T
TimothyH
Guest
Good southern names, like Randy Carson!
We need to have a meetup with pianistclare.
-Tim-
- Status
We need to have a meetup with pianistclare.
-Tim-
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, Iâm not sure where you are getting six âI AMâ statements; most things I have read identify seven or more, and this author (with a PhD) identified 45 eimi statements in Johnâs gospel alone: âI AMâ Sayings in the Fourth Gospel"
Now, letâs take a look at a few of these, shall we?
âI AM the light of the worldâ (John 8:12)
âI AM the Door of the sheepâ (John 10:7,9)
âI AM the Good Shepherdâ (John 10:11,14)
âI AM the Resurrection & the the Lifeâ (John 11:25)
âI AM the the true vineâ (John 15:1,5)
Is Jesus literally the light of the world? Is He really a plant with leaves? :nope:
None of these metaphors created any problems for His hearers because they knew that these are metaphors, and there was no confusion about them. For example, do we read in scripture of an argument breaking out, âHow can this man be a gate for the sheep? Why, he doesnât even have any hinges!â No. There is nothing like this when Jesus makes these âI AMâ statements. However, in John 6, His audience has a very different reaction, so thatâs where we should pick up the trail, and by the way, I personally wrote the following, so stick with me to the end, okay?
Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard them for the very first time.
After Jesus declared Himself to be âthe living bread that came down from heaven,â the very next verse of scripture tells us: âThen the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, âHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?ââ Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, âI am the gate for the sheepâ (Jn 10:7) and âI am the true vineâ (Jn 15:1) but on those occasions, the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, âthis bread is my flesh,â and this indicates that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, âHow can this man give us his flesh to eat? Heâs crazy!â while others may have responded, âOf course he canât do thatâŚhis words must have a symbolic meaning!â The one group rejected Jesusâ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.
Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus reiterated and strengthened the literal meaning of his words by declaring,
âI tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.â (Jn 6:53-58)
There are no âI AMâ statements in this powerful passage, and rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: âmy flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.â In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, âIf a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,â now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: âUnless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.â Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do â and do not â eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The next verse is particularly revealing: âOn hearing it, many of his disciples said, âThis is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?â (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesusâ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples â those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.
âAware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, âDoes this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.â Jn 6:61-64
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, âIf eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have plannedâŚyou ainât seen nothing yet!â The gospel continues:
âFrom this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. âYou do not want to leave too, do you?â Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, âLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.â Jn 6:66-69
There is a lot going on in these three verses; letâs look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.
Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, âWait, everyone. I think thereâs been a misunderstanding ⌠let me explain what I meant.â Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none.
Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: âWhat about you? Are you leaving too?â In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By Godâs grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.
And by grace, so do all who believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist.
âFrom this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. âYou do not want to leave too, do you?â Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, âLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.â Jn 6:66-69
There is a lot going on in these three verses; letâs look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.
Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, âWait, everyone. I think thereâs been a misunderstanding ⌠let me explain what I meant.â Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none.
Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: âWhat about you? Are you leaving too?â In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By Godâs grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.
And by grace, so do all who believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist.
C
Cmc1972
Guest
To bottom line this whole thread:
Whether you think the church is thriving or dying, it is all our responsibility to preach the good news of the lord.
Amen I say to you.
Whether you think the church is thriving or dying, it is all our responsibility to preach the good news of the lord.
Amen I say to you.
T
thetazlord
Guest
First, since the original poster stated that Scripture isnât the primary source of truth & doctrine, then since HE is the one making that assertion, the burden of proof is on HIM, not me. I donât have to prove a negative.
Second, from the very beginning of the Bible, starting with the Torah all the way to the last page of the Bible, God states over and over and over in His Word, âdo not add nor take awayâ from what He has revealed to us in His written word:
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.â (Deuteronomy 4:2)
âWhatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.â (Deuteronomy 12:32)
âDo not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.â (Proverbs 30:6)
âI know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.â (Ecclesiastes 3:14)
âWoe to the rebellious children,â declares the LORD, âWho execute a plan, but not Mine, And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, In order to add sin to sinâ (Isaiah 30:1)
âThus says the LORD, 'Stand in the court of the LORDâS house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the LORDâS house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!ââ (Jeremiah 26:2)
âNow these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.â (1 Corinthians 4:6)
âI testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.â (Revelation 22:18-19)
From Moses, to King Solomon, to the Prophets, to Paul, to John, sola scriptura is taught throughout the Bible. And as far as âtraditionâ goes, keep in mind that the 14 times âtraditionâ is mentioned in the Bible, itâs mentioned negatively 11 times. The THREE times Paul mentions it positively, heâs referring to âtraditionâ that he had just written down - not âtraditionâ that canât be found somewhere in Scripture.
