Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus Was Literal In John 6 (Eucharist)

ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 4:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My assumptions in this argument are that Jesus existed and that the Scriptures are true. If you wish to have a discussion I could only see it being productive of you at first believe those two things.

1. Everything Jesus says is either true literally or non-literally.
2. Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day."
3. Jesus meant it literally.
4. Jesus told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, literally.

I will wait to defend these premises until they are attacked.
I invite all combative, passionate argument as long as we remain in the realm of truth and outside of personal attacks.
Debate with Charity.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He can't be literal, it's ridiculous, if you want to understand what he meant, you got his disciples to teach you, and I am not Christian and I don't know what the disciples say regarding this, but I can understand that he used the verb "eat" for "learn" and he used the terms " flesh" and "blood" for " knowledge" and " truth".

This is what every believer should do, and this is what Jesus was asking his followers through this parable.

And if he was saying it literally his disciples would have been the first to comply with his commands.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:13:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:00:09 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
he used the verb "eat" for "learn" and he used the terms " flesh" and "blood" for " knowledge" and " truth".

This is what every believer should do, and this is what Jesus was asking his followers through this parable.

And if he was saying it literally his disciples would have been the first to comply with his commands.

-Where did he use the verb "eat" for "learn" and "flesh" and "blood" for "knowledge" and "truth"?

-A parable is "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels." How is John 6 a parable? There are no characters besides the person of Jesus speaking of himself. The difference would be like Peter Jackson inviting you to his home to tell you about himself as opposed to Peter Jackson inviting you to a movie to tell you something within the framework of storytelling. Whenever Jesus spoke a parable (a story) they were about other people: kings, servants, gardeners, etc. Then after the parable He would explain it to the crowds or to His disciples. In John 6 we find the opposite movement. Instead of explaining in parable with characters and then unpacking its misinterpreted meaning, we find Jesus speaking of Himself and never backing from the literal into non-literal unpacking. Rather, he gets clearer and clearer as the text moves forward (from "coming to Him" (v.35) to "eating Him" (v.57)) - even to the point of many disciples leaving! If He was at least a good teacher He would have failed in this moment, to have so many misunderstand and leave His saving company. He would have at least (to retain the integrity of the non-literal; if that was His goal) turned to His apostles to explain what he really meant. Rather, He says (adding weight to the literalness), "Will you also go away?" He could not have been clearer. If in 7 verses, Christ said 6 times that it was necessary to eat His flesh in order to be saved you have to ask yourself, "if this fails the 'literal test', what else could possibly pass?"

-Are you saying his disciples would have starting gnawing on Him right then and there? Or are you saying that later on we would find some semblance of this "eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood" taking place?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:12:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:06:21 PM, ConCamitance wrote:
My assumptions in this argument are that Jesus existed and that the Scriptures are true. If you wish to have a discussion I could only see it being productive of you at first believe those two things.

1. Everything Jesus says is either true literally or non-literally.
2. Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day."
3. Jesus meant it literally.
4. Jesus told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, literally.

I will wait to defend these premises until they are attacked.
I invite all combative, passionate argument as long as we remain in the realm of truth and outside of personal attacks.
Debate with Charity.

God never had me eat flesh and drink the flesh of a man named Jesus on the way into His invisible Kingdom.

God planned the "beast" to deceive man from the Truth while teaching man how to build things with his hands. The mark of the beast on the forehead and hands of men shows us saints that men have no clue who God is and believe the thoughts in their minds to build things came from themselves. From these deceiving thoughts that God put in their minds, they built things with their hands according to the ideas that God gave them.

From the beast came all religions and religious stories to go along with them. Christianity came out of this plan of deception and the story of eating flesh and drinking blood was an old religious idea coming out of Babylon. The religious Romans who had all the saints killed loved these religious ideas so they put them into their new testament to make sure their Christians never became true saints. They didn't realize that only God can make saints, not words in a book.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

Fruitytree & annanicole
The Apostles believed the words of Jesus.. "My flesh is real food!"
The Apostles were the first Catholic's!

Judas rejected the "TEACHING OF GOD"!
John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 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. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.


DO YOU SEE IT????! (verse 45 above) 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by God."
(verse 59 above) 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Between verse 45 and 59 is the "TEACHING OF GOD"!!

The disciples do NOT believe the TEACHING!!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

The Apostles believe the TEACHING!!
They believe**** Jesus IS GOD!
**They believe the WORDS of GOD! They KNOW God cannot lie!
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the**** Holy One of God."

All who reject the TEACHING: Reject Jesus!
All who reject the TEACHING: Believe Jesus is NOT GOD or they believe, God tells LIES!

The Jews do NOT believe Jesus is GOD!
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

annanicole Like you... The Disciples do not believe the words of Jesus!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

annanicole Like you.. Judas believes God tells LIES!!
70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:05:06 PM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
I agree.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dogknox: "annanicole Like you... The Disciples do not believe the words of Jesus!"

Anna: Like me, the Disciples know the difference between symbolic and literal. You are the one who had Jesus being a literal door with hinges, a literal light, and a literal lamb with wool and lion with a mane at the same time. You had Herod being a literal fox, and John the Baptist a literal road-builder. A man who believes all of that certainly deserves a disability check - and not because he has a bad back!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 8:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

Indeed they do.
Tsar of DDO
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:11:08 PM, annanicole wrote:

Anna: Like me, the Disciples know the difference between symbolic and literal. You are the one who had Jesus being a literal door with hinges, a literal light, and a literal lamb with wool and lion with a mane at the same time. You had Herod being a literal fox, and John the Baptist a literal road-builder. A man who believes all of that certainly deserves a disability check - and not because he has a bad back!

The difference between your examples and John 6 is all about its context.
No one left Jesus because he claimed to be the door or a lightbulb or a literal lamb because in the passage no one takes him literally when he says he is these things. But in John 6 we all identify with their utter shock. They take him literally and no longer go about with Him because "the saying is too hard". When it comes to analogy, good teachers explain the analogy, especially when it's misinterpreted. Place yourself in the passage. It couldn't be more literal.
Eat Him?!
Yes. Somehow.
"To whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." is like saying "This is a hard saying, but you are God and that's enough. You will work it out. If you want me to do what you say, you will make a way."

You see, this divisive discourse just didn't play out in those other categories.
If they would have they would have been something like this:

"I am the door, whoever opens me may have eternal life."
The murmuring would start.
"does he expect us to believe He's a door."
Jesus would have continued, adding to the intensity and clarity:
"Unless you turn my knob and unhinge me you will not be able to enter in."

And if He continued to push the so-called "analogy" wouldn't it make you the least bit unsettled if He never explained Himself away - Even turning to His Apostles and challenging them to believe it?
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 8:46:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 8:23:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

Indeed they do.

Where at, please?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:11:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "annanicole Like you... The Disciples do not believe the words of Jesus!"

Anna: Like me, the Disciples know the difference between symbolic and literal. You are the one who had Jesus being a literal door with hinges, a literal light, and a literal lamb with wool and lion with a mane at the same time. You had Herod being a literal fox, and John the Baptist a literal road-builder. A man who believes all of that certainly deserves a disability check - and not because he has a bad back!

annanicole you are mixed up!!
DOOR: A means of Entrance or Exit!

LIGHT: A means to see by! Idea!

Lamb of God: A Sacrifice... Jesus was a NEW "PASSOVER Sacrifice"..The Last Supper was a Passover meal!!
Revelation 7:17
For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; "he will lead them to springs of living water." "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.""

FOX: Sly, cunning!

Road: "The Way" >> Repent and be Baptized..Is the only way!

annanicole read and understand... Jesus is the WAY and the LIFE!
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Adam became "LIKE ONE of US"! Adam became LIKE the Holy Spirit.. "Knowing Good and Evil!" So he covered himself, he saw he was naked!
Adam was STOPPED from becoming; Like another one of "US" he was stopped from becoming like Jesus.. "The LIFE!"
annanicole Adam was STOPPED from eating from the "Tree Of Life" thus Adam died!

Jesus the second Adam HAS ACCESS.. Jesus is The LIFE come down from heaven!
John 6:51
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."

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

annanicole All must EAT the LIFE to enter heaven!! All who "EAT THE LIFE enter through Jesus>> The LIFE!
Jesus feeds "his Body" his holy Catholic Church "LIFE"!
29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church" 30 for we are members of his body.

annanicole The Jews did not accept the "TEACHING OF GOD" because they did not believe Jesus was God, they thought Jesus was only "A MAN"!

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

What is your EXCUSE for rejecting Jesus' words.. Is it because you lack faith?
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Or is it, you don't believe, God can do what he says he can do, you reject the words of "The WORD!!!"
You reject.. "The world was made, by the WORD of God"! Is this it?!
You reject GOD!!!

CHRISTIANS ARE CHRISTIAN because, they believe Jesus cannot lie, they believe all the words of Jesus!

Catholics believe God is almighty, he can take any form he wants to take, even the form of bread!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 1:51:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

No we don't. It was Rome's religious ideas that were added to their new testament that made their Christians believe in communion, water baptism, hell, triune gods, bodily resurrections, etc.
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 1:59:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 1:51:59 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

No we don't. It was Rome's religious ideas that were added to their new testament that made their Christians believe in communion, water baptism, hell, triune gods, bodily resurrections, etc.

Where did you get this information? Either site a source or a logical argument.

And are you saying hell isn't in the bible?!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 1:59:24 PM, ConCamitance wrote:
At 8/14/2013 1:51:59 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

No we don't. It was Rome's religious ideas that were added to their new testament that made their Christians believe in communion, water baptism, hell, triune gods, bodily resurrections, etc.

Where did you get this information? Either site a source or a logical argument.

And are you saying hell isn't in the bible?!

There's no such thing as a place called hell. This belief came out of God's planned delusion called the beast. All religious ideas came out of the beast to deceive God's people (including the religious Jews) from knowing Him while teaching them how to build things with their hands (worshiping false idols and gods).

The "mark of the beast" means men who didn't know God thought that their ideas came from them instead of our Creator. This resulted in men exalting themselves with these ideas from our Creator and making other men build their buildings with their hands. From the time of Babylon to now, men have been busy building the latest technology that God needed to help us saints understand our invisible existence in our Creator's mind.

Christians have no knowledge of God to understand the prophecies of God.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 4:41:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:13:00 AM, ConCamitance wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:00:09 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
he used the verb "eat" for "learn" and he used the terms " flesh" and "blood" for " knowledge" and " truth".

This is what every believer should do, and this is what Jesus was asking his followers through this parable.

And if he was saying it literally his disciples would have been the first to comply with his commands.

-Where did he use the verb "eat" for "learn" and "flesh" and "blood" for "knowledge" and "truth"?

-A parable is "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels." How is John 6 a parable? There are no characters besides the person of Jesus speaking of himself. The difference would be like Peter Jackson inviting you to his home to tell you about himself as opposed to Peter Jackson inviting you to a movie to tell you something within the framework of storytelling. Whenever Jesus spoke a parable (a story) they were about other people: kings, servants, gardeners, etc. Then after the parable He would explain it to the crowds or to His disciples. In John 6 we find the opposite movement. Instead of explaining in parable with characters and then unpacking its misinterpreted meaning, we find Jesus speaking of Himself and never backing from the literal into non-literal unpacking. Rather, he gets clearer and clearer as the text moves forward (from "coming to Him" (v.35) to "eating Him" (v.57)) - even to the point of many disciples leaving! If He was at least a good teacher He would have failed in this moment, to have so many misunderstand and leave His saving company. He would have at least (to retain the integrity of the non-literal; if that was His goal) turned to His apostles to explain what he really meant. Rather, He says (adding weight to the literalness), "Will you also go away?" He could not have been clearer. If in 7 verses, Christ said 6 times that it was necessary to eat His flesh in order to be saved you have to ask yourself, "if this fails the 'literal test', what else could possibly pass?"

-Are you saying his disciples would have starting gnawing on Him right then and there? Or are you saying that later on we would find some semblance of this "eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood" taking place?

Did you just give e the definition of a parable in English ?! Jesus didn't speak English, and I speak a semantic language like he did, and what He said is considered a parable in my language, and can only be a parable.

