What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[PRmerger]

Careful Gaelic, she’s setting the table.

Yep. You can’t argue with me when the table is set.

But actually, I wasn’t going to bring up our friend FP at all.

I am simply setting this up for this conclusion: when 2 Christians disagree with a Scripture verse, in Gaelic’s paradigm, there is no recourse. They will simply go around and around, each quoting a hodge podge of Scripture verses, allegedly supporting their view, but it will be an inutile discussion because, in the end, the Scripture cannot decide. It is inanimate. It cannot render decisions when disagreements are made.

I suspect that Gaelic sees the logical conclusion of my questioning and this is why the “It’s off topic” excuse is brought up, when, curiously, all sorts of other off-topic discussions have been engaged in on this thread.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

That’s it… there is more on him but that’s considered his strong point

Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesof faithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.*

Actually what you quoted from was this, Bb.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Yep. You can’t argue with me when the table is set.

But actually, I wasn’t going to bring up our friend FP at all.

I am simply setting this up for this conclusion: when 2 Christians disagree with a Scripture verse, in Gaelic’s paradigm, there is no recourse. They will simply go around and around, each quoting a hodge podge of Scripture verses, allegedly supporting their view, but it will be an inutile discussion because, in the end, the Scripture cannot decide. It is inanimate. It cannot render decisions when disagreements are made.

I suspect that Gaelic sees the logical conclusion of my questioning and this is why the “It’s off topic” excuse is brought up, when, curiously, all sorts of other off-topic discussions have been engaged in on this thread.

The off topic is not an excuse. Its actually off topic. You know, a red herring in order to avoid actually discussing the passage and treating it with the respect God’s word deserves and not as a pretense to score debate points.

 

[Bballer32]

Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesof faithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.*

Actually what you quoted from was this, Bb.

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Here ya go bro… should sum it all up

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Not particularly specific to any denomination:

Judge not, lest ye be judged

and

He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

YES!!:clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

The off topic is not an excuse. Its actually off topic. You know, a red herring in order to avoid actually discussing the passage and treating it with the respect God’s word deserves and not as a pretense to score debate points.

There’s lots of room for multiple tributaries on a forum. You’re doing it right now with differing discussions on this thread even as we speak.

 

[Porknpie]

http://gabrielchapman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/double-facepalm.jpg

And on that I thank you and I go to bed with a smile

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Here ya go bro… should sum it all up

None of those quotes address John 6, Bb. Again, I’m not addressing the real presence. I’m addressing John 6.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

There’s lots of room for multiple tributaries on a forum. You’re doing it right now with differing discussions on this thread even as we speak.

Stay on target PR. It’s all I’m asking. If you can refute the interpretation of John 6 that I provided, please do. I’m not interested in another sola scriptura debate with you.

 

[Bballer32]

None of those quotes address John 6, Bb. Again, I’m not addressing the real presence. I’m addressing John 6.

Well, the Father’s studied Sacred Scripture correct? So, they must of came across John 6, especially since all of them were Catholic. And if they were to take John 6 symbolically then they would have spoke of it symbolically. But, if they read it Literally then they would speak about the reality of the Presence. Andddddddd i’m about 99.9% positive that the Father’s were truly devoted to the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

 

[adrift]

Okay, adrift. Yes the anachronism is reading it with the eucharist in view, because of the bekief in the real presence, rather than what the author intends.

Your definition of anachronism is off. If I said Jesus rode an airplane from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, that is anachronism as it did not exist. If I said that Jesus said “hey Bro” that would be an anachronism. As it was not of that time period. Having different opinions of what the author meant is not an anachronism.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Well, the Father’s studied Sacred Scripture correct? So, they must of came across John 6, especially since all of them were Catholic. And if they were to take John 6 symbolically then they would have spoke of it symbolically. But, if they read it Literally then they would speak about the reality of the Presence. Andddddddd i’m about 99.9% positive that the Father’s were truly devoted to the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Bb or they were devoted to the real presence yet dealt honestly with what John 6 is about and didn’t feel the need to mishandle Scriptural texts in order to bolster a doctrine that they felt could be proved without John 6 and so interpreted John 6 as what it’s really about?

 

[SteveVH]

Tthe Bread of Life discourse is really divided into two parts, the first being an invitation to faith, the second being an invitation to the Eucharist. Depending upon what side of the fence one is on, there is a tendancy to read the entire discourse either from a metaphorical position or from a literal position. Both postions exist in the discourse.

