x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:33:50 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
the author
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:58:22 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
the author
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:03:36 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent
of the author
Scipture please.
1 John 6
52 The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying,
"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
Have you ever heard of the concept of "metaphor?" Evidently, not.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "symbolism?" Evidently not.
If you had ever BOTHERED to study the meaning of the symbols used in
the Paschal meal in the Old Testament, you wouldn't be debating such
nonsense.
The eating of human flesh and the drinking of blood would not be
FORBIDDEN in both Old Testament AND New Testament (check the
epistles, where the council ordered the gentile Christians to
abstain from BLOOD)
And then Jesus VIOLATE those laws by commanding the eating of His
flesh!
And if it WAS His flesh (it wasn't), how come He used bread? Why
didn't He rip off an arm or a hand and grow a new one?
john w
I addressed the question to CB
I understood that, but since I have devoted a great deal of time to
studying this particular "dilemma", and since this is an open forum, I
took it upon myself to answer. If you didn't appreciate my
'interjection", you certainly were under no obligation to respond.
who seems to believe in only literal
interpretations of the Bible.
Some things in scripture can be taken literally-- the bodily
Resurrection; some things can not be taken literally -- the
"Presence."
How exactly did you determine that?
I am surprised that such a deep scholar as you would need to ask such
a question. The answer I have been taught (and one the text usually
If the LITERAL sense makes sense (the Resurrection), we need seek no
"other sense" (such as allegorical)
IF the LITERAL sense makes NO sense (they ate His LITERAL flesh, as He
sat there, feeding them bread), then we MUST look for ALTERNATIVE
meanings. You simply REFUSE to seek alternative meanings because you
have been told to believe in pagan cannibalism, and WHATEVER ROME
TEACHES YOU, YOU ARE CONTENT TO BLINDLY FOLLOW.
As I have said REPEATEDLY, and you REFUSE TO DEAL WITH, if you STUDIED
the Old Testament context of the Paschal feast, the OBVIOUS SYMBOLISM
of the Last Supper would be OBVIOUS.
And those of the New Testament who took Jesus LITERALLY were those who
were so earth-bound they were incapable of getting past the OBVIOUS.
And He PLAYED to that. On the OTHER HAND, if you LOOK FOR the
symbolism in His words to the Jews, and to those apostles/disciples
who were trouble, it becomes VERY clear.
And when the debate arose as to whether the gentiles had to become
Jews BEFORE they could become Christians, Paul did NOT allude to the
Paschal Feast, "well, we eat our Lord's flesh, and we drink His
blood... so..."
This would have been the PERFECT time to mention "transubstantiation"
and "The Presence" if such had been the teaching of Jesus or the
apostles.
It was not.
Frankly if you read all the references to the occasion I quoted
from,
In fact, I have read the whole Bible NUMEROUS times. You might want
to read the Old Testament accounts of the Paschal feast to get a
better perspective on what the Paschal feast was actually all about.
AGAIN, both New Testament and Old Testament FORBID the eating of human
flesh (the pagans of the Old Testament were practicing cannibalism),
and the drinking of any and all blood. There is in fact a very
specific reference to the gentiles being COMMANDED to abstain from
blood in the epistles.
Makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever that blood and human flesh would
be forbidden, and then Jesus would COMMAND the consumption of both.
It would appear you are not the only one who believed this. His
1 John 6
52 The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, "How can
this man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves.
54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I
will
raise him up on the last day.
55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so
he
who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me.
And you continue to not get the SYMBOLISM of this passage! You are a
gentile! Therefore you seek only paganism.
So are you.
You also have YET to answer the OBVIOUS issue. If Jesus intended us to
consume His flesh and His blood QUITE LITERALLY, why didn't He provide
us His LITERAL flesh and blood at the Last Supper?
NJB Luke 22:18-20
19. Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and
gave
it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in
remembrance
of me."
20. He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, "This cup is
the
new covenant in my blood poured out for you.
Note that you have used a 1970s version of a Roman Catholic tainted
"Bible."
Also please note that He didn't rip off an arm and roast it. Nor did
He use a sharp rock to open a vein and drain a pint or two of His
blood into the chalice.
It appears you are like the Jews who argued among themselves.
It also appears that you are a pagan, and that you prefer cannibalism
and vampirism over pure Christianity.
So you say we prefer cannibalism and vampirism over symbolic cannibalism and
symbolic vampirism? Don't you engage in the same thing we do, except you
call it symbolic?
It was
not clear to them and even after Christ tried to make it clear, they
could
not believe.
It was absolutely not clear to them. And if you look at Jesus'
prophesy about how He would be killed and rise again the 3rd day, it
took the apostles/disciples YEARS to put THAT one together.
He says, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days, I will rebuild it!" And
the Jews answered, "it took our fathers 40 YEARS to build this temple,
and you will rebuild it in 3 DAYS?"
And the comment by the apostle was, "but the temple He was talking
about was His BODY!"
Meaning even the apostles were confused! It took until the apostle
WROTE THAT PASSAGE or shortly before for them to unravel that
prophesy!
And I find NO MENTION WHATSOEVER, in ANY EPISTLE, of the teaching you
espouse!
Meaning YOU misinterpret what Jesus taught!
I
believe that it is clear that Christ intended the literal meaning
due to His response to those who could not believe the literal
meaning of His words.
You can believe whatever you like; it doesn't make you right.
I believe you have made that quite clear; however, you certainly have
NO scriptural justification for such belief.
I see NO passage anywhere in the Bible in which Jesus LITERALLY fed
the apostles His flesh.
Correct, YOU do not see any passage, but I do.
Kindly show me a passage that says that He very literally ripped an
arm or leg from His body and fed them His literal flesh, and I will
believe.
You are reading things into the text that QUITE SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE.
You are not alone. It
is difficult to believe as evident from the reactions of those there at
the
time and the very reason Christ corrected them, yet some could not accept
it
then and can not accept it today. (This of course is my opinion and
differs
from yours)
And I see that we are both wasting our time. You believe as you have
been mis-taught. If you can't show me IN THE TEXT (and you cannot), I
will not believe your POV.
It would be very interesting to hear your explanation of why they walked
away, and why Jesus didn't explain himself. Had he been speaking
symbolically, he would not have let them reject him based on the
misconception that he spoke literally.
That is my believe. Others may or may not agree, but to me you have
to try very hard not to agree or like those who left Christ be
unable to accept the truth.
I also don't find any discussions in the epistles on "those who do not
believe they are eating His LITERAL flesh are doomed to hell."
I would, in a broad sense, agree with that.
"In a broad sense?" The topic simply isn't mentioned after the Last
Supper! It isn't there!
Except in the writings of Paul.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za