Ok, I have a very black and white view of the bible. I'm not saying that it doesn't have hypothetical meaning as well, but all of the places that have hypothetical meanings also have basic meanings, even Jesus' parables. however that's not what I want to go into right now.

As you'd guess I had trouble reading John 6 because it says: "Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." (6:53-58)

Ouch! that's difficult, it actually says that: "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard [this], said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" (6:60) well, since it is in the bible I can't just ignore it, I have knowledge of it, but I don't fully understand it, and it is written: (prov 4:5) "Get wisdom! Get understanding! Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth." well, I was searching the scriptures (the bible) for the meaning of this,

And yes I know it's a big subject, but what does the bible say about it? I feel like I almost have the answer, but I can't quite get it, so EDIT look away! I'm not looking for an argument. I have a few theory's about this subject, based on scripture, please help if you have any scripture that can help.

THEORY 1: did "eat" mean the same thing back then as it does today? Today it means to chew and swallow and start the digestive track. but back then they didn't know what a digestive track was! so did it mean rather to "consume"? or to consume by the mouth, because that would work as well. It's written "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Mat 15:11) so in the same way it could be that: it's not what goes into the mouth that saves a man but what comes out that saves him? and that would make sense, as it's also written: (Rom 10:9) "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Please try and use as much scripture as you can, because opinions can be thrown around all day, but God's word, that's the thing that matters.

And, Can't forget this: PRAISE THE LORD!

This post has been edited by Affogato: May 16 2009, 10:02 AM

It isn't obvious?

Those verses get used by Protestants with the implication that Catholics are the one who arose later than they and started teaching different doctrines. Not only is this anachronistic, but it accomplishes little.

Suppose me and another Catholic are discussing a theological speculation. I get angry with him for not believing me, so I say "Jesus said there would be people who arose teaching false doctrines!" If my Catholic friend here has any wits about him, he'll just look puzzled, because whether or not he or I are teaching false doctrines isn't proved by who can reference that Scripture.

IOW, Protestants can quote that at Catholics as if it means something, and Catholics can do the same to Protestants, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

But I dont give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Also, I dont cheat anyone through philosophy and empty deciet, according to the tradition of men or basic principals of the world and not according to Christ. Thats why my question is how that verse can be attributed to Protestant's, not why it isn't attributed to Catholic's.

Dispute is edification.



You can't cheat someone through philosophy. You can cheat someone through sophistry, but not philosophy.



"Be aware, there will come among you those who teach false doctrines."

It's just a history lesson; who came first, the Catholic or the Protestant?

Since Protestants came later than Catholics, and it doesn't make sense for Catholics to come among Catholics, its obviously about Protestants.

See how much that didn't accomplish?

The Protestant reply is of course that there were proto-Protestants before the Catholic Church arose, meaning that the Catholics arose out of the proto-Protestants, and Protestants are just restoring Christianity to it was before Catholicism ruined it. (Of course, this ignores history, but that's the difference between Catholics and Protestants)

You need to keep in mind that Protestant actually means in protest of the Catholic Church's beliefs. So no, there were no Protestant's back then. There was the Gospel that Jesus Christ spoke and was written down.

There was the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ that they all spoke of outside of the letters. So because the term protestant comes from not agreeing with Catholic's, no there could not have been Protestant's before Catholic's.

Aren't you? "One person esteems [one] day above another; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)
The only thing is, I'm not hardening my heart towards it, That's why I'm still open for discussion.




So you're saying it's the simple way?(Pro 1:22) Even though, they could be lying to you(1Jo 4:1), at least you didn't have to search for your answer. (Ecc 1:13)




No but it doesn't mean it was ether, I was just pointing that out.




It's funny I had the same reaction to your illustration. xD My point was, even though it looks plausible (Like the earth being flat), it's no proof that it's correct. However it does mean that it should be looked into.




