30 Jan 10
1 edit
What is crazy is that in the gospels Jesus says to some of the people You must eat my flesh and drink my blood and they were appalled because they really thought Jesus was talking about cannibalism or something crazy. Obviously this was a case of Jesus speaking metaphorically and spiritually.
John 6:48....
48"I am the bread of life.
49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
53So Jesus 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.
Manny
30 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by menace71Yes, Jesus was speaking metaphorically. To "eat [His] flesh and drink [His] blood" is to be "taught of God". The teachings of Jesus are the "bread of life". "Walk[ing] in His paths" is true life.
What is crazy is that in the gospels Jesus says to some of the people You must eat my flesh and drink my blood and they were appalled because they really thought Jesus was talking about cannibalism or something crazy. Obviously this was a case of Jesus speaking metaphorically and spiritually.
John 6:48....
48"I am the bread of life.
49"Your fathers he last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
Manny
Note what Jesus says just before the passage you quoted.
John 6:45
“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 “I am the bread of life.
Isaiah 2:3
And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And what Jesus says after:
John 6:60-64
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
He later alludes to this metaphor as a part of the Last Supper.
30 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by menace71Jesus taught that HIS WORDS that "are spirit and are life". Jesus did not view all scripture as having authority. Read the Sermon on the Mount. There's no reason to believe that Jesus would have viewed all of the New Testament as having authority either, especially the parts that contradict what He taught. For example, Jesus never taught that it is impossible for man to stop committing sin. In fact He explicitly states that those who continue in His word will be made free from the slavery of committing sin.
I think we are agreed here at least. I think though that the issue that others are having with you is on the rest of scripture. Jesus used the scriptures with authority and as if he believed in their authority. He even speaks of Himself as being the fulfillment of certain scriptures.
Manny
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Note that one must continue in HIS WORD.
The issue that others have with me is that they want to follow Paul's word (amongst others) instead of continuing in the words of Jesus. They don't want to enter the "narrow gate".
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMay we be permitted to ask, what is your understanding of sin?
Jesus taught that HIS WORDS that "are spirit and are life". Jesus did not view all scripture as having authority. Read the Sermon on the Mount. There's no reason to believe that Jesus would have viewed all of the New Testament as having authority either, especially the parts that contradict what He taught. For example, Jesus never taught that it is impos ...[text shortened]... of continuing in the words of Jesus. They don't want to enter the "narrow gate".
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you believe then we throw away most of the new testament? I admit some of the things Paul taught I think seem a bit off but they seem to be cultural issues more than anything. Paul had as much authority as the other apostles I think. One of the standards I heard/read is if the person had direct contact and was taught by Christ directly they were an apostle. On the issue of sin experientially can any of us stop sinning? I don't think it is possible.
Jesus taught that HIS WORDS that "are spirit and are life". Jesus did not view all scripture as having authority. Read the Sermon on the Mount. There's no reason to believe that Jesus would have viewed all of the New Testament as having authority either, especially the parts that contradict what He taught. For example, Jesus never taught that it is impos ...[text shortened]... of continuing in the words of Jesus. They don't want to enter the "narrow gate".
Manny
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneTell me why I am a snake and what logic you use to back up such a statement? Until such a point arrives all that anyone will see is someone who is woefully unable to respond in any meaningful way (other than to make insulting statements).
lol. You're such a snake. You're free to change that at any time. The truth will make you free.
You seem to have decided long before you came on this forum that whoever disagreed with you or put up a fight to your ideas would be declared a "snake" or "liar" or something.
All it does is devalue your position and make you look a prune. Please keep it going!
I have made the point that it's illogical to assume that Jesus did not know what he was saying when he used passover symbolism. He must have known how his words would be heard.
It appears that you have no answer to this. Your inability to tackle this question is blatently apparent , so I'm happy to keep shining a light on this.
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHe later alludes to this metaphor as a part of the Last Supper.
Yes, Jesus was speaking metaphorically. To "eat [His] flesh and drink [His] blood" is to be "taught of God". The teachings of Jesus are the "bread of life". "Walk[ing] in His paths" is true life.
Note what Jesus says just before the passage you quoted.
John 6:45
“It is written in the prophets, [b]‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone ...[text shortened]... who do not believe.”
He later alludes to this metaphor as a part of the Last Supper.[/b]
-------ToOne-----------------------------
I would love to hear how you ram that ill-fitting jigsaw piece into your puzzle!
