/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>538567

The "this is my body" part is mentioned like three times ever vs YEC which is mentioned over and over and over and over again. And is more clear and the whole religion is based off iver what Adam and Eve did.

Also that doesn't answer it.

>>538558

lol

>posts Steven Anderson video

>Roman Catholic flag

>you laugh, you lose

>>538567

<Then the protestants disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’…this is a hard saying…'

John 6:63.

>>538625

Christ's flesh as per John 6:53-57 is not the generic flesh that "profiteth nothing" in John 6:63.

>>538628

Yeah because only one is material, and the other is spirit.

>>538644

If you think "flesh" in John 6:63 refers to Jesus' flesh that he describes in previous verses then you are saying Jesus contradicted himself. Since he initially said his flesh is food indeed and gives eternal life, so it can't be the same flesh that "profiteth nothing". Makes no sense.

However, in verse 6:62 Jesus says to the doubting protestants that if they can't believe in this mystery how would they react upon seeing Him ascend into heaven where he was before?

<"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

This is Jesus asking them to not have such little faith and such dim imagination, thinking in worldly (fleshy) terms when it comes to miracles. But the next verse reveals that still there were protestants that could not believe him:

64 But there are some of you that believe not.

And so they left him…because his teachings about a mysterious eucharist were too miraculous for them, required too much faith. They were essentially materialists.

>>538551

> ProTip: You can't.

You're right; I can't. It could be that God created the world literally as described in Genesis but created it such that all our empirical observation of the Earth and the universe would make it seem as if it were much older. Or, it could be that the very poetic language of the creation account is not literal, and frankly, I'll go with the option that doesn't make it seem as if the creation is contradicting the Creator.

>Exodus 20:11

Literally discusses how the creation account is a symbol of basic liturgical cycle of the Jews. Of course, something can be literal and symbolic (especially with God), but you're not helping your case here.

>>538551

>Exodus 20:11

There is also a profound hermeneutical inconsistency with this. In the Bible it is clearly taught that the waters of Baptism are symbolic of the washing of regeneration and our burial into the death and Resurrection of Christ. Baptists take this to be evidence that "water Baptism" does not literally regenerate, since it's "just a symbol". However, in citing Exodus 20:11 in defense of YEC, you are not only perfectly fine with saying that the seventh day rest can be both literal and a symbol of the Sabbath, but that this verse is in fact evidence for a literal seventh day rest.

polite sage

>>538650

>This is Jesus asking them to not have such little faith and such dim imagination, thinking in worldly (fleshy) terms when it comes to miracles.

Yes. So explain, why do you think transubstantiation? He just said physical flesh profits nothing. So physical flesh profits nothing.

His flesh in verse 53 is literally his words, not anything physical. As in John 3, being born again is not a physical rebirth nor any kind of material ritual, it happens spiritually.

So all of this in John 6 has nothing to do with the breaking of bread, eucharist, nor communion. And in fact, it is more important than that, because like Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, we must live by every word of God. John 6:53 is about having his words abide in you. Simple, once you understand John 6:63. His words are literally that life. And that makes sense also because he is the Word to begin with.

>>538766

Exodus 20:11 literally equates the six days of creation and the seventh "day" with the sabbath "day," which we know is an actual day, thereby making it impossible to reconcile the concept of day-age with the Bible. So either the Bible (the Word of God) literally deceives people in that plain statement or day-age is a satanic lie. Take your pick.

Or, If you'd like to bring some other Scripture to the table to defend why you apparently think this doesn't contradict day-age theory, go ahead.

>>538762

What "empirically" says that the world is much older?

Good mass w bad parking :/

>>539151

I'm sorry, but this is not empirical. Much of the way we do our measurement of age is based upon many, many assumptions, which I'm not willing to accept.

For a higher level approach:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

But what if there is a gap in between Gen 1:1 , 1:2 that caused the Earth to become void and formless, during a war in the heavens when Satan and his cronies were dropped from there

>>539176

Watch the video

>>539164

>Answers in Genesis

>Empirical

lol

Let's look at these assumptions supposedly made as reported in the Radiometric Clock article. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/

>1. The original number of unstable atoms can be known.

Yes. This is called the conservation of matter. We can know just how many unstable by looking at the number of atoms they change into in a controlled setting. A single atom cannot change into another single atom in one situation and change into three atoms in another. The masses must be balanced. I can't break a kit kat bar with 4 sections in half one time to get 2 pieces, and break another kit kat bar with 4 sections in half to get 3 pieces another time.