Ouch, that kind of hurt, may I ask where the love was in you saying that? Now.. So, you don't think we should think it strange to take a bite out of someone? Even though it's written more than twice not to do it in the law of moses?




Again, even though it was an absolute statement, it doesn't mean He meant absolutely that. Are we to assume then that the fathers ate Jesus in the desert, even though The Word had not yet become flesh?




Instead of just making that statement, would you mind quoting scripture? That way I might also profit from this discussion?




You mean destroyed? Because that's the only way Jesus could have gone in complete contradiction. It's kind of like; "Do not murder" and then Jesus telling you to go out and murder; That kind of contradiction.




So in other words; you don't understand how it works, it takes your complete faith, in the church alone, to believe in it?
For surely the scriptures do not teach it, and, No one can apparently, hear nor interpret God's word except the church.




So in other words; Only though the Roman Catholic church can anyone gain salvation? For only through their communion can you obtain the will of God.




That's an interesting statement, you're right. It does say eats, eats meaning to continuously eat, so doesn't that mean that only while you're eating it you have eternal life? Now I see why people eat it so slowly. Because once you stop eating it, you've stopped eating it, therefore not continuously eating anymore.
And plus why would God make something so worldly, so worthless as eating something to have any value towards your eternal salvation? Some churches can't afford bread and some not wine, so what of those? Can they now not take part in the trinity, because they could not afford the worldly supper? That's something to think about.


--------------------------------------------


@ Maria_AMDG



I personally prefer medium, to medium rare, depending on the place, I don't like it with any red; the juices have to run clear, for me.
lol No, I know what you're asking, you're asking about: (Romans 14) and (1 Cor 8) That was the last subject I studied actually. I find it funny, when sometimes God's mysteries blend together, to come to the ultimate truth. anyway, that answer to your question, My answer would be, based on those two scriptures, that it depends on your conscience. If eating it goes against your conscience, then don't eat it because for you, it is a sin, However if you feel no condemnation, and by eating you are not causing another, who cannot eat, to stumble, then by all means eat, for it is written: "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that [there is] nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean." (Romans 14:14)

I'll get to my own personal responce in a second, but you guys need to cool down in here on both sides. This is not an us verse them discussion, please stop pulling each other down. It this continues to be a denominational battle, I will close this thread. Please keep it on the discussion of the Eucharist/Communion/the verses that the OP posted.

She's right, I have a lot of reasons why I trust the bible over the church, however I think the most blatant reason here, is that: We're on a bible discussion board, so why aren't we discussing the bible? That makes sense right? so just ignore the following, that were in my post...








I think the rest are enough, on topic.. but Like Zabby said, just watch to make sure that we don't start talking about denominations, but about the bible. You said that it does say it in the bible, well don't just tell me, show me! It seems like the taking of communion is a good work wouldn't you say? well here's some scripture for you:

there you go.

God Bless!

Do you know why it was forbidden to consume blood in the Old Law?

I'm saying that no matter how much I search the Scriptures, I cannot ever be sure my interpretation is correct.



Is it abominable to eat shrimp?



Quoting Scripture is not profitable. That's my point. It's a dead end. I have my interpretation, you have yours. Hence my going back to asking you how you know your interpretation is correct.



1) No, I don't understand completely how it works. No one does. I only know that's the reality.

2) It doesn't take any "complete faith." My belief that the Church is infallible is founded on logic and history, and not on my own interpretation of some esoteric text.

3) The Scriptures do teach it; your interpretation doesn't see it, and that is all. My interpretation (and the Catholic Church's) does.

4) We can interpret Scripture, we just have guarantee that we will do so correctly.



Christ was given to the Church.



"Eats" refers to eating is regularly, obviously. I don't become hungry just because I've ceased eating a moment ago.



Your Gnosticism is showing.

Why would God become Incarnate? Why would God have made something so worthless as obedience to a physical person have any spiritual value?

I'm pretty sure it's in 1 Cor 8, if you read my quotations.. "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." (1 Cor 8:1)
Meat was a food offered to idols.

