NOT REALLY, when the topic is being off topic. (And certainly PROPOSING TO VIOLATE THE RULES, certainly that "teaching" is far worse even than simply violating.)
Upvote
0
Applying common literary rules to Matthew 26:26 and John 6:51
- Thread starter razzelflabben
- Start date
NOT REALLY, when the topic is being off topic. (And certainly PROPOSING TO VIOLATE THE RULES, certainly that "teaching" is far worse even than simply violating.)
Whether the topic is "off-topic," or it is something else off topic, it is still not in accord with (and not permitted by) the OP.
I assume you can understand anyone proposing that we go off topic, is not only off topic, but promoting off-topicism.
What I responded to was, "
azzelflabben said: ↑
nope not that either...if you look at my profile it says non denominational..which is what I consider myself because I don't give two hoots what a denomination says or believes only what God says in scripture. We talked about that. As to the current church we attend, it's church of the Brethren. Does that satisfy you
Like I said - entirely off topic. So whatever you said in your reply to that is irrelevant, it in no way justifies being off topic.
Or to put it in a different way, your church attendance details are NOTHING of the subject in the OP.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
agreed but your comment was in response to me saying that there was a difference between answering a question and derailing the thread into something off topic. For example, your clarifying what you were saying is not taking the thread off topic unless we continue to discuss what off topic means. Rather it was simply a clarification of something that came up in conversation. Now on the other hand, if you or I either one try to continue to discuss "off topic" beyond clarifying what is meant then we are guilty of taking it off topic which is a violation of forum rules as I understand them.
Here is another example. If I say to a poster, welcome to the discussion, it is off topic but not a violation of the forum rules for taking us off topic, simply it is a greeting to let the person know they are being heard and welcomed.
Upvote
0
Mafeking
Mafeking
- May 29, 2013
- 31
- 8
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Others
JESUS was here speaking figuratively. You notice that He broke the bread and said "This is my body". Then He gave them the bread that He broke - not a piece of His flesh cut from His hand or leg or any other part of His body. Also, when He gave the drink and called it Hiss blood there was no actual body fluid/blood flowing into the cup.
To eat the flesh and drink the blood of JESUS is simply to feed on His word found in the Holy Bible. The catholic priests claim to bring down JESUS in the mass and literally turn Him into bread and wine. JESUS Himself did not do that when He was here speaking. What the catholic priests do is blasphemy.
Upvote
0
- Feb 19, 2013
- 737
- 375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Jesus interprets Himself in other passages:
“It is written: ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Deuteronomy 8:3, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4)
“Then Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’” (John 6:68, NKJV)
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (Jesus speaking, John 6:63, NIV)
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35, NIV)
The Gospel message is about both Word and Spirit; it is about Christ's body and blood sacrificed for us; all of which is represented by the bread and wine we partake in Communion. We are now unified forever with Christ; the same Spirit that was in Jesus is now in the believer.
Upvote
0
marineimaging
Texas Baptist now living in Colorado
- Jul 14, 2014
- 1,449
- 1,228
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Isn't this one reason so many churches split from the Roman Catholic church? We know that there were many parables spoken and know why. We believe that some things Jesus said were literal and some were figurative. We can easily find out by looking at the context whereas even though there were 40 authors, all was spirit breathed of God Almighty and in that sense we also know that Genesis to Revelation covers every thing a person can come across in life. In this case, Jesus was speaking figuratively about his body and his blood so that when I partake I am doing it because he said to do so. At that moment I understand that the bread and wine are not of his real body and real blood, but of his intent to include us in His preparation and His Love. I have no problem whatsoever in winning or losing an argument of whether transfiguration is true or not. I am satisfied that my family do it becasue he said so.
Upvote
0
- Feb 19, 2013
- 737
- 375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Jesus was there in the flesh when He said this to His disciples. They did not munch on His arms and legs or drink His blood, which would have been cannibalism (and worse if He were alive).
So how could anyone think that these words were anything but figurative and metaphorical? Why the Catholics at some point decided it was literal can only be due to the penchant for pagan Romans (following the mystery religions common in the first and second centuries) to become superstitious and to use magic rituals to appease and manipulate their 'gods.'
As noted earlier, when we hear and 'digest' His words and when we receive His Holy Spirit, we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It is about Word and Spirit.
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3)
Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
(John 6:63)
Upvote
0
I think at this point it is safe to say that no matter what an individual wants to add or take away from scripture a simple reading for comprehension of these two passages tells us it is figurative and not literal which was the point. When we read scripture for comprehension and not for proof texting some teaching scripture is pretty clear most of the time of the intent of the Lord. It is only when we read it by adding to or taking from what is really there that all the different "interpretations" come into play and mess with the unity we are suppose to have.
Upvote
0
- Feb 19, 2013
- 737
- 375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes. Those who must use some esoteric interpretation to explain away the plain reading of a text are really betraying their unbelief. Revisionists have been doing this since the fourth century AD.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 19, 2013
- 737
- 375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, obedience is the main reason for the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion, Eucharist, Mass, etc.), and for remembering and celebrating what Jesus did for us at the Cross, and our unity with Him through faith.
I think you meant "transubstantiation"; this is a belief which takes the words of Jesus out of the realm of reasonable faith and into the world of pagan superstition.
Upvote
0
- Feb 19, 2013
- 737
- 375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Glad you agree. Actually I know exactly how hard it is. After battling my old denomination's leaders about their PC biblical revisionism over a couple of decades, I finally left for greener pastures (and am much happier).
Upvote
0
common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school and yet no one seems to have a clue what those rules are or how they work or why we should care to know the intended meaning of the author...breaks my heart...especially since scripture warns us about adding to or taking from the word of God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
