Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: hockeyCEO
>>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.

406 posted on 02/12/2015 11:57:56 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear
Sure, and to "digest" the word of God even today still can mean to read very carefully. There is no argument here, and I don't know why it is discussed.

Yes, Jesus ate Himself. No, Jesus did not sin. "I have come not to abolish the law, but fulfill it" The same arguement goes for why eating shellfish is no longer a sin.

The cases I've listed have been subjects that I have brough into the conversation since its beginning.

The verse we are discussing doesn't say "eat my flesh." Here it is in KJV "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

I put it to you: in this verse, can Jesus mean "His, (i.e. Jesus) flesh profit nothing"
408 posted on 02/12/2015 3:15:06 PM PST by hockeyCEO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson