In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[OzSpen]

YOU say symbol. Jesus, Paul, men who walked with the apostles, the early Christians, the early church fathers and 2000 years of Christian beliefs/practice disagree with you........second warning on this subject.

1Peter 3:21 (baptism saves)
Mark 16:16 (baptism saves)
Luke 13:13 (repent or perish/repent or loose your salvation)
John 15:22 (if you never knew him you can still have salvation)

This is your second warning on this subject also.

Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

Tom,

I find it amazing that you point the finger at another on this topic but don't see yourself as a culprit.

Oz

 

[lforrest]

1 Corinthians 10:15....I speak to sensible people......

Maybe this is why you have not been able to comprehend what Paul said?

BTW...You didn't even ATTEMPT to rebut what Jesus said. Why is that?

Did Jesus taste like crackers and grape? Obviously not, Jesus was speaking spiritually about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That doesn't make it any less real.

 

[OzSpen]

Did Jesus taste like crackers and grape? Obviously not, Jesus was speaking spiritually about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That doesn't make it any less real.

Lovely explanation, Iforrest.

 

[mjrhealth]

All you do after every post is reveal more and more of your true nature which is one of an inculcated self-righteous Protestant and not really one who is truthfully speaking the true church.

One should speak, you talk like a catholic, you protest like a catholic, you only promote catholism, every thing about you is catholic, we are supposed to be "christian", ans the Jws could well have a good arguemnt as to who has the church that is Christs, i have had that discussion with them enough times. If anything you would be a good protestant, as all you do is protest against the truth.

Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

Well if you stop lying and twisting teh truth so much you wont be having so many problems with condemiing yourself.

 

[StanJ]

Did Jesus taste like crackers and grape? Obviously not, Jesus was speaking spiritually about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That doesn't make it any less real.

Well apparently some Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was teaching us to be cannibals?!

 

[lforrest]

Well apparently some Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was teaching us to be cannibals?!

Jesus refuted that misconception then and there.
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life."

 

[StanJ]

Jesus refuted that misconception then and there.
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life."

You & I and many others on this thread know that but I'm just trying to get a handle on why so many Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation other than they're taught it from the catechism. They sure aren't getting it from the totality of scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus refuted that misconception then and there.
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life."

While Jesus was on earth, he had real flesh and blood. The God-man who walked Galilee was not a spirit or ghost.

 

[lforrest]

While Jesus was on earth, he had real flesh and blood. The God-man who walked Galilee was not a spirit or ghost.

It wasn't an unreasonable misconception his followers had whom abandoned him that day. They probably thought he was a madman.

 

[OzSpen]

It wasn't an unreasonable misconception his followers had whom abandoned him that day. They probably thought he was a madman.

Could it be that the theology of the 'Real Presence' is that which is closer to being that which is not the truth?

The Roman Catholic New Advent exposition of 'The real presence as a fact' states: 'The whole structure of the discourse [John 6] of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood"' (The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

Interpreting it literally sure sounds to be closer to being a vampire.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I find it amazing that you point the finger at another on this topic but don't see yourself as a culprit.

Oz

If you are WRONG then you are divisive. When Jesus says this is my flesh/blood and you then say it isn't....you are being divisive. One of us is right and the other is wrong.

No pointing fingers. He is flat out wrong and so are you if you don't believe what Jesus said. I believe what Jesus said.

 

[tom55]

Did Jesus taste like crackers and grape? Obviously not, Jesus was speaking spiritually about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That doesn't make it any less real.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day" Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

The Jews questioned Him and you can see what he told them. Now you are questioning Him. I think he has the same message for you. They walked away and so are you. How sad.

So I Tom55 say to you non-believers what Jesus told the Jews....VERY TRULY I TELL YOU IT IS HIS FLESH AND BLOOD. Walk away if you want. It won't effect my salvation.

As we know "This is a hard saying so who can listen to it?" Apparently those of you who don't believe what Jesus said.

 

[OzSpen]

If you are WRONG then you are divisive. When Jesus says this is my flesh/blood and you then say it isn't....you are being divisive. One of us is right and the other is wrong.

No pointing fingers. He is flat out wrong and so are you if you don't believe what Jesus said. I believe what Jesus said.