It's actually in Leviticus:

"10 If any man whosoever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among his people: 11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul. 12 Therefore I have said to the children of Israel: No soul of you, nor of the strangers that sojourn among you, shall eat blood."

The blood contained “the life of the flesh,” and so it was reserved for God alone.

Now see if you can follow how this fits into Catholic theology: Christ’s Blood was offered up to God as atonement for our souls; and we ourselves also take part in it, because by doing so we take part in the very life of Christ. Make sense?

It's simple, you trust in the Holy spirit, like you are currently trusting in the church, you trust in it to lead you into the right interpretation for your life. You trust it to lead you into the truth, The Holy Spirit is your helper(John 16:7), not the church, I'm not saying that the church is a bad thing, certainly not! However it should not take the place of God. so how do you know? Trust in the Holy Spirit, in the sted of the church. How can you have this assurance in the Holy Spirit, and not the church? It's simple, not according to my interpretation, but according to the bible: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1) take notice that it's not just an evidence, it's 'the' evidence. You're right, anyone can claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit can only claim to be lead by One.




All flesh [is] not the same flesh, but [there is] one [kind] [of] flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, [and] another of birds.




This requires no personal interpretation, except that from your eyes to your brain:

"All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16)



You mean: philosophy and genealogy?
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col 2:8)
"nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith." (1Tim 1:4)




Then you have no faith in God. For if you did, you would know all of God, and as yet, you do not know the Holy Spirit. (1John 5:7) (John 8:19)




Yeah, the Jewish church, who put Him to death. Catholics weren't around yet.




uhh lets see.. to fulfill prophecy. without blood there is no remission of sin, so for God's law to make sense He would have to give His blood, not just His spirit. umm.. to relate, be able to be personal with us, because He endured the same temptation that we do, only He succeeded.. He could not do this, by God in the Spirit. umm, to shame our form of glory, by becoming what we call shameful, and in so doing brought glory to Himself. uhh.. do you need more reasons? Now do you want to tell me His reason for making Himself a ritual that we have to preform that goes against His law, and is the only way to truly be saved, when it goes against what He taught?

I'm no enemy of communion, I think it is good to take communion, but not if you think it does anything to your salvation, or if it becomes His flesh and blood. eww.

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the [same] night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner [He] also [took] the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink [it], in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Cor 11:23-26) See that I do not add anything to this scripture, nor do I separate it, for he who reads this scripture and has the Holy Spirit, will read this and understand it's meaning.


p.s. I had a side question for you: If you ask someone if they had lied, and they said: "I have but only to my parents" does this mean that he is not a lier? *unsure*



You're right that is another reason.




I do, I'm sensible I see that. However what I do not see is why we have to eat Him as food in order to take part in His death?

Why should I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me if I forsake the Church? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Arminius, Knox, Knox, Lewis, and etc et al. were all apart from the Catholic Church, they all had their multifarious and contradicting interpretations of Scripture.

Quite simply, I look at this way; I know God has established the Church. This is a fact of history; Jesus established the Church, and this Church in turn said it would not fail, because Jesus Christ who is God established it. If I turn my back on this history, why should I depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me to anywhere but where reason leads me?

You want me to abandon reason and just "trust" in the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. My trust in the Holy Spirit is my trust in reason; if I cannot trust what reason tells me, how should I be able to trust your reason you give which tells me to abandon my reason?

Basically, I see you argument running like this; "I can't prove I'm right or that you're wrong, but I just want you to look past that and believe I'm right without reason." Meanwhile, I want proofs and arguments, which you are unable to give.



My trust in the Church is not blind or arbitrary. Like I have pointed out, my trust in the Church is founded on reason and my knowledge of history. I know my interpretation cannot be guaranteed to be sure, I know yours cannot, I know I cannot trust the Holy Spirit to guide me if I am already denying the Holy Spirit by denying the Church.



