Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Archivist]

Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


The feeding of the 5000 or walking on water are not mentioned.

Incorrect.

Try reading all of John Chapter 6, instead of pulling out isolated verses.

John 6:1-15 describes the feeding of the 5000.

John 6:16-21 describes Jesus walking on the water that night.

John 6:22-71 describes the events that occurred the next day, when the crowd found Jesus on the other side of the sea. The words that you have quoted were spoken that day, not during the last Supper.

 

[mmksparbud]

I quoted the verses exactly as stated. Not pulling out of context at all

It still is talking about He is the bread of life and that the words He was speaking were spiritual



Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.

 

[miamited]

Hi mmksparbud,

I believe that one needs to give attention to the disciples' response that it was a 'hard' saying. What did they mean by this? Was it requiring some difficult task 'hard', or rather was it making some difficult to understand point 'hard'? If the later, as I believe it is, then we need to be careful that we aren't falling victim to exactly what the disciples were afraid of. Do we understand what Jesus was teaching?

I wouldn't think that it would be referring to communion. That idea and practice hadn't even been discussed yet. No one, not even the disciples at that point, would have had a clue what Jesus was talking about. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood? They would all have been scratching their heads.

We also know that Jesus was not advocating some form of cannibalism. He didn't mean for these people to start tearing him apart limb from limb and drinking his spilled blood and eating his actual flesh. Otherwise I'm sure he would have concluded this teaching with, "Ok, let's get started. Who wants to take the first bite?

No! I believe that what Jesus was attempting to teach here that the disciples thought was a 'hard' teaching, was merely that we had to accept and adopt all of Jesus as the blueprint for our lives - if, eternal life was what we were after. He even made the point somewhat more clear when he said, "For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed." Everything that he was teaching was the 'meat' and 'drink' that we should be living with as our food and drink.

Food and drink are the very things that keep us alive on this earth. If we go without either for any length of time we will die. No exceptions and no questions. This is what Jesus was teaching us about our spiritual living. We also need meat and drink for our spirit to live and he is that meat and drink. If we don't accept and adopt his teaching words and practices as the meat and drink of our spiritual lives, then we're going to die spiritually.

So, I don't think this teaching has anything whatsoever to do with the last supper practice that established a communion for remembrance service. Rather this is Jesus teaching us in the most dire sense that if we really want eternal life, then we're going to have to feed our spirit with the meat and drink of Jesus' words and teachings and practices.

The disciples understood this as a very difficult teaching that was hard to understand.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think it does

The eucharist is in John 6

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.​

His flesh is life. As the lamb of God He feeds and redeems, before the fall as the tree of life he was just for feeding on. Then in dying for us He gave His flesh so that we could have life. Blood is also necessary for redemption. Separating the flesh and blood in verse 54 of John 6 clearly means His death.

John 6:47
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—​

Verse 56 of John 6 is the resurrected life of those who believe in Him.
By eating we are taking Him in as nourishment for the new creation for the new way of life.

John 14:19-20
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.​

vs 62 of John 6 involves His ascention which followed redemption as proof His work had been completed.

Hebrews 1:3b
... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.​

Wherefore He has now become the Spirit in vs 63 of John 6 who gives life and speaks in spirit and life.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.​

As the Spirit He is the life supply. Recieving (believing) Him as the crucified and resurrected savior, the lifegiving Spirit comes into us to impart eternal life. We recieve (believe) the Lord Jesus but we get the Holy Spirit who gives us life.

 

[Radrook]

First, I'm correct. You are the one picking and choosing what parts of Scripture are and are not "literal." I'm not the one saying that one must believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account to be a Christian as some in this thread have claimed.

Second, you need to learn what "strawman" means.

Understanding what strawman means was part of the required knowledge to pass my Logic class and I aced it.


BTW
I am not a YEC.

 

[Archivist]

I quoted the verses exactly as stated. Not pulling out of context at all

It still is talking about He is the bread of life and that the words He was speaking were spiritual



Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.