If we look at the first half of the discourse (John 6: 35-47) Jesus begins with the statement
“I am the bread of life”, followed by several invitations to come to him and believe in him for salvation. It is obvious that the Jews understood “I am the bread of life” metaphorically because those were not the words that set them to grumbling. They don’t ask him why he calls himself “bread” (metaphorical), but rather how he can claim that he has come down from heaven (a literal statement). So, in the first half of the discourse Jesus is inviting the crowd to have faith in him. This is not unrelated to what he says next, for it will require faith in order to accept the words he is about to tell them.

The second half of the discourse (John 6:48-58) is not an invitation to faith, but an invitation to the Eucharist (which will require faith in order to accept). He begins the second half of the discourse with exactly the same words as the first; “I am the bread of life”. This time, however, these words are not followed by invitations to faith, but rather invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. This was absolutely offensive to the Jews, for obvious and not so obvious reasons. This would not be offensive if it was understood as metaphor (as Jesus being “bread” was understood). This time the crowd asks how it is possible to eat his flesh. They understood him literally. Remember, this crowd spoke the same language, in the same culture and the same time, obviously, as Jesus. They understood him very well. But he does not back down, his words just become stronger: “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.” “…For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

The call to faith in Jesus is all important because without it we cannot be united to Christ; nor can we recognize his true presence in the Eucharist. That is why he first invites us to faith, and then to the Most Holy Sacrament.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Your definition of anachronism is off. If I said Jesus rode an airplane from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, that is anachronism as it did not exist. If I said that Jesus said “hey Bro” that would be an anachronism. As it was not of that time period. Having different opinions of what the author meant is not an anachronism.

Yes it is because it is taking John’s statements about the flesh of Christ and reading later doctrinal statements into John’s intent instead of letting the context determine what John is trying to convey.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Tthe Bread of Life discourse is really divided into two parts, the first being an invitation to faith, the second being an invitation to the Eucharist. Depending upon what side of the fence one is on, there is a tendancy to read the entire discourse either from a metaphorical position or from a literal position. Both postions exist in the discourse.

If we look at the first half of the discourse (John 6: 35-47) Jesus begins with the statement
“I am the bread of life”, followed by several invitations to come to him and believe in him for salvation. It is obvious that the Jews understood “I am the bread of life” metaphorically because those were not the words that set them to grumbling. They don’t ask him why he calls himself “bread” (metaphorical), but rather how he can claim that he has come down from heaven (a literal statement). So, in the first half of the discourse Jesus is inviting the crowd to have faith in him. This is not unrelated to what he says next, for it will require faith in order to accept the words he is about to tell them.

The second half of the discourse (John 6:48-58) is not an invitation to faith, but an invitation to the Eucharist (which will require faith in order to accept). He begins the second half of the discourse with exactly the same words as the first; “I am the bread of life”. This time, however, these words are not followed by invitations to faith, but rather invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. This was absolutely offensive to the Jews, for obvious and not so obvious reasons. This would not be offensive if it was understood as metaphor (as Jesus being “bread” was understood). This time the crowd asks how it is possible to eat his flesh. They understood him literally. Remember, this crowd spoke the same language, in the same culture and the same time as Jesus. They understood him very well. But he does not back down, his words just become stronger: “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.” “…For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

The call to faith in Jesus is all important because without it we cannot be united to Christ; nor can we recognize his true presence in the Eucharist. That is why he first invites us to faith, and then to the Most Holy Sacrament.

Oh my gosh, an actual exegesis! I knew I could count on you Steve! Ha!

Where do you see a break in the text that would warrant Jesus shifting to the topic of the eucharist which isn’t even going to be introduced for another 2 years and ehich the crowds had no way of determining?

 

[adrift]

Yes it is because it is taking John’s statements about the flesh of Christ and reading later doctrinal statements into John’s intent instead of letting the context determine what John is trying to convey.

Still not an anachronism. You are misusing the word.

I just looked through the thread and you have not provided where you are getting your statements like this one.

so when Clement said it was a symbol and a metaphor, whst he really meant was…its not a symbol and not a metaphor?

Please provide where you get this statement.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Still not an anachronism. You are misusing the word.

I just looked through the thread and you have not provided where you are getting your statements like this one.

Please provide where you get this statement.

ElsewheretheLord, in theGospelaccording toJohn, brought this out bysymbols, when He said:Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;John6:34describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesoffaithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.- The Instructor ch. 1

Ananachronism, from theGreekανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is achronological*inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain.

 

[SteveVH]

Oh my gosh, an actual exegesis! I knew I could count on you Steve! Ha!