Tom,

Your claim is:
Let's check who is really right or wrong. It's an issue of biblical interpretation in context.
If you are WRONG then you are divisive. When Jesus says this is my flesh/blood and you then say it isn't....you are being divisive. One of us is right and the other is wrong.
No pointing fingers. He is flat out wrong and so are you if you don't believe what Jesus said. I believe what Jesus said.
John 6:47-58 (ESV) states:

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live for ever.”

1. Let's deal with the meaning of vv 53-54, '53 So Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

Here, Jesus repeats a truth he stated as the second part of v. 51, 'If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever'. Note the emphasis in v. 53, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ... you have no life in you.' Now v 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh ... has eternal life'.

2. What will be the result of this? 'I will raise him up on the last day' (v 54).

3. Who is the one whose flesh is eaten? He has the title of 'the Son of Man' (v. 53). Yes, he is a fleshly human being - a man - while on earth, but God has placed his seal of approval on him (Jn 6:27 ESV).

4. So the meaning is that the Son of Man is a title given to Jesus, but it does not overlook the fact that he is a flesh and blood human being. The supreme revelation of God is through Jesus, the Son of Man. Unlike any other fleshly human being, he has the amazing ability to grant one eternal life if one 'eats' of him.

5. 'Drink his/my blood' is added in vv 53 & 54. The Jews objected strongly to this statement (see v 51). Why? The law of Moses forbade the drinking of blood (see Gen 9:2-4 ESV). So to drink the blood of the Son of Man was offensive or abominable to them.

6. John 6:54 & 6:40 have a close connection:
(1) v. 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day', and (2) v. 40, 'For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

The only major difference between these two verses is eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood vs. looking to the Son and believing in Him. We come to an obvious conclusion of interpretation: The eating the flesh and drinking the flood is a metaphorical way of referring to looking to the Son and believing in the Son. How come? The result of both activities is the same - receiving eternal life and being raised on the last day.

7. This caused the eminent church father, St. Augustine of Hippo, to state: 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44)].

8. There are no indications in John 6:53-54 that this refers to the Lord's Supper. If we make it refer to the Eucharist, it means that one of the things necessary to receive eternal life is to participate in the Lord's Supper to eat the body and drink the blood. This would amount to works religion, which is antithetical to New Testament Christianity (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

9. There are cannibalistic overtones if one accepts the literal body and blood instead of the metaphorical meaning that points to looking to Jesus and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

10. When John stated, 'And I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:40, 54), it demonstrates that eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally does not confer immortality/resurrection at the last day. The Lord's Supper/Eucharist is not designed for immortality. However looking to the Son and believing in Him are for that purpose.

Like you, I also believe what Jesus said but when he spoke of eating the body and drinking the blood, it was a metaphor for looking to the Son and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

Careful exegesis of the text is needed to discern what it actually means.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Your claim is:
Let's check who is really right or wrong. It's an issue of biblical interpretation in context.
If you are WRONG then you are divisive. When Jesus says this is my flesh/blood and you then say it isn't....you are being divisive. One of us is right and the other is wrong.
No pointing fingers. He is flat out wrong and so are you if you don't believe what Jesus said. I believe what Jesus said.
John 6:47-58 (ESV) states:

1. Let's deal with the meaning of vv 53-54, '53 So Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

Here, Jesus repeats a truth he stated as the second part of v. 51, 'If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever'. Note the emphasis in v. 53, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ... you have no life in you.' Now v 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh ... has eternal life'.

2. What will be the result of this? 'I will raise him up on the last day' (v 54).

3. Who is the one whose flesh is eaten? He has the title of 'the Son of Man' (v. 53). Yes, he is a fleshly human being - a man - while on earth, but God has placed his seal of approval on him (Jn 6:27 ESV).

4. So the meaning is that the Son of Man is a title given to Jesus, but it does not overlook the fact that he is a flesh and blood human being. The supreme revelation of God is through Jesus, the Son of Man. Unlike any other fleshly human being, he has the amazing ability to grant one eternal life if one 'eats' of him.

5. 'Drink his/my blood' is added in vv 53 & 54. The Jews objected strongly to this statement (see v 51). Why? The law of Moses forbade the drinking of blood (see Gen 9:2-4 ESV). So to drink the blood of the Son of Man was offensive or abominable to them.

