BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

---

If Paul took it literally, then doesn't that mean he believes Jesus made it a requirement for salvation? If so, why doesn't he say so, but instead he says we are saved by grace through faith alone?

---

Exactly! Jesus said it was a Spiritual body and blood and He was actually referring to Faith in His death and resurrection, Communion being a symbol of that.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Please take the time to read the whole Bible more often, especially if you have not done so already.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Please take the time to read the whole Bible more often, especially if you have not done so already.

---

Which, if you ACTUALLY read it for yourself, you will see that Salvation is by Grace through Faith alone, without works, which is what this first post talks about. Anyone who adds to God's grace, nullifies God's Grace:

Ga 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Salvation is by Grace through Faith in Christ ALONE without works.

I have read the Bible, and have quoted more of it here than you, as you know. Don't know why you exhibit such spite and venom in your posts.

Jesus mentioned how we would know His followers by their 'fruit'.

You might want to actually heed Christ's words more, and spend less time trying to use Paul as a weapon.

Please cite the verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith alone".

The only time that I can find "faith alone" in the my Bible is in James 2:24:

"You see that a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I've already pointed you to a / the verse proving my point

---

But the verse I shared shows that your point is wrong. It's a Spiritual meaning. WHY do Catholics believe that the Bible is all Spirituallize UNTIL the Bible specifically says that this verse is Spiritual, THEN you say it's Literal in that instance? Backward.

---

Please cite an official Catholic document that states that "Bible is all Spirituallize". Please state where the verse is "Spiritual" and please provide your definition/exegesis for "Spiritual."

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He said this to His Disciples because they were troubled by Him saying what He said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He comforted them with saying that these things are SPIRIT and they are Life. We eat His Flesh and Drink His blood by FAITH in His Death and Resurrection for our sins. Communion is a symbol of this.

---

Yet he let everyone else walk away? Jesus must have been a poor teacher if that were the case. The disciples did not understand, but they believed him.

I can't find anywhere in the bible where it says that the Eucharist is a symbol.

The word "Spiritual" means "which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit." It doesn't mean that they aren't material. Please note the example below:

1 Cor 15:44 - "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body" - In the resurrection, we will get physical bodies, not spiritual ones.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

---

So have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus?

---

Please cite where the bible states that the Jesus washing the everyone's feet were necessary for salvation.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I've already pointed you to a / the verse proving my point

---

But the verse I shared shows that your point is wrong. It's a Spiritual meaning. WHY do Catholics believe that the Bible is all Spirituallize UNTIL the Bible specifically says that this verse is Spiritual, THEN you say it's Literal in that instance? Backward.

---

Please cite an official Catholic document that states that "Bible is all Spirituallize". Please state where the verse is "Spiritual" and please provide your definition/exegesis for "Spiritual."

---

I could care less what the Catholic Church thinks. I don't worship the Catholic Church and they aren't God nor are they the final authority, the Bible is the Final Authority. Jesus is the final Authority and HE said it was Spirit.

Are you going to believe Jesus or your Church? I believe Jesus.

A Prayer by Pastor John Crable:
John Crable
JUST IN CASE U MIGHT PRAY!!
Father God,
I pray that you would create in me a right heart and renew in me a right spirit.
I also pray today that you would forgive me of all my actions,words and deeds that do not serve you. Help me O Lord to be more attentative to your Holy Spirit. Please give me eyes to see ears to hear and a heart to recieve what your Spirit has to say. Lord please sever and break any negative oaths or affirmations I have made with anyone or anything that is ungodly and is keeping me in bondage. I repent of these things knowing that if I cannot serve in word and deed in a way that glorifies God I am in error. Please lead me on the narrow path to you,as you did with the patriarchs before me in the faith. Father, I also come before you today to ask you to free me from all forms of demonic spiritual attack! Including but not limited to headaches,pain in my body,un natural hindrances,and any lack of mental clarity! Just as Satan desired to sift Peter as wheat and you prayed for him Lord Jesus I pray you would do no less for me now. Just as you fought the battle for Jehosophat and your children,today I pray you would let me but stand and watch your mighty work. Please release me now Father God from any sifting by the enemies of God. Let my demonic enemies be confounded,their snares upon me and my family be sprung,and all their plans be as nothing. Let all the enemies of God coming against me and my family be covered in your unrelenting wrath,so that they may know that you are the Lord! And I ask that you would set them ablaze until chaff or great damage is all that remains of them! I ask this all in the mighty name of Jesus Christ! Amen
I thank you Lord for the precious blood you shed,your precious healing.your deliverance and the cross and the testimonial I have in you...knowing of your death a sacrifice for sin,your precious blood shed for my atonement,and your resurrection destroying the barrier of death and opening the way to eternal life........

