|
|
#41 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Jesus' offering of his body and blood was only a representation of his spirit? Man, those apostles must have been pretty dumb if they couldn't understand that. Even if the Jews were shocked at the idea of cannibalism, they were taking him literally, as did the apostles, and I won't consider that they were worried about the cannibalism aspect.
"This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60) Believing a figurative interpretation of Jesus' salvation isn't too difficult to comprehend. Taking him literally, however, as the Jews and the apostles did, and hearing that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of your savior, is. Jesus then went back to the apostles and explained his words because they were having difficulty comprehending them. "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" (6:52) That's the Jews talking. That doesn't sound to me like they were worried about getting in trouble for cannibalism; rather, they were thinking what the apostles were thinking. It's a difficult concept to understand how the literal eating of flesh and blood happens. Even so, the people who followed Jesus around for his entire life and the people who were right in front of him took him literally, so why, these thousands of years later, is he now speaking figuratively? Not even a hundred years after Jesus' death, Ignatius was writing to the Smyrnaeans, "[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh or our Savior Jesus Christ." Forty years after him, Justin was doing the same, then Irenaeaus and Cryil, all before 350 AD. All these were before the Council of Hippo and didn't have the Scripture to go on. As such, their information came from the apostles and their successors. Why, if the passage was intended to be taken literally, did John not use the classical Greek word for human eating, which is often used metaphorically, but instead use the one that refers to animals' eating? That choice was surely used to emphasize the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Aaaaand, AWPerative won't be rejoining us, not that he said anything worth discussing, anyway. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
And clearly by the Jews saying "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" (6:52) they were under the impression that he meant it literally. If it was the first thing that came out of they're mouth, it couldn't of been that hard of an idea to grasp. Understanding the figurative meaning of gaining salvation through Christ by partaking of his body, is a much more in depth concept if you ask me. And I'll do some research as to the Greek word used in that instance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
Now, when Jesus refers to salvation through his figurative flesh, they suddenly forget everything they've ever heard from him and don't understand this statement? I don't buy it. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________
![]() Last edited by GuidoHunter; 07-18-2007 at 03:36 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Sometimes I wish I weren't so religiously-retarded, so I could partake in theological debates instead of spewing inflammatory garbage. Sorry CT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
And there are several instances in which, (I can look them up if you want) that the Apostles have no idea what Jesus is talking about, and the application is later revealed to them. Just because they knew about Jesus and the salvation he provided because of previous experience, does not mean that they would instantly make the connection. However, by examining supporting scriptures, it is made evident that the doctrine in question is not biblically grounded. *edit* I've already listed some reasons in my previous posts. Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 04:28 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
is against custom titles
|
And the reasons you've listed are hardly proof. You only stated that no transubstantiation occurred, and listed two old testament verses, one which has nothing to do with what you claimed it said. These logical leaps you're taking can't be considered evidence to refute such a longstanding principle.
I can just as easily claim that a figurative interpretation isn't scriptural. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm is the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for the Real Presence, and the first paragraph also has some points about the language and word choices used, if you want another source. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
"Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation. This is not contradicted by Jesus’ words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord’s Evening Meal; such an arrangement was not instituted until a year later. The ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ mentioned in this account are done in a figurative sense by exercising faith in Jesus Christ, as is indicated by verses 35 and 40. Furthermore, eating actual human flesh and blood would be cannibalism. Therefore, Jews who were not exercising faith and who did not properly understand Jesus’ statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were shocked. This indicated the Jewish view on eating human flesh and blood, as inculcated by the Law.—John 6:60. Additionally, drinking blood was a violation of God’s law to Noah, prior to the Law covenant. (Ge 9:4; Le 17:10) The Lord Jesus Christ would never instruct others to violate God’s law. (Compare Mt 5:19.) Furthermore, Jesus commanded: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me,” not in sacrifice of me.—1Co 11:23-25. The bread and the wine are, therefore, emblems, representing Christ’s flesh and blood in a symbolic way, just as were his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus had said to those offended by his words: “For a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (Joh 6:51) This was given at his death as a sacrifice. His body was buried and was disposed of by his Father before it could see corruption. (Ac 2:31) No one ever ate any of his flesh or blood, literally." I then went on to show how Acts 15 correlates to and clarifies the genesis account which contains the long standing principle to abstain from Blood. Since devonin questioned it. I don't see you brush that off as "hardly proof". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Also, as a question: You say that given jesus presenting himself as a whole, perfect and unblemished sacrifice means he could not possibly have actually given his flesh and blood to his apostles, how is this -not- you assuming that he's slicing off some thigh, and letting blood drip into a cup? I'm pretty sure that if you give me an orange, and tell me to give it back tomorrow unblemished and perfect, and I -through miracle- turn an apple into an orange, I can still eat oranges at dinner, without blemishing the one you gave me. You refer to Blood as Soul, and Souls are infinite. Split infinity into half and you still have infinty and infinity. Turning the wine to blood doesn't mean he has less blood, it doesn't mean he's wrecked his own blood sacrifice. Last edited by devonin; 07-18-2007 at 06:39 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
As for any stoning or other practice of the Old Testament, I refer you to the New Testament which commands to love your neighbor as yourself. The New Covenant Jesus creates replaces the mosaic law. It wouldn't be very loving to stone your house mate Meghan for wearing pants, and is therefore not required. Since we have established that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation violates a Biblical principle and is therefore erroneous , is there any need to continue? The Bible never contradicts itself (I have never come across a so-called contradiction I couldn't find an answer to) therefore, any custom or tradition that claims to be based off of the holy scriptures should adhere to it completely. Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 07:12 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
So...Any tradition that claims to be based off the holy scriptures should adhere to it completely and yet in your same post you point out how one part of the bible says to stone women who wear pants, and another part says not to...but there are no contradictions at all...