6. John 6:54 & 6:40 have a close connection:
(1) v. 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day', and (2) v. 40, 'For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

The only major difference between these two verses is eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood vs. looking to the Son and believing in Him. We come to an obvious conclusion of interpretation: The eating the flesh and drinking the flood is a metaphorical way of referring to looking to the Son and believing in the Son. How come? The result of both activities is the same - receiving eternal life and being raised on the last day.

7. This caused the eminent church father, St. Augustine of Hippo, to state: 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44)].

8. There are no indications in John 6:53-54 that this refers to the Lord's Supper. If we make it refer to the Eucharist, it means that one of the things necessary to receive eternal life is to participate in the Lord's Supper to eat the body and drink the blood. This would amount to works religion, which is antithetical to New Testament Christianity (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

9. There are cannibalistic overtones if one accepts the literal body and blood instead of the metaphorical meaning that points to looking to Jesus and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

10. When John stated, 'And I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:40, 54), it demonstrates that eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally does not confer immortality/resurrection at the last day. The Lord's Supper/Eucharist is not designed for immortality. However looking to the Son and believing in Him are for that purpose.

Like you, I also believe what Jesus said but when he spoke of eating the body and drinking the blood, it was a metaphor for looking to the Son and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

Careful exegesis of the text is needed to discern what it actually means.

Oz

1. Thank you for making my point. I agree with you. "Jesus repeats a truth" which means it was important which is why he repeated it.

2. And the result of this truth is 'I will raise him up on the last day'

3-4-6 is double speak, confusing and rubbish

5. You are right about the Jews and it being abominable to them. They walked away and then Jesus doubled down on what he said. He didn't clarify and say it was a metaphor or a symbol. He let them walk away and asked his Apostles if they were going to walk. IT WAS A HARD SAYING!! They didn't believe him..... Just like you don't.

7. I am glad you brought up Augustine. Like a good protestant you only quoted what fit your belief. Here is more of what he said:

"I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it" (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring

8. During the Lords Supper Jesus said "this is my body/blood do this in remembrance of me" and your theory there are no indications John 6:53-54 it refers to the Lords Supper?? You TWISTED that so much it broke!!!

9. Look up the definition of the word cannibalism.

10. Makes no sense

Thank you for articulating your theory though.

 

[OzSpen]

1. Thank you for making my point. I agree with you. "Jesus repeats a truth" which means it was important which is why he repeated it.

2. And the result of this truth is 'I will raise him up on the last day'

3-4-6 is double speak, confusing and rubbish

5. You are right about the Jews and it being abominable to them. They walked away and then Jesus doubled down on what he said. He didn't clarify and say it was a metaphor or a symbol. He let them walk away and asked his Apostles if they were going to walk. IT WAS A HARD SAYING!! They didn't believe him..... Just like you don't.

7. I am glad you brought up Augustine. Like a good protestant you only quoted what fit your belief. Here is more of what he said:

"I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it" (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring

8. During the Lords Supper Jesus said "this is my body/blood do this in remembrance of me" and your theory there are no indications John 6:53-54 it refers to the Lords Supper?? You TWISTED that so much it broke!!!

9. Look up the definition of the word cannibalism.

10. Makes no sense

Thank you for articulating your theory though.

Tom,

I'm not the slightest bit interested in articulating my theory. I spent a lot of time exegeting the Scripture for you to demonstrate that you can't understand basic exegesis of the text.

I will not be discussing further with you as we are not on the same page of Scripture and are speaking past each other.

Remember what Augustine taught: 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44). You have not been able to refute that.

Oz

 

[BjornFree]

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day" Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

The Jews questioned Him and you can see what he told them. Now you are questioning Him. I think he has the same message for you. They walked away and so are you. How sad.

So I Tom55 say to you non-believers what Jesus told the Jews....VERY TRULY I TELL YOU IT IS HIS FLESH AND BLOOD. Walk away if you want. It won't effect my salvation.

As we know "This is a hard saying so who can listen to it?" Apparently those of you who don't believe what Jesus said.

Hi Tom,
Regarding the eating and drinking of "Jesus' flesh and blood" being 'literal', how long will it be before it has all been consumed and none remains?
Or is it not that 'literal'?

 

[OzSpen]

1. Thank you for making my point. I agree with you. "Jesus repeats a truth" which means it was important which is why he repeated it.