I am saying , If Jesus was literal, his disciples which are the best of his followers , would have immediately complied, but this command just can't be literal. and none of the people who lived in his time ever understood it that way. and everyone knows that before the super, Jesus used to speak mainly in parables. and parables in semantic languages can be very elaborate so much that few people would understand the intention of the speaker, I could say in my language " I'm a butterfly" and people who understand my language would understand I am light and joyful, but others would think I'm fool. or would simply not understand.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:20:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 8:46:52 PM, ConCamitance wrote:
At 8/13/2013 8:23:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:27:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
The Disciples teach that the flesh and blood are symbolic.

Indeed they do.

Where at, please?
Now IF Story book jebus had hacked off a lump of its own blood dripping flesh and held it up to the disciples and said, " here each of you, take a slice each because this is my body & blood & I want you to eat it & drink of it to remember me by " then I would agree it wasn't symbolic!

Only the insane & catholics would disagree!

QED
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:31:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 2:05:42 PM, bornofgod wrote:
There's no such thing as a place called hell.
The biblical Hell IS a Place = the Grave!
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 4:25:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 4:41:40 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Did you just give e the definition of a parable in English ?! Jesus didn't speak English, and I speak a semantic language like he did, and what He said is considered a parable in my language, and can only be a parable.

It doesn't look like a parable under the definition provided by ConCamitance.

I am saying , If Jesus was literal, his disciples which are the best of his followers , would have immediately complied, but this command just can't be literal. and none of the people who lived in his time ever understood it that way.

Everyone who heard it understood it literally.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this?'

What's so offensive about learning knowledge and truth? Why would anyone find that saying so hard if it was just saying something as simple as 'learn knowledge and truth'? That's not scandalous at all.

and everyone knows that before the super, Jesus used to speak mainly in parables. and parables in semantic languages can be very elaborate so much that few people would understand the intention of the speaker, I could say in my language " I'm a butterfly" and people who understand my language would understand I am light and joyful, but others would think I'm fool. or would simply not understand.

What could Jesus have said that would make you think he was being literal? I think he came out in pretty much the strongest terms possible that he meant what he said literally.

I mean, if you say 'I am a butterfly', and the people around you ask 'How can this person be an insect?' and you clarify 'I fly through the air on my wings and sip nectar with my proboscis', then you're just being a poor communicator if all you really meant to say that you were light and joyful.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:56:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:31:54 PM, Composer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:05:42 PM, bornofgod wrote:
There's no such thing as a place called hell.
The biblical Hell IS a Place = the Grave!

The grave is an illusion like the rest of this world but it was meant to deceive all God's people that death is something real.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 4:25:33 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 8/14/2013 4:41:40 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Did you just give e the definition of a parable in English ?! Jesus didn't speak English, and I speak a semantic language like he did, and what He said is considered a parable in my language, and can only be a parable.

It doesn't look like a parable under the definition provided by ConCamitance.

I am saying , If Jesus was literal, his disciples which are the best of his followers , would have immediately complied, but this command just can't be literal. and none of the people who lived in his time ever understood it that way.

Everyone who heard it understood it literally.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this?'

What's so offensive about learning knowledge and truth? Why would anyone find that saying so hard if it was just saying something as simple as 'learn knowledge and truth'? That's not scandalous at all.

and everyone knows that before the super, Jesus used to speak mainly in parables. and parables in semantic languages can be very elaborate so much that few people would understand the intention of the speaker, I could say in my language " I'm a butterfly" and people who understand my language would understand I am light and joyful, but others would think I'm fool. or would simply not understand.

What could Jesus have said that would make you think he was being literal? I think he came out in pretty much the strongest terms possible that he meant what he said literally.

I mean, if you say 'I am a butterfly', and the people around you ask 'How can this person be an insect?' and you clarify 'I fly through the air on my wings and sip nectar with my proboscis', then you're just being a poor communicator if all you really meant to say that you were light and joyful.

In order for it to be literal, the disciples should have literally eaten Jesus flesh and drunk his blood, if they didn't, then what the others thought at first is wrong, and in the contrary of what you think, knowledge isn't easy, He's asking them to know God through him, not sure how this looks easy to you?! it's a huge responsibility he gave them.