>2. The rate of change was constant.

Unless you have evidence that the laws of physics were different 4 thousand years ago, the rate of change must be constant. Implicit here is the assumption that the rate of change can be different. There is no fast forward button on an atom.

3. The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay.

This one has some validity. But we can compare different samples from different, remote locations to control for this. In order to throw off radiometric dating, every sample ever found must have the same levels of contamination in order to have such a uniform result. This is an assumption I am not willing to make. Moreover, as previously stated, it can be controlled for and contaminated samples discarded.

I do not even have a background in science and I can see how flawed those "arguments" are.

>>539464

>This is called the conservation of matter.

You're probably thinking of the conservation of energy. In physics nobody talks about conservation of matter because that isn't a first principle.

>We can know just how many unstable by looking at the number of atoms they change into in a controlled setting.

You can know the rate of decay, which is the average time (poisson process) before a certain decay event occurs, such as C-14 which is called "unstable" because that average time isn't very long. But in order to get a radio-isometric date on the material, you would need to assume the initial ratio of C-14 and then compare it to the current ratio.

>A single atom cannot change into another single atom in one situation and change into three atoms in another.

Ok, this is beyond the scope of what we're talking about, but yes it can. That's called nuclear fission, and it is often possible for multiple different types of decay to possibly occur from a single state, in some cases with relatively similar probabilities for each one. One nucleus can decay into multiple nuclei, hence three atoms from one. On a macro-scale, this works out into reliable averages of each occurring.

24h days?

As is the case most of the time, Anderson is right.

>>538990

>his words are what matter

>ignores his words, ignores the bread and wine, ignores the mystery

And the protestants fought among themselves saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat?? And so they apostasized and made everything mysterious into a metaphor

>>539843

>how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

John 6:63

>>539851

>John 6:63

Only if you read it outside the context of the chapter, the book and the NT as a whole, and outside the context of the beliefs and practices of the early Church. For there is no doubt that from the early church up to the 16th century the "real presence" of the eucharist was a default and fundamental belief of Christians.

Recall St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch around 86AD said, in response to some heretical teachings of gnostics: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

Back up and read John 6:61-62. If you are offended by his initial eucharist teaching how can you accept his ascension? This comparison is made to illustrate the miraculous nature of the eucharist which is similar to his miraculous ascension. For if the eucharist were merely symbolic it would be silly for him to ask the jews "does this offend you? then what if you see me ascend to heaven?" – If this miracle offends you, then how about another? If the eucharist teaching offends you then surely his ascension would also confuse you and challenge your worldview. This is what he is saying to the materialistic-minded jews who are bickering amongst themselves, and by extension to you protestants.

Unless you want to claim the ascension is also just a symbol and not real?

The flesh of John 6:63 is not the flesh/bread Jesus spoke of that actually gives life. We already went through this >>538650

Jesus says "the spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing" meaning this miracle is a work of the Holy Spirit, it is not to be apprehended materialistically, it is not something man does to bread or wine, it is not something possible for the flesh/man/world. It's also not something the flesh can apprehend directly, the bread still 'appears' as bread. The flesh counts for nothing in this miracle. This is similar to him saying "with man it is not possible, but with God all things are possible".

He then says "The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." Which means what he said about the bread and wine are true words indeed, they are not to be minced into mere symbolism with sophistry. And then he continues " But there are some of you who do not believe.” – believe what? It's easy to believe in a mere symbolic bread, that doesn't take faith, that's the easy materialist interpretation…and as such he says: "“For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Which means some people just weren't granted the grace to believe his words.

Also recall St. Justin Martyr in defending the faith against the romans said: "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

>>538990

>>539851

>So explain, why do you think transubstantiation?

I don't use that word or try to explain the mystery like catholics do.

I you are interested in understanding John 6:63 check out this short, 12min audio about it.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/john_663_and_the_eucharist

Using a single verse out of context is not a "proof text" contrary to what some pastors are teaching you.