Frodo: "I believe Jesus."

That would be easier to believe if you acted more like Him.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Please cite an official Catholic document that states that "Bible is all Spirituallize". Please state where the verse is "Spiritual" and please provide your definition/exegesis for "Spiritual."

---

I could care less what the Catholic Church thinks. I don't worship the Catholic Church and they aren't God nor are they the final authority, the Bible is the Final Authority. Jesus is the final Authority and HE said it was Spirit.

---

You made a false accusation about the Church's beliefs. I called you on it. You can't back it up.

Who determines what the 'Final Authority' of the Bible means? How do I know that your interpretation is correct? Are you infallible?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Are you going to believe Jesus or your Church? I believe Jesus.

---

I believe in Jesus and the Church that he created.

BDT17 - I apologize for the delay. Your post deserves a response. I've been crazy busy the past several days.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let's look at it this way: Jesus said in the beginning of this whole discourse that he was the "bread of life", and that whoever comes to him "will never hunger or thirst again". Question: have you ever been hungry or thirsty at any time in your life after taking the Eucharist?

---

Jesus is referring to having eternal life and never being hungry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also, if Jesus said that we have no part with him unless we literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then that would make the Eucharist absolutely necessary for salvation. Therefore, that would make all the declarations in the bible about how to get saved wrong. The Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius - all were misled about being saved, because none were given some of Jesus' flesh to eat. Jesus and Paul were wrong that faith/belief saves you. Too bad for Nicodemus, who wasn't told he had to literally eat Jesus' flesh as well.

---

One of the reasons for my delay in response is that I wanted to obtain an answer in accordance with Catholic magisterial teaching. I contacted Jim Blackburn, noted Catholic apologist, speaker, and author. He provided the following response to your statements above:

Quote:

---

Indeed, the Eucharist is necessary for salvationnot absolutely, but ordinarily. In other words, he who comes to know that the Eucharist is necessary for spiritual life must partake in it.

---

Quote:

---

With respect to the jailer, the house of Cornelius, et al., he offered this response:
Regarding the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the house of Cornelius, and Nicodemus, how do we know they weren't given some of Jesus' flesh to eat? It seems likely that they were! If they were later taught about the Eucharistwhich they surely werethey almost certainly did partake in it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?

---

Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I've already pointed you to a / the verse proving my point

---

But the verse I shared shows that your point is wrong. It's a Spiritual meaning. WHY do Catholics believe that the Bible is all Spirituallize UNTIL the Bible specifically says that this verse is Spiritual, THEN you say it's Literal in that instance? Backward.

---

Please cite an official Catholic document that states that "Bible is all Spirituallize". Please state where the verse is "Spiritual" and please provide your definition/exegesis for "Spiritual."

---

I could care less what the Catholic Church thinks. I don't worship the Catholic Church and they aren't God nor are they the final authority, the Bible is the Final Authority. Jesus is the final Authority and HE said it was Spirit.

Are you going to believe Jesus or your Church? I believe Jesus.

---

That you can't distinguish between "couldn't care less" and "could care less" tells us all we need to know about the quality of your scholarship, such as it is.

I am a Dispensationalist, which is far superior than Catholic, don't take anything literal, Theology so that we can change the Bible. If Jesus says it's Spiritual, then it's Spiritual. If He doesn't, then take it Literally.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I am a Dispensationalist, which is far superior than Catholic, don't take anything literal, Theology so that we can change the Bible. If Jesus says it's Spiritual, then it's Spiritual. If He doesn't, then take it Literally.

