 and how if literally differs from all of the other references you metion, you will see a change.

We can also consider this exerpt from The People’s New Testament Commentary:

Take the time and go over what it is you are claiming to be true from the PNT Commentary. Are you basing your belief on Reason? They have rejected Christ based on Reason - or the lack of it. The Jews did the same thing. We make a point of point out the folly of those Jews who failed to recognize Christ as the Messiah. We need to spend some time in front of the mirror.

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, Protestant 101,

OK… let’s try again… and, I want you to know, I agree with the People’s New Testament Commentary … well at least one sentence of it! “The doctrine of the “Real Presence” is every way unreasonable.” And, the reason why I agree is because the doctrine of the Eucharist is totally not based on reason - it takes Faith… dare I say, Faith Alone in the Word of God that He not only knew what He was saying but also meant every Word of it.

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks, here…

Take the time and go over what it is you are claiming to be true from the PNT Commentary. Are you basing your belief on Reason? They have rejected Christ based on Reason - or the lack of it. The Jews did the same thing. We make a point of point out the folly of those Jews who failed to recognize Christ as the Messiah. We need to spend some time in front of the mirror.

God bless

You almost got it right Tom! It’s by “faith” that we take the symbolism of all that I mentioned above; and it is only of the symbolism of the “bread” that by faith we “do in remembrance.” There is absolutely nothing in the text, or in related texts, to suggest that the disciples walked away because they understood it to be “literal” this is where the reasoning of Catholic doctrine defies the faith that Jesus requires.

 

[tqualey]

OK. P101…

So, it is by ‘faith’ you take it as symbolism - and not as the People NT Commentary says as Rational? Your PNT Commentary rejects Christ’s Words because they do not make sense. The Jews thought exactly the same. Come on, P101, which way do you want to argue.

Faith is the root that gets our Grace operated plant growing up towards Christ. Rational debate and discussion has its place - but, if Christ says ‘This is My Body’ we are going to confront Him with a ‘Rational’ rejection?

Enlighten me…and the other members on this thread who really want to know…!

Considering the Jews came to another ‘free meal’ and left without getting one, why do you think - just from the Scripture of John 6 - that the Jews walked about muttering about a “…hard saying…”? And, note - Christ didn’t go running after them saying, “Hey! You misunderstood Me!”

You almost got it right Tom! It’s by “faith” that we take the symbolism of all that I mentioned above; and it is only of the symbolism of the “bread” that by faith we “do in remembrance.” There is absolutely nothing in the text, or in related texts, to suggest that the disciples walked away because they understood it to be “literal” this is where the reasoning of Catholic doctrine defies the faith that Jesus requires.

You’re on - tell us: why did the Jews leave?

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

OK. P101…

So, it is by ‘faith’ you take it as symbolism - and not as the People NT Commentary says as Rational? Your PNT Commentary rejects Christ’s Words because they do not make sense. The Jews thought exactly the same. Come on, P101, which way do you want to argue.

Faith is the root that gets our Grace operated plant growing up towards Christ. Rational debate and discussion has its place - but, if Christ says ‘This is My Body’ we are going to confront Him with a ‘Rational’ rejection?

Enlighten me…and the other members on this thread who really want to know…!

Considering the Jews came to another ‘free meal’ and left without getting one, why do you think - just from the Scripture of John 6 - that the Jews walked about muttering about a “…hard saying…”? And, note - Christ didn’t go running after them saying, “Hey! You misunderstood Me!”

You’re on - tell us: why did the Jews leave?

God bless

Yes, God has blessed me immensely.

 

[greggy53]

… There is absolutely nothing in the text, or in related texts, to suggest that the disciples walked away because they understood it to be “literal” this is where the reasoning of Catholic doctrine defies the faith that Jesus requires.

What?? It’s in the scriptures plain and simple.: John 6
22 "The next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea, saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. 23 But other ships came in from Tiberias; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. 24 When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus. 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

This is where the whole bread of life discourse begins… Note well the word “multitude” is used twice to descibe the crowd following our Lord.

Then in verse 62" But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? "

If it is as you say why would any one be shocked, or scandalized? They wouldn’t, but they all knew he was speaking litterally about eating his flesh, and every one of the “multitude” except the 12 walked away.
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

I wonder, are these verses in your Bible? Has the SDA started to edit out verses they don’t like?

 

[Javl]

tqualey;
I forget the author of this , “A lie, repeated often enough can often be believed. But, it is still a lie”… if anyone knows the author, please clue me in. Thanks

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: “A lie is still a lie even if evreryone believes it, and the truth is still the truth even if no one believes it”. True words of wisdom. It applies to too many people today. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

You almost got it right Tom! It’s by “faith” that we take the symbolism of all that I mentioned above; and it is only of the symbolism of the “bread” that by faith we “do in remembrance.” There is absolutely nothing in the text, or in related texts, to suggest that the disciples walked away because they understood it to be “literal” this is where the reasoning of Catholic doctrine defies the faith that Jesus requires.