But this is not describing the Last Supper. This event took place at a different time. This differs from "this is my body" and "This is the New Testament in my blood." Putting certain words in red does not change that.

 

[Archivist]

Understanding what strawman means was part of the required knowledge to pass my Logic class and I aced it.

Strawman is "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."

BTW I am not a YEC.

Don't remember saying that you were.

 

[mmksparbud]

I don't care if it was stated in Turkey, on Halloween, hanging from a lamppost in the middle of the L.A. freeways----He is talking eating his flesh and drinking His blood! That is what He is clearly talking about!!

 

[miamited]

Hi cassia,

You responded, I believe to my thread:

The eucharist is in John 6

Here again, I think it important to understand the things that we say and where we get our ideas. The 'eucharist' is not in John 6. Now, many who practice the 'eucharist' present John 6 as a part of that practice, but in John 6, Jesus is not speaking of the 'eucharist'.

“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Here, Jesus is confirming what he is about to expound upon. He is the bread of life and he doesn't then say that whoever 'eats' of this bread shall have eternal life. No! He says that whoever comes to him for that bread of life will not go hungry. He then doesn't even discuss drinking of his blood, but merely says that all those who 'believe' him will not thirst.

That is exactly the point that Jesus expounds on in the passages that are under discussion here. Now, if you've been taught and you want to believe that John 6 is somehow tied into the eucharist, you are certainly free to do so, but it isn't at all what Jesus is teaching about in John 6.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Archivist]

I don't care if it was stated in Turkey, on Halloween, hanging from a lamppost in the middle of the L.A. freeways----He is talking eating his flesh and drinking His blood! That is what He is clearly talking about!!

But what you quoted, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," were said at a different time in a different context than the words that were said at the Last Supper.

Of course you weren't even aware that they were said along the sea the day after the feeding of the 5000, not in the Upper Room.

 

[mmksparbud]

Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.


It is the subject---I do not care where, when the words were spoken--they were spoken. Different context?? It is the same words, the same idea--eat His flesh, drink His blood. If it is said in the upper room, if it is said in Asuza, if it is said in Russia, if the words were said when taking a bath, when fishing, when sweeping the floor---same words, same idea, same thing. However, You can believe whatever you want. This is still America.

 

[Archivist]

Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.


It is the subject---I do not care where, when the words were spoken--they were spoken. Different context?? It is the same words, the same idea--eat His flesh, drink His blood. If it is said in the upper room, if it is said in Asuza, if it is said in Russia, if the words were said when taking a bath, when fishing, when sweeping the floor---same words, same idea, same thing. However, You can believe whatever you want. This is still America.

But the context is different and the words are different. "Eat my flesh" is different than "this is my body."

 

[mmksparbud]

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 

[Archivist]

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But that is in a different context from the Last Supper.

 

[mmksparbud]

Noooo----same words, same idea, about the same subject--you want to view it as different, you have that right.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never stated that I am against Genesis being literal.

Not what I said. Just the opposite in fact.

Let's trace how this thread has thus far flowed, your statement in the OP was thus:

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Others posted in this thread in agreement, and what has been argued is that if a Christian does not interpret the creation stories in Genesis literally then they are, in effect, rejecting the Bible and the Gospel.

Others, and myself, then raised the point about Jesus' words concerning the Eucharist being His body and blood.

I then raised this point in response to you:

Then to use the same language others regularly use to accuse me and others with, why do you reject God's word? If Jesus didn't mean what He said then you can't trust anything in the Bible. Sound familiar?

I wasn't actually accusing you of rejecting God's word, I was using precisely the same language others were using, in reference to Genesis--including your own OP--against you to illustrate a point. Remember, in your OP you said, "the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days."

Your response to this:

Would you accuse Shakespeare or any other literary personage of never meaning what he said because he regularly employed symbolic language such as similes and metaphors?