---

Remind me again how "this is my body" is spiritual and not literal and how you "know" that?

Coke Bear said:

---

Please cite the verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith alone".

The only time that I can find "faith alone" in the my Bible is in James 2:24:

"You see that a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."

---

Still waiting along with you for an explanation, fwiw.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

".:: they are spirit AND they are LIFE." Life is both spiritual and physical. They are not mutually exclusive. This is simple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Decent post until you threw this out:

"Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false."

Sorry but what I read there was 'my interpretation and experience makes yours invalid'.

I say that because a) we would not be arguing this point if Scripture clearly supported one side or the other. Once we fall back on interpretation, human error pops up and says 'hello'.

As for History, again that is plainly rhetorical bullying, as if you were saying 'we argued this sooner and longer so we win.' But that is faulty logic on its face.

I really don't see much effort by either side to understand the other on this one.

---

Scripture clearly shows it is symbolic, not literal. If it were literal, then it is absolutely necessary for salvation, as Jesus would be indicating. Is that what you believe? Do you believe we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.....and we also have to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood?

---

There is no necessity for thinking if it is literally the body and blood then it must be salvific. Your premise is false. We ought to partake of his sacred body and blood as he said.

Coke Bear said:

---

Please cite the verse that says we are "saved by grace through faith alone".

The only time that I can find "faith alone" in the my Bible is in James 2:24:

"You see that a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."

---

Paul's whole teaching of the gospel is that we are saved by grace through faith, not works. If you add works, it ceases to be grace. Faith alone is clearly taught (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 11:6, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:24, Ephesians 1:13, Philippians 3:9)

James 2:24 is not contradicting Paul's teaching. Here's a question - why is James saying Abraham was justified by works by offering up Isaac on the altar, when in Genesis 15 it says "And he (the LORD) brought him (Abraham) outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness."? Genesis 15 says Abraham was "justified", i.e. credited with righteousness just for believing God (faith alone), without doing anything (works). And this happened even before Isaac was born! So what is James saying there?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

---

So have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus?

---

Please cite where the bible states that the Jesus washing the everyone's feet were necessary for salvation.

---

It isn't necessary. Not literally, at least. That's the point. We aren't to take Jesus literally when he said "if I do not wash (your feet) then you have no part with me". Just as we aren't to take Jesus literally when he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, or we have no part with him.

Coke Bear said:

---

BDT17 - I apologize for the delay. Your post deserves a response. I've been crazy busy the past several days.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let's look at it this way: Jesus said in the beginning of this whole discourse that he was the "bread of life", and that whoever comes to him "will never hunger or thirst again". Question: have you ever been hungry or thirsty at any time in your life after taking the Eucharist?

---

Jesus is referring to having eternal life and never being hungry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also, if Jesus said that we have no part with him unless we literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then that would make the Eucharist absolutely necessary for salvation. Therefore, that would make all the declarations in the bible about how to get saved wrong. The Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius - all were misled about being saved, because none were given some of Jesus' flesh to eat. Jesus and Paul were wrong that faith/belief saves you. Too bad for Nicodemus, who wasn't told he had to literally eat Jesus' flesh as well.

---

One of the reasons for my delay in response is that I wanted to obtain an answer in accordance with Catholic magisterial teaching. I contacted Jim Blackburn, noted Catholic apologist, speaker, and author. He provided the following response to your statements above:

Quote:

---

Indeed, the Eucharist is necessary for salvationnot absolutely, but ordinarily. In other words, he who comes to know that the Eucharist is necessary for spiritual life must partake in it.

---

Quote:

---

With respect to the jailer, the house of Cornelius, et al., he offered this response:
Regarding the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the house of Cornelius, and Nicodemus, how do we know they weren't given some of Jesus' flesh to eat? It seems likely that they were! If they were later taught about the Eucharistwhich they surely werethey almost certainly did partake in it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?