You need to know the language before you can say it's literal or not, and don't just compare it to the English grammar cause it's totally different. This just can't be literal!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 3:49:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:11:26 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You need to know the language before you can say it's literal or not, and don't just compare it to the English grammar cause it's totally different. This just can't be literal!
That is correct!

Another example by a Dr. Lamsa, that spoke & understood the nuances of the Original Aramaic -

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (Matt. 4: 8) KJV

i.e. The term "High mountain" is used figuratively. It means the high point in human physical aspiration. . . . .

The Adversary (Hebrew Term = Satan = carnal desires) took jebus on a high mountain. This means the Adversary (story book jebus' carnal mind) took him to the summit of his highest human imagination, and made all these offers to him, if jebus would but fall down and submit to those carnal temptations.

It is interesting to know that the mountain of temptation is a wasteland hundreds of feet below sea level. There are no kingdoms or large cities nearby, but small hamlets, sheepfolds and Arab camps. . . ((George M. Lamsa New Testament Light , San Francisco: Harper & Row), p. 2.)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 3:55:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:56:07 AM, bornofgod wrote:
The grave is an illusion like the rest of this world but it was meant to deceive all God's people that death is something real.
So when you visit or drive by a Cemetary what do you see?

The legitimate evidence for ANY literal Supernatural god = zero and Posts like YOURS re-confirm that every time!

Have you ever been to a Funeral?

What did you think you were doing there?

Have you ever seen a dead person close up?

Did you try explaining to them they weren't actually dead?

What did they say?

Do I think you personally are an idiot & a fraud, yes I certainly do!
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 5:57:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:11:26 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In order for it to be literal, the disciples should have literally eaten Jesus flesh and drunk his blood, if they didn't, then what the others thought at first is wrong,

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.'

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you.

and in the contrary of what you think, knowledge isn't easy, He's asking them to know God through him, not sure how this looks easy to you?! it's a huge responsibility he gave them.

I was saying that there's nothing scandalous or offensive about that.

He also said stuff like 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.', and that didn't have people abandoning him like rats a sinking ship.

You need to know the language before you can say it's literal or not, and don't just compare it to the English grammar cause it's totally different.

Like I said, the Jews took it literally. The Jews knew the language better than I do, and probably better than you do too, so there's no reason to assume it must be figurative when everyone who heard it took it literally.

This just can't be literal!

This is why I think most people reject this as literal; they themselves decide without warrant that it can't be literal, so then they try to shoehorn it into a parable or something.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:06:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 5:57:24 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:11:26 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In order for it to be literal, the disciples should have literally eaten Jesus flesh and drunk his blood, if they didn't, then what the others thought at first is wrong,

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.'

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you.But this is not literal ?! it's figurative, he didn't give them his own flesh, this just shows the command wasn't literal. :
and in the contrary of what you think, knowledge isn't easy, He's asking them to know God through him, not sure how this looks easy to you?! it's a huge responsibility he gave them.

I was saying that there's nothing scandalous or offensive about that.

He also said stuff like 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.', and that didn't have people abandoning him like rats a sinking ship.I think this other command is true for any prophet of God, every prophet is the way to God, the truth from God, and the life eternal .and once people know the prophet , they become sinful if they don't follow him.
: : You need to know the language before you can say it's literal or not, and don't just compare it to the English grammar cause it's totally different.

Like I said, the Jews took it literally. The Jews knew the language better than I do, and probably better than you do too, so there's no reason to assume it must be figurative when everyone who heard it took it literally.

This just can't be literal!

This is why I think most people reject this as literal; they themselves decide without warrant that it can't be literal, so then they try to shoehorn it into a parable or something.

Well so far no one ate Jesus flesh, what they did is symbolic , but what is the point of this command then ? I mean just eating bread? I don't think so, didn't the disciples say something about it , like Peter or James, (not Paul please). but if it's just that then so be it, I just doubt, or maybe it's about obedience ?
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:24:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
bornofgod, if you want to take part in a debate you really must site evidence or use premises that lead to conclusions. To only make assertions is bound to get nowhere.