2. And the result of this truth is 'I will raise him up on the last day'

3-4-6 is double speak, confusing and rubbish

5. You are right about the Jews and it being abominable to them. They walked away and then Jesus doubled down on what he said. He didn't clarify and say it was a metaphor or a symbol. He let them walk away and asked his Apostles if they were going to walk. IT WAS A HARD SAYING!! They didn't believe him..... Just like you don't.

7. I am glad you brought up Augustine. Like a good protestant you only quoted what fit your belief. Here is more of what he said:

"I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it" (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring

8. During the Lords Supper Jesus said "this is my body/blood do this in remembrance of me" and your theory there are no indications John 6:53-54 it refers to the Lords Supper?? You TWISTED that so much it broke!!!

9. Look up the definition of the word cannibalism.

10. Makes no sense

Thank you for articulating your theory though.

Tom,

I have reconsidered and am providing a more detailed response to your points:


1. Thank you for making my point. I agree with you. "Jesus repeats a truth" which means it was important which is why he repeated it.

Oz: You are not referring to the truth to which I referred. I’ll repeat what I stated: Jesus repeats a truth he stated as the second part of v. 51, 'If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever'. Note the emphasis in v. 53, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ... you have no life in you.' Now v 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh ... has eternal life'.

The truth repeated is this: When Jesus said anyone was to eat his flesh, it meant that it was the means of receiving eternal life, living forever. It was not referring to eating Jesus’ literal flesh but to living forever through faith in Jesus Christ. To eat his literal flesh then or now was impossible. He was not dead when he said this. After his death, there was no literal flesh to consume (and so to avoid the charge of cannibalism).

This demonstrates that Tom is so entrenched in his Roman Catholicism of interpreting the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood as literal that he cannot understand the context is referring to a metaphor for receiving eternal life.

What’s a metaphor? A metaphor is ‘a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly: figurative language’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. s v metaphor).

2. And the result of this truth is 'I will raise him up on the last day'

Oz: The result of eternal life is that the believer will be resurrected at the last day. The result of eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally is not being raised up. The resurrection at the last day is dependent on a person receiving eternal life before that person’s physical death.

3-4-6 is double speak, confusing and rubbish

Oz: This is an offensive way of addressing me and does not deal with the content of what I wrote. If it is double speak, please tell me what is. If it is confusing, I'd appreciate you telling me what you don't understand. Calling someone's post 'rubbish' without evidence is not appropriate assessment on a Christian forum. Therefore it is a red herring fallacy of a reply.

What did I say in #3? I referred to the one whose flesh was eaten had the title of ‘the Son of Man’ (v. 53). While on earth, he was a man of flesh and God approved him (Jn 6:27). What’s double speak, confusing and rubbish about that? I know I needed to explain further the meaning of the Son of Man. To explain the meaning of this title for Jesus, see What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man? (gotquestions.org).

In #4 I continued with the emphasis that the Son of Man title for Jesus does not overlook his being a flesh and blood human being. This amazing, fleshly Son of Man has the ability to grant anyone eternal life if he/she ‘eats’ of him, i.e. eats = has faith in him.

My point at #6 of the close connection between John 6:40 and 54 was not explained well enough by me. The close connection is that those who look to the Son and believe in Him have eternal life (John 6:40) and that’s the message of John 6:54 except that Jesus uses the metaphor of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to have eternal life.

5. You are right about the Jews and it being abominable to them. They walked away and then Jesus doubled down on what he said. He didn't clarify and say it was a metaphor or a symbol. He let them walk away and asked his Apostles if they were going to walk. IT WAS A HARD SAYING!! They didn't believe him..... Just like you don't.

Of course the Jews would object to the eating of flesh and drinking of blood that Jesus used (see my comment in #5) because they didn’t understand the metaphor Jesus was using. This is not a rubbish of an explanation but a fact. If anyone reads John 6:53-54 in a literal fashion, they would find it abhorrent. It was a hard saying because it would require the Jews to believe in the Son of Man to receive eternal life. They were not near ready to do that.

7. I am glad you brought up Augustine. Like a good protestant you only quoted what fit your belief. Here is more of what he said:

"I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it" (Explanation of the Psalms 99).
"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring

Oz: Like a good Roman Catholic you did two things:

(1) You ignored the quote I gave from Augustine, 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44)]. Augustine knew exactly what John 6 was referring to with the eating and drinking. It dealt with believing in Jesus.