---

Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

- no, Jesus is saying that anyone that comes to him shall never hunger or thirst. I'm asking you if you've "come to him" and if you've ever hungered or thirsted since then. If you have, then either Jesus is a liar or he is speaking spiritually and symbolically, i.e. we are not to take him literally. The same goes for when he said "eat my flesh and drink my blood".

- if the Catholic reasoning is true, that the Eucharist is "ordinarily, but not absolutely" necessary for salvation, then by the same reasoning, having Jesus literally wash your feet is ordinarily, but not absolutely, necessary for salvation as well. Jesus said "If I do not wash you (your feet), you have no part with me", which is the same thing he said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Why isn't this another sacrament, then?

- the question about the eunuch, the jailer, and Cornelius is this: were they saved at the point of belief +/- baptism? If so, then the Eucharist isn't necessary, absolutely or ordinarily, for salvation. And if it were necessary for salvation, why weren't they told that?

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

---

Do you find it ironic that Dispensationalism has its roots in the work of a South American Jesuit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza

I always thought Jesuit was a word meaning 'man of the Church who annoys the Powers That Be with too many reasonable questions'

Oldbear83 said:

---

I always thought Jesuit was a word meaning 'man of the Church who annoys the Powers That Be with too many reasonable questions'

---

The Society of Jesus has a fascinating history.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

---

Do you find it ironic that Dispensationalism has its roots in the work of a South American Jesuit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza

---

Almost as ironic that xfroddobagginsx derives his moniker from one of the most Catholic fiction authors of all time who described his The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision".

I LOVE Lord of the Rings story, but it doesn't mean that JRR Tolkien had his Bible theology right.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?
Quite frankly, I've never met or read anyone that proposed this line of reasoning. It has no rational basis. No where in the scriptures could it be implied that Jesus' comments He was going to wash everyone's feet. It was obviously meant for Peter alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

---

What's interesting is the word, "in remembrance". In the Greek, He uses the word "anamnesis." It doesn't mean to remember like a birthday. It has a meaning "to make present again." It is always used within a sacrificial context meaning a "memorial offering" or "memorial sacrifice."

Finally the "do this" in the Greek reads "poieite touto." It is the root for "poieite", is translated as "offer" with regard to offering sacrifices.

All the evidence and the history point to the literal meaning of John 6.

---

If we're going to talke John 6 literally, then whoever came to Jesus should have never wanted to eat or drink again. Have you ever hungered or thirsted since coming to Jesus?

Also, if it is literal, then ONLY that one particular loaf of bread that he shared during the Last Supper is his body. Jesus didn't say any other bread was his body but that particular one. He never says that from that point on he will enter a piece of bread or wine of our choosing for us to eat and drink.

And if we're taking John 6 literally, then we have to take Jesus literally when he explained to the disciples that he was talking spiritually and not literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. "My words are spirit. The flesh is of no benefit".

The Greek anamnesis means "a calling to mind, remembrance" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anamnesis
The Catholic interpretation looks like another creative, ad hoc stretch, much like using the verb tense of "full of grace" in order to support the belief that Mary was eternally sinless.

---

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Ultimately, for all your typical twists and turns and convoluted conditional statements you cannot explain away the plain words of Jesus as recorded by St John. You ought to just accept them.

---

If you were truly serious about the plain words of Jesus, then you would have taken note of where he spoke with the disciples afterwards, and explained, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

So, why is Jesus telling the disciples in secret, away from the crowd, that it is the Spirit which gives life, NOT the flesh.....if what he had just told the crowd is that it's his literal flesh that gives life - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."? Think about it.

You need to open your hard heart and mind, and rightly read and understand Jesus words.....and then you ought to accept them.

---

It is you whose mind and heart are closed so that you cannot rightly read and understand Jesus' words. "This is my body. This is my blood". It couldn't be any more simple. You ought to accept them rather than staying trapped in your tortured reasoning. Was Jesus lying in vv 53-56? Think about it.

Pulp Fiction misquotes Ezekial 25:17:

If you look up the REAL Ezekial 25:17 it's quite different:

Eze 25:17 "I will execute great vengeance on them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I lay My vengeance upon them."