The writers of scripture believed as I do and Jesus also did not say to eat his literal flesh as I showed you already,
My interpretation is all according to the spirit and scriptureNo you didn’t; your interpretation makes no sense in light of the Institution Narratives of 1 Corinthians and the Synoptics.
John 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.”No you didn’t; your interpretation makes no sense in light of the Institution Narratives of 1 Corinthians and the Synoptics.
You were citing Tertullian earlier. Do you not have anyone you can point to in, say, the first thousand years after Christ who shared your interpretation?I simply need Jesus words
And your selection of the King James Bible is one based on something other than the contents of the Bible. So it's inconsistent for you to say that you could only be convinced of something if it were proven from Scripture and nothing else.I believe God overshadowed the making of the King James Bible and all the manuscripts to be used and preserved were preserved by God. How could Daniels words be sealed up for the latter times if Gid did not watch over them. Or the book of Revelation if Gid did not preserve it?
There are a plurality of elders, yes. This is attested to in the writings of Irenaeus too. But elders/presbyters were not bishops.I have no issue with the word bishop/overseer as the Greek word is used in both ways. But there is a plurality of elders in every church in scripture we don’t see one man a pastor or bishop over all the believers in God’s order in scripture except Christ who is the Lord over all. Even Paul said ,
2 Corinthians 1: 24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”
Yes they were we read Paul writing to the Ephesians elders who the Holy Ghost made overseers (same word as bishops used in Greek)You were citing Tertullian earlier. Do you not have anyone you can point to in, say, the first thousand years after Christ who shared your interpretation?
And your selection of the King James Bible is one based on something other than the contents of the Bible. So it's inconsistent for you to say that you could only be convinced of something if it were proven from Scripture and nothing else.
There are a plurality of elders, yes. This is attested to in the writings of Irenaeus too. But elders/presbyters were not bishops.
The error of moving away from body ministry in Christ where every joint supplies (Ephesians 4:15,16),happened early in the church. We see these men rising up drawing away disciples after themselves early on. Even the Church of Ephesus tried some fakes apostles. Paul dealt with them as well in 2 Corinthians 11 John addresses some.Consider that the headship of a single bishop in a locality is attested to in many cities in just the second century, and several of those are at the very beginning. If those bishops were usurpers, did those usurpations happen independently across the whole Christian world? That seems unlikely.
John 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.”
That doesn't mean the offices were the same. To give a demonstration of this in English, there are many ways in which one can be a "minister." In some cases it implies ordination, in others it's used generally to refer to someone who takes care of others.Yes they were we read Paul writing to the Ephesians elders who the Holy Ghost made overseers (same word as bishops used in Greek)
No, being an elder was a specific office to which men are appointed, as described in Titus 1:So the elders was who they were, older in the faith, mature. Overseer/ bishop is what they do, they watch over (not Lird over).
And yet you say that this same church, which by your argument had fallen into error while the Apostle John was still alive, reliably preserved its manuscripts, correctly determined the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father through its ecumenical councils, correctly translated those manuscripts, correctly determined which books were canonical... This seems like an ad hoc explanation that doesn't take into account how irreconcilable it is with church history.The error of moving away from body ministry in Christ where every joint supplies (Ephesians 4:15,16),happened early in the church.
No I did not do this. I simply quoted the verse in context. Jesus shows that eating his flesh (literally) would not profit them. The words he speaks are spirit and life. This is right in context with what words he spoke about coming to him and believing on him (eating and drinking)Herein you are engaging in eisegesis, taking one verse out of context and attempting to use it to contradict the plain meaning of the previous verses
Now you are talking about other verses out of context from this section. Jesus is not speaking about the Lords Supper specifically in John 6.as sustained by the Words of Institution in the other Gospels
No John 6 is not speaking about the figurative ritual of the supper or Passover.and 1 Corinthians (and aluded to in other texts).
