If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

Yes otherwise Jesus would be lying when he said: " “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."

"An hour is coming" signifies that all previous moments before the 'hour coming' was spoken of in figurative language.

In light of that, I have not taken John 6 out of context since John 6 belongs in moments before Jesus said he would speak plainly.

I don't claim infallibility but I do believe in Biblical inerrancy. The gospels can be understood grammatically, but if Jesus claims that all previous sayings were figurative and that a time is coming when he would no longer speak figurative but plainly then I take to heart that everything said previously was figurative.

I never claimed that people should take my interpretation as authority but if I have an opinion on something of course I'm going to believe it's true. I personally don't believe popes are Biblical, but people can look into it themselves. This is just something that seems clear to me.

Part of the Sermon on the mount includes: “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl." Seems figurative.

 

You are correct when it comes to cognitive understanding -one either gets it or does not. But things like vice and virtue (the habit of doing evil or good) takes time and effort.

Psychology would only be one aspect. If a person has bad habits or is required to develop good ones these things take work. Also, as I pointed out in previous posts, one can never be certain how hard someone is working. Being virtuous often requires the control of oneself and one's emotions. These aren't things that simply snap into place simply because one is religious or otherwise.

 

I've already spoken to this, Jesus is clearly speaking of the Father. It says nothing of the bread of life discourse. It's almost as though you did not read the very verse you quoted. And how does "These things..." mean everything?

I suppose I'm going to actually have to go through now and point out verses that are clearly not figurative. In order for you to make your case, just cherry picking one particular verse from the hundreds that precede John 16 simply doesn't get the job done. Lets look at the Beatitudes:

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
I suppose I could go on indefinitely. According to you, every single law Jesus has ever laid down was figurative (since most are laid down before John 16). How about, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." What is the figurative interpretation of the golden rule?

If everything that precedes John 16 is figurative, on what basis do you interpret it? How well schooled are you in Hebrew tradition?

There are many times where Jesus is not speaking figuratively. There is nothing figurative about the golden rule. All this, and there is till much of my post on #356 that you have never answered. Instead, you pick one verse, choose only to read the first half of it, and say that settles the matter.

 

Are we to take your authority for it? Are you the pope? Another point to be made is if what you say is true, than if he says that he will speak plainly about the father then what he was speaking about the father beforehand was figurative. If John 6 is about the Father, since Jesus is supposedly God, then Jesus would be speaking of the Father figuratively in this instance. :hat:

As for me, I'll go with what Jesus said.

 

No, you are the only one offering their own interpretation.

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Father are three persons in One Triune God. In the verse you quoted, Jesus speaks specifically of the Father, not the entire GodHead. But if you would like to start a separate thread on the nature of the Trinity, feel free.

 

There are millions of people who interpret it this way so it is not 'my own.'

1+1+1=3

The Sanctuary has Bible Question threads where this topic has been discussed.

If you want, I can locate exactly which pages they are discussed. It has already been discussed ad infinitum so I figure why talk so much about it? Although, I'm guilty of it already.

In one thread it starts here: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=385869&page=34

 

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17)(2 Peter 1:21)

I do not suppose that by "spirit" Jesus means to say "symbolic" and really don't know why you would think so. Why don't you just read what Jesus said? "It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to YOU are spirit and are life." Jesus plainly states; "the flesh is of no use at all" but "The sayings that I have spoken to YOU are spirit and are life." and that is what Peter said later when he said he wasn't leaving because Jesus had the "sayings" of everlasting life.

They weren't interested in the truth, as long as their ears were "tickled" they were okay but once Jesus said something they didn't like they were history.

Jesus did clarify, to those who were hungry for the truth and had stayed to hear it.

He merely asked if they wanted to leave as well and Peter answered for them all saying; “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life; and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” Obviously those who left did not believe Jesus to be the Holy one of God.


The main problem with all of this is that a lot of people don't want to know the truth and still today if Jesus says something they don't want to hear then they think the problem is with Jesus or the Bible or the men that wrote the Bible. They feel the problem can never be with themselves, because they don't want to know the truth.

