Adventists view of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

The Liturgist said:

Previously you tried to insist John chapter 6 was not related to Holy Communion

Click to expand...

1. John 6 is most certainly not a communion service
2. In John 6 Jesus did NOT say "some day in the future you will need to bite on me" He says they ALREADY need the WORD that is spirit and is life
3. Not even the faithful disciples bite Jesus in John 6 RATHER they say (as He said ) 'you have the WORDS of LIFE"

The Liturgist said:

, but now you’re trying to use it to contradict “This is my body” and “this is my blood.”

Click to expand...

nope. I affirm the symbolism. I affirm that no one bites Christ in John 6.
I affirm the the Gospel covenant, the NEW Covenant, the thing you absolutely do not quote at all so far.. is the GOSPEL covenant.
You claim to talk about the gospel yet refuse to even quote the gospel covenant and what it says.

The Liturgist said:

On the contrary, they failed to take Him literally because of their carnal reaction.

Click to expand...

They did take Him literally and refused to bite, so they left.
The faithful disciples accepted 'his teaching" that eating literal flesh was worthless just as HE said, and the point was to accept His WORD.

The Liturgist said:

No, He did not, he said “the flesh profiteth nothing”

Click to expand...

indeed. Literal flesh, eating literal flesh does not bring about salvation. Rather He said IN THE CHAPTER that listening to His WORD brings life.

The Liturgist said:

for which I have provided an exegesis, and which is also consistent with the warnings of St. Paul that the letter killeth, but the Spirit gives life in 2 Corinthians 3:6 regarding the Law

Click to expand...

The Spirit gives life, eating flesh does not bring eternal life.

The Liturgist said:

You are trying to force your own memorialist interpretation onto the words

Click to expand...

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

You post as if Paul's statement above is nothing more than BobRyan's own interpretation

More bible reading please, less false accusation

The Liturgist said:

of our Lord, an interpretation which did not exist prior to the 16th century

Click to expand...

Read..
John 6
1 Cor 11.

They were written long before the 16th century

The Liturgist said:

I would not debate the Eucharist with you at all were it not for the criticism of the ancient churches and their members including the millions of Armenian, Assyrian, Pontic Greek, Suroye, Antiochian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Russian, Ukrarinian, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, Prussian, Swiss, Eritrean, Belarussian, Ethiopian, Coptic Orthodox, Nigerian, Pakistani, Native Alaskan and Alexandrian Greek martyrs

Click to expand...

This thread is not about debating your view of Eucharist

The Liturgist said:

For example, my dear friend @Hentenza as far as I’m aware does not believe in the Real Presence,

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We all believe in the "real presence" of Christ as we see in Matt 18:20
20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

The Spirit gives life, eating flesh does not bring eternal life.

The Liturgist said:

You are trying to force your own memorialist interpretation onto the words

Click to expand...

And so I respond with the very "memorialist" language in scripture that sustains my case and exposes a flaw in your speculation above about that memorial language being 'mine"

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

so I posted it.. like this

BobRyan said:

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

You post as if Paul's statement above is nothing more than BobRyan's own interpretation

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

Yes we’ve been over this before - that argument is intrinsically flawed

Click to expand...

Not in real life. In Real life it uses the very memorial terms you seem to so strongly oppose.

And you can't simply "blame me" when that detail is pointed out. That is not a solution

The Liturgist said:

since it rests upon a false dilemma and a strawman

Click to expand...

not in real life. It simply brings out a detail that does not reflect well on your own personal complaint about memorial language.

The Liturgist said:

(a) the word anamnesis, translated as “remembrance” is a bit like logos or prosopon - it is one of those Greek words which is more complicated than it might first appear, being one of many cases where a word of philosophical significance was intentionally used by the Holy Apostles.

Click to expand...

your need to "dismiss it" noted.

But I am sure that even you can appreciate just how it is that the rest of us are entirely satisfied with the text as it reads, and simiply trying to "blame it on me" is not a solution at all.

BobRyan said:

Read..
John 6
1 Cor 11.

They were written long before the 16th century

Click to expand...

to which you responded

The Liturgist said:

I would suggest that you withdraw the above remark, since it’s essentially an ad hominem that accuses me and everyone else who believes in the Real Presence of having not read those Scriptures and is yet another case of a pattern wherein anyone who takes a divergent interpretation is dismissed as ignoring or disobeying Scripture.

Click to expand...

We "noticed" that when you complain about "memorialist language' you did not quote the memorial language of 1 Cor 11 or Christ's own statement in John 6 that eating literal flesh was pointless when it comes to solving the problem of sin. So... I refer you back to those texts you skimmed past.

BobRyan said:

We "noticed" that when you complain about "memorialist language' you did not quote the memorial language of 1 Cor 11 or Christ's own statement in John 6 that eating literal flesh was pointless when it comes to solving the problem of sin. So... I refer you back to those texts you skimmed past.

Click to expand...

I specifcally addressed the meaning of both of those texts in my replies, indeed I began with an explanation as to how the word anamnesis in 1 Corinthians 11 was being misinterpreted, and demonstrated how they do not refute the real presence. Thus, I would respectfully ask you to re-read my posts, since you will see that actually 1 Corinthians 11 and the meaning of anamnesis is central to my argument, and regarding John 6, I provided an exegesis which has the considerable advantage of not having had our Lord assert a doctrinal truth only to then roll it back.

You might disagree with the Patristic interpretation I provided, but that does not mean I did not address those points.*

The problem with your hermeneutic is you’re attempting to use these verses to negate other verses, which is eisegetical, rather than a constructive inference as to what these verses mean when read in harmony with each other, which was the approach used by the early church and by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Martin Luther and by confessional Lutherans and high church Anglicans and other Bible Protestants who like the Orthodox, care about consistency and an exegetical approach to hermeneutics rather than proof-texting, as @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian @prodromos @FenderTL5 and @tall73 can confirm.

* Speaking of which, you seem to be writing as though I’m developing my own interpretation of these texts in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, as though such a thing would be necessary. This is not the case - what I am conveying is the Patristic interpretation of these verses going back to the first century. In the early church we have records of dissent over many things, but the Real Presence never became a bone of contention - only the Meletians inclined in such a direction (and they were a non-Christian heretical cult preaching a false Gospel, like the Valentinians, Manichaeans, Arians, Paulicans, Marcionists, Ebionites, etc) but their approach was more akin to the Quaker approach of not celebrating the sacraments ordained by Christ at all.