Before we can be productive in any capacity, we must agree on basic principles. In a theological discussion such as ours, the first thing that we
must agree on is God.
Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108: "How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe?"
because verse 63 is our dispute...you claim flesh means seeing things from a eyes of the flesh unable to see the actual miracle...I claim flesh means by actually eating Him especially at this point in the narrative where He did not offer His body even as bread but just claimed it was food and they were oblivious to the understanding He was actually going to die and on Passover as our substitute...all this at this context at this time in John 6 was not Him advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh...that would profit nothing...it is NOT even about not seeing things spiritual of the flesh
You have missed my point. I know that we are going to disagree on interpretation. Obviously. But if I say say "I believe X," and you say "You believe Y," you are simply wrong. I would definitely know more about what I believe than you. So, if I say "I believe X," it must be accepted as fact, since I am the only source of knowledge on my personal beliefs.
Furthermore, if I present information, such as "Catholics believe X," it is illogical for you, a protestant, to refute it, as it is a simple fact. Anything taught or believed by Catholics, unlike any other denomination, is easily found in a single book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). If there is any one who says, "well that is not
really what they believe," they are preferring ignorance to truth. Now, I am no authority on the Catholic Church, but my knowledge, as a Catholic, of what is actually taught and believed is most likely more concise than that of a protestant. And my knowledge of my personal beliefs are superior to that of anyone else. So, you can't refute my belief by saying "that is not what you believe."
Now, for the passage from John 6. You are being intellectually dishonest when you imply that a literal interpretation of flesh would lead to Christ "advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh." The reason I classify this as "intellectually dishonest," is because you do not apply the same scenarios to figurative examples, nor to examples of passages that you do take literally. For example, when Christ tells the rich man to go and sell all that he has, surely you don't think Christ means go sell everything, even your clothing, rendering the man nude. That would be "everything." You don't believe when Christ says "tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it" means that at that very moment Christ was calling them to kill Him on the spot. But that is the implication you add into John 6:48-58,
if Christ meant a literal consumption. Hence, the applied term of intellectual dishonesty. You are only using immediate literal actions to apply to situational interpretations that you oppose, in order to "expose" the error of such interpretation.
You didnt say it HE did...He said whoever eats this bread that comes down will live forever...but if its true they ate His flesh and still died...obviously He wasn't literal about eating literal bread and living forever...or eating His flesh called bread and living forever...it was all symbolic they died eating His flesh because He was being symbolic...they died just as those eating the other bread from heaven that is manna did...
Once again, you are using the fallacy of Equivocation. You know, as do I, that when Christ says "live forever" in the passage of John 6, He means "eternal life in heaven." We are not in dispute on that. But you insist that I must utilize meanings and implications of immortality. Yet, you do not use this in other passages when Christ speaks of "living forever." You are falsely applying ideas to my position.
Also, if Christ was being solely symbolic, then, using your own logic that you utilize against me, then no one will ever live forever, even eternally. Because, "He was being symbolic." You could argue, but using your logic, I just retort, "no, He was being symbolic."
That video is unique as the belief the prohibition to ingest human flesh and drink blood was lifted...it is usually avoided.
Yet time and again, I have said that the "Catholic" in the video is wrong. Yet you insist that he is correct. This goes back to my first point in this post; you cannot argue against fact. The fact is, that the "Catholic" in that video was wrong. I am declaring, "He is wrong. That is not what Catholics believe; there is no evidence to support his arguments." These are all facts. Yet you keep insisting that he is accurate to the beliefs of Catholicism. This is preferring ignorance to truth.
Again put it back into the context those that followed Him did not see Him as a passover lamb or that He was going to be killed on passover...so they were having to consider eating Him while living flesh...or somehow kill Him first...He was not offering they eat Him then and there...
So, the Apostles didn't consider Christ to be the Lamb of God? (Christ is specifically called "Lamb of God" in the John's Gospel)
I am saying He is clarifying that the act of eating His flesh is useless to salvation/eternal life as He must be sacrificed as a type of the passover lamb not just randomly eaten...they idea those that left Him with was that eating Him would bring eternal life...that means in that context flesh is useless...it is the Spirit the words He speaks which Peter affirms...NOT saying "you have the flesh" as it was "you have the Words"
So, was Christ "The Word made flesh?" If so, my position stands.
it is not bringing judgement on the groom if he shows up late, or not dressed, or drunk or with another woman? Paul includes the iconic "this do as often as you drink it" so of course the church had to limit it to one sip per day...that is to say as often as you drink could be everyday or any time you drink the fruit of the cup we are to remember...not just on Sunday mornings
You are shying away from the question. Why does Paul give such gravity to eating and drinking unworthily? Mere Symbolism does not bear grave consequences.
(I have come to believe the frequency of THIS REMEMBRANCE was once a year as it was the night before Passover when this bread and wine where symbolically used to remember Him His sacrifice not to ingest Him as comfort food)
I have no argument against this that is of any substance. When I was a protestant, I thought the same way; so I understand your logic there.
Likely? Hardly... John is the spiritual gospel and thus this mystery of the change of substance from literal bread to actual flesh should be front and center...just as the word became flesh...