"God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

As I've pointed out before, I have my interpretation, you have yours.



That's a terrible interpretation to boot. Jesus here is talking to the Apostles, not to you or I. And as we know, the Apostles are the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20, 1 Cor. 12:28).



I'm not having the Church take the place of God.



That is unScriptural.



Arrogance. Your interpretation is not equivocal with the words of Scripture themselves. Even quoting Scripture is interpreting it based on the context you choose to quote it in and the meaning you wish for it to take.



See again? You're asking me to forsake all my reason and knowledge and just trust your reason. Yes, even though you think you're not speaking with reason, there is a methodical reason behind your asking me to abandon reason. The reason for you quoting this verse is because my reason has a different interpretation.

I'm sorry, but your arbitrary quoting and interpreting of some text will not make up for your inability to reason against me.

If you really must know, I don't have a faith that God exists, or that He sent Jesus as His one and only Son. I have a faith that I shall be saved, and this confidence is our assurance. Apply that back to Hebrews 11:1, "interpret Scripture with Scripture."



And the Holy Spirit ultimately leads only one. Who or what? The Church sounds like a pretty good one, because that's to whom the Holy Spirit is sent according to Jesus in the Gospels.



See how you're interpreting Scripture again? I have said interpreting Scripture is worthless (which you do by quoting it), and you just quote/interpret Scripture at me.



See again? You cannot actually argue with my reason, so you just hide behind your arbitrary interpretation of Scripture.



And beware lest anyone should think that quoting Scripture at you proves anything other than the fact that you have your own particular interpretation of history. Notice how Paul gives a very particular set of philosophies which we shouldn't be cheated through, and how he points out that philosophies "according to Christ" are in fact well and good?



Another time where you cannot argue against history, so you equate history with genealogy and fable. I'm sorry, if we were to really apply that argument against what you believe, you'd have no reason to believe in Christ, because His Incarnation and Resurrection are historical events. Don't think to argue against history unless you wish to argue against your own belief in Christ.



Because having some blind faith helped Calvin and Luther have the exact same interpretation, right?

1 John 5:6; the Spirit testifies through the Church, reason and history.

John 8:19; the Father testifies through the Son, who is testified to by the Church (through the Holy Spirit).

Terrible interpretations yet.



That's not my meaning.

The Jews didn't have a Church.

Meanwhile, Christ is given to the Church as husband to wife. I needn't quote Scripture at you for you to know that.



You missed my meaning. Gnosticism is a belief that matter is evil. Hence, because you pointed out that matter is worthless and without value, I pointed out that you were speaking more or less as a Gnostic.

If, according to you, matter is worthless, than God becoming material and dying as a material person is equally worthless, making the Incarnation unintelligible.



Jesus said "Do this" and you think disobeying Christ has no bearing on your salvation?



Read: "I can no longer come up with reasons to argue against you, I'm just going to resort to making trite and immature remarks."

That's not very good debate etiquette.

Sorry to disrupt, I just want to throw out a quick question.

So if the Holy Spirit was left with the apostles as Jesus left how can we be sure that the only way the Holy Spirit would stay afilliated with anyone else is if they dedicate themselves to what would then become the "Catholic Church"?

I understand that the Holy Spirit was left to those who accepted Jesus firstly being the apostles. Now, what about those who accepted Jesus through what they taught and all that accepted Jesus because of what they saw Him do? Wouldn't they recieve the Holy Spirit too?

Next, how can you be sure that after the teachings of Jesus were written down on four seperate accounts (all of them telling the same basic stories) and then the epistles were written which do not contradict eachother that there would have to be any kind of sucession to the men who wrote these and that only their teachings can be held as valuable?

I believe the Holy Spirit is meant for all those who accept Jesus and men can not state who the Holy Spirit is working through.

History? The testimony of the Church?



They would receive the Holy Spirit, but not for the same function as the Apostles.