The question that people continue to fail to ask is what does the entire Bible really say about this.

For further research; you asked about the Israelites actually eating of the flesh of the passover lamb did they also drink it's blood?

 

Every thing Jesus said to the masses was figurative, when later alone he many times explained what was meant to his close disciples and that is what is going on in John 6.

Jesus later tells his close disciples the flesh is nothing and that it is his sayings that have life.

Peter confirms this by saying that the disciples are staying because Jesus has the sayings of everlasting life, Peter does not they are staying just to be close to Jesus' flesh and blood.

 

This is a disinegnious arguement in itself, and it misses the point of what I was saying. Clearly Timothy and Peter were not talking about the New Testament - there was no New Testament at the time. They were referring to the Hebrew scripture. They didn't sit down and say "Let us write scripture". They had no idea that in a couple centuries the Church would put their letters in the biblical canon. In the end you have no basis for which to assume any of the New Testament is scripture.

Here he refers to the flesh being no use, not the spirtual and mysterious communion that comes from the Eucharist. The flesh is of no use inasmuch as what happens to a person's flesh doesn't matter as much as what happens to their soul. This does not speak to Jesus speaking very clearly in John 6. (How can flesh be literally of no use when it is with our flesh that we carry out God's word on Earth (ideally)?) And even so, no where does he say that John 6 is figurative - he reiterates that he, in fact, is being literal.

Indeed, he clarified four times that he was being literal.

They left because they could not accept his teaching, much like Protestants today. If he were simply talking about words, there is no reason they would leave.

I bring up the passover because it was a precursor to the Last Supper, just as the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. Did they fill up their cups with lamb's blood? No... but they practiced passover the same way that Catholics practice the Mass - with bread and wine. Their symbolic gesture of the celebration of Passover becomes the liturgical realness that is celebrated in the Mass when the sacrifice of the Unblemished Lamb is made present.

So ""Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" is figurative? All the beatitudes are figurative? Will those who mourn really not be comforted?

 

Why are we arrogant enough to think that all manifested and unmanifested existence is the creation of a personified entity ?

 

I blame God for that

 

Disingenuous? Personal attacks so soon?

Well on the basis of the fact that God can put anything he wants into his word the Bible and can keep out what he does not, I think I can safely assume that the "New Testament" is Scripture. I also believe that means that the Scripture that says "all Scripture" applies to all scripture and that would include that "New Testament".

A person who is authoring a book ofttimes will write it out of order and place the parts in order when it is finished, that means that sometimes parts that were written first can refer to parts that have not been written yet. I would say that is the case in what Paul wrote in Timothy about all Scripture.

Did you not see that this is the explanation of what he said about the eating of the flesh and not an indictment of flesh in general?

Once again this is part of the explanation of what he said about the eating of the flesh and not an indictment of flesh in general.

This is exactly what it is speaking to.

Again he was explaining what he had just said to the crowd. Pointing out that the eating of his actual flesh was of no use but that it was the eating his Body of teachings that was life saving.

Perhaps you would be so good as to point out where exactly Jesus pointed out he was being literal.

They left because the words Jesus said to them upset them, they did not believe that Jesus was the "Holy One of God" and they were not willing to stay to find out what was meant.

Although the account doesn't say, I would say that they believed Jesus was telling them that they would actually have to eat his flesh and drink his blood but as it turned out his true disciples only ate bread and drank wine.

At the passover they ate bread, wine and lamb and these were also present at the "last supper", there doesn't seem to be the one to one correspondence you're looking for.

Incidentally, wine was not part of the original passover celebration but over time it became a tradition to have wine as a beverage at the passover but it was never a part of the actual passover celebration.

This is what Mark 4:33-34 says; "So with many illustrations of that sort he would speak the word to them, as far as they were able to listen. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them, but privately to his disciples he would explain all things."