>>539909

and part 2

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/john_663_and_the_eucharist_-_part_2

>>539851

When Jesus identifies the bread from heaven as his flesh, the crowd becomes agitated. As verse 52 tells us, “the Jews therefore quarreled among themselves saying, ‘how can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” These words utterly stupefied those gathered there. But let us recognize that the reason they caused them such consternation is that these Jews are still thinking about every day, sit—down at the table food. So how is the Christ going to serve himself up to them like he distributed the loaves and fishes the day before? And his flesh? No Jew would consent to cannibalism. So the crowd is dumbfounded. But Jesus doesn’t answer their question. He just takes the whole business deeper, further challenging their already taxed minds. He says, “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.” (John 6:53-58)

What is the Lord doing here? He’s assaulting the Jews with concepts that leave them mentally reeling in order to shake them loose from their preoccupation with temporal sustenance and blessing, trying to raise their minds to spiritual truths.

First, he speaks of himself as coming down from the Father in heaven. Then, he speaks of himself in terms that make absolutely no sense from a purely earthbound perspective. What does he mean here? Unfortunately, many, including those among his disciples, were left so completely bewildered by Christ’s preaching that, as St. John writes in verse 66, “they went back and walked with him no more.”

“This is a hard saying,” they lamented, “who can understand it?” (John 6:60)

To those that will listen to him, Jesus explains what they have to grasp in their hearts in order to understand him. He says in verse 63, “it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and they are life.” This is the verse that we identified at the outset.

Many non—sacramental Christian believers use is to debunk the ancient apostolic teaching that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal body and blood of Christ. Again, they take Jesus to say here that there is no real importance to his flesh. It is his words alone, his teachings, that are spiritual and therefore life—giving. There are many problems with this interpretation however.

>>539851

First of all, having gone now through the chapter and examined the verse’s context, I think it is imminently clear how we should understand it. When Jesus says that the flesh profits nothing, he is speaking clearly to that total preoccupation with temporal, earthly needs that the Jews who followed him to Capernaum demonstrated. These people were looking for breakfast. They saw Jesus as an everlasting meal ticket. One who could satisfy their physical needs. And everything he said to them about who he is and what he comes to offer, they heard in the context of those fleshly desires. The Lord had attempted to elevate their hearts by speaking of heavenly, spiritual things. Which is the second flaw in the interpretation of those who take this verse as debunking the Real Presence.

Verse sixty-three’s “spiritual, life—giving words that I speak” include all these words that Jesus just spoke about eating his body and drinking his blood. And in those spiritual words, Jesus certainly isn’t saying that his flesh profits nothing. He says it profits eternal life. Could we expect Jesus to ever say that his flesh is unprofitable? The most glorious truth in the universe is that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)

Believing that the Son of God has taken on human flesh is a test of faith for a Christian. As we read in 1 John 4:3, “and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God.”

The only way that verse 63 can be used to contest the doctrine of the Real Presence is if one completely isolates it from the context of the chapter and applies a very platonic, dualistic interpretation to it. In that case, flesh is interpreted as “that which is material,” and spirit is defined as “rational.” In the platonized Christianity of the West, the material is ultimately meaningless. Only the rational is of value. But as we have seen, there is absolutely nothing in the context or the content of verse 63 (nor anything in the scriptures as a whole, I might add) to suggest this platonic slant on Jesus’ words. There is nothing to suggest that in the preceding verses Jesus is not inviting us to partake of his actual body and blood. Some platonic “but he just can’t mean that” is not enough to deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Now, of course, there’s also nothing in these verses that tells us specifically that they must be taken literally. As I pointed out in the beginning, the evidence for holding that they must is written in the historical experience of the Church. But, I believe it’s also written in the truth of the Incarnation.

I’m coming to think that the real resistance to the doctrine of the Real Presence is grounded in the rather impoverished view of the Incarnation widely embraced by western Christian churches. For the West, Christ comes in the flesh just to provide a body for the receiving of God’s wrath upon sinners. But the ancient Church in the Christian East knows that the purpose of Christ’s Incarnation is to join humanness to divinity. He comes to restore us to union with God on every level of our human existence: the physical as well as the spiritual.

At baptism, the Holy Spirit of God comes to dwell within us. In the depths of our inward nature, Christ unites our spirits with his spirit by offering his body and blood to us, his literal body and blood to us in the Eucharist, Christ establishes the same intimate connection between the human flesh he now bears and our bodies.

Jesus Christ is not a rational philosophy. The living faith he brings to us is much more than spiritual principles we are to hear and apply to our lives. It is rather, the joining of our beings with his. This is the truth that fundamentally divides Christians who believe in the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and those who don’t. It is only their rational, platonic mindset which makes John 6:63 anti—Eucharistic verse in the minds of Western believers.

My prayer is that God would bring all to the living knowledge of Christ and an experience of the Communion cup that joins them, body and spirit, to the Incarnate Son of God.