So, since the burden of proof is on you to âproveâ that extrabiblical âtraditionâ is just as Inspired as Scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16), not me to âproveâ that itâs not (since I donât have to prove a negative), outside of your âbeliefâ that it is, please provide SCRIPTURAL evidence that extra-scriptural âtraditionâ is just as âInspiredâ as Scripture is.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Yet, you believe Jesus is literally the bread at communion. Could you explain this inconsistency in your theology?
Yeah, I read it, but it still doesnât address my question why you suddenly change your theology that Jesus is speaking âfigurativelyâ & âliterallyâ when He compares Himself to literal things when He says âI AM the vine,â yet not when He says âI AM the bread of life.â And the reason many of His disciples walked away was because after hearing ALL of His speech, which included Him saying âI AM the bread of lifeâ & âunless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you,â They (mis)understood Jesus âthinkingâ that Jesus was speaking literally, which is âwhyâ they said âhow He give us His flesh to eat?â Those who walked away didnât realize that when Jesus said âI AM the bread of lifeâ that He was speaking figuratively & spiritually, not literally. They walked away, because of their misunderstanding, because they thought (incorrectly) that Jesus was asking them to break Levitical Law that prohibited eating the blood of any flesh (Leviticus 17:10-14). But Jesus wasnât speaking literally when He said âI AM the bread of life,â anymore than He was when He made those other âI AMâ statements in the Gospel of John. And thereâs no indication that when He made these other âI AMâ statements that âeverybodyâ understood what He meant because not âeverybodyâ followed Him when He said them, anymore than âeverybodyâ continued to follow Him when He said âI AM the bread of life.â Those who didnât follow Him (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, rather than figuratively & spiritually. And âthatâ is âwhyâ they âno longer walked with Him.â
C
cena
Guest
Even Luther, the first Protestant, believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist to some extent.
Why didnât he stop them to correct them?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6
C
cena
Guest
âMoreover, when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretationâhowever disturbingâbecomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, âeating.â However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christâs flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning âto chew onâ or to âgnaw onââas when an animal is ripping apart its prey.â
From the link in the previous post
From the link in the previous post
T
thetazlord
Guest
And if you read that article, it even states that when Jesus says âI AM the bread of lifeâ in John Ch.6, Jesus is speaking metaphoricallly, not literally.
T
thetazlord
Guest
That only further proves that the disciples who walked away (mis)understood that Jesus was speaking literally, rather than figuratively & spiritually. âThatâ is âwhyâ they walked away. Plus, if you read the article that the other Catholic poster provided it even states that when Jesus said âI AM the bread of lifeâ that the tense is metaphorical, not literal:
catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-IAM.htm
C
cena
Guest
Why would Jesus use more graphic language after the people were misunderstanding what he was saying? He lost a lot of followers for this, wouldnât he have cleared what he meant if he was speaking metaphorically?
T
thetazlord
Guest
Iâm not Lutheran. So whatâs your point? Just because Luther was the âfather of the Reformation,â that doesnât mean ALL Protestants base their theology on Luther. They base it on SCRIPTURE, not Luther. Technically, Luther was a Catholic, before he was excommunicated, so why arenât you sola scriptura? See, that strawman works both ways.
C
cena
Guest
Luther was the first Protestant. Protestantism started with him. It was later denominations that stopped believing in the real prescence.
Luther took out seven books he wasnât even sola scriptura. He was also excommunicated for being a heretic.
"âFor I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, âThis is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.â In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, âThis cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.â For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lordâs death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.â
-1 Cor. 11:23-27"
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#didache
T
thetazlord
Guest
Jesus had been speaking metaphorically prior to this, & he continued to with other âI AMâ statements afterwards. Jesus even told His disciples that he spoke in parables because not everyone has âears to hear,â & that He only revealed what He was actually saying to those who were actually âHis.â Those who walked away who misunderstood Him to be speaking literally, Jesus knew their hearts. Thatâs why He didnât clarify, anymore than He didnât clarify with His other âI AMâ statements later.