The reality is that anyone can read their own meaning into Jesus's words on this subject if they want to. You can call it anyway you want and make any symbol mean anything and speculate about what Jesus is metaphorically refering to.
But , the only authentic way of trying to de-code these things is to look at the way the message would have been received by those who heard it. We need to think about............
a) The intention of Jesus when the words were spoken
b) The cultural knowledge of the listeners and what the symbolism meant for them.
c) The awareness that Jesus would have had of what his words would have meant to the listeners
d) The timing of the words spoken and where they were spoken.
So , clearly Jesus was speaking at the last supper in the context of the passover festival that was occuring at the time. Clearly , in the context of a passover meal the wine is known to symbolise the lamb's blood. Jesus knew this . He also knew what was going on around him. He knew what the mindset was of the people listening to his words. He knew the story of the passover lamb/ blood sacrifice.
So , what we have to do is think about this from Jesus' perspective and not our own (something you seem unable to do).
The brute facts are that the whole of Christianity and the early church went with the idea that Jesus was saying his blood sacrifice was to be equated with the idea of him being the lamb of God and all that this implied.
So at the very least , what you should be able to logically admit (even if you are right) is that Jesus made a right pig's ear of getting his message across. You should logically question why Jesus had such appalling timing to coincide his death with the lamb sacrifices occuring in the temples. You should be asking yourself why Jesus showed such a poor understanding of the symbolism he used to have not realised how suggestive it was to equate his blood with the wine at a passover meal. You should be asking yourself why Jesus could not have found a much clearer way of communicating the message you think he was communicating and why he could not have just completely distanced himself any passover symbolism.
Of course , you have the luxury of not asking yourself these awkward questions because you are not really interested in thinking about it objectively.
You will call me a liar and just continue to bash Jesus with your fist into your preset theology like a child with a jigsaw piece that doesn't really fit.
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterLol, c'mon Knightmeister, i am, serious, there is a branch of Christendom that he advocates, although not openly, he sent me a link to some dude who in the 1800s started this branch because he felt that the teachings of Christ had been supplanted.
Yes , it's Distortianity.
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo , it's not the same guy he's quoting in his New Church thread?
Lol, c'mon Knightmeister, i am, serious, there is a branch of Christendom that he advocates, although not openly, he sent me a link to some dude who in the 1800s started this branch because he felt that the teachings of Christ had been supplanted.
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterno, its not, this guy was an older gentleman, from eighteen, possible nineteen hundreds i guess, a doctor of some sort if my recollection serves me correctly. I wish i had the link, it would at least give us some insight into where our friend thinkofone is coming from, for he has the rather annoying habit of promoting his cause and then when he is pressed for explanations, he simply refuses to answer or disappears.
So , it's not the same guy he's quoting in his New Church thread?
30 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefor he has the rather annoying habit of promoting his cause and then when he is pressed for explanations, he simply refuses to answer or disappears.
no, its not, this guy was an older gentleman, from eighteen, possible nineteen hundreds i guess, a doctor of some sort if my recollection serves me correctly. I wish i had the link, it would at least give us some insight into where our friend thinkofone is coming from, for he has the rather annoying habit of promoting his cause and then when he is pressed for explanations, he simply refuses to answer or disappears.
-----------robcar--------------------
You only just noticed this? LOL
Robbie , you and I disagree on certain things no doubt. You are a JW and I am a Christian. However, my feeling is that one unwritten rule on this forum is that you play fair and if you ask a queestion and get an answer then you also expect to get asked one yourself. Yes?
To not even attempt to do so because you don't like where the argument is going is not honest and lacks integrity. Most fair minded posters here recognise this.
ToOne has by-passed this basic fairness right from my very first dealings with him , and it seems you and many others have experienced the same brick wall. And yet so few around here seem to call him out on it properly.
Anyway , I will try and find out this guy but don't hold your breath. Don't expect ToOne to help though .
He doesn't seem to want anyone to know what he really believes.
He defines his position by being critical of others beliefs or quoting other sources. But like any true trickster or shady politician he will never just come out and say it how it is.
The thing is its hard to know who he is or what he's about. I have an image of a group of Psychology under-graduates gathered around a PC with cans of beer + coming up with this username "ToOne"........... trying to jerk us all off?