Question for Emilygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
I have a question for Emily, from the Catholic forum. On this thread, John 6:63 Does Jesus' Flesh Profit Nothing?, you said "Personally, I do not see how that view is possible considering the language that Jesus uses and how He repeats over and over that we are to eat his flesh."Does this mean that infants who do not partake in the Eucharist don't inherit eternal life?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004
..
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
Infants...? I mean anybody for that matter.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf102/htm/v.III.16.htm
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
David,You have to consider the doctrines of invincible ignorance and baptism by desire, for example. Invincible ignorance is basically if anyone does not know the truth and has no way of finding it, God will have mercy on them and judge them accordingly. Baptism by desire is the idea that is someone intends to be baptized at the soonest possible time, but they are prevented from doing so before their death, it is as if they are baptized upon death (eg. thief on the cross went to heaven).
And also not receiving communion in an unworthy manner. Infants or anyone who has not confessed their sins and professed Catholic faith cannot receive the Eucharist, as doing so would be in an unworthy manner. For me, as I am not yet fully received into the Catholic Church, I cannot receive the Eucharist. I have not gone through the steps such as confession and RCIA in order to learn about the Catholic faith and confess my sins to a priest, making myself right with God. Thus, for me, receiving the Eucharist at this point would be doing so in an unworthy manner.
This does not mean that if I were to die right now, I would not inherit eternal life, since I had the intention of doing these things at the soonest possible time. Also, I believe that Protestants especially, who have accepted Christ and follow God have a chance at salvation due to invincible ignorance, as long as they do not ignore the truth when it is presented before them.
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.
David,Now I have a question for you:
You said in the Forum Rules, "Thou shall not post links to Roman Catholic Apologetical sites."
My question is, why the restriction of freedom of speech? I thought you criticized the Catholic forum for supposedly doing this (while the purpose of their forum as I understand it is different from yours) in one of Ed's statements one time. Are Protestants allowed to post links to their sites, but Catholics are not?
WHY?
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.
Ah yes, here is the thread (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a- fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bto3) in which you said of the Catholic forum, "How's that for freedom of speech?" Responding to Ed's comment below. To which I respond to your rule, "How's that for freedom of speech?" Is this a double standard, or am I missing something?David's post:
---------------
I plan to prohibit anyone from promoting doctrine that is not in keeping with that taught by the Catholic Church. While everyone is encouraged to give their views on any given subject, prolonged, obstinate false teaching will not be permitted. Afterall, this is a Catholic forum. I would appreciate the help of all Catholics in defending the Faith in the forum and would like to be apprised of any unorthodox views you discover you feel has skewed or misrepresented Catholic teaching.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 23, 2004.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bth4
How's that for "freedom of speech" ????
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.
Hmm...Emily your right, I retract that statement. Maybe someone has a list of church father quotes they would like us to read, but can't post it because it's against the rules now (not trying to restrict anything, but long posts mess up threads). Ok, that rule is not longer in effect. But as to restricting freedom of speech, I already did that by not allowing certain things like profanity or 'long' posts.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
Either way, this forum still is not a one sided forum.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
"Invincible ignorance is basically if anyone does not know the truth and has no way of finding it, God will have mercy on them and judge them accordingly" - EmilyIf they are of God's elect, he WILL save them. Baptism doesn't save period. There is no such thing as invincible ignorance. There is only one way to heaven, and that's through Christ. Do babies believe? No.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
Sorry, I meant if they are of God's elect, he will present the gospel to them sometime in their life.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
David,These are your opinions, which you are permitted to have. However, it is presumption to assume that if you are elected to initial salvation (justification), you are thus elected to final salvation.
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.
Oh, thanks for retracting that restriction. I feel better about it now.God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.
Romans 8 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.Emily,
It's not what I say, it's what God says.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
Rom 8:30, those who are justified are glorified.John 6:40, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Those who the Father draws are raised on the last day.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.
Emily-The entire book of John is written in beautiful symbolic language.
That was John's style.
He refers to Jesus not only as the "Bread of Life"., but as the "Good Shepherd of sheep"., and as the "Light of the World".., and as a "Door" to heaven.
Of course, none of us think that Jesus is a literal shepherd or that only sheep can be saved. No one thinks that Jesus is a literal lamp stand, nor do we think he is literally a door complete with hinges and a doorknob--right? I mean, even your Catholic hierarchy recognizes the symbolic language--and its meaning in those examples from John, right?
So why do they make a jump into absurd literalism with only the part in John about the bread?
I would also add that the point in that part of John is not that he is the bread of life--but that he comes from heaven.
The people were not arguing because he said he was bread--but because he claimed to be from heaven.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 25, 2004.