First, we don't necessarily know who wrote the New Testament. Those who followed the writings of what we now consider Scripture were probably followers of the Apostles or even their own disciples.

Second, we would need an infallible Church to tell us what is Scripture and what the purpose of Scripture is. If you want to rid of the Church and just have Scripture as a foundation, then you will necessarily be left with circular arguments that are always founded on your own fallible interpretation of them. Not a very good foundation when you think about it.

Third, an inerrant text without a visible infallible interpreter is worthless. As has been characterized by others here, for God to just give us the Bible and tell us to run with it is obviously far short of what God could do and of what God should do. I don't believe in a God of chaos, and I don't know why you do. It's quite obvious from history that those who base their entire theology off just Scripture will contradict everyone else who makes that same supposition. It is clear to me that the Holy Spirit is not at work in all of these contradictory interpretations.

Fourth, "Geen ketter sonder letter." No heretic without his text. The Arians had their own Scripture, the Unitarians have their Scripture, and so do all the other heretics. Again, an inerrant text without a visible infallible interpreter is worthless.



If we cannot state who the Holy Spirit is working through to define the correct doctrines, then the Church is gone to Hell. Of other things, well, that's not so important. If we are unable to say whether the Holy Spirit was working through Luther to spark the Reformation or through Calvin to give us the correct doctrines of the Christian religion, then we're up a river without a paddle; or at least looking at a blank map that won't tell us how to get to the Truth.

So when I recieved the Holy Spirit when I accepted Christ just like these men who did too I wonder what function it's for?



I dont know if your just referring to the Gospels because a large majority of the NT writings have them introduce themselves as the writer.


I honestly think based on your logic that I would be Catholic had it not been for all their extra beliefs. I do believe there is one right interpritation and I believe the CC is doing their best to interpit it their way and Protestant's are doing their best to interprit it their own way too. But I cant be sure that the Church has anything to do with succession, I'm fully convinced all those who accept Christ are apart of what is considered "The Church" I believe "The Church" is The Church of Jesus Christ.

I actually fully agree with this. However, I believe that all these different interpritations are of men trying to have their arguements to prove their points of view even if the first men with their interpritations were "Catholic". But what I refuse to believe is that all these Protestant's who are spreading the Word of Jesus are not full of the Holy Spirit helping others come to Christ.



Well mate, I'll continue to trust God with all things and I know He'll lead me the right way.

Your question seems meaningless, because "accepted Christ" is a trite phrase that I am unable to qualify.

All followers of Christ are in some way specially oriented to the Holy Spirit (not that they shall be overridden by the Holy Spirit either, just see Luther and Calvin). But I would also add that in some way all people are led by the Holy Spirit, not that they necessarily accept the provocations of the Holy Spirit in their life.



It's not a large majority.



The "extra beliefs" are the artificial distinctives that only seem distinctive because Protestants abandoned them, not because the Catholic Church arbitrarily added them at some point. These "extra" beliefs were present in the original corpus of the deposit of faith, aka the Apostolic teachings, which include the authority of the Church (see Acts 15 for an example) as the necessary arbiter to define issues of doctrinal and moral controversy.



Then perhaps you are just overly sentimental. What Protestants do is good, but not as fully good as that of bringing people to Christ through the Catholic Church. "Bringing people to Christ" is inseparable from being in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ to Whom He gave Himself in the Catholic, and historical Christian, view.



Have you ever changed your belief about something before?

Interesting.



I read Acts 15, all it did was convince me that we should believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved. (Acts 15:11) So I suppose I should keep preaching that since historically/biblically this is true.




If it is giving a false means to Salvation then it is not good by any means.


I found out Santa wasn't real at like 7... lol?

To; Bryce



You're right, I can't reason with you; You're wanting me to give you reason instead of scripture, and yet you want to be saved but you don't want to be with God. No, end of conversation, there's no reason to continue speaking with you on this subject.


----------------------------------------


However, Zabby and Maria, I would still like to hear your responses.