As for the "sermon on the mount", it begins with; "When he saw the crowds he went up into the mountain; and after he sat down his disciples came to him; and he opened his mouth and began teaching them, saying:", which clearly indicates he was talking to his disciples and thus there was no need for the use of illustrations.

As for John 6, it clearly fits into the category of "without an illustration he would not speak to them, but privately to his disciples he would explain all things", because that is what happened. Jesus talked to a large crowd, many of which left and afterwards he explained to his disciples.

 

God isn't the one who put the Bible together, it was the Church at the Council of Cathage in 397 AD. As Christians we believe the Scriptures were inspired by God as they were written, but you have no basis for knowing what was inspired and what wasn't. There was no defined New Testament previous to this date. There were hundreds of letters and gospels going around, no one knew what was inspired and what wasn't; not until the Church in her authority laid down the canon at the aforementioned Council. As previously stated, you have no basis for believing the New Testament is scripture, and furthermore, since there was no New Testament until long after Timothy had died, they could only possibly be referring to the Old.

No, and you have shown no passage indicting the eating of flesh. What you did was quote Christ talking about the flesh being of no use and inserted your own belief about his referring to the eating of flesh.

According to... you? You took the verse and drew and inserted into Jesus' words that he was referring to the consumption of flesh, you even go as far as to state several times that Jesus 'says about eating his flesh'. The only times he mentions eating his flesh is during the bread of life discourse, he iterates four times that we ought to do precisely what you argue against. Where is: "That thing I was telling you guys about eating my flesh? What I meant was..." You have yet to provide any text whatsoever that claims the bread of life discourse is symbolic, figurative, or otherwise. You deem to interpret, but your opinion is irrelevant. That's not up to you or I to decide- unless of course you claim to be infallible in your interpretation. If you claim no infallibility, why should we trust your interpretation? It's an impossible dilemma for any protestant: become a pope unto yourself or have no basis for anything you say other than mere opinion!

Where does he say, "eating my flesh is no use"? He says "the flesh is no use" As stated before, here we have you adding words to Christ.

I did, in John 6 when he iterates four times that his flesh and blood is food and drink.

John 6 does not say this - "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh i true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." ... When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "this teaching is difficult' who can accept it?' ... "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless." --------- It is here, just after you say he clearly explained he wasn't being literal they leave because the teaching was too difficult. If he is explaining that he is not literal, the teaching is not difficult, but simple. No where does it say they left because they didn't believe he was the Holy one of God, that is something you have added on your own volition.

Once again I will reiterate, if he meant what you say he meant, then there was no reason that his disciples would leave. We see, contrary to what you stated, that they did stay for your supposed explanation, and they left regardless, because he did not recant his teaching about eating his flesh or explain it otherwise. There is no other reason they would leave unless we add in, as you do, that they left because they did not believe he was the Holy One of God, as well as add in "eating my flesh is no use".

"I would say..." Who cares? It's not about what stories you want to make up about what happened, it's about what actually happened.

I never said anything about a 'one on one' correspondence, only highlighting the similarities between the celebration of passover and the celebration of the Mass and that the two are inextricably linked.

Here we have you taking Mark out of context - the scripture says this just after the clearly marked "Parable of the Sower", "Purpose of the Parables", "A Lamp under a Bushel Basket" "The Parable of the Growing Seed" etc. All clearly marked as parables or told as stories. This doesn't even apply to our discussion, other than him explaining his parables to his disciples - it says nothing of John 6, nor is John 6 ever described as a parable.

Non sequitur Fallacy - Says nothing other than he waited until his disciples sat down. If I'm about to give a speech, I'm going to wait for my friends to arrive, so they too could hear it. This does not mean I am only speaking to my friends, only that I wanted to be sure they heard as well. The whole reason Jesus went to the mount is because he saw the crowd, "When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:" Furthermore, if he only intended to speak to his disciples, what sense would it make for him to purposely make himself visible to the crowd on a mountain after taking notice of the crowd?

