[hockeyCEO]

With "eating the scroll" It is not clear if the phrase is meant to be taken literally or as a metaphor. I agree with you that the scroll signifies the word of God. Not God Himself. However, at the Last Supper, Jesus speaks very clearly and then eats the unleavened bread. He literally ate it.

Let's go over the verse in question again.
The first sentence is "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing." The next sentence is "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life"

These sentences are in this order because the the knowledge gained first one leads to the second. This isn't too big of a deal, but let's look a little closer.

What flesh could Jesus be talking about? There are only five options: 1. His living flesh 2. His corpse 3. our flesh 4. metaphorically as in "sins of the flesh" 5. the flesh of animals

Case 1. If we profit (i.e. gain) nothing from His flesh, the the Word made flesh profits us nothing. The death of His body on the cross profits us nothing. This is clearly wrong.

I think we'll agree it cannot be cases 2, 4, and 5 - they do not result in any gains for us.

case 3. makes sense

[CynicalBear]

>>I agree with you that the scroll signifies the word of God. Not God Himself.<<

Nor the scroll itself. Did you or anyone you know hold up a Bible and say "this is God's word"? Did you mean the paper or the information it contained?

>>However, at the Last Supper, Jesus speaks very clearly and then eats the unleavened bread. He literally ate it.<<

He literally ate the bread. If He meant that bread was actually His flesh He would have been eating Himself. If He meant that wine was in reality His physical blood He would have been sinning against the law by doing so. He was still under the Old Testament laws as were the apostles and eating blood was a sin.

>>What flesh could Jesus be talking about? There are only five options: 1. His living flesh 2. His corpse 3. our flesh 4. metaphorically as in "sins of the flesh" 5. the flesh of animals<<

We can summarily dismiss 3,4, and 5. They were not the subject of the conversation.

>>Case 1. If we profit (i.e. gain) nothing from His flesh, the the Word made flesh profits us nothing. The death of His body on the cross profits us nothing. This is clearly wrong.<<

Whoa there. Why stray from the conversation and include anything other then what was being discussed at the time which was His statement eat my flesh"? Why would you include His death on the cross. It's not part of the conversation.

>>case 3. makes sense<<

Not to me. Where in the conversation was there anything mentioned about "our flesh"? Anything other then the topic which was being discussed which was His statement "eat my flesh" is injecting something that isn't there.

The topic of the conversation was His statement "eat my flesh". In His explanation to the disciples regarding that statement He said "my words are spirit the flesh profits nothing". The only logical inference can be that He was explaining that once again He was not talking about physical flesh but that He was talking spiritually. Spiritually we "eat the word" by taking in the information which is found in scripture just as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John.

So your 5 options are not the only options. The other option is that He was saying internalize the word of God just as was the case for Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John. Understand and internalize the truth and the meaning of my death and resurrection.