I'm curious how to adhere to both of these things at the same time. Stone her but feel really bad? And further, if "new parts" have somehow "paved over" and "replaced" old parts, that implies that the old parts were in no way divinely inspired, because they have been shown to be faulty, so why are we consulting it in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
When Israel was organized as a nation, God became their King, Legislator, and Judge. (Isa 33:22) He gave them the “Ten Words,” or “Ten Commandments,” as they are often called, setting forth the principles upon which the body of about 600 other laws was based. He began the “Ten Words” with the statement: “I am [YHWH] your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Ex 20:2) This serves as the primary reason for obedience to the entire Law. Disobedience was not only a violation of the law of the Head of government but also an offense against the Head of religion, their God, and blasphemy of God was lčse-majesté, treason. Under the Law, the same principles applied as had governed patriarchal society. The Law, however, was more detailed and covered the whole scope of man’s activities. The entire Law, which is set forth in the Pentateuch, was of such a high standard of morality that no man could attempt to follow the complete Law without finding that he was convicted by it as being a sinner, imperfect. “The commandment is holy and righteous and good,” and “the Law is spiritual,” says the apostle Paul. “It was added to make transgressions manifest.” (Ro 7:12, 14; Ga 3:19) It was the whole law of God for Israel, laying down the principles and official decisions of God, not just a mere gathering of a set of cases that might arise or that had already arisen. The sanctions under the Law, therefore, would help to show sin to be “far more sinful.” (Ro 7:13) The law of talion, requiring like for like, set out a standard of exact justice. The Law served for the peace and tranquility of the nation, preserved the nation when Israel obeyed it, and protected the individual against the wrongdoer, compensating him when his property was stolen or destroyed. The Ten Commandments transcended man-made laws in that it made every man his own spiritual policeman and got at the root, or source, of the violation of all the commandments. If wrong desire was indulged, it would eventually manifest itself in a violation of one of the other nine commandments. However, Jeremiah 31:31-34 Relates how God's former chosen people neglected to adhere to the covenant he provided for them and how a new covenant would be required. The Law covenant mediated by means of the prophet Moses was good in itself. However, that covenant provided for the sacrifice of animals whose blood could never wash away human sins. So for God to set up a better covenant, there would have to be a better mediator with a better sacrifice. This all-necessary Mediator proved to be Jesus Christ. Pointing out the superiority of this Mediator as compared to the prophet Moses, the Bible gives us the following explanation: “But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises. . . . In his saying ‘a new covenant’ he has made the former one obsolete Hebrews 8:6, 13. The Mosaic Law was made for that people, time period, and circumstance. Fulfilling its purpose once the new covenant was created. Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 08:14 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Insert Witty Title Here
|
<3 god.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Then what is "divinely inspired"? I thought the Bible was something that, you know, was infallible...all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Yes ted, that was the joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
As I've stated, there are no contradictions within the Bible that cannot be explained. In addition, everything its prophesied has come true. ex. Dead Sea Scrolls, etc Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 08:24 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 | ||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
FFR Player
|
I love how you just skip over my explanation of why the new testament doesn't contradict the old and harp on this.
Anyway, I would direct you to the Dead Sea Scrolls for an example of Biblical books that have remained the same for the past 2200 years. With slight alterations in the grammar and punctuation that do not alter the general interpretation of the text. In regards to prophesy, look up Jeremiah 51:27. The book Archaeology and Old Testament Study states: “These extensive ruins, of which, despite Koldewey’s work, only a small proportion has been excavated, have during past centuries been extensively plundered for building materials. Partly in consequence of this, much of the surface now presents an appearance of such chaotic disorder that it is strongly evocative of the prophecies of Isa. xiii. 19–22 and Jer. l. 39 f., the impression of desolation being further heightened by the aridity which marks a large part of the area of the ruins.”—Edited by D. W. Thomas, Oxford, 1967, p. 41 I vaguely recall Good ol' Sodom mentioning he was going to restore Babylon to its former glory (Since its located in modern day Iraq). We all know how that turned out. And, there are plenty of so-called contradictions that people claim exist, such as the one you brought up. They are all logically explained using nothing more than the Bible. Last edited by Philpwnsyou; 07-18-2007 at 08:44 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 | |||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also...the website you got that quote from says that the chaos and destuction exihibited in the ruins helps prove that the biblical account in Isaiah to be prophetic that "Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." And yet in the same article points out that Cyrus of Persia actually took over the city virtually without a fight, taking them by surprise and siezing the city intact. Babylon then proceeded to flourish under Cyrus, then Darius the I, II and III, before being conquered by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE. It wasn't until 323 BCE (216 full years -after- the "prophecied conquering and destruction of Babylon") that things started to degenerate in the power struggle left in the wake of Alexander the Great's death. Though I guess, technically the prophecy came true in the end, Jerimiah might have done bible apologists a favour by saying "Babylon will be taken over, flourish and suceed well for hundreds of years, through the reign of several empires over the area before eventually, 200+ years after the fact, a power struggle that had nothing to do with the people or places I was talking about will see its ruin" |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
FFR Player
|
As I recall, it contains sections from every book except Esther and the scroll of Isaiah is nearly perfectly intact. All of which have no significant changes from modern day Bibles. With the exception of slight grammatical and punctual differences which as I said before, don't alter meaning of the text. Wikipedia it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|