I'm sorry. I keep meaning to reply and then I always get distracted by something. I even started in on this responce and my mom asked me to make coppies for her .


Wait, you're telling me that baptism (whether by fire or by water) is not a literal brith? I mean, no you are not coming out of your mother, but I thought that Jesus did mean for it to be interpreted as you have to be born again in order to go to heaven. I do not see how this is metephoric at all.


I'm not sure I understand your explination here. I'm sorry...


I feel like the theology of different catagories of grace is more of a reflection on the fact not that you can do anything to deserve grace or earn grace, but that different grace is given in different situations. Surely, you don't have an issue with hapitual grace, for I believe that the Protestent equivelent of that is talked about a believer receving the Holy Spirit when one is saved. There should be no problems with acutal grace because that would be akin to thinks like slain in the spirit or even finding the correct bible verse to solve your problems. That is the situtions that God guides you through something when you can not do it yourself.

The only thing you would have an issue with is sacramental grace, which is going to be very hard for me to explain, so I ask you to please have patience with me. What I am about to say probably will not come out right and might frusterate or annoy you, and I apolgoise for that ahead of time. So, sacramental grace is grace that God has linked to the Sacraments. You probably wonder why God would ever do this. Well, he does this because he understands how humans need to see, feel, experence things first hand. You can not experence habitial grace. Actual grace is rather rare and although it is powerful, it is not exactly something (I believe) you could live your whole life on. That is why God insituted the sacraments which are outward signs of inward grace. They are a gift that Christ modeled for us when he was here on earth and gives to us every time we partake in them. We do not deserve the Sacraments at all, but God gives them to us because he understands what is nessicary for our journey. He understand that we need food, spirtual and physical for the journey, and he understands how to best distrubute it. I'll ask you now to place yourself back in mideval Europe. You are a pesent. You have no way of reading the Holy Scripture. Acutaly grace is few and far between. How will you learn of God? I truely believe with all of my being that is a way for you to learn and grow as a Christian when you have vitrually no acess to scriputer, but then again that is just my humble opinion.


This has never been an acutal problem for me, and I don't know why. For some reason, I just don't see how God knowing what is going to happens means that I don't have a choice in the matter. Whether God knew the out come of my life or not doesn't effect why and how I am making my choices, so why should it take away my free will? I am still making the choices the way I would if there was no being knowing the results.


I would argue here that he is not giving them more grace, but rather these people are choosing to allow more grace in their lives.


I don't know. I guess we'll find that out when we die

So that we can be fully united to Him. Not only do we receive Christ spiritually, but also physically—His very Body, Blood, and Essence. A much, much deeper level of communion in the life of the Trinity than could be present in a simple memorial meal.

lol, it's fine! I've been a little preoccupied lately as well, the holidays coming up and all you know.




No, you've got it right. umm, it's a metaphor, because Jesus says birth, which is normally used as a literal, out of mother's womb birth. But that's not the kind of birth He's referring to, like you said born again, spiritually, it's a real action, but it's not meaning the literal action of being born. Do you get it? *unsure*




Don't be sorry, it's fine. umm, you asked why I was only quoting out of John. Well it's because I'm referring to John's metaphors, and I'm saying that they're metaphors, Which would be harder to say if they appeared in other books, a lot. umm, lets see, if I can give an example...
like, the fact that we are made in God's image; if it was written in Genesis only once it would be easier to say that it was only metaphorical, but since it's written three times in the same passage, it's harder to say that it's not literal. Does that make sense? *unsure*




definition of earn: 1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living. 5. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence.

so.. not to earn, but to earn?? *unsure*
btw, when I said that(last post), I was saying that based on common sense, but, after writing that, in one of my devotions I came across a great scripture in Romans, check it out:
"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." (Rom 11:6)
How does that match up against all of the different kinds of grace, supposedly based on the work that we do? *unsure*




That would be nice, but then why would we need faith? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1)




That's kind of true and kind of not, it's true: "that is a way for you to learn and grow as a Christian when you have virtually no access to scripture" That is 'a way' That's why sometimes people go into exile, because you can search the scriptures all day, but you don't get closer to God through reading scriptures, you get closer to Him by spending time with Him, through prayer, worship, scripture too, but each one should be done where the Spirit leads you. But God wants you to do good works correct? Well where do you learn how to do them, or about them?: "All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17) I love that passage for some reason.




