This is my body or represents my body?

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Ever hear of simile, metaphor or figurative language?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Ever hear of simile, metaphor or figurative language?

Jn 6 For MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD, and my blood is true drink

 

[Arch Stanton]

Who to believe ... your Church (which has repeatedly gone against the requirements laid out in scripture) or Christ's Church?

The difference is that I am obedient to Christ AND HIS Church, established 2,000 years ago. Your personal, fallible interpretations of scripture make you a mini-pope of one.

Acts 8:29-31 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

[Scripture does not interpret itself…sola scriptura…which protestant church would have the right interpretation? (with 35,000 denominations) no personal interpretation to scatter the flock i.e. 2 Pet 1:20]

Gal 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [35,000 denominations with different doctrines]


Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock

[The Church splitting due to personal interpretation – Martin Luther/John Calvin/John Knox/Wycliffe/Zwingli etc.]


Mt 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.

2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

 

[Eleanor]

Matthew 26:


isἐστιν (estin)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person
SingularStrong's 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.

Why is the verb to be used here?

The bread is not just a metaphor or a symbol of Christ's body. Jesus seemed to insist on its literal meaning. In what sense?

In the sense of typology and spiritual reality.

John 6:


This was the OT type that foreshadowed the true type in the NT.


Jesus' body is the true type.


It didn't make any sense to these Jews because they failed to see the typology and spiritual reality.


i.e., Jesus insisted on the typology and spiritual reality


the true type of bread is the bread of life


The physical bread could not fulfill the spiritual life. On the other hand:


Jesus' flesh fulfilled the typology and spiritual reality.


again, Jesus insisted on the typology and spiritual reality


Again, these people failed to see the typology and spiritual reality. Jesus tried to help his disciplines to understand better:


Focus on the spiritual reality, not the physical reality.


The Communion ritualistically reflects this typology and spiritual reality. When taken properly, it feeds the soul and spirit.

Luke 22:


The bread represents Jesus' body. Further, it is his body in the sense of typology and spiritual reality.

See also

• How does the bread turn into the body/flesh of Christ?
• The blood of the covenant in the old and new testaments

The fulfillment of the type is called the anti-type.

 

[Simons]

There was only one church at the time with truth.... the universal/catholic [according to the whole] church.

….I would say that there were a number of congregations in various cities at the time and those churches tried to stay true to the good news message that they received from apostle(s). Divisions arose as contact was limited and the position of monarchical bishop had not yet developed. The Roman Catholic Church simply didn’t exist at that time.

The difference is that I am obedient to Christ AND HIS Church, established 2,000 years ago.

Well, the church he established 2000 years ago had a very different set of beliefs from the set (of beliefs) currently possessed by the Roman Catholic Church…..so in my (fallible) opinion the church that you obey isn’t the one that Jesus founded. Further, since you are following a flawed Church, your obedience to Christ is sadly also flawed (but then we are all flawed so don’t beat yourself up too much about that error)

Your personal, fallible interpretations of scripture make you a mini-pope of one.

yes, I am one person with fallible interpretations but, unlike your Pope I am not so foolish as to claim to be infallible…and since your acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church’s claims about itself is merely your personal, fallible opinion, aren’t you throwing stones from the porch of a glass house?

Acts 8:29-31 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

It would sure be nice if someone with Philip’s knowledge and authority was still available to teach…your Bishops and Popes don’t measure up…..so I guess we have been placed in the same situation that God provideded for the Israelites before the first advent: Scripture, but no infallible teaching magisterium (God is consistent)

Scripture does not interpret itself…sola scriptura…which protestant church would have the right interpretation? (with 35,000 denominations) no personal interpretation to scatter the flock i.e. 2 Pet 1:20]

The 35,000 denominations claim is nonsense and makes you “look foolish for insisting on a ridiculously high and easily-refuted number” according to this article: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/we-...hat-there-are-33-000-protestant-denominations