Are you now telling Jesus ( God the Son ) what He meant or didn’t mean, or what He said
or didn’t say? Respectfully, Protestant101, I suggest you clean your glasses or have your
eyesight checked. Please read John 6 without interpreting it, but understanding it. The Jews walked away because they understood literaly what He had said. If Jesus meant
that what He said was only symbolic, a parable, or analogy, He would have said so as he had done so many times before. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Protestant101]

What?? It’s in the scriptures plain and simple.: John 6
22 "The next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea, saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. 23 But other ships came in from Tiberias; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. 24 When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus. 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

This is where the whole bread of life discourse begins… Note well the word “multitude” is used twice to descibe the crowd following our Lord.

Then in verse 62" But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? "

If it is as you say why would any one be shocked, or scandalized? They wouldn’t, but they all knew he was speaking litterally about eating his flesh, and every one of the “multitude” except the 12 walked away.
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

I wonder, are these verses in your Bible? Has the SDA started to edit out verses they don’t like?

Luxuriate critical mass such as the last sentence in your post could be better utilized under the “G” file. That wasn’t nice.

I have a tough time understanding why Catholics who are convinced of their literal version of John 6 cannot seem to consider other Bible texts on the same types of subjects, and apply the same principles. I did show you above a number of texts reflecting different symbolic names for Jesus, including John 6. These are all in the Catholic Bibles too.

The disciples were “shocked” and walked away, because like many, they did not want to follow Jesus all the way and depend upon Him for everything. It wasn’t because of any “literal” versus “symbolic” controversy. That is not mentioned in the text. I feel this is one of several mistakes made by Catholic doctrine on this text. The only way to settle this question is to look at the Bible’s use of similar names used to symbolize Jesus. Which I did briefly above.

And, as I said, Jesus was personally present at this first communion service, so how could that “bread” be His literal flesh at the same time? Jesus had not yet died on the cross; so how could this literally be “His body broken.” The crucifixion was yet to come, proving the symbolic use of “bread” and “flesh” here. The literal use is not the point of the text at all. It is not “faith” to presume the literal meaning; a better term would be “stretching.”

 

[Protestant101]

Are you now telling Jesus ( God the Son ) what He meant or didn’t mean, or what He said
or didn’t say? Respectfully, Protestant101, I suggest you clean your glasses or have your
eyesight checked. Please read John 6 without interpreting it, but understanding it. The Jews walked away because they understood literaly what He had said. If Jesus meant
that what He said was only symbolic, a parable, or analogy, He would have said so as he had done so many times before. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I am sorry for obviously offending you. I know how important this doctrine is to Catholics; but I honestly do not see your point here. The text actually does not say “the disciples understood Jesus to be using ‘His flesh’ literally, and this is why they walked away.” It makes no mention of a “literal” versus “symbolic” controversy. As another Catholic poster even said above a few posts ago: “The presumption is…” that this is how the disciples viewed Jesus’ words; but it is just that. A Catholic presumption, not based on solid evidence. Jesus said He was a lot of different things, as I clearly showed above. None of those examples I gave were “literally” intended, including John 6.

And please don’t try to tell me that my quote from The People’s New Testament Commentary is based only on reasoning, when our Lord extends the invitation to His people: “come let us REASON together.” (Isa 1:18). He expects His people to reason together with Him, in determining which truth to have “faith” in.

 

[greggy53]

Luxuriate critical mass such as the last sentence in your post could be better utilized under the “G” file. That wasn’t nice.:

I’m sure I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about…It was an honest question.

I have a tough time understanding why Catholics who are convinced of their literal version of John 6 cannot seem to consider other Bible texts on the same types of subjects, and apply the same principles. I did show you above a number of texts reflecting different symbolic names for Jesus, including John 6. These are all in the Catholic Bibles too.

The Church accepts and interprets properly All of the scripture.

The disciples were “shocked” and walked away, because like many, they did not want to follow Jesus all the way and depend upon Him for everything. It wasn’t because of any “literal” versus “symbolic” controversy.

If they didn’t want to “follow Jesus all the way, and depend on him for everything” Then they would just walk away…There would be no shock, no scandal. There was no literal vs symbolic controversy. The controversy that shocked, or scandalized the folks listening was the fact that Jesus kept telling them over and over again that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You also choose to ignore St Pauls adminishment to the Corinthians for partaking the Eucharist unworthily.
1 Cor 10:16 “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?”

It is plain here that St Paul believed in the Holy Eurcharist. How can you explain this verse away?

And, as I said, Jesus was personally present at this first communion service, so how could that “bread” be His literal flesh at the same time? Jesus had not yet died on the cross; so how could this literally be “His body broken.” The crucifixion was yet to come, proving the symbolic use of “bread” and “flesh” here. The literal use is not the point of the text at all. It is not “faith” to presume the literal meaning; a better term would be “stretching.”

Yes the first Mass was said by by our Lord on that Holy Thursday. When he said: “Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”

How could this be? This is a wonderful mystery that we accept in faith because he said so. There is no “stretching” here any more that accepting the Incarnation as another wonderful mystery. I don’t know, but perhaps the SDA reject that mystery as well?