Which Church is it?

[Jon_Hus]

In trusting yourself, don’t you presume yourself to be the direct to God. As I said before, it seems illogical to think that Jesus ascended to Heaven only to leave everyone to interpret scripture by themselves. Since humans rarely agree on anything, doesn’t this invite division in the Body of Christ. Isn’t it logical to believe that Jesus left some physical authority so that the message remains the same through the ages, not like it is now with one group believing this, and another group believing that and so on. I don’t doubt your faith and I believe it will lead you to Heaven, but I believe the the same of my faith and that is Jesus and the Church He founded.

Actually pete, I don’t presume anything and the fact that you repeat this statement only proves that you either don’t know how protestants interprete the Bible or you purposly pretend not to know, both are common problems here. But, I guess that is why you are Roman Catholic as you feel comfortable believing that Jesus placed ultimate authority in sinful men and I chose to believe that Jesus left ultimate authority in the inerrant Scripture. You believe that the popes are infallable, I believe that the “Scriptures cannot be broken.” Big difference pete.

 

[excaliber]

Actually pete, I don’t presume anything and the fact that you repeat this statement only proves that you either don’t know how protestants interprete the Bible or you purposly pretend not to know, both are common problems here. But, I guess that is why you are Roman Catholic as you feel comfortable believing that Jesus placed ultimate authority in sinful men and I chose to believe that Jesus left ultimate authority in the inerrant Scripture. You believe that the popes are infallable, I believe that the “Scriptures cannot be broken.” Big difference pete.

opps protestant walked into the trap AGAIN. “inerrant Scripture”

You know the bishops and councils
all had your inerrant scripture.

But because Jesus didn’t walk around handing out books…but left living IMPERFECT men called
Apostles to teach using scripture as a text book to teach FROM.
That’s what we have today…bishops who are not perfect.

Protestants think the bible will magicaly keep them from interpreting it incorectly.
So they can get rid of the church…
but then you start churches that
are just as imperfect.

May as well have stuck with the original.

 

[imjustme]

In trusting yourself, don’t you presume yourself to be the direct to God. As I said before, it seems illogical to think that Jesus ascended to Heaven only to leave everyone to interpret scripture by themselves. Since humans rarely agree on anything, doesn’t this invite division in the Body of Christ. Isn’t it logical to believe that Jesus left some physical authority so that the message remains the same through the ages, not like it is now with one group believing this, and another group believing that and so on. I don’t doubt your faith and I believe it will lead you to Heaven, but I believe the the same of my faith and that is Jesus and the Church He founded.

Jesus did not leave everyone to interpret the Bible by themselves. He promised that we would have the Holy Spirit to guide us in understanding His Word. The Holy Spirit is one in the Trinity with God and God had the Bible written by men, guided by the Holy Spirit…so in my belief, I am being guided to read and understand the Bible by the same Holy Spirit that guided the original writers.

No, it is not logical that Jesus would institute any type of physical authority so that the Word would remain the same through the ages. Think how long the Old Testament remained true through the ages under the Jews…this was done without the Catholic Church because God and the Holy Spirit saw to it that it would be forever…likewise the New Testament does not need a physical authority.

No one man is infallible no matter how many men say so. Only God and His Word is infallible. We must trust in God and not be deceived by men claiming to stand in His place. No human is worthy to stand in His place.

 

[pete_29]

Actually pete, I don’t presume anything and the fact that you repeat this statement only proves that you either don’t know how protestants interprete the Bible or you purposly pretend not to know, both are common problems here. But, I guess that is why you are Roman Catholic as you feel comfortable believing that Jesus placed ultimate authority in sinful men and I chose to believe that Jesus left ultimate authority in the inerrant Scripture. You believe that the popes are infallable, I believe that the “Scriptures cannot be broken.” Big difference pete.

But the infallable Jon Hus can always interpret scripture correctly. How nice to know your not sinful like the rest of us. The difference between us is that I don’t delude myself by thinking that I’m the ultimate authority on God’s plan and I have the compassion to not to damn you to hell for your beliefs, and don’t tell me that’s not what your doing.

 

[pete_29]

Jesus did not leave everyone to interpret the Bible by themselves. He promised that we would have the Holy Spirit to guide us in understanding His Word. The Holy Spirit is one in the Trinity with God and God had the Bible written by men, guided by the Holy Spirit…so in my belief, I am being guided to read and understand the Bible by the same Holy Spirit that guided the original writers.

