Question on John 19:30

[David1701]

true believers believe in the following
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you DO NOT HAVE LIFE within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Yes, they do. They also realise that it's a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Yes, they do. They also realise that it's a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally.

David says: mataphor

Christ says: For MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD, and my blood is true drink

Who should we believe?

 

[Arial]

It is not possible to read the scriptures correctly without the Church Christ established and gave authority over the canon.

The authority is in the scriptures themselves. It needs no human establishment to override It or tell people what to think and believe. I see the RCC is still trying to hang onto its authoritarian power.

 

[Arch Stanton]

The authority is in the scriptures themselves.

The Church selected the books that you are reading [canon]. You seem to trust that Church in its selection but not in its authority. Quite the conundrum.

 

[Arial]

The Church selected the books that you are reading [canon]. You seem to trust that Church in its selection but not in its authority. Quite the conundrum.

The canon was not established by a Church but through long and careful examination of available documents to make sure of the authorship or probable authorship, the consistency within all the documents together in teaching, over much time and many men, and other factors. The Protestant canon is different than the RCC canon. It was never granted authority in the way the RCC grants itself authority. God is the ultimate source and author----but He is not the writer. Just as He saw to the preservation of the content and was the one who breathed it out, so too, He oversaw the canon. God is the authority.

So no, it is not the church I trust --------it is God.

 

[David1701]

David says: mataphor

Christ says: For MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD, and my blood is true drink

Who should we believe?

Actually, I said, "...metaphor...".

Perhaps you don't know what a metaphor is? A simile declares that something is like something else; but, a metaphor declares that it is that something else, as a strengthened form of comparison.

An example of the above would be, "The sea was like glass.": this is a simile; whereas, "The sea was glass.", is a metaphor.

Another example would be, "This is like my body, broken for you." (a simile), or, "This is my body, broken for you." (a metaphor).

 

[Mr GLee]

Peter was handed the keys from the Lord of the universe.

Christ... through Matthews gospel

Simply blasphemy of Christ the Christians husband. . attributing the labor of Christ love to dying mankind Peter our brother in the lord

Christ through, Christ gospel not after dying mankind carrying out the wage of sin. . . dead never to rise. (no Limbo Purgatory )

Where would that king of the universe you call Peter be found ? I can see in Mathew 16 Peter our brother in the Lord rebuked the invisible head and forbid the Son of man, Jesus from doing the will of Christ the husband .

Again where do you get the idea Peter is the king of the universe.?

Mr. Stanton why did Peter forbid Jesus from doing the will of Christ our husband ?. What the object lesson of the chapter Elect in Peter as King of the universe? .

Mathew 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I chose Christ as king of the universe. Not Satan the king of lying sign to wonder after .(I forbid you lord I am the King of the universe )

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Born again Believers have sola scriptura to the end of time. Others sufferings wonder, wonder, wondering sufferings in Limbo for the younger sinners and Purgatory for the more mature sinners according to the Catholic mystics .

 

[Eleanor]

Keep in mind these are not words passed on by St. Paul.... these are Christ's own words --

Are you suggesting dichotomy or conflict between Christ and Paul, who received his gospel from Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12)?

 

[Arch Stanton]

The canon was not established by a Church

Completely FALSE!!!

 

[Arch Stanton]

Again where do you get the idea Peter is the king of the universe.?

nowhere

Mr. Stanton why did Peter forbid Jesus from doing the will of Christ our husband ?

?

 

[Arch Stanton]

"This is like my body, broken for you." (a simile), or, "This is my body, broken for you." (a metaphor).

When we consider the language used by St. John, a literal interpretation—however disturbing—becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”.

 

[David1701]

When we consider the language used by St. John, a literal interpretation—however disturbing—becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”.

Eating Christ's flesh, far from referring to cannibalism, refers to faith in him, his shed blood and broken body on the cross. To "chew" on these things would be to meditate on them (biblical meditation is to take a passage of scripture and repeat it to yourself, whilst pondering it).

The eyes of faith see the spiritual truth in such verses; whereas, the unregenerate see only what is outward and physical, so misinterpret them accordingly.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Eating Christ's flesh, far from referring to cannibalism, refers to faith in him, his shed blood and broken body on the cross. To "chew" on these things would be to meditate on them (biblical meditation is to take a passage of scripture and repeat it to yourself, whilst pondering it).

prior to the NT scriptures David

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

 

[Arial]

Completely FALSE!!!

So you say.

 

[Arch Stanton]

So you say.

Did Cleopatra exist? Yes [so I say]

 

[David1701]

prior to the NT scriptures David

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine's explanation is a carnal one, without spiritual insight of any kind.

The reason why many of Jesus' disciples were offended, when he spoke of eating his flesh, was because they took it literally (i.e. cannibalism), just like RCism. They also lacked any spiritual insight, so they left Jesus and walked no more with him, just like RCism.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Augustine's explanation is a carnal one, without spiritual insight of any kind.

The reason why many of Jesus' disciples were offended, when he spoke of eating his flesh, was because they took it literally (i.e. cannibalism),

and yet the 'accidents remain' so there goes the cannibalism.... now, the Romans thought as you do -- eating flesh

 

[Arial]

Did Cleopatra exist? Yes [so I say]

More indirect meaningless posts.

 

[Arch Stanton]

More indirect meaningless posts.

So you don't get it.... history tells us she existed; history tells us the Catholic Church existed but you refuse to see it -- early church writings and the authority in scripture given to the universal church

 

[Arial]

So you don't get it.... history tells us she existed; history tells us the Catholic Church existed but you refuse to see it -- early church writings and the authority in scripture given to the universal church

The universal church is invisible. Anyone who believes and trusts in the person and work of Christ, is a member of this invisible church. It isn't about a denomination or religion, or building. It is about the foundational (nothing added to it or taken away from it) the the writers of the NT and Jesus laid. Nothing added to it. Nothing taken away from it. The RCC adds to and takes away all over the place. So the RCC can't be the universal church even if it claims that it is.