Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s simple. Those books the RCC has added into their Bible are not God-breathed. If you want to discuss that, then maybe you should consider starting a new thread.
What I find interesting is how you keep blowing off the very words of Jesus that tell you your worship in worthless if you teach doctrine that isn’t God-breathed.
Who determined the Protestant bible as being "god breathed"?
That's not an answer to my question. We both have access to the text of John 6:60-65. We do not disagree about the content of the text. What we disagree on is how the text ought to be interpreted.
If Jesus' listeners at the time as well as ourselves are to interpret this teaching as being symbolic, then how could it be considered a "hard saying"?
Unbelieving hearts. That is my answer.
Yes we absolutely do disagree about the content of John 6:60-65. If you’d take the time to answer my questions, you would see where we disagree. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of answering.
So your answer is that it's objectively not a "hard saying"; yet people with "unbelieving hearts" consider it a hard saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Yes we absolutely do disagree about the content of John 6:60-65. If you’d take the time to answer my questions, you would see where we disagree. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of answering.
I know where we disagree. We read the same words, yet interpret them differently. That's what I meant by "content" - I meant the actual words of the text.
I am very familiar with the Protestant interpretation, as I used to hold to it myself. The flaws in the Protestant interpretation are obvious, as NatesDude (who is a neutral party; neither Catholic nor Protestant) has illustrated very well.
You have to take off your anti-Catholic blinders and look at the passage objectively. That can be extremely difficult to do. I know from experience.
Decades as a Protestant , never accepted the literalness of it when attending an EO church . Nevertheless it doesn’t make much sense to believe that Jesus simply allowed disciples to leave him because he can’t be bothered to explain himself to his own followers telling him they don’t understand what he means
Decades as a Protestant , never accepted the literalness of it when attending an EO church . Nevertheless it doesn’t make much sense to believe that Jesus simply allowed disciples to leave him because he can’t be bothered to explain himself to his own followers telling him they don’t understand what he means
It was a hard saying to their carnal minds because they had no conception of the spiritual and the spiritual implications. It is NOT a carnal act in the slightest. It is the spiritual implications, NOT the mere symbolism of the act, that Jesus is referring to.
To spiritually eat and drink His body and blood means to sincerely bring Him and His agape love from the Cross into your mind and actually abide in His love by remembering Him. That is not symbolic. That is how you actually receive His Holy Spirit into your consciousness. Your consciousness resonates with His.
It was a hard saying to their carnal minds because they had no conception of the spiritual and the spiritual implications. It is NOT a carnal act in the slightest.
Then why did Jesus change the statement midway through the discussion precisely to emphasize the "carnality", as you put it, of what he meant? From 6:48 to 6:53, the verb translated as "eat" is φάγω (phago), which is the ordinary word used when speaking of eating food. (Note, for example, how it is used in John 6:5 and 6:23, when referring to eating bread.) However, when the question has been raised as to how Jesus can give people his flesh to eat, Jesus does not answer that it will be eaten spiritually and not physically. Instead, in 6:54, Jesus strengthens the physicality of his statement by changing the verb from φάγω to τρώγω (trogo), which means "munch; gnaw; chew; feed upon"; it is the verb you would use to describe animals feeding from a trough or manger. The alteration of verb is largely lost in the English translation, but in the Greek it fairly jumps off the page. If, as you claim, Jesus was trying to emphasize the spiritual aspect of what he was talking about, it would have made no sense at all to go from φάγω, which admits a non-physical meaning, to τρώγωω, which is clearly a physical action.
Then why did Jesus change the statement midway through the discussion precisely to emphasize the "carnality", as you put it, of what he meant? From 6:48 to 6:53, the verb translated as "eat" is φάγω (phago), which is the ordinary word used when speaking of eating food. (Note, for example, how it is used in John 6:5 and 6:23, when referring to eating bread.) However, when the question has been raised as to how Jesus can give people his flesh to eat, Jesus does not answer that it will be eaten spiritually and not physically. Instead, in 6:54, Jesus strengthens the physicality of his statement by changing the verb from φάγω to τρώγω (trogo), which means "munch; gnaw; chew; feed upon"; it is the verb you would use to describe animals feeding from a trough or manger. The alteration of verb is largely lost in the English translation, but in the Greek it fairly jumps off the page. If, as you claim, Jesus was trying to emphasize the spiritual aspect of what he was talking about, it would have made no sense at all to go from φάγω, which admits a non-physical meaning, to τρώγωω, which is clearly a physical action.
In John 6:63 when Jesus says, “The flesh is of no avail,” Jesus means that his teaching can’t be analyzed from an earthly perspective. The eyes of faith are needed, since eating his flesh and drinking his blood is going to involve the miraculous, like his ascension into heaven, which Jesus immediately appeals to in response to the disciples’ difficulty with his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood (vv. 60-61). Note that at this point in John 6, the apostles didn't yet fully understand that Jesus would be resurrected, let alone to a glorified body.
The need for faith is the reason why Jesus puts these commands within the bookends of this teaching: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (v. 44) and “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (v. 65). It’s not that his exhortation to “eat” and “drink” have only a spiritual meaning, but rather that his words are discerned, not in a worldly or world-focused way. This new covenant in His Eucharist, His Resurrection, and His Word do not stand apart from each other, and cannot be separated!
Then why did Jesus change the statement midway through the discussion precisely to emphasize the "carnality", as you put it, of what he meant? From 6:48 to 6:53, the verb translated as "eat" is φάγω (phago), which is the ordinary word used when speaking of eating food. (Note, for example, how it is used in John 6:5 and 6:23, when referring to eating bread.) However, when the question has been raised as to how Jesus can give people his flesh to eat, Jesus does not answer that it will be eaten spiritually and not physically. Instead, in 6:54, Jesus strengthens the physicality of his statement by changing the verb from φάγω to τρώγω (trogo), which means "munch; gnaw; chew; feed upon"; it is the verb you would use to describe animals feeding from a trough or manger. The alteration of verb is largely lost in the English translation, but in the Greek it fairly jumps off the page. If, as you claim, Jesus was trying to emphasize the spiritual aspect of what he was talking about, it would have made no sense at all to go from φάγω, which admits a non-physical meaning, to τρώγωω, which is clearly a physical action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
In John 6:63 when Jesus says, “The flesh is of no avail,” Jesus means that his teaching can’t be analyzed from an earthly perspective. The eyes of faith are needed, since eating his flesh and drinking his blood is going to involve the miraculous, like his ascension into heaven, which Jesus immediately appeals to in response to the disciples’ difficulty with his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood (vv. 60-61). Note that at this point in John 6, the apostles didn't yet fully understand that Jesus would be resurrected, let alone to a glorified body.
The need for faith is the reason why Jesus puts these commands within the bookends of this teaching: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (v. 44) and “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (v. 65). It’s not that his exhortation to “eat” and “drink” have only a spiritual meaning, but rather that his words are discerned, not in a worldly or world-focused way. This new covenant in His Eucharist and Resurrection do not stand apart from each other, and cannot be separated!
Then why did Jesus change the statement midway through the discussion precisely to emphasize the "carnality", as you put it, of what he meant? From 6:48 to 6:53, the verb translated as "eat" is φάγω (phago), which is the ordinary word used when speaking of eating food. (Note, for example, how it is used in John 6:5 and 6:23, when referring to eating bread.) However, when the question has been raised as to how Jesus can give people his flesh to eat, Jesus does not answer that it will be eaten spiritually and not physically. Instead, in 6:54, Jesus strengthens the physicality of his statement by changing the verb from φάγω to τρώγω (trogo), which means "munch; gnaw; chew; feed upon"; it is the verb you would use to describe animals feeding from a trough or manger. The alteration of verb is largely lost in the English translation, but in the Greek it fairly jumps off the page. If, as you claim, Jesus was trying to emphasize the spiritual aspect of what he was talking about, it would have made no sense at all to go from φάγω, which admits a non-physical meaning, to τρώγωω, which is clearly a physical action.
That is precisely the major issue Jesus had in communicating His spiritual understanding to carnal minds who were terrified of Spirits and had no frame of reference for comprehending the spiritual significance of anything. Things HAD to be phrased in carnal terms and concepts. This is also why His rebirth as the Holy Spirit (Comforter) had to be communicated as a physical resurrection with a physical body.
His inexplicable appearance in closed rooms was supposed to provide the clues necessary to revise the understanding when we had evolved the necessary spiritual maturity, but it did not happen. We are still too carnal and conditioned to our physical bodies despite being told specifically we would have spiritual bodies.
Who determined the Protestant bible as being "god breathed"?
God did. 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