>>539501

The Bishop of Tempe is right about most things. Most of his teaching is compatible with the Church. I pray that he comes to see the Truth.

>>538576

>The "this is my body" part is mentioned like three times ever vs YEC which is mentioned over and over and over and over again.

Jesus born of a virgin mother is also mentioned only a couple of times, so I guess that makes it unimportant or just symbolic?

>>539906

Alright first off, I didn't intend to derail the thread but I had to defend the word of God against mockery. But let me respectfully respond.

>Only if you read it outside the context of the chapter, the book and the NT as a whole,

The context of the chapter is that Jesus got done telling the crowd another true saying and he has started explaining it fully to his disciples.

The context of the book is that Jesus has repeatedly spoken in parables and in sayings equating his words and equating doctrines in terms of physical objects which he then explains their meaning to those who have an ear to hear. In John 4, Jesus told them his meat is to do the will of the Father. And in John 3, Jesus went to explain why being born again isn't a physical birth or physical ritual. It was a real birth however, that had to do with the spirit and not the physical body. In John 5 and 15, he said they are his disciples if his word (which is his flesh) abides in them.

The context of the NT is that Jesus repeatedly equates the word through parables and equates his word to eternal life. In Matthew 16:6, he warns them about the leaven of the pharisees, and the disciples get confused. Matthew 4:4, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Literally a true statement. His word is the object that gives life. Not to be confused with physical meat by any means. This is why I said it was even more important than the breaking of bread or the eucharist. The first precludes the second, in fact if Jesus is to be believed all doctrine and understanding and life springs from the first.

>how can you accept his ascension?

I accept his ascension and also the literal accounts of the Old Testament and the literal accounts of the end times. Everything is in its proper context within the word.

>they are not to be minced into mere symbolism with sophistry.

He is present in the Word. That's no simple symbolism. Also "what he said about the bread and wine"? You seem to be referencing a different passage there friend.

>>539911

I don't see a problem with most of this explanation about John 6:53-60.

>they take Jesus to say here that there is no real importance to his flesh.

Absolutely not true. His word is his flesh and just as sacred and real as his own body. Even while being so-called "abstract" words.

>there is absolutely nothing in the context or the content of verse 63 (nor anything in the scriptures as a whole, I might add) to suggest this platonic slant on Jesus’ words.

Please see above.

>Now, of course, there’s also nothing in these verses that tells us specifically that they must be taken literally.

I do take his words literally. His words are his flesh, they are spirit and they are life.

>For the West, Christ comes in the flesh just to provide a body for the receiving of God’s wrath upon sinners.

You mean for Latins.

>Recall St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch around 86AD said,

Ok first of all, this is not scripture. Thus it is subject to being misinterpreted. Only Scripture is not of any private interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20. And also subject to possibly having been corrupted in transmission. Only Scripture is incorruptible, 1 Peter 1:23. In other words, to be as clear as I can be, we don't know who really wrote it, why, or who they represent. And being not from the Apostles of whom we learned (2 Timothy 3:14) we can not accept it as truth, or on authority the word of God like as with Scripture (1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Nor is it in any way necessary/irreplaceable, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To keep the peace, I'm just speaking in generalities about non-scripture. For this, and out of respect for past and present believers, I will refrain to comment specifically on what you've referenced.

>>540050

>His word is his flesh

<the flesh profiteth nothing

<The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

If word = flesh

and flesh profiteth nothing

then

the word profiteth nothing.

This conclusion is absurd and therefore, its reasoning should be discarded.

>>540079

>This conclusion is absurd and therefore, its reasoning should be discarded.

So you refuted yourself.

>>540086

If only I were the one who made the claim that Jesus' words are His flesh.

>>539497

>Tfw forget to change your flag back

>>540086

>The word became flesh. John

<heh the flesh profiteth nothing John ;)

So the incarnation is nothing. If u think he's referring to his flesh.

Fossils. Do you have an alternate explanation of fossils that doesn't take several thousand years?

>>540102

Yes because that's what he is talking about in John 6:53. And when he says beware the leaven of the Pharisees in Matthew 16:6, he is talking about their doctrine.

>>540163

et postquam consummati sunt dies octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen eius Iesus quod vocatum est ab angelo priusquam in utero conciperetur

Lucas 2:21-40

Circumcision is on the 8th day in order for optimal vitamin K levels to allow clotting

>he actually interprets the Bible literally