So, âwhyâ do you believe that Jesus speaks figuratively & spiritually in those other âI AMâ statements, but suddenly change your theology that Jesus is now speaking literally when He says âI AM the bread of life,â even though that Catholic source posted by that other Catholic states that âI AM the bread of lifeâ is metaphorical? Please explain your disagreement with this Catholic source?
T
thetazlord
Guest
Thatâs still irrelevant to what you said & what I asked. Luther took out those books, because he found errors & contradictions in them - both historical & theological - which Protestants today also recognize that conflicts with previous & later Scripture. Plus, they werenât included in the âGreat Synagogueâ headed by the Ezra from the OT, who collected the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures & considered the OT closed, which is why those 7 books werenât later included in the Targums - the Aramaic translation of the OT.
Also, Paulâs quote of Jesus about the communion bread & wine doesnât mean âeatâ is meant literally. You have to go back to John 6:35 to find out Jesus is speaking metaphorically, not literally, just like that Catholic source STATES that itâs metaphorical.
Plus, Luther being excommunicated as a heretic by the group who he was challenging doesnât automatically make him a heretic. Youâre just using circular reasoning. Heâd be a heretic if what he taught conflicted with Scripture.
C
cena
Guest
Why did you put why in quotations marks?
Why did the people not say âhow can this man be a sheep gateâ at the metaphor of the sheep gate or any other metaphor but suddenly they take this one literally?
"V. THE SACRAMENTAL SACRIFICE THANKSGIVING, MEMORIAL, PRESENCE
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
â1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.â
I think the Catholic catechism is a much more reliable source than some random âCatholicâ website. If they donât believe in the real presence they arenât really Catholic,
Didnât he explain the parable of the seeds to other disciples that werenât apostles? I donât remember who it was I just remember they were disciples. There was a parable that they didnât get and they asked for the meaning and he just told them. Why would he not clarify he was speaking in a metaphors?
T
thetazlord
Guest
Because understanding it literally would violate Levitical Law which came from & was prohibited from God (Leviticus 17:10-14). Saying âI am the gateâ doesnât. Saying âbefore Abraham was, I AMâ certainly does, which is why they tried to stone Him, because He was declaring Himself to be God.
Again, Jesus explained parables to His followers who He knew who âhearâ Him, not just âThe 12.â Those who walked away in John Ch.6 who (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, likewise Jesus knew their hearts. And âthatâ is why they walked away.
C
cena
Guest
And how do you know of it conflicted with scripture? Different Protestant groups have different interpretations of the bible. How can you know for certain which interpretation is right?
In the Catholic Catechism it says it is the body and blood of Christ and that he is present.
C
cena
Guest
But if it was only a metaphor it wouldnât violate Levitical law right? To violate Levitical law you have to do it literally. Why would they think it literal?
Y
YADA
Guest
Why do you insist that Jesus could ONLY be speaking Metaphorically OR Literally BUT NOT both?
You see everything as an either or ⌠that is not necessary âŚ
The Israelites received Manna - the Heavenly Bread ⌠God could have fed them in many ways ⌠this bread was consumed by the people ⌠They also had the Passover - a meal that they had to consume and which became a âMemorialâ they participated in every year thereafter ⌠not a ânewâ Passover. The Hebrew people - to this day - participate in that one Passover as a memorial ⌠and they do not understand that as being a symbolic representation, a re-presentation nor a new event but a real participation in that one Passover when they were freed from slavery âŚ
Jesus gives us His Body and His Blood - the True Food ⌠not symbolic food, not un real food ⌠No - **It is Truly **[Amen, Amen I say to you] TRUE FOOD and TRUE DRINK [In deed] ⌠that us what Jesus says ⌠For a Memorial ⌠âDo this in Remembrance of Me as often as you do itâ
St Paul tell us that to eat and drink âunworthilyâ is to eat and drink to our peril ⌠and St Paul is not talking about our faith or belief in Christ when he says this ⌠No, he is talking about the Eucharistic meal - the True Body and True Blood of Christ that we eat as a participation with Christ and with discerning the Life, Death and Resurrection -
You can present your novel understanding - and argue all you want - but it does not make sense in relation to the clear meaning of John and all of the other scriptural passages âŚ
- Status