Which I thought was fantastically ironic because I am of the opinion that Genesis 1, being divinely inspired mythology, precisely is an act of God inspiring the use of poetry and myth to communicate important theological truth to us. I understand that here you are referring to Jesus who regularly employed parables, metaphor, and other figures of speech in order to argue on behalf of a non-literal reading of Jesus' words of institution. Yet the irony was completely lost on you, as when I pointed out that you were making my argument for me you stated you didn't know how.

Which then gets us to where I said this:

You're okay with Jesus using metaphor and simile, speaking in parables, etc. I'm also okay with this.
You're not okay with God using non-literal language in Genesis 1. I am okay with this.

I haven't misrepresented your views, but I think what has been demonstrated--far better than I could have hoped for in fact--is what I wrote earlier in this thread:

It is of constant bewilderment that certain Christians will insist until they are blue in the face that it is absolutely essential that I believe, literally, in a talking snake; but when the Son of God tells us "This is My body" they gaffaw at the mere thought that it could actually be what He says it is.

Talking snakes: Absolutely literal, really happened historically, can't be anything else.
Bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Jesus: Not literal, can't be literal, clearly figurative, can't be anything else.

Bronze age near eastern creation story: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying something: Not literally true.

This often, I find, also tends to have overlap in regard to the Apocalypse of St. John, so that again:

Monster-faced locusts coming up out of the abyss as recorded in an apocalyptic text: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying "This is My body": Not literally true.

You will happily bend over backward to insist from one side of the mouth that Genesis has to be taken literally and any other reading is unacceptable, it can't be anything but literal and historical and then from the other side of the mouth happily explain that Jesus regularly employed non literal language and so we can't take Jesus' words of institution literally. But I still think that you really don't grasp the irony here. You're okay with God using non-literal language, as long as we can apply it to the Eucharist, you're not okay with God using non-literal language if it's being applied to the creation stories.

Which means we still have this result: A talking snake? Must be literal. Bread and wine being what Jesus says they are? Can't be literal, no way.

The irony, the absurdity, is downright palpable. Armoured, for example, picked up on this quite fast--as have others in this thread. I'm currently explaining it as clearly and candidly as I can, and yet I suspect it will still fall on deaf ears. If I may, again, take another from the Fundamentalist playbook, to refer to those who have ears but do not hear and eyes but do not see, as that is one I have regularly had lobbed in my direction and have seen it lobbed toward many other fellow Christians, it seems only fair to pass the ball back to the other side of the court.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

Strawman is "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."



Don't remember saying that you were.

If it is contrary to what the person said and is put forth as if it were the identical then it is straw man. You just did it several times more in the posts above.

 

[Jipsah]

It still is talking about He is the bread of life and that the words He was speaking were spiritual

Try these:

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

!Now, are you of the opinion that St. Paul didn't know what he was talking about, or that he simply lied?

 

[Jipsah]

If it is contrary to what the person said and is put forth as if it were the identical then it is straw man. You just did it several times more in the posts above.

Sounds to me like automatically shouting "strawman! strawman! is the only response you know if you can't think of anything actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. Try hollering "non sequitur!" or "post hoc ergo propter hoc!" instead just for variety. <Laugh>

 

[Jipsah]

What still remains here is that some folks, some of whom admit to not sharing basic Christian beliefs like the Triune nature of God, believe that the ancient stories of the creation of the universe must be accepted as absolutely true in a technical scientific sense, while objecting that the Word of God Himself cannot be accepted as true because it doesn't sort well with their doctrinal presuppositions.

This appears to be another of those areas where we find people not believing that our Lord is God Incarnate, either overtly or through ignorance. How else can they cast aside the declaration of God Himself, explicitly affirmed by the apostle Paul, yet demand slavish acceptance of the work of ancient scribes in describing the Creation that was handed down to them through oral tradition? Talk about throwing away the caviar and eating the can!