I know he is not negating anything in the context I quoted It’s your theology that would see it as a contradiction to your erroneous doctrine. You found yourself out.Ergo the verse you quote In no respect negates what He said before that remark,
Jesus literally died on the cross and was buried and rose again. But we don’t know Christ after the flesh now. By eating spiritual meat and spiritual drink this is by coming to him in our hearts for Christ dwells in our heart by faith and believing on him in your heart for with the heart man believes and we have His word down in our heart which we eat . We are born again by the word of God .that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed,
They did not discern the reason for the remembrance meal of bread and the cup and so it had no meaning to them and they were not remembering the poor and acting as without love or as part of the body of Christ. They also did not discern the Lord’s body, that body being the believers as them body of Christ also. They were sinning against the weaker brothers and selfish and drunk at them supper (some).or what He said in the institution narratives in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians, for example:
Matthew 26:26-28
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave itto them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
John 6 and the Institution Narratives in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians ch. 11 reinforce each other, and what is more 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 confirms that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord, and the danger of not discerning it as such, or of partaking of it while unworthy, which can cause illness or death, rather than providing the remission of sins promised in Matthew as quoted above, and what is more, it is also made clear that the Eucharist is not an ordinary meal:
Not to oppose forcefully, but no, no you really did not prove anything about eating the Lord's true Flesh and Blood simply taking a verse totally out of context.No I did not do this. I simply quoted the verse in context. Jesus shows that eating his flesh (literally) would not profit them. The words he speaks are spirit and life. This is right in context with what words he spoke about coming to him and believing on him (eating and drinking)
Even when people hear the gospel 1 Cor. 15:1/4) those are now in words. If we believe the gospel either after hearing the words preached or reading them preached we are saved.
Now you are talking about other verses out of context from this section. Jesus is not speaking about the Lords Supper specifically in John 6.
No John 6 is not speaking about the figurative ritual of the supper or Passover.
I know he is not negating anything in the context I quoted It’s your theology that would see it as a contradiction to your erroneous doctrine. You found yourself out.
Jesus literally died on the cross and was buried and rose again. But we don’t know Christ after the flesh now. By eating spiritual meat and spiritual drink this is by coming to him in our hearts for Christ dwells in our heart by faith and believing on him in your heart for with the heart man believes and we have His word down in our heart which we eat . We are born again by the word of God .
Consider, that Christ in you has been the bread of life throughout all the ages. To those who spiritually eat and drink of him inwardly as well. But he had to come in the flesh and to die on the cross and be buried and ride again for our sins. But we don’t know him in the physical now.
1 Corinthians 10: 3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
Also consider,
2 Corinthians 5: 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
And
John 15: 3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
Said before the cross (though not without it. In time) and not speaking of the supper here.
They did not discern the reason for the remembrance meal of bread and the cup and so it had no meaning to them and they were not remembering the poor and acting as without love or as part of the body of Christ. They also did not discern the Lord’s body, that body being the believers as them body of Christ also. They were sinning against the weaker brothers and selfish and drunk at them supper (some).
As we read
1 Corinthians 10: 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
Believers also eat the word in a spiritual way and we already read of spiritual meat and spiritual drink
Consider,
1 Peter 2: 2, 3 “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”
Hebrews 5: 14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Luke 4: 4. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
Jeremiah 15: 16. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”
This is considered cherry picking FWIW.The writers of scripture believed as I do and Jesus also did not say to eat his literal flesh as I showed you already,
John 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.”
No, it is rightly dividing the word the spiritual things are only understood by spiritual men the natural man cannot know them they are spiritually discerned.This is considered cherry picking FWIW.
Eat is eating in Greek. When we eat we chew on something. But as usual, Jesus is not talking about actually eating his flesh standing in front of them. Or drinking his literal blood right there, the Jews were forbidden to drink blood. Which is interesting. Do you believe that the cup (which most Catholics do not drink here in Canada) is literally now the blood of Christ? Literally. Do you believe the literal blood in the cup is to be for all to drink? If sone by do most not drink it? And in the old abd New Testamebt blood is forbidden to drink.The Douay Rheims Bible.
Koine Greek uses the terms grinding and chewing His Flesh... BTW
His physical incarnation once as God manifest in the flesh happened in time and he died and rise again. Now we don’t know him after the flesh as Paul wrote (by the Spirit) and neither shall they say lo here is Christ or there is Christ( as sone now say in the supper and the bread and cup) .Christ shall (future tense) appear a second time at the second coming.John 6:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
[63] "If then you shall see": Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
[64] "The flesh profiteth nothing": Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.
[/QUOTE]No, it rightly dividing the word the spiritual things are only understood by spiritual men the natural man cannot know them they are spiritually discerned.