No, it is not logical that Jesus would institute any type of physical authority so that the Word would remain the same through the ages. Think how long the Old Testament remained true through the ages under the Jews…this was done without the Catholic Church because God and the Holy Spirit saw to it that it would be forever…likewise the New Testament does not need a physical authority.

No one man is infallible no matter how many men say so. Only God and His Word is infallible. We must trust in God and not be deceived by men claiming to stand in His place. No human is worthy to stand in His place.

And look how bad they messed things up without any authority. Your post is balderdash, because if it weren’t we wouldn’t have the First Baptist Church, or the Second, or the Third, or Pentecostals, or Seventh Day Adventists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

 

[Erich]

The one true church of God is the entire body of Christians that are truly saved. Christians become members of the church (body of Christ) by faith.

There are no denominations mentioned in the bible. Followers of Jesus were called Christians.

So, Jesus founded an invisible Church?

From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

…Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

The visibility of the Church is no light matter…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I respectfully disagree. I know quite a few Protestants who believe that their Church is the One, True Church. Evidently, the person I noted from the other thread does. To make my position clear, I believe that the Catholic Church is the True Church. I think we have the history to prove it, and since Jesus is not going to physically stand before us and tell us to our faces the exact meaning of scripture, I think it’s illogical to believe that He would not leave a physical authority in place so that no error would enter His Church. That being said, I don’t have the education to argue whether your beliefs are good, evil, or somewhere in between. What I am is, is curious as to if you think your Church is the True Church and why.

Yes I’m well aware that some RC’s who post here believe that they are the #1 church. My church certainly doesn’t engage in that kind of oneupmanship. I believe that most biblical scholars don’t believe that there is evidence that Jesus meant to start any church. The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.

But I agree, there are no doubt some denominations in Protestantism that claim to believe they are number one. I tend to think such things to be rather arrogant in nature. I don’t find the idea that Jesus wanted to make sure there was no error to be valid. Since I don’t believe he started a church, and the HS belongs to all of Christendom and essentially all the world, certainly to every believer. Error has been aplenty and I think it ranges across all denominations of Christendom. We all have truth, but nobody probably has it all. In fact, given our limited mental faculties, I’m thinking that we probably get more wrong than right. But God is compassionate.

 

[Harpazo]

Yes I’m well aware that some RC’s who post here believe that they are the #1 church. My church certainly doesn’t engage in that kind of oneupmanship. I believe that most biblical scholars don’t believe that there is evidence that Jesus meant to start any church. The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.

But I agree, there are no doubt some denominations in Protestantism that claim to believe they are number one. I tend to think such things to be rather arrogant in nature. I don’t find the idea that Jesus wanted to make sure there was no error to be valid. Since I don’t believe he started a church, and the HS belongs to all of Christendom and essentially all the world, certainly to every believer. Error has been aplenty and I think it ranges across all denominations of Christendom. We all have truth, but nobody probably has it all. In fact, given our limited mental faculties, I’m thinking that we probably get more wrong than right. But God is compassionate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Spiritmeadow,

I have never heard that the Church added to Scripture to “overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.” Where have you heard that? That’s very curious.

Also, would you say that each Protestant group in some way believes or did believe at one time that they were the “true Church” or the “remnant?” If they never believed they had the faith right, why did they found their church? Only curious of your opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[allhers]

Actually, Jesus left us a Church, not a Bible, but the Holy Spirit (as Jesus said He would) led us to all truth and the Church that Jesus founded on Peter, compiled the Bible into the Book that you know as the Bible.

God choose certain men to write it all down and compile other Scriptures (Old Testament writings, the Scrolls, which Jesus read from). Jesus didn’t have a Bible, it wasn’t all compiled and written before His time on earth ended.

It was written for the Church by the Church. (glad you all like it)…however, it was compiled, by the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

…It’s the Church that the Bible speaks of when it says: The Church is the Pillar of Truth.
(Those men who wrote that were Catholic (all Catholis are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic, which brings us to this question----why not?)

If not the Catholic Church, what Church do YOU all think it is Pete is asking. Do I have that right, Pete?

 

[pete_29]

Yes I’m well aware that some RC’s who post here believe that they are the #1 church. My church certainly doesn’t engage in that kind of oneupmanship. I believe that most biblical scholars don’t believe that there is evidence that Jesus meant to start any church. The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.

But I agree, there are no doubt some denominations in Protestantism that claim to believe they are number one. I tend to think such things to be rather arrogant in nature. I don’t find the idea that Jesus wanted to make sure there was no error to be valid. Since I don’t believe he started a church, and the HS belongs to all of Christendom and essentially all the world, certainly to every believer. Error has been aplenty and I think it ranges across all denominations of Christendom. We all have truth, but nobody probably has it all. In fact, given our limited mental faculties, I’m thinking that we probably get more wrong than right. But God is compassionate.