So, "word" can be "flesh." Interesting.
well sadly jews and catholics are similar as they do rely on icons relics and other idolatries falsifying true worship making of it something it is not...
This is a whole different topic. But a common misapplication is the idolatry claims against Catholics.
right...so don't be so quick to dismiss the brave video crusader who claims human flesh and blood are cleared to consume...you believe He said it so its good
Is my claim Christ commanded us to "Eat His Flesh," or "eat all flesh?" See the false equivalence you are implying?
ummm yes of course...the Spirit provides eternal life indeed...not bread or eating His body...
Where are we provided the limits of the Holy Spirit? I never saw a list or set of circumstances in Scripture.
He said "He who comes to me will never hunger" that is understood as to hunger for spiritual food yes or do you think now He is literal as well...
You are using Equivocation again.
you said you thought the men who left at the saying were dead...clarifying sprititually...but they were not literally dead despite not having literally pounced on Him and feeding on His flesh
Right. We are in agreement here.
He said Himself He does and that is not the point. The point is you insist He wishes we eat human flesh and drink His human blood. And since He wills it it then becomes good.
Nope. I insist that He wants us to eat "His Flesh." And yes, if Christ wills it, it is good.
so don't balk at hearing you are cannibals or come up with weak excuses like He made human flesh clean meat food.
So I shouldn't balk at falsehoods? This is becoming more liberal by the second.
is why I still protest man made traditions...in eating bread and drinking the fruit of the wine I remember His sacrifice His literal blood shedding was enough...in Him I am entirely spared the curse of the law...no need of indulgences reprieve from yet another man made construct...hell...yet another misapplication of what is symbol and literal...not ironic
Where are your proofs for "entirely spared the curse of the law," "man made constructs," etc.?
church teaching is clear each piece is the whole body of christ everything that makes christ christ is now substance which appears as bread.
Can you provide these teachings? The CCC says "wholly Christ," not "whole Christ," in terms of physical manifestation.
He didnt murder, He let His Son be murdered is most appropriate and considered a sacrifice.
If God did not murder (being the term applied to sin), then Christ did not command us to cannibalize (being the term applied to sin). You are not distributing connotations evenly.
this is not a normal remembrance... it is an act of participation by the fact that it continues...
It was not a "normal" event.
I don know and know that the act is over done complete...we have moved on...hence I remember and do not assist in the MASSacre
Using your logic, then the redemptive aspects are ened, which would mean than no one today is redeemed.
I have read you are not to eat from sat night midnight until receiving the host and not to eat for at least an hour...
Those readings are false. The appropriate time is fasting for an hour before Communion. That is all. You can eat afterwards. Every Sunday is a day of feasting, post Mass.
no probably no neon lights up there...as He is the Light...literally...but down here with us it was symbolic and they still needed torches to locate Him in the garden
But, how can Christ interchange symbolism with literal? By your logic with John 6, Christ never did that. So, by your logic, Christ is literal light, or figurative light, solely. No interchanging.
sure He can but I am claiming He does not...relying on the Spirit to be present not Him actually in the flesh...
So, Christ and the Spirit are not One? If you do not believe in the Trinity, then that is another principle that hinders productive discussion.
...your miracles BTW are incomplete as they only transformed into peices of flesh not the whole body and divinity of Christ...
You are preferring ignorance again. I have stated that it is "wholly" in substance, not physical manifestation.
no I am taking the position of Peter who stated it was the words teachings and Spirit of Him...Peter did not say it was the eating His flesh...
Why then do disciples of Peter and other Apostles say the opposite? Why would they let such idolatry and falsehoods go viral? Seems counter intuitive. Especially when these disciples state that Peter and the Apostles taught this, as well. (These are historical facts, evidenced in annals of history)
Of course He can raise from the dead...just like He could change bread into flesh...that is not the issue...the issue is that you claim the dead is raised and well the carcass just continues to lie there..."no no you only see it as laying there...it really is alive" or as in this case yours claim the bread is flesh and it still causes allergic reaction because it is not flesh but remains bread...maybe He didnt make the miracle complete enough...or at all
So you don't think the dead were raised? Because, I believe that if it is stated, then it must be true. The dead were raised after the Resurrection. It says that in Scripture, by the way. Nowhere have I claimed the dead just lie there. You must be referring to when I applied your "consistency logic" from John 6, to raising the dead.
the bread bleeding so the flesh retains the blood...still waiting...biology and chemistry don't care about appearances or that it looks like bread...
At this point, you are ignoring the biological evidence that I put forth. You are not simply denying; preferring the ignorance to evidence provided. You are refusing to concede on logic, so that your position and doctrine "hold true," despite being proven otherwise.
come let us reason...I still dont think this pomp and ceremony of mystery by the duly initiated is what it pertains to be...
You are refusing to accept reason.
sadly not available to one suffering cileac disease...
You have been given information that disproves this point/claim. Yet, you insist on clinging to this claim, contrary to evidence provided. Refusing to accept logical analysis, biological evidence, Scriptural evidence, etc. is, as stated before, preferring ignorance. You are refusing to accept even proven evidence of circumstances (Eucharistic Miracles). You refuse to see what is observable; turning away from truth with feverish dedication.