Where do you see a break in the text that would warrant Jesus shifting to the topic of the eucharist which isn’t even going to be introduced for another 2 years and ehich the crowds had no way of determining?

We see a kind of summary of the first half of the discourse in 6:47: “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” As I said, the entire first part is a call to faith in Jesus. Notice how he emphasizes his summation with “Truly, truly…”.

The break occurs between verses 47 and 48. Verse 48 begins again with the same bold staement “I am the bread of life”. Now with a different emphasis. Instead of invitations to faith, he invites them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

When Christ says “…the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” do you believe that he is speaking of his flesh metaphorically? But notice, he is not inviting the crowd to come and start gnawing on his arm. He says “the bread which I shall give…” This points to the last supper when the sacrament was instituted. We would consume his glorified body and blood. Do you really think that after hearing the bread of life discourse and then hearing Jesus say “Take this and eat of it. This is my body which will be given for you.” at the last supper that these are not related?

I don’t think the Apostles had a clue what Jesus was saying in the Bread of Life Discourse. The reason they didn’t walk away with everyone else is that they believed the One who told them, even though they didn’t understand. I mean they didn’t say “geez, I don’t know what’s wrong with them, I understand completely”. They said “to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.” They had the faith that Jesus spoke of in the first part, and they would have the Eucharist that Jesus spoke about in the second part at the last supper, at Passover, no less.

 

[adrift]

ElsewheretheLord, in theGospelaccording toJohn, brought this out bysymbols, when He said:Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;John6:34describing distinctly by metaphor thedrinkablepropertiesoffaithand the promise, by means of which theChurch, like ahumanbeing consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—offaith, which is the body, and ofhope, which is thesoul; as also theLordof flesh and blood. For in reality the blood offaithishope, in whichfaithis held as by a vital principle.- The Instructor ch. 1

Ananachronism, from theGreekανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is achronological*inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain.

None of the definition you provide applies to how you used the word. You may believe that it is being misunderstood but it is only your opinion. You would have to prove that no Christian who believed that the bread and wine was not the Body and Blood of Jesus for your use to be accurate. You also did not provide where you are getting your quote or your definition.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

We see a kind of summary of the first half of the discourse in 6:47: “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.”

When Christ says “…the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” do you believe that he is speaking of his flesh metaphorically?

Jesus has already indicated in verse 35 that eating and drinking from the bread of life is equivalent to coming and believing in him. Chiefly here he is referring to that which faith has as an object; his flesh for the life of the world. The metaphor is not “flesh” but “bread.” Likewise, the metaphor for “come” and “believe” is “eat” and “drink.” In non-metaphorical terms in the entirety of the discourse, Jesus is saying come and believe in me/my flesh for the life of the world and you will have eternal life. If you don’t, you have no life in you.

But notice, he is not inviting the crowd to come and start gnawing on his arm. The says "the bread which I shall give…" This points to the last supper when the sacrament was instituted. Do you really think that after hearing the bread of life discourse and then hearing Jesus say “Take this and eat of it. This is my body which will be given for you.” at the last supper that these are not related?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, John 6 is eucharistic.The problem is that, even if you grant the Catholic interpretation of Jn 6, you still have to connect that text to the communion elements. Even if Jesus is talking about the Eucharist in Jn 6, he is not, presumably saying, that every piece of bread or glass of wine is his true body and blood, is he? You see what’s missing in the appeal to Jn 6? What is it that makes his words refer to what happens in your church on Sunday morning? And once you ask that elementary and unavoidable question, the appeal to Jn 6 loses its transparency. For there is absolutely nothing in Jn 6 to differentiate an ordinary piece of bread from “the Host.” Nor is there anything in Jn 13. Nor is there anything in the entire Gospel of John to bridge the gap and seal the deal.

And that’s why you’re forced to leapfrog from John to Matt, Luke or Paul in order to appeal to the institution passages. This is an artificial way to exegete a passage. You end up with something not quite John, not quite Paul. Instead of keeping the focus on the words of Jesus in the passage. Note that he beegins the discourse talking about faith and ends the discourse talking about faith. Because he changes to flesh and blood and eating and drinking in no way means the emphasis is removed from faith.

I don’t think the Apostles had a clue what Jesus was saying in the Bread of Life Discourse. The reason they didn’t walk away with everyone else is that they believed the One who told them, even though they didn’t understand. I mean they didn’t say “geez, I don’t know what’s wrong with them, I understand completely”. They said “to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.” They had the faith that Jesus spoke of in the first part, and they would have the Eucharist that Jesus spoke about in the second part at the last supper, at Passover, no less.