[/QUOTE]Jesus often spoke in a spiritual way and one time he said to sone to
Matthew 16: 6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?… 11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
Jesus spoke of spiritual truth here and they thought he was talking about natural bread.
Eat is eating in Greek. When we eat we chew on something. But as usual, Jesus is not talking about actually eating his flesh standing in front of them. Or drinking his literal blood right there, the Jews were forbidden to drink blood. Which is interesting. Do you believe that the cup (which most Catholics do not drink here in Canada) is literally now the blood of Christ? Literally. Do you believe the literal blood in the cup is to be for all to drink? If sone by do most not drink it? And in the old abd New Testamebt blood is forbidden to drink.
But Jesus is the bread from heaven, not as the manna in the wilderness (the little white cakes in Moses time) but he spoke of spiritually eating the word he spoke and he was plus physically die on the cross once for sin and the gospel would be preached and those who believe that gospel are saved (1 Cor 25:1-4 KJV) so to add to that saving gospel anything else would make another gospel and then read Galatians 1 for that warming. Notice in the gospel that no Lords supper remembrance or water baptism or wearing scapulars etc was added for salvation to the gospel.
We can eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual drink as I showed in scripture. We don’t just eat physically.
What do you suppose spiritual meat is?
What do you suppose “thy word was found and I did eat” means?
How do we feed ourselves on the milk of the word or taste and see that the Lord is good?
Where is the seed (the word of God/Christ) sown?
Jesus said this about eating and drinking
John 6: 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. 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 44. 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. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
And Jesus is not talking about the Passover supper here. And to “see” the Son of God abd know who Jesus is, is only by revelation of the Father. Many saw him physically but only believers saw him spiritually . Many heard him physically but only believers heard him spiritually and had His word abiding in them.
His physical incarnation once as God manifest in the flesh happened in time and he died and rise again. Now we don’t know him after the flesh as Paul wrote (by the Spirit) and neither shall they say lo here is Christ or there is Christ( as sone now say in the supper and the bread and cup) .Christ shall (future tense) appear a second time at the second coming.
But as far as eating “spiritual meat” this is the issue and what do you think “spiritual meat” and “spiritual drink” is that all them saints of all time have eaten?
And Jesus said blessed are those who do hunger abd thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but as we read,
Romans 14: 17. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
You have not answered this verse about all believers being one bread and one body.Not to oppose forcefully, but no, no you really did not prove anything about eating the Lord's true Flesh and Blood simply taking a verse totally out of context.
The Liturgist quoted a very succinct, warning about taking the Body and Blood as common or unworthily.
But did you read it?
Ok, you want it...?You have not answered this verse about all believers being one bread and one body.
1 Corinthians 10: 17. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread”
Believers are the Lords body also the body of Christ and sone don’t discern this and the working of the body and how we should have the sane care one for another and not neglect the poor and weak among us. If we are believers we love one another as we read,
1 Corinthians 12: 13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14. For the body is not one member, but many…20. But now are they many members, yet but one body….25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another…27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
Ephesians 1: 22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”
1 Corinthians 11: 33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”
The verse actually says thisIf you do NOT eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood you have no life.
The truth is truth.The verse actually says this
John 6: 53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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…56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
“Psalm 34: 8. O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.”
The life in you is the key. Christ who is our life dwells in our hearts by faith: he is the true Light that lighteth every man only those who come to the light (come to him) inwardly. This is not speaking of the supper but the spiritual reality in Christ that all the saints of all time had. Abraham had the seed (Christ) in him and all OT saints did eat the sane spiritual meat and spiritual drink for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.
Jesus said that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words he spoke they were spirit and they were life. So if we are born again by the word of God being born if the spirit, then this comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
And no man can come to Jesus sumply by eating the literal supper they come by the Father inwardly drawing them and teaching them first.
The gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 abd no Lord’s supper or water baptism is added to that or any other works of man or rituals it is by grace through faith we are saved. To add anything else is another gospel for salvation.
Totally wrong , you miss the entire meaning.
“The bread which we break” was said by Paul, he did not say this literal flesh now which we break.
To worship bread is idolatry to many Christian’s. We worship God in spirit and in truth abd no idolater shall enter the kingdom of God. As scripture shows 1 Cor. 6:9,10 (KJV)
No, it’s only by the Spirit and revelation and consider these verses to understandWell, I suppose the only way you know scriptures is by your guess work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?