Well Faith,In that particular passage, Jesus repeats over and over again that we are to eat his flesh, as if to say it's for real, not metaphorical. If you read further down the thread that David linked to, you will see that I address the metaphorical issue as well.
You also brought up the point that I was trying to make with David when I posted the above Scriptures. God knew that people are fallible and would run off in all different directions with their interpretations of what the Bible says. That's why He established a divine interpreter, the Catholic Church, to bring His Word to the people more clearly and arbitrate any differences.
David and I could quote Bible verses back and forth to each other until we are blue in the face. Both of us are taking the same Bible and coming away with a different meaning in our reading of it. This is because we are both fallible humans with our own fallible interpretations. But God established the Catholic Church to have an infallible interpretation, so that there could be less confusion and more unity.
P.S. There is *nowhere* in the Bible where it speaks about inviting Jesus into your heart. Why are people so darn insistent on imposing this on the Bible?
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
"P.S. There is *nowhere* in the Bible where it speaks about inviting Jesus into your heart. Why are people so darn insistent on imposing this on the Bible?"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. (John 1:12)
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
But David, it still says nothing about inviting Jesus into your heart. My point is that this idea is development of doctrine, which Protestants criticize Catholics for having, but they have the same themselves.
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
Main Entry: re·ceive
Pronunciation: ri-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·ceived; re·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old North French receivre, from
Latin recipere, from re- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE
transitive senses
1 : to come into possession of : ACQUIRE
2 a : to act as a receptacle or container forwater from the roof> b : to assimilate through the mind or senses
3 a : to permit to enter : ADMIT b : WELCOME, GREET c : to react to in a specified manner
4 : to accept as authoritative, true, or accurate : BELIEVE
5 a : to support the weight or pressure of : BEAR b : to take (a mark or impression) from the weight of something
c : ACQUIRE, EXPERIENCE
d : to suffer the hurt or injury ofintransitive senses
1 : to be a recipient
2 : to be at home to visitors
3 : to convert incoming radio waves into perceptible signals
4 : to prepare to take possession of the ball from a kick in football
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
I believe that's where "invite Jesus to your heart" came from.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
So why do you insist on this meaning of Scripture and not take it symbolically? (lol, j/k)Seriously, though. You have proven my point wonderfully, David. Protestants too have their own version of development of doctrine.
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
Emily,I don't agree with "invite Jesus to your heart", I'm just trying to show where it might have developed from.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
Emily.., You really dodged my questions about John's symbolic nature in writing.The reason Jesus keeps repeating his meaning about the bread is because the Jews were making the same mistake that the Catholic Church makes.
They, like you, can't seem to rise above the literal words and come to the deeper spiritual meaning behind them...
His Words were pointing to the cross.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 25, 2004.
Faith,I was not dodging the question, I pointed you to the Catholic board where I already answered your question. Please go read my answer about the metaphorical meaning, then come back and respond in light of that.
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
I did read it.That is why I posted what I did in the first place.
The Catholic Church has chosen to believe in an absurdly literal meaning to a symbolic message...
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 25, 2004.
What was Christ asking us to believe in John 6?Christ said, "This is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life"
Clearly this believing, [which he likens to eating Him] is a "once for all" act!
He doesn't say it must be done 20 times, a thousand times, once a day, or once a week.
The moment a person believes on Christ, he or she receives forgiveness of sins and everlasting life as a free gift of God's grace.
Clearly, a person who has received eternal life by once believing-- need never repeat the act. Otherwise... everlasting life is misnamed!! Because something that is everlasting, must last forever., and it need not be renewed or reinforced.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath [present possession] everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread that cometh down from heaven that man may eat thereof and not die. What is Jesus asking them to believe?? Is he asking them to believe that he is a loaf of bread? Or is he asking them to believe that he is who he claims to be...The One sent from heaven?
Let's look at the responses of some of the hearers... "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
They said, "Is this not Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
It is clear to me what they were having trouble believing.
This verse in John 6 above: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)......is a prophetic look to the cross.
Where did Christ give His flesh? Not at the Last Supper, but on the cross!!
The Jews argued among thenselves....."How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" It was and still is against the law for a Jew to partake of blood. Surely then, Christ would not require Christian or Jew to drink His literal, physical blood. That he was refering to believing in Him and illustrating it by the symbol of eating and drinking is clear....It is a consistent teaching that believing gives eternal life.., yet He says that only by eating Him can one have life. This is an irreconcilable contradiction--unless of course, eating is a synonym for believing
Christ's new body in which He now resides at the Father's right hand in heaven has no blood and cannot die. The old body whose life was in the blood no longer exists. Paul said, "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him [as he was before the cross] no more" (2 Cor. 5:16).