Nothing clear about it, since there is no indication that John 6 is a parable. Here we have you once again taking Mark 4 out of context and applying it to passages of your choosing.

 

Hmmmm. I gather you're arguing in favor of transubstantiation. I find it amazing that anyone can believe that a wafer of bread that looks like bread and tastes like bread actually becomes transformed into the body of Christ because it says so in some Biblical passage. If the literal interpretation of Scripture is that it does, would that not be a good argument against taking Scripture literally? And if the Pope says otherwise, and he does, would that not be a good argument against taking him seriously? And if we take him seriously, how is that belief more bizzare than the Mormon belief about those golden tablets and Joseph Smith's magic spectacles, or the Scientologists' belief in thetans. I guess it all depends on how you've been brought up or what your needs are.

 

.
Sorry for the delay, I've been away.

I didn't intend to denigrate your mother if that is what you think I did. You brought your mother into the conversation saying she taught you to be polite. Your polite was covering something less, so I asked you if your mother taught you to lie as well. I am not deluded at all in this regard. I have no contempt in the slightest for either you or your mother.

I am actually flabbergasted by your tack here. Understand that to be offended is to take offense. I tell you my motive is for the holy spirit and you say
I insult you and your mother. To be personally offended is antithetical to love,
love does no seek it's own.
"He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

My comments about forgiveness are true whether you think I am deserving or not, but especially if you think I'm not. The practice of forgiveness benefits the one who does the forgiving, not the one forgiven. The fact is that god is our measure and we were created to create the good. If we regard our brother as any less than holy, then you have misread him. When you regard him as holy then it is your holy regard.

Consider the state of mind you must be in to see your brother holy as god created him. When we see christ, we shall be like him. It is through loving one another without reserve as we love god that we begin to behold that god is in us. The measure we give is the measure we receive.

It is written that the second commandment is like the first, that loving your brother as yourself is part of loving god with all your might. The entire sonship is holy.

 

The central authority figure is love.

 

I am taught we are one magnanimous creation, one mind, and that it is not transmutation of jesus' flesh, but corporal transcendence by the whole group in their incessant focus on christ being in and among them. Re-membering

 

It's not what I thought you did, it is what you did.

Yes, I did but how does saying my mother taught me to be polite open the door for you to attack her?

so you thought but even if that was true how does that give you the right to attack my mother by asking;

A question that not only implies that am a liar but that my mother taught me to do lie, which denigrates both my mother and me.

If that is so, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

And now you use the "Holy Spirit" for your excuse to show you did nothing wrong and that it was some how my fault that you implied that my mother taught me to lie. Do you really think that the Scriptures and the name of the Holy Spirit were intended to be used to cover up your personal mistakes.

Quite honestly you need to take a close look at who you are.

 

I have no reason to lie to you. I think you used your mother as an element of your sarcasm and I called you out, this is what I duly affirm, and you are still using her as an excuse for your unwillingness to forgive. Quite honestly you need to look at the consistent principles that are being demonstrated here.

This exchange is a teaching device of the holy spirit giving experiential connotation to theoretical principles. I have said no different from the beginning. I have also stated that we stand before the congregation and in his name christ is among us. You are wholly part of this demonstration.

Take a closer look at, "what the bible says", and see that god created man in his own image and likeness and saw that it was good. You are judging me by some personally developed level of sensitivity. He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.

 

I just can't believe you, you ask me if my mother taught me to lie, which implies that I am a liar and that my mother taught be to lie and you continue to try and cover it up by blaming it on me.

If it is my fault as you claim, tell me how did I force you to say something so repugnant, so unchristian? Did I come to your house and put gun to your head?

As you have quoted so many times; out of the heart the mouth speaks and this "question" that you asked, plainly shows what is in you heart. At one time I would have accepted that it was a mistake, perhaps something said in the heat of the moment but your following posts have made it clear that is not the case. Your defense of it and your trying to blame it on me, shows clearly that this blackness is straight from your heart.

So once again I suggest you examine your heart to see where this blackness comes from.