(2) You quote some other examples from Augustine to try to support your RCC position on the Eucharist and then don’t understand that Augustine used further metaphors to explain his position. These metaphors are the ones you have highlighted:

• ‘That bread … is the body of Christ’.
• ‘That chalice … is the blood of Christ’.
• ‘The bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ’.
• ‘gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation’.

Every one of those examples is a metaphor, just like when Jesus said,

• ‘I am the door’ (John 10:9 ESV). He was not a literal door.
• ‘I am the light of the world’ (John 8:12 ESV). He was not a literal, physical light.
• ‘You are the salt of the earth’ (Matt 5:13 ESV). Christians are not literal salt.

The problem you run into, Tom, is that your RCC fixation on literal flesh and blood will not allow you to see that the context is using these metaphors as believing to receive eternal life and being resurrected at the last day.

8. During the Lords Supper Jesus said "this is my body/blood do this in remembrance of me" and your theory there are no indications John 6:53-54 it refers to the Lords Supper?? You TWISTED that so much it broke!!!

Oz: No, Tom, I have ‘twisted’ nothing. I have read the verses in context and there is not a word in John 6 to indicate a thing about the Lord’s Supper. There is not a word that Jesus was here referring to the Eucharist – not a single word.

9. Look up the definition of the word cannibalism.

Oz: Why didn’t you provide me with that definition, Tom?

Look again at what I wrote at #9: ‘There are cannibalistic overtones if one accepts the literal body and blood instead of the metaphorical meaning that points to looking to Jesus and believing in Him to receive eternal life’.

What’s the definition of cannibalism? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s first definition is that cannibalism means ‘the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being’ (s v cannibalism).

What I wrote was true to the definition. It is Tom’s position that plays into the overtones of cannibalism in the ‘ritualistic’ eating of the flesh and blood of a human being – Jesus.

10. Makes no sense.

Oz: Perhaps my explanation was not as clear as it ought to have been. I wrote at this point: When John stated, 'And I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:40, 54), it demonstrates that eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally does not confer immortality/resurrection at the last day. The Lord's Supper/Eucharist is not designed for immortality. However looking to the Son and believing in Him are for that purpose.

This is what I meant: To be able to speak of resurrection at the last day (John 6:40, 54), one has to have received eternal life. Therefore, what John is stating in using the metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood is to give a picture of how to receive eternal life. To engage in physical eating of human flesh and drinking human blood does not bring eternal life that leads to last day resurrection. What does do this? Looking to the Son and believing in him.

That’s exactly what John was teaching in John 6:40, 54. He was not dealing with a literal eating of flesh and blood but referred to a metaphor of eating flesh and blood that was designed to represent the faith in Jesus to receive eternal life.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Tom,
Regarding the eating and drinking of "Jesus' flesh and blood" being 'literal', how long will it be before it has all been consumed and none remains?
Or is it not that 'literal'?

Mike,

Those are profound questions. Thank you for asking them. I eagerly await an answer from Tom.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

The following clearly illustrates why tom55 of the RCC is eisegeting scripture instead of exegeting it properly.

27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The RCC hangs it's hat on verse 28 and wants to take it literally yet in the very next verse Jesus identifies what he is drinking by saying "this Fruit of the Vine".

Who are we to believe? The RCC with Tom as their proxy or Jesus? If Jesus meant verse 28 literally then why would he say what he doesn't verse 29? Simply enough Jesus was using metaphorical language in verse 28, then speaking in the literal sense in verse 29.

 

[BjornFree]

What a wonderful confrontational controversy this continues to be.

What if, decades after Christ, Jewish scribes, in accordance with the purpose for their existence, simply garnered such as Jesus’ disciples/apostles could best remember Jesus to have said, and committed those memories to writing along lines that they genuinely felt best reflected what Jesus might have said?
And what if, centuries later the modern Gentile equivalent of those ‘scribes’, who then translated those ancient writings, (which I’m told had no punctuation or division into sentences) into their best understanding of an equivalent to such a ‘foreign’ system of ‘writing’, got it wrong in respect of what Jesus might actually have originally said and meant by it?
And what if every one of the countless ‘amateur experts’ who use Christian forums as their ‘soapbox’ for pronouncing their conflicting views (based on such dodgy literary development) also misrepresent what Jesus might have originally said and meant?
(I say “amateur experts” in the sense that no recognised biblical authority worthy of the title bothers himself with writing to Christian forums)

Beam me up Scotty.