The fact that some of Christ's hearers were caught up in the literal words of Christ...does not mean they were right. They were missing the real meaning in Jesus' teaching, as does the Catholic Church today....
Jesus responds to their confusion by saying, "The Spirit gives life!!!!!! The flesh counts for nothing............. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet there are some of you who do not believe
Believe what????
They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who came down from heaven to die for the world!!!
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 25, 2004.
Hi Faith, I wonder what you think Jesus meant when he said "the flesh profits nothing" . . .?Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 25, 2004.
I think that by "the flesh profits nothing" is meant that human effort accomplishes nothing....it is the Spirit that gives eternal life...
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 25, 2004.
Okay, so what is the relevance of "the flesh profits nothing" to the Catholic Church's teaching on the Eucharist?
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 25, 2004.
Just pointing out, on John 6, the Lord's Supper hadn't been instituted yet...
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.
David, good point. Your comment inspired me to look at the passage found right before John 6:35, here in KJV for your convenience:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
The disciples were asking for a miracle, and Jesus was telling them about manna, and comparing that to the true bread from heaven, and said that is Himself. Then check verse 34 "evermore give us this bread." Hmm, sounds like receiving the Eucharist to me? It appears that He was preparing them for the Lord's Supper. What do you all think? God bless,
-- (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004.
I just want to point out that the literal meaning of a text is not always the clear meaning. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept it that way--then the Bible is full of complete non-sense.Jesus claimed to be the Light of the World, the Door of the sheep, and a true vine. Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively and that the obvious and hence *literal* meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.
Jesus uses this kind of dualism throughout his discourse in John 6 as well. The Jews--like the Roman Catholic Church--cannot see past the symbolism to the reality beyond.
The intended meaning is right before our eyes:
They said to him, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."
Clearly if this were literal--then we should never be hungry for food or thirst for drink once we believe. But this is not the case. The meaning is spiritual.
Jesus' hearers continued in their blindness as to the real meaning, and so Jesus had to get quite specific.
He said that the one who "comes to Me"--a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural). The one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.
Clearly Jesus is pointing to our spiritual *hunger and thirst* for Him., and that by *coming and believing* we are *eating and drinking* Him.
There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 26, 2004.
Faith,If this is not a literal meaning, but a metaphorical one, as you contend, you need to address the issue I raised in the other forum. Thus far, you seem to have avoided this. Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, just as Jesus said, "eat my flesh."
Perhaps this will help - Check out this site, in addition to my description of the Jewish methaphorical meaning on the Catholic board. Catholic Outlook - Gary Hoge
Here, Hoge explains that the metaphorical meaning to the Jews meant “attack” or “revile.” This meaning, as you can see in my post and at that site, has Scriptural backup.
Thus, Hoge notes, if Jesus' audience were to take him as speaking metaphorically, they would in essence interpret his statement something like this:
“I tell you the truth, unless you attack the Son of Man and villify him, you have no life in you. Whoever blasphemes me and curses me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
If you insist on the metaphorical meaning, you cannot impose our own cultural understanding upon the text. Rather, you must look at it from the perspective of the original audience.
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004.
I'm sorry Emily...but the symbolic language in John 6 is very clear to me. I explained the symbolism.I am banned from the Catholic site and don't find it interesting there, since everything I post in response gets deleted.
I don't need a bunch of mumbo jumbo apologetics to understand that Jesus was pointing our attention to a spiritual truth.
The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is left without foundation. Jesus is obviously not speaking of the Eucharist supposedly established years later.
His refering to His body and blood is paralleled clearly with belief in Jesus. The literal meaning--given the parallelism already firmly established in the passage, has to refer to the union of the believer, by faith, with Jesus Christ--not a participation in the Roman Catholic Mass.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 26, 2004.
But Faith, this is merely your "opinion." It is quite clear to me and millions and millions and millions of other Jesus Lovers that he meant the text to mean exactly what it says WITHOUT any twisting, churning, or shadow of turning!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 26, 2004.
If you want to take the text to mean what it means without twisting it--then you will follow the symbolic language the way it is intended., and in the same way that you do with every other symbolic message in the gospel of John.Otherwise, you would have to insist that Jesus is a shepherd and only sheep are saved.., he is a lamp., and a door and a literal vine...
John's style of writing picked up on Jesus' symbolism and he relays it beautifully.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 26, 2004.
Again, Faith, you have set up yourself to determine what is symbolic and what isn't. That's your perogative since you are your own arbiter of truth.If you're not interested in the opinions of others, or mumbo jumbo as you put it, then why in the world do you keep engaging in conversations concerning doctrinal issues?
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 26, 2004.
Understanding John's symbolism is a matter of literacy.It is as simple as a literary writing course in English class....
It isn't theology at this point....
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 26, 2004.