Composer, I have similar sentiments towards your arguments. We don't seem to agree on my assumptions at the very beginning, namely that Jesus is God and that the entire bible is true. Therefore, we will get nowhere in this particular debate. I'd be happy discussing the existence of God or the existence of Jesus aside from this thread. But in this place you can't expect to achieve anything except stoking a flame.
ConCamitance
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:35:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would love to hear a response to two important things brought up earlier, specifically, the original hearers took Him literally and Jesus at least acted like He meant it literally. Any responses?

I've heard one from Composer implying that elsewhere in scripture there are verses we would be wrong to take literally.

Of course.

But back to this passage...
Now, in John 6, to literally take Him at His word we discover that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved. But He doesn't yet reveal the "mechanism" for doing so. Later (and only later) does He say, "This is my body" when holding unleavened bread. Now we see how it could work. He made a way. To now make the intellectual leap to believe that God could make the bread into himself is actually not a leap at all. He is God. Now once again, if He wanted to be taken figuratively He had many more ways of saying that phrase; "This means my body", "This is like my body", "This is offered like my body will be." Instead, like John 6, He is as literal as possible, "This [bread I am holding] is my body."

Comments on these two things?
Also, brevity can be more powerful than quantity.
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:37:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:06:15 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 8/16/2013 5:57:24 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:11:26 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In order for it to be literal, the disciples should have literally eaten Jesus flesh and drunk his blood, if they didn't, then what the others thought at first is wrong,

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.'

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you.
But this is not literal ?! it's figurative, he didn't give them his own flesh, this just shows the command wasn't literal.

He must have, because he said 'this is my body'. He didn't say 'this symbolizes my body', or 'this means my body', 'this represents my body', 'this stands for my body', or loads of other ways he could have said so figuratively.

and in the contrary of what you think, knowledge isn't easy, He's asking them to know God through him, not sure how this looks easy to you?! it's a huge responsibility he gave them.

I was saying that there's nothing scandalous or offensive about that.

He also said stuff like 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.', and that didn't have people abandoning him like rats a sinking ship.
I think this other command is true for any prophet of God, every prophet is the way to God, the truth from God, and the life eternal .and once people know the prophet , they become sinful if they don't follow him.

I disagree, but this doesn't address my original argument at all.

You need to know the language before you can say it's literal or not, and don't just compare it to the English grammar cause it's totally different.

Like I said, the Jews took it literally. The Jews knew the language better than I do, and probably better than you do too, so there's no reason to assume it must be figurative when everyone who heard it took it literally.

This just can't be literal!

This is why I think most people reject this as literal; they themselves decide without warrant that it can't be literal, so then they try to shoehorn it into a parable or something.

Well so far no one ate Jesus flesh, what they did is symbolic , but what is the point of this command then ?

St. Thomas Aquinas eloquently wrote:

Material food first changes into the one who eats it, and then, as a consequence, restores to him lost strength and increases his vitality. Spiritual food, on the other hand, changes the person who eats it into itself. Thus the effect proper to this Sacrament is the conversion of a man into Christ, so that he may no longer live, but Christ lives in him; consequently, it has the double effect of restoring the spiritual strength he had lost by his sins and defects, and of increasing the strength of his virtues.

I mean just eating bread? I don't think so, didn't the disciples say something about it , like Peter or James, (not Paul please). but if it's just that then so be it, I just doubt, or maybe it's about obedience ?

No one else wrote about it but Paul as far as I know, so I'm going to post him anyway.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 4:59:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Church Jesus established "Believed the words of Jesus!!
This is what makes "Christians" Christian. Christians believe the words of Jesus!
Ignatius of Antioch is a Christian..
He said..

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Do you see it? The Early "Christians" ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread!

Clearly Augustine is Christian..
He said.. "Jesus carried his own body in his hands at the Last Supper!"

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, "This is my body" [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

Christians have always eaten the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread!!

IT WAS NOT UNTIL....
It was not until the "Great Deformation" Fifteen Hundred years AFTER Jesus that men decided to reject the scriptures and call Jesus a liar!!