Right, that's a good way to think of it! The fact that He knows doesn't really change what you do, it's just more glory be to Him. Here's another great passage: "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to [His] purpose." (Rom 8:28) That's a great verse, but I want to comment on something about it; why would it refer to us as 'the called' if it were we that had done the calling? *unsure*




Then why would you say: "God giving more grace to people" if you actually thought that it was the people receiving more grace from God? *unsure* Don't try and argue with that, I think it would get kind of mean, I just wanted you to hear that. Unless you truly think you have a good reason.




lol well put!

I'm sorry that still doesn't explain why you have to eat Him, for one thing how do you explain that it's against the law?? My current theory on it, is that the communion accounts were talking about this meal, per say, where you take bread(bread) and wine(wine, or something used for it; we use grape juice so that younger people can take it as well) and, remember, not just in thought but physically remember, What Jesus did for you on the cross, He broke His body (the broken bread) and shed His blood (the wine). Hence communion, it is a sad event, because you remember that it's because of you that He had to do that, but mixed with joy, because He took your sins away.


so that's communion, it does nothing to your salvation, it's simply something Jesus told you to do, so you should do it, but it doesn't really matter, like if you can't afford the bread or wine, you're not going to mis out on the trinity.
So, that should arouse a question, thankfully only one question comes to mind; so if that's true then what was Jesus talking about in John? Well, that was troubling, but I think I have an answer to that one, so, I'm going to tell you it, and see if you match other scriptures against it to say otherwise...

"Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work." I know there are a lot of problems with this passage being the one to quote, but think about it, how do we know that we are saved? we do God's will, or we follow His commands, correct? If we are following His commands then we must, according to 1 John, already have eternal life, so it matches up with John, does it not?

next, the wine, the drink, consider the sons of Zebedee: "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons(James and John) came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him. And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom." But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;" (Matt 20:20-23) Ok, now remember that both James and John were martyred for their faith (persecuted) Is it too much to suppose, that to drink of this cup is to drink of the cup of sufferings? Consider; If you're being persecuted for your faith, you have to already have eternal life, otherwise you would renounce your faith, and step off the punishment. Right? It fits, it doesn't go against the law, and it matches up with other scriptures.

OK, so, I haven't found any scripture against it yet, However, I'm not perfect, not in the flesh anyway, so I want to see if other believers, know scriptures that I do not, that argue with this theory?

P.S. lol sorry Maria, that's kind of long for the size of your last post. xD I hope you still love me. (Brotherly love) xD

"Whoever eats 19 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.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
--John 6:53-58

@ Blackswan41

"Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Does this mean that we should re-enter our mother's womb, and literally be born again? That's what Jesus said is it not?

or what about in 2:19, where He says: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Is He talking about the temple? That's what He said. Is that what He meant?

Or how about the passage in John 4, where He was talking with a Samaritan woman: (please allow me to paraphrase a little because it's kind of long, if you want to read it in full it's location is here (John 4:7-14)) Jesus comes up to a well, at the well there is a Samaritan woman, He asks for a drink, She asks why He's asking her of all people, and He says: "Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."" and He goes on to say: "Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again," but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.""

Now, Is Jesus talking about a literal fountain with literal water? If so you don't have long to live! Because that fountain is going to overflow your insides. But that's what He said isn't it? Wasn't He in a position to be talking about literal water? and yet was He?

I actually explained that in more detail in a previous post, post #129, on page 6, of this board.