Calling all Law Keepers.

[bbyrd009]

Check out what John 6:54 is saying in Greek.
Eats = Gnaws

I've always found this interesting.
Did Jesus not use the correct terminology?

τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.)

ha, pretty interesting! Not sure what word this is "opposed" to, or iow what other word for "eats" might be used for eating...mashed potatoes, or whatever. Let's check pablum!

 

[GodsGrace]

yet no literal blood was offered to drink, and those disciples obviously misunderstood, not understood, as imo was what was intended anyway. Yes, surely Jews and heathens spoke about Christians as if they were vampires, but that is the "understanding" of the disciples who you say "understood," right.

Let's clarify...

The disciples who walked away in John 6 understood that Jesus was saying to eat and drink Him. They thought it sounded crazy and walked away.

Is this not how you understand it?
John 6:59-61
John 6:66-67

 

[GodsGrace]

τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.)

ha, pretty interesting! Not sure what word this is "opposed" to, or iow what other word for "eats" might be used for eating...mashed potatoes, or whatever. Let's check pablum!

Compare to John 6:51 and see what you come up with.
That eat does mean something different...

 

[bbyrd009]

This is not very funny.
Everybody knows it was an apple.
Just ask any kid.

are you being facetious here, or just ironic?

 

[bbyrd009]

But He held up bread.

ya, and somehow offended many in doing so, nonetheless

 

[bbyrd009]

The disciples who walked away in John 6 understood that Jesus was saying to eat and drink Him. They thought it sounded crazy and walked away.

because they could not understand the symbology being obviously presented, yes. They heard Him literally, even as Christ demonstrated that it was not to be taken literally.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This is not very funny.
Everybody knows it was an apple.
Just ask any kid.

That is an apple.
Just that the apples we have today have evolved.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is an apple.
Just that the apples we have today have evolved.

Now you believe in EVOLUTION!
oh no!!!

 

[GodsGrace]

are you being facetious here, or just ironic?

Neither.
Lighten up.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is an apple.
Just that the apples we have today have evolved.

Hmmm.
I see.
They've evolved quite a bit if THEY NEED SUNGLASSES!!!

 

[bbyrd009]

Neither.
Lighten up.

"this is not very funny," and i'm the one...never mind lol

 

[bbyrd009]

Hmmm.
I see.
They've evolved quite a bit if THEY NEED SUNGLASSES!!!

global warming!

 

[GodsGrace]

"this is not very funny," and i'm the one...never mind lol

Oh for goodness sake,
everybody knows it wasn't an apple...
except for 7 year olds. They live by that and extraction is necessary.

 

[GodsGrace]

global warming!

YES!
Now you got it...
A little kidding around every now and then is good for the soul.

 

[bbyrd009]

everybody knows it wasn't an apple...

you might be surprised!

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Oh for goodness sake,
everybody knows it wasn't an apple...
except for 7 year olds. They live by that and extraction is necessary.

don't be so influenced by society.
Of course it was an apple.

 

[jimd]

What kind of fruit was it in the Garden of Eden?

What kind of fruit was it in the Garden of Eden?

There were two kinds, one was ok, one was not. The one was capable of imparting eternal life. Who do you know that if you eat His flesh and drink His blood will give you eternal life? Does the fact He is referred to as a tree confuse you? Can you recognize a metaphor when you see one? If we can agree on this one, we can try the other one if you like.

[/QUOTE]

 

[jimd]

No. They were created perfectly.
In fact, they had preternatural gifts.
Gifts that went BEYOND nature, like for instance, immortality.

They received the sin nature/flesh nature, AFTER they ate the forbidden fruit. And all of the effects of that sin are in us and in nature. Since they fell, we have inherited the sin nature/fleshly nature.

Is this your understanding?

No, they were made of dirt, flesh, blood and bone just as we are and they were promised immortality if they obeyed, just as we are. They did not obey which proves to me they had a fleshly nature just as we do but it's ok if we disagree on issues like this because however we understand it will not affect our salvation. At least I don't think it will, do you?

 

[GodsGrace]

There were two kinds, one was ok, one was not. The one was capable of imparting eternal life. Who do you know that if you eat His flesh and drink His blood will give you eternal life? Does the fact He is referred to as a tree confuse you? Can you recognize a metaphor when you see one? If we can agree on this one, we can try the other one if you like.

[/QUOTE]
I believe he knows both.
Don't let the funny images fool you...

However, yes. the Tree of Life is Jesus.

 

[amadeus]

I know you partake of bread an wine and it' nothing more than a memorial. The Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, as indicated by the Fourth Cup. Baptism is a ritual. Wen you sit down to eat or prepare for bed you are performing mundane rituals. They are normal to human experience.

The teaching on the Eucharist has not changed in 2000 years; the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

In case you misunderstood, I do not partake of bread made of grain or juice made of grapes at all. I do partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus on a daily basis. Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant communion as practiced by most group are a part of what I do.