I can accept that. I could tell you all day long that the Catholic Church is the True Church, but you have no reason to believe me. Though our paths are different, our goals are the same. Who can tell how God’s mercy will play out? Perhaps both of us will find Heaven. Perhaps neither of us will. Let us pray that both our paths lead us to be with God.

 

[Louie1983]

Yes I’m well aware that some RC’s who post here believe that they are the #1 church. My church certainly doesn’t engage in that kind of oneupmanship. I believe that most biblical scholars don’t believe that there is evidence that Jesus meant to start any church. The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” **is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition. **

Later addition? do you have any evidence to support this given that the earliest transcripts of the scriptures contain this verse?

 

[Erich]

The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.

I, too, am interested in seeing the supporting evidence for this claim… given that (a) the “On this rock…” statement appears in Matthew’s Gospel, (b) Matthew was an eyewitness Apostle, and (c) there is plenty of historical support for Matthew’s Gospel having been written first (the 19th-century Markan priority theory notwithstanding).

In particular, New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79).

 

[Doxiemom]

I think the Nicene Creed sums it up quite nicely

the one holy catholic apostalic church

note the small “c”

I resent very much that some non-catholics refuse to include catholics in God’s One Church-the Bride of Christ- which is one universal church. Only One Bride.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Spiritmeadow,

I have never heard that the Church added to Scripture to “overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition.” Where have you heard that? That’s very curious.

Also, would you say that each Protestant group in some way believes or did believe at one time that they were the “true Church” or the “remnant?” If they never believed they had the faith right, why did they found their church? Only curious of your opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

You find these things Andrew by reading actual experts in the field as apposed to apologists for the faith. Apologists have a view to express and they do so by organizing existing scripture in a way that favors their conclusion. The experts merely follow the evidence and try as dispassionately as possible to state the actual truth.It comes from examining hundreds of transcripts, all copies of copies of copies. We have no authentic autographs so it’s really impossible to call anything the “word of God” at this point.

I don’t agree that all Protestant, nor Orthodox every necessarily considered themselves the “true Church.” NO doubt each at some point believed it interpreted the truth more correctly, but that hardly requires one to conclude that one is the “true” church. God speaks to all his creation without regard to sect, denomination, or community wouldn’t you agree?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I can accept that. I could tell you all day long that the Catholic Church is the True Church, but you have no reason to believe me. Though our paths are different, our goals are the same. Who can tell how God’s mercy will play out? Perhaps both of us will find Heaven. Perhaps neither of us will. Let us pray that both our paths lead us to be with God.

Amen to that. I rather think that all our silly arguments about who is right or wrong are of little or no consequence to God.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;5466444:

Yes I’m well aware that some RC’s who post here believe that they are the #1 church. My church certainly doesn’t engage in that kind of oneupmanship. I believe that most biblical scholars don’t believe that there is evidence that Jesus meant to start any church. The oft mentioned verse “On this rock…” **is considered a later church addition to the text to help the fledgling church overcome challenges from other Jesus followers by establishing some ownership over an apostolic tradition. **

Later addition? do you have any evidence to support this given that the earliest transcripts of the scriptures contain this verse?

naw, I just made it up! lol…just kidding. Actually any number of biblical experts take this position, Marcus Borg, J. Dominic Crossan but it is frankly the general assumption.

I’ll take your word for it that the earliest transcripts contain the verse. That wouldn’t make any difference at all since the earliest are but copies of copies of copies. Experts don’t look just to what is on paper, but to many other literal critical means to discern what was original and what was added later. In fact most often it has nothing to do with being present in earlier transcripts. Most of the J,P,E, D dicotomy in Genesis and much of the Torah was discerned by change in writing style for instance, as well as in word choice. That is the means by which it is so clear that only 7 books aclaimed to Paul are clearly Paul and why the rest are either clearly not by him, or most likely not by him.

I never report a minority opinion without stating it is so. When a make a flat statement, it is because the majority of experts worldwide agree.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I, too, am interested in seeing the supporting evidence for this claim… given that (a) the “On this rock…” statement appears in Matthew’s Gospel, (b) Matthew was an eyewitness Apostle, and (c) there is plenty of historical support for Matthew’s Gospel having been written first (the 19th-century Markan priority theory notwithstanding).

In particular, New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79).