Faith,No matter how many times you insist that it is symbolic, that will not make it magically come true. I am still waiting for you to address the issue I raised - if it was Jesus speaking metaphorically, why did the Jews not take the metaphorical meaning of their own culture, and believe that they were supposed to revile and attack Jesus?
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.
Emily., could you reword that question?I am clueless as to what you mean.....
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 27, 2004.
Emily,Read the 12 verses before John 6:66, and you'll know why.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.
Ok Faith, first I need to know this. Did you read the entire thread, or at least my posts on the site David linked to the Catholic forum? On April 23 near the bottom of the thread, I addressed the metaphorical meaning of "eat my flesh" according to the culture at the time. I also linked an article at "Catholic Outlook" by Gary Hoge. Did you read this? After you read these, I hope it will clarify the question, and we can discuss the matter more clearly. Let me know.God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.
I'm sorry David. I don't see it. I just read it over several times and I don't know what you're referring to. Please explain.God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.
Emily...I read the piece by Gary Hoge. I just can't buy his premise.
First of all., the Jewish people in the passage in John 6 are clear about what they are taking literally in Jesus message. There is no reason to think that the Jewish people thought that Jesus was saying that they had to revile and attack Jesus. That is ridiculous.
On top of that., this author claims that Jesus would have explained his meaning of *eat my flesh* if were different than what he claims the Jews would have thought.
But in fact, Jesus takes them carefully through his whole message, step by step--indicating the whole time that eating and drinking equal believing and receiving.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 27, 2004.
Faith said: First of all., the Jewish people in the passage in John 6 are clear about what they are taking literally in Jesus message.Amen Faith! You said they are taking Jesus literally - the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ!
Faith said: There is no reason to think that the Jewish people thought that Jesus was saying that they had to revile and attack Jesus. That is ridiculous.
I agree. That is exactly Hoge's point. That was the metaphorical meaning of "eating flesh" at the time. Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd almost think you were agreeing with me. It must have been a literal meaning then, not metaphorical.
Faith said: Jesus takes them carefully through his whole message, step by step--indicating the whole time that eating and drinking equal believing and receiving.
Amen again. Eating Jesus' flesh is believing and receiving Him, and Catholics do this every week when they receive the Eucharist, the body and blood of the Lord!
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.
The Jews were absolutely taking Jesus' words literally. The Catholic Church makes the same mistake.Eating and drinking were symbolic metaphors meaning believing and receiving....
In other words.., Jesus was telling them that by receiving and believing in Him--by taking Him into their hearts..., they would be spiritually satisfied and never hunger--*spiritually* again. Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
Actually--in John 6...drinking is never really expounded upon., nor is his *blood* mentioned as drink in these passages. To think that this has anything to do with communion--which I believe in and participate in--in a symbolic fashion of course--is a stretch....
The bread that Moses gave was literal food--but the bread from heaven has a spiritual connotation.
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Jesus whole message was pointing to the cross....
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
He continues with the real point....
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Faith
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 28, 2004.
Faith said: Actually--in John 6...drinking is never really expounded upon., nor is his *blood* mentioned as drink in these passages.This is false. Please reread the John 6 passage, shown below.
53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Faith, your position is impossible. You say, "Eating and drinking were symbolic metaphors meaning believing and receiving....". This cannot be true because the metaphorical meaning was to revile and attack Jesus, which is a false interpretation, ludicrous as you yourself said.
You are saying the passage has a metaphorical meaning, but then you won't accept the metaphorical meaning within their cultural context. You are imposing your own opinion (2000 years removed from the scene and Jewish culture) upon this text, without considering the cultural surroundings of the time.
Please pray that God will show you the Truth and open your heart to His leading. I have been praying this for myself and I will pray for you. That is the best I can ask. God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.
Bad wording..I should have clarified that I meant early in John--John 6:35-36
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
When hungering and thirsting is mentioned, we see the bread (Jesus)-- but no illustration to blood being the satisfying drink...the thirsting seems somewhat out of place here because only food has been mentioned by that point. But there really is no problem--since Jesus is not actually speaking to physical consumption of real food or drink anyway. That was my point.
Also--I think you believe Gary Hoge when he claims that the meaning to *eat my flesh* meant revile and attack. The Jews were disgusted because eating blood contaminated meat was against their religion...something, I might add--Jesus knew, and therefore could never be speaking literally.
What the Jews were really objecting to anyway was that Jesus said he was from heaven. They may have eventually turned to objecting to the eating of his flesh and blood--but it was a sidetracked excuse to walk away....
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 28, 2004.
David said: There is no such thing as invincible ignoranceDavid, invincible ignorace is a Scriptural principle. If you do not believe in it, please explain these verses that support it.
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
John 9
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.Romans 2
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.