The author of the article is correct that any division is bad, but I think he exaggerates the seriousness of the matter. At the time of Jesus there were Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes and even Samaritans (in Judea and Samaria). I note that there are probably 1000 times more Christians today than there were Jews in Palestine in the first century….so five major divisions at that time, would be equivalent [in one sense], to 5000 major divisions today. When I review the ministry of Christ (as set out in the gospels) I don’t find that Jesus spent a lot of time railing against those divisions and on insisting that they all fall together into a single doctrinal line (re Judaism). I do find that Jesus spent a lot of time on criticizing the spiritual conditions of their hearts and on insisting that they recognize him as the Son of God and source of their salvation.

I would also add that the unity found in Roman Catholicism is a bit of a joke….more than half of Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation, so either they don’t recognize the Catholic Church as infallible (in its teachings) or they just haven’t thought it through. Further, transubstantiation isn’t the only Catholic doctrine rejected by a large portion of Roman Catholics….it is a unity in name only and not a unity in beliefs. Also, history teaches that without an iron-fisted leadership and without adequate humility amongst all believers there will be doctrinal divisions (in the NT we see Paul needing to address such divisions). The way doctrinal uniformity was maintained (for long periods of time) after Constantine was by secular and religious powers working together to suppress any variation through violence and intimidation. That to me is not a uniformity to be cherished, but it is a uniformity that other religions (such as Islam) can (and do) achieve.

[The Church splitting due to personal interpretation – Martin Luther/John Calvin/John Knox/Wycliffe/Zwingli etc.]

yes, that followed a Church splitting due to extreme corruption in morals and doctrine accompanied by an excessive arrogance that prevented a proper reform (of the Church in the west) in the face of a blatantly obvious need….an arrogance that persists to this day.

2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

one can rebuke and reprove until one is blue in the face, but the Catholic Church is incapable of admitting its errors (even when Catholic theologians repeatedly point them out).

 

[Arch Stanton]

….I would say that there were a number of congregations in various cities at the time and those churches tried to stay true to the good news message that they received from apostle(s). Divisions arose as contact was limited and the position of monarchical bishop had not yet developed. The Roman Catholic Church simply didn’t exist at that time.

Rome could just as easily have been Antioch.... Peter made his rounds to the church throughout.

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.

since you are following a flawed Church,

according to your personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture....

yes, I am one person with fallible interpretations but, unlike your Pope I am not so foolish as to claim to be infallible

The Holy Spirit guides Christ's Catholic Church.

I would also add that the unity found in Roman Catholicism is a bit of a joke

only if one is a heretic

 

[Eleanor]

You're welcome
I am pre-denominational.... Catholic
and yet Christ did not even finish the last supper
What part of post 16 would make you question what Ignatius and Martyr are saying?
In John's Gospel we see pretty strong language though....
unless you eat the flesh
my flesh is true food
whoever eats my flesh
Also, Christ doubled down a few times, including the words changing from phago [eating] to trogo [to chew on; gnaw on]

That sounds like appropriation. . .of the benefits of the sacrifice through faith.

 

[Eleanor]

You're welcome
I am pre-denominational.... Catholic
and yet Christ did not even finish the last supper
What part of post 16 would make you question what Ignatius and Martyr are saying?

In John's Gospel we see pretty strong language though....
unless you eat the flesh
my flesh is true food
whoever eats my flesh
Also, Christ doubled down a few times, including the words changing from phago [eating] to trogo [to chew on; gnaw on]

That sounds like appropriation of the benefits of the sacrifice which was once-for-all (Ro 6:10, Heb 7:27, 9:12, 26, 28,, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18).

 

[Alive]

Rome could just as easily have been Antioch.... Peter made his rounds to the church throughout.

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.

according to your personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture....

The Holy Spirit guides Christ's Catholic Church.

only if one is a heretic

Ok…lighten it up a bit and keep the personal accusations in check.

 

[Tambora]

Typology.

Jeremiah 15:16 KJV
Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

The Word was God (John 1:1)

No one is literally eating God.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Ok…lighten it up a bit and keep the personal accusations in check.

When I said this? 'only if one is a heretic'

 

[Alive]

The majority of Christian’s consider themselves Christian’s first and then members of some denomination secondarily and can discuss scripture and doctrinal issues of importance to them; recognizing what is most important is being ‘In Christ’ rather than which denomination. This places the focus on what the scriptures have to teach us…as it should be.
In the case of some who peruse the internet this is not the case. There are several examples with the Zealots of the RCC being one of them. They have a point of view that is reflected in conversation where they are RCC first and Christian secondarily. That position, leads to one that says, “I am more special than you”.
Some are better at trying to conceal this with trickery and avoiding direct questions.

My admonition to you, is to avoid referring to non members of Rome as heretics even if subtle.
You may refer to a doctrine as heretical and explain why using scripture.
You have made the rounds and know well, what is meant here.

 

[Arch Stanton]

The majority of Christian’s consider themselves Christian’s first and then members of some denomination secondarily and can discuss scripture and doctrinal issues of importance to them; recognizing what is most important is being ‘In Christ’ rather than which denomination. This places the focus on what the scriptures have to teach us…as it should be.
In the case of some who peruse the internet this is not the case. There are several examples with the Zealots of the RCC being one of them. They have a point of view that is reflected in conversation where they are RCC first and Christian secondarily. That position, leads to one that says, “I am more special than you”.
Some are better at trying to conceal this with trickery and avoiding direct questions.

My admonition to you, is to avoid referring to non members of Rome as heretics even if subtle.
You may refer to a doctrine as heretical and explain why using scripture.
You have made the rounds and know well, what is meant here.

Who are you talking to? I know we aren't a denomination.

 

[Simons]

I know we aren't a denomination.

well that would be just your personal, fallible opinion.....but, at least, you are consistent. The methodology used to count 35,000 Protestant denominations ends up counting 242 Roman Catholic denominations.....so you are right, yours isn't a denomination, instead it is 242+ denominations

 

[Arch Stanton]

well that would be just your personal, fallible opinion

since denominations started with a split...

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● John 6:53 . . 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.

The kind of life about which Jesus spoke is not of this world, i.e. it's supernatural.

● John 6:54 . . He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Eternal life is far and away superior to human life. It never gets old, it never wears
out, it never wears off, nor does it ever need replenishing because it can't be used
up with any more ease than God can be used up.

● 1John 1:2-3 . .The life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and
proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to
us

Ergo: it's only necessary to obtain the life which was with the Father one time
and one time only because it's perpetual, viz: eternal life always was, it always is,
and it always shall be.

The grammatical tense of John 6:54; it's present tense rather than future; indicating
that when people correctly dine upon Jesus flesh and blood, they obtain eternal life
immediately-- no delay and no waiting period.

NOTE: Eternal life and Immortality are not synonymous, viz: they are not two ways
to say the same thing. The two are juxtaposed in 2Tim 1:10; where the terms are
connected with a conjunction. They aren't connected with a verb, so that you can't
say eternal life is immortality; no, eternal life and immortality are two distinctly
different subjects.

For example: Jesus had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26) but he didn't
obtain immortality till after his resurrection (Rom 6:9, Rev 1:18) And according to
John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too; but it didn't prevent their demise;
they're all gone. In nutshell; immortality pertains to a body that cannot die,
whereas eternal life pertains to a soul that cannot die.

The possession of eternal life is very crucial because every Christian lacking eternal
life is also lacking unity with God's son, i.e. they are quite literally christless
Christians.

● 1John 5:9-13 . .We accept human testimony, but God's testimony carries more
weight because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His son. . . .
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son.
Whoever has the Son has the life; whoever who does not have the life, does not
have God's son.
_