Yes well he may, but the vast vast majority of scholars still claim Markan priority as you well know. And nobody other than the orthodox apologists believe that Matthew, was the actual apostle. Someone wrote in his name or their own, but they wrote in the area of 80-85 CE.

I merely answered the questioned posed as I believe it. I don’t and have not find it fruitful to make proofs to orthodox apologistic Catholics who deny all sources they disagree with as “liberal” anyway. Long hours of research only to be ignored has convinced me not to try. The evidence is clearly available since it is the majority opinion. You may of course believe as you wish which you will undoubtedly do.

I really have no axe to grind here, since it is unimportant to me who was first. I simply follow the experts. Theide’s work is highly controversial and not agreed to by most other experts. I believe you are incorrect in your assertion. He originally dated the material to before 70 as I understand and has since redated it to late 1st century. But I’m surely no expert, and certainly not of his work which as I said, is highly controversial. If he were mainstream I would surely pay more attention. But I have no need or desire to evoke Matthew primacy as for some odd reason so many here do.

 

[Harpazo]

You find these things Andrew by reading actual experts in the field as apposed to apologists for the faith. Apologists have a view to express and they do so by organizing existing scripture in a way that favors their conclusion. The experts merely follow the evidence and try as dispassionately as possible to state the actual truth.It comes from examining hundreds of transcripts, all copies of copies of copies. We have no authentic autographs so it’s really impossible to call anything the “word of God” at this point.

Would you consider the fathers of the Church to be experts? As a general rule, Orthodox use what we call the consensus patrum or consensus of the fathers in regards to the beliefs of the Church. St. Vincent of Lérins said it so eloquently:

Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

That is to say (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the faith held everywhere, always and by all.”

Oftentimes, I have found that “scholars” who have made these claims about the early Church in recent years generally do have some sort of bias one way or another. In my opinion the fathers of the Church are great witnesses to a belief in something, not any “scholar” today who has an agenda to discredit the early Church or Christianity in general.

I don’t agree that all Protestant, nor Orthodox every necessarily considered themselves the “true Church.” NO doubt each at some point believed it interpreted the truth more correctly, but that hardly requires one to conclude that one is the “true” church. God speaks to all his creation without regard to sect, denomination, or community wouldn’t you agree?

Orthodox have always considered themselves the true Church. There’s a saying in Orthodoxy in regards to God’s grace: “We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not.” In other words, we believe the Orthodox Church to hold the faith that Christ gave to His Apostles, but we do not limit where God sends His grace to others who have not found the Orthodox Church.

I think I understand what you are saying about the forming of different denominations. However, by the very fact that they founded their church don’t you think they, in a way, declared that they had the entire truth and were the true Church? After all, why would they have founded it in the first place and broke off from what they broke off of?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Joe_Brown]

THE CHURCH
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church
Mt 18:17 - if he refuses to listen even to the Church…
Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations
Mk 16:15-16 - go to whole world and proclaim gospel
Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me.
Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything
Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth.
1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church is the body of Christ
Col 1:18 - He is the head of the body, the church.
1 Cor 12:20-27 - you are Christ’s body, individually parts of it.
Eph 5:30 - we are members of His body.
Rom 12:4-5 - though many, we are one body in Christ
1 Cor 6:15 - Don’t you know your bodies are members of Christ?

The Church must be one
Jn 10:16 - there will be one fold and one shepherd.
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church (singular)
Mt 18:17 - tell it to THE Church; if he refuses to listen even to THE Church… (must be visible)

Apostolic Church
Jn 15;16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles
Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission
Lk 22:29-3 - Jesus gave them a kingdom
Mt 16:18 - Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock
Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ’s sheep
Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd
Eph 4;11 - church leaders are hierarchical
1Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons
Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests

Authoritative Church
Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline

Infallible Church
Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth
Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything
Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ’s own voice
1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
1Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you
Acts 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Mt 28:20 - I am with you

Perpetual Church
Is 9:6-7 - of Christ’s government there will be no end
Dan 2:44 - God’s kingdom shall stand forever
Dan 7:14 - His kingdom shall not be destroyed
Eph 3:21 - to him be glory in the church to all generations for ever & ever
Lk 1:32, 33 - no end to Christ’s kingdom
Mt 7:24 - Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock
Mt 13:24-30 - let wheat & weeds grow together until harvest
Mt 16:18 - gates of hell will never prevail against Christ’s church
Jn 14:16 - Holy Spirit will be with you always
Mt 28:19-20 - I am with you all days

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Primacy of Peter
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

Apostolic Succession
2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets…
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles, …
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

 

[Joe_Brown]

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault