Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism.

---

Yes, we know.

Ecumenism is straight from the Devil.

---

Let's see what Webster says:

ecumenism
noun
ecumenism e-ky-m-ni-zm
i-also e-ky- or e-ky-me-

: ecumenical principles and practices especially as shown among religious groups (such as Christian denominations)

ECUMENISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


And from there, the definition of 'ecumenical'


ecumenical
adjective
ecumenical e-ky-me-ni-kl
-ky-


1a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
an ecumenical service

b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

2: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
an ecumenical perspective

ECUMENICAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So BusyTarpDuster contends that Satan is promoting Christian unity or cooperation, applying Christianity to a worldwide influence or application.

Pretty sure I disagree there.

---

It raises an interesting question: Would that poster work with Catholics to address a societal ill plaguing God's creation? What would Jesus want?

I believe Protestants are much better at free form prayer than Catholics (though we've got it locked down when it comes to ritual!).

Years ago I asked a nondenominational friend that I trust and respect to take my boys to his services and ministries for the better part of a summer so they could observe and learn, specifically about free form prayer. I guess he and I were doing the work of the devil….

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TOTAL dodge again.

Even if you want to insert the fact that they also took the Eucharist (which is nowhere in the text), that would have no bearing whatsoever on the question. The question is whether a person, if like the house of Cornelius hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and gets water baptized, but dies before taking the Eucharist - would they be saved, in light of your literal interpretation of John 6? And by the way - if Jesus was being literal in John 6 and therefore you can't be saved without the Eucharist, don't you think the story of the house of Cornelius would have included it? Oops, did the Holy Spirit overlook this?

Only one Roman Catholic has answered the question. Why can't you?

---

It's not a dodge. The question has been answered ad nauseum.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to heaven?

---

It is a complete dodge, and you're only fooling yourself by claiming it isn't. The whole forum outside of brainwashed Catholics knows it is a dodge.

---

It's not a dodge. The question has been answered.

You are dodging my question (which I'll slight amend) ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to hell?

---

The Bible does not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism.

---

Yes, we know.

Ecumenism is straight from the Devil.

---

Let's see what Webster says:

ecumenism
noun
ecumenism e-ky-m-ni-zm
i-also e-ky- or e-ky-me-

: ecumenical principles and practices especially as shown among religious groups (such as Christian denominations)

ECUMENISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


And from there, the definition of 'ecumenical'


ecumenical
adjective
ecumenical e-ky-me-ni-kl
-ky-


1a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
an ecumenical service

b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

2: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
an ecumenical perspective

ECUMENICAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So BusyTarpDuster contends that Satan is promoting Christian unity or cooperation, applying Christianity to a worldwide influence or application.

Pretty sure I disagree there.

---

Of course you disagree. You have no sense of the truth any more than these Roman Catholics do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

es not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

---

Does the bible say that if they don't eat his flesh, they go to hell?

Also, as a side note, given your statement above concerning personal sin, you now agree that exceptions do exist in Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and having fallen short of the glory of God."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

es not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

---

Does the bible say that if they don't eat his flesh, they go to hell?

Also, as a side note, given your statement above concerning personal sin, you now agree that exceptions do exist in Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and having fallen short of the glory of God."

---

What does "you have no life in you mean"? Does that mean they're saved, or unsaved?

So why aren't you answering my question?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

---

Do you guys really believe the ad hoc BS you argue?

Do the honest thing and acknowledge what I have proven to be true. Stop lying to yourself, and stop listening to what your Church tells you without looking into it yourself. This is what Jesus would want you to do: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Luke 12:57

---

Ad hoc? We're talking about centuries of Church teaching. It's not as if you're the first to ask these questions and everyone's scrambling to come up with an answer, you know.

---

More like centuries of corrupt politicians lying to everyone and playing political games, like almost all other politicians.

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

---

Do you guys really believe the ad hoc BS you argue?

Do the honest thing and acknowledge what I have proven to be true. Stop lying to yourself, and stop listening to what your Church tells you without looking into it yourself. This is what Jesus would want you to do: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Luke 12:57

---

Ad hoc? We're talking about centuries of Church teaching. It's not as if you're the first to ask these questions and everyone's scrambling to come up with an answer, you know.

---

More like centuries of corrupt politicians lying to everyone and playing political games, like almost all other politicians.

---

He doesn't understand that "centuries of Church teaching" doesn't mean it's origination wasn't ad hoc. It's how much of their doctrine is built. Mary is sinless? Well, that would mean she couldn't have died, so... let's make it so that she ascended bodily into heaven!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism.

---

Yes, we know.

Ecumenism is straight from the Devil.

---

Let's see what Webster says:

ecumenism
noun
ecumenism e-ky-m-ni-zm
i-also e-ky- or e-ky-me-

: ecumenical principles and practices especially as shown among religious groups (such as Christian denominations)

ECUMENISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


And from there, the definition of 'ecumenical'


ecumenical
adjective
ecumenical e-ky-me-ni-kl
-ky-


1a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
an ecumenical service

b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

2: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
an ecumenical perspective

ECUMENICAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So BusyTarpDuster contends that Satan is promoting Christian unity or cooperation, applying Christianity to a worldwide influence or application.

Pretty sure I disagree there.

---

Of course you disagree. You have no sense of the truth any more than these Roman Catholics do.

---

I believe the Bible, and I believe words have meaning. I also find it impossible to believe Satan would do anything that could lead people to Christ.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

You are serious with this list?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

You are serious with this list?

---

Typical reaction in someone without any real answer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

The clear, logical answer is that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said "you must eat my flesh". Obviously, whatever the house of Cornelius did - as did the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke chapter 7 - they had "eaten his flesh" in the sense that Jesus meant. And it was not the Eucharist.

Moved

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

es not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

---

Does the bible say that if they don't eat his flesh, they go to hell?

Also, as a side note, given your statement above concerning personal sin, you now agree that exceptions do exist in Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and having fallen short of the glory of God."

---

What does "you have no life in you mean"? Does that mean they're saved, or unsaved?

So why aren't you answering my question?

---

I don't know why this is so difficult for you. God is NOT a legalistic, vengeful God that you seem to make him. You said yourself that you trust the mercy of God of those unbaptized babies who died.

Similarly, if a person was to die immediately after having been baptized without receive the Eucharist, they should go immediately go to heaven.

This would be the case for anyone who is baptized and doesn't separate themselves from God (commits a mortal sin) and dies before they receive the Eucharist. They would most likely go to heaven.

The Eucharist is best understood not as an absolute necessity for salvation, but as a normative necessity the normal and ordinary means by which we receive grace, in the same way that faith in Christ and Baptism are.

This doesn't negate John 6 like you will assert that it does. Just like those babies that never got baptized that died.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

es not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

---

Does the bible say that if they don't eat his flesh, they go to hell?

Also, as a side note, given your statement above concerning personal sin, you now agree that exceptions do exist in Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and having fallen short of the glory of God."

---

What does "you have no life in you mean"? Does that mean they're saved, or unsaved?

So why aren't you answering my question?

---

I don't know why this is so difficult for you. God is NOT a legalistic, vengeful God that you seem to make him. You said yourself that you trust the mercy of God of those unbaptized babies who died.

Similarly, if a person was to die immediately after having been baptized without receive the Eucharist, they should go immediately go to heaven.

This would be the case for anyone who is baptized and doesn't separate themselves from God (commits a mortal sin) and dies before they receive the Eucharist. They would most likely go to heaven.

The Eucharist is best understood not as an absolute necessity for salvation, but as a normative necessity the normal and ordinary means by which we receive grace, in the same way that faith in Christ and Baptism are.

This doesn't negate John 6 like you will assert that it does. Just like those babies that never got baptized that died.

---

"Normative necessity" has no real meaning. It's just an RC cop out. It's RC double talk to get out of a bind resulting from its flawed theology that puts them there. When does "normative" salvation apply, and when does it not? If God can save someone outside of the Eucharist, then why not for ANY of the other sacraments? Why would God save someone even if they don't take the Eucharist... but send another person to Hell for the same reason? It makes God a totally inconsistent and unjust God, and it renders ALL of his promises to us in Scripture untrustworthy.

We don't know what happens to babies. The Bible isn't explicit. We should not take something we aren't sure about, and use it to negate what Jesus DOES say in clear and explicit language - "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you". Jesus is talking to those of us who are old enough to hear and understand, because that means we are capable of understanding our sin. Jesus was talking to an adult crowd, not babies. You are making Jesus a liar if you say that for us who are accountable for our sin, "No, you don't have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in you." You are trying to negate Jesus' words for us understanding and accountable adults... because it may or may not apply to babies.

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus' words about "eating his flesh" are not literal. Whatever the thief on the cross did, whatever the sinful woman of Luke 7 did, whatever the house of Cornelius did, and whatever any believer does when they hear the gospel and believe - that is what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh". It means to believe and receive the eternal, spiritual benefits of Jesus sacrifice - through faith. Not through a physical performance of a sacrament where we are literally eating his flesh.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

That seems to be a theme. Acknowledge you are saved and it is all done. Eat the Eucharist once and you are saved. There is no journey.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

The clear, logical answer is that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said "you must eat my flesh". Obviously, whatever the house of Cornelius did - as did the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke chapter 7 - they had "eaten his flesh" in the sense that Jesus meant. And it was not the Eucharist.

---

Are you 12?

Ecumenism to the early church meant the universal church and everyone being on the same page. They anathematized heresy. That's the original meaning of ecumenical, the whole Church speaking with one voice against error. It's synodal, which is exactly how Orthodoxy still is today.

Ecumenism today means allowing for all sorts of contradictory beliefs to slide. Anglicans can believe in sacraments and evangelical boomers can believe it's a pagan ritual…but no big deal. It implicitly says doctrinal commitments don't matter enough to divide over. Which means they don't matter much at all. Which means the faith itself doesn't matter much at all.

It's a lowest common denominator project where doctrinal differences are minimized in the name of Christian unity. That's why mainlines are gay and woke and why evangelicals are increasingly doing the same.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

The clear, logical answer is that Jesus was not speaking literally when he said "you must eat my flesh". Obviously, whatever the house of Cornelius did - as did the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke chapter 7 - they had "eaten his flesh" in the sense that Jesus meant. And it was not the Eucharist.

---

Are you 12?

---

^^^ Folks, see how this is the only way they can argue against what I say?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

---

That's not what John 6 is saying in the Catholic view. It's what you need it to be saying in order to prove your point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

es not say what happens to them. I believe that they do not go to Hell, as they are not guilty of any personal sin. But only God knows, and he has a plan for them I'm sure that is good and right.

But what the Bible DOES say, is that "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you". According to your literal interpretation of "eat my flesh", what would happen to those who, like the house of Cornelius, heard the gospel and believed, received the Holy Spirit, and got water baptized but died right afterwards? Are they saved?

^^^ YES, you DID dodge this. There is no answer to this question anywhere from you. You tried to escape the question by saying that the Bible did not say they did NOT receive the Eucharist, but as you can see, this does NOT change the question. So I answered your question, directly. Will you do the same?

---

Does the bible say that if they don't eat his flesh, they go to hell?

Also, as a side note, given your statement above concerning personal sin, you now agree that exceptions do exist in Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and having fallen short of the glory of God."

---

What does "you have no life in you mean"? Does that mean they're saved, or unsaved?

So why aren't you answering my question?

---

I don't know why this is so difficult for you. God is NOT a legalistic, vengeful God that you seem to make him. You said yourself that you trust the mercy of God of those unbaptized babies who died.

Similarly, if a person was to die immediately after having been baptized without receive the Eucharist, they should go immediately go to heaven.

This would be the case for anyone who is baptized and doesn't separate themselves from God (commits a mortal sin) and dies before they receive the Eucharist. They would most likely go to heaven.

The Eucharist is best understood not as an absolute necessity for salvation, but as a normative necessity the normal and ordinary means by which we receive grace, in the same way that faith in Christ and Baptism are.

This doesn't negate John 6 like you will assert that it does. Just like those babies that never got baptized that died.

---

"Normative necessity" has no real meaning. It's just an RC cop out. It's RC double talk to get out of a bind resulting from its flawed theology that puts them there. When does "normative" salvation apply, and when does it not? If God can save someone outside of the Eucharist, then why not for ANY of the other sacraments? Why would God save someone even if they don't take the Eucharist... but send another person to Hell for the same reason? It makes God a totally inconsistent and unjust God, and it renders ALL of his promises to us in Scripture untrustworthy.

We don't know what happens to babies. The Bible isn't explicit. We should not take something we aren't sure about, and use it to negate what Jesus DOES say in clear and explicit language - "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you". Jesus is talking to those of us who are old enough to hear and understand, because that means we are capable of understanding our sin. Jesus was talking to an adult crowd, not babies. You are making Jesus a liar if you say that for us who are accountable for our sin, "No, you don't have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in you." You are trying to negate Jesus' words for us understanding and accountable adults... because it may or may not apply to babies.

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus' words about "eating his flesh" are not literal. Whatever the thief on the cross did, whatever the sinful woman of Luke 7 did, whatever the house of Cornelius did, and whatever any believer does when they hear the gospel and believe - that is what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh". It means to believe and receive the eternal, spiritual benefits of Jesus sacrifice - through faith. Not through a physical performance of a sacrament where we are literally eating his flesh.

---

I completely understand what you're saying and why it makes sense based on your assumptions. I just wish you could understand the Catholic interpretation a little better.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

---

That's not what John 6 is saying in the Catholic view. It's what you need it to be saying in order to prove your point.

---

Roman Catholicism: "Jesus means what he says! We must literally eat his flesh! He lost disciples because of that!"

Also Roman Catholicism: "No, Jesus doesn't mean it when he says you must eat his flesh or you have no life in you. You just don't understand Roman Catholicism!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

According to your literal interpretation of John chapter 6, the code for instant access to eternity is exactly what it says. It's what creates your conundrum(s): it makes the house of Cornelius, or anyone in the same situation, still unsaved.

---

That's not what John 6 is saying in the Catholic view. It's what you need it to be saying in order to prove your point.

---

Roman Catholicism: "Jesus means what he says! We must literally eat his flesh! He lost disciples because of that!"

Also Roman Catholicism: "No, Jesus doesn't mean it when he says you must eat his flesh or you have no life in you. You just don't understand Roman Catholicism!"

---

It's an ongoing act of obedience, not a singular act of magic. That's what you don't understand.

---

The only act of magic here is how your Church completely disregards/distorts the clear meaning of the text to create its own meaning out of thin air.

And that's right after they insist the text means exactly what it says... for the part that they agree with, that is.

With this kind of a shell game, who could understand?

For those who think Jesus' "eat my flesh" was a command for an "ongoing act of obedience" to literally "eat his flesh" - aside from the fact that this isn't what Jesus said at all, how does this help the house of Cornelius in the scenario presented, or anyone else in the same situation?

If someone dies right after believing the gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized - since they had not literally eaten Jesus' flesh in the Eucharist, then are they saved? If so, then did Jesus lie when he said we MUST eat his flesh or we have no life in us?

Or, perhaps whatever the house of Cornelius did - THAT was what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh"? Meaning, it isn't literal at all?

A recommendation for everyone, Roman Catholic or not.

The Imitation of Christ, written by Thomas Kempis in the early 15th century, originated in a monastery in the Netherlands where Kempis served as a monk. Originally crafted as guidance for young monks, the book has since transcended its monastic roots, becoming a global spiritual classic revered for its deep insights into devotion and the human soul's journey towards God.

Written around 400 years after the Great Schism, it contains much of the Wisdom from our own Orthodox Ladder of Divine Ascent, and predates the innovations of Vatican 2.

https://www.amazon.com/Imitation-Christ-Masterpiece-Illustrated-Devotional/dp/1068801239/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

Yeah, much of the their misunderstandings about faith and Christianity stem from this.

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

• eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
• Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
• Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
• Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
• the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.

..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?

---

^^^ Since the RC's can't/won't answer my question, then the above needs to be seriously considered. You RC's are running away from this.

---

It's really very simple if you understand salvation as a journey. Baptism and the Eucharist are both part of it. You're looking for the code that grants instant access for eternity, but that's not how the Bible is written.

---

Yeah, much of the their misunderstandings about faith and Christianity stem from this.

---

1 corinthians chapter 2: 6-16

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Normative necessity" has no real meaning. It's just an RC cop out. It's RC double talk to get out of a bind resulting from its flawed theology that puts them there. When does "normative" salvation apply, and when does it not? If God can save someone outside of the Eucharist, then why not for ANY of the other sacraments? Why would God save someone even if they don't take the Eucharist... but send another person to Hell for the same reason? It makes God a totally inconsistent and unjust God, and it renders ALL of his promises to us in Scripture untrustworthy.

---

It's not a "cop out." It is the mercy and justice of the omniscient Father. You are trying to make God a bureaucrat.

God does not demand what one cannot do. It's sad that your theology has warped you into this position.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We don't know what happens to babies. The Bible isn't explicit. We should not take something we aren't sure about, and use it to negate what Jesus DOES say in clear and explicit language - "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you". Jesus is talking to those of us who are old enough to hear and understand, because that means we are capable of understanding our sin. Jesus was talking to an adult crowd, not babies. You are making Jesus a liar if you say that for us who are accountable for our sin, "No, you don't have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in you." You are trying to negate Jesus' words for us understanding and accountable adults... because it may or may not apply to babies.

---

The bolded statement could be an indication that you might finally be backing (indirectly) to the entire point.

Let's apply the same rationale for adults.

For the adult that does NOT know about the Eucharist or cannot receive the Eucharist (post baptism), God is not going to "send them to Hell." For the person that openly rejects the Eucharist (post baptism), they have sent themselves to hell by refusing to do what Jesus instructed them to do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus' words about "eating his flesh" are not literal. Whatever the thief on the cross did, whatever the sinful woman of Luke 7 did, whatever the house of Cornelius did, and whatever any believer does when they hear the gospel and believe - that is what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh". It means to believe and receive the eternal, spiritual benefits of Jesus sacrifice - through faith. Not through a physical performance of a sacrament where we are literally eating his flesh.

---

• Good thief on the cross (St Dismas) just like the "babies" or the person that does not have time, he was NOT bound to receive the Eucharist
• Sinful woman in Luke 7 Jesus had not instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper yet. She would not be bound.
• House of Cornelius we don't know that they didn't receive the Eucharist. Scripture makes no reference on either side. One can't build a definitive position on either side using absence of evidence.

The bolded portion is YOUR fallible interpretation of the passage which has NO refence anywhere in this passage, flies in contradiction to the actual words of Jesus, and is not found ANYWHERE in Church history.

When Jesus discusses faith, he dramatically shifts his language to eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He doesn't say "whoever believes in my flesh and blood." He says eat and drink. The Greek word used (trg) means to gnaw, munch, or chew. It is an unmistakably physical term. It is not a synonym for belief.

In the first section of the discourse (vv. 3547), when Jesus wanted to talk about faith, He used the word (pisteu) believe. He used it repeatedly and clearly. If He had meant only belief in verses 5358, He would have continued using that word. Instead, He deliberately switched to the viscerally physical language of eating and drinking flesh and blood.

The crown understood Him to mean literally. They didn't leave because "believing in him." They left because of scandal.

Why should anyone accept your made-up interpretation that is NOT found in Church history?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Normative necessity" has no real meaning. It's just an RC cop out. It's RC double talk to get out of a bind resulting from its flawed theology that puts them there. When does "normative" salvation apply, and when does it not? If God can save someone outside of the Eucharist, then why not for ANY of the other sacraments? Why would God save someone even if they don't take the Eucharist... but send another person to Hell for the same reason? It makes God a totally inconsistent and unjust God, and it renders ALL of his promises to us in Scripture untrustworthy.

---

It's not a "cop out." It is the mercy and justice of the omniscient Father. You are trying to make God a bureaucrat. ==> it's not mercy and justice if God sends someone to Hell for something he let slide in another.

God does not demand what one cannot do. It's sad that your theology has warped you into this position. ==> God NEVER demands that you DO anything for your salvation in the form of any sacrament. He doesn't require you to jump through hoops, "normatively" or not. Just believe. It's sad that your theology has warped the simple gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We don't know what happens to babies. The Bible isn't explicit. We should not take something we aren't sure about, and use it to negate what Jesus DOES say in clear and explicit language - "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you". Jesus is talking to those of us who are old enough to hear and understand, because that means we are capable of understanding our sin. Jesus was talking to an adult crowd, not babies. You are making Jesus a liar if you say that for us who are accountable for our sin, "No, you don't have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in you." You are trying to negate Jesus' words for us understanding and accountable adults... because it may or may not apply to babies.

---

The bolded statement could be an indication that you might finally be backing (indirectly) to the entire point.

Let's apply the same rationale for adults.

For the adult that does NOT know about the Eucharist or cannot receive the Eucharist (post baptism), God is not going to "send them to Hell." For the person that openly rejects the Eucharist (post baptism), they have sent themselves to hell by refusing to do what Jesus instructed them to do. ==> But NONE of this is what Jesus said. You are putting your own stipulations into Jesus' mouth in order to fit your theology. He makes no exceptions. If there were exceptions, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Especially when it has to do with our eternal fate? And if there are exceptions, wouldn't that falsify what he said, since he made no exceptions?

If, as you say, people "send themselves" to hell for refusing to do what Jesus instructed them regarding the Eucharist - then why doesn't he allow people to "send themselves" to Hell for any other act of disobedience? "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" - I don't know a single person who has successfully obeyed this. And that includes Mary. So are we all "sending ourselves to Hell?

Judas Iscariot OBEYED and ate and drank the Last Supper bread and wine. Jesus specifically said that those who do, HAVE eternal life and will be raised on the last day. He does not make exceptions. If Judas Iscariot was not saved to eternal life, then Jesus' statement is falsified, if his meaning was literal. Do you believe Judas was saved after eating the Last Supper?

Also look at what else you falsify with your theology here. If someone believes in Jesus and puts their trust in him for their salvation, but they "could have" taken the Eucharist but fail to for whatever reason... then if they die and "send themselves" to Hell, then Jesus' words that "whosoever believes in me will not perish, but has eternal life" is falsified because here we have someone who did believe, but they DID perish and did NOT have eternal life.

---

Responses in bold above.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus' words about "eating his flesh" are not literal. Whatever the thief on the cross did, whatever the sinful woman of Luke 7 did, whatever the house of Cornelius did, and whatever any believer does when they hear the gospel and believe - that is what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh". It means to believe and receive the eternal, spiritual benefits of Jesus sacrifice - through faith. Not through a physical performance of a sacrament where we are literally eating his flesh.

---

• Good thief on the cross (St Dismas) just like the "babies" or the person that does not have time, he was NOT bound to receive the Eucharist ==> then Jesus' statement that we MUST eat his flesh is falsified. And why wasn't there time? He didn't die right away. Jesus could have sent a piece of his flesh over to him. It makes so much more sense that the thief's belief is what saved him, and that is what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh". This is consistent with all of Scripture, as I've explained in many other threads.
• Sinful woman in Luke 7 Jesus had not instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper yet. She would not be bound. ==> neither did Jesus institute the Eucharst at the Last Supper yet when he told the crowd that they must "eat his flesh".
• House of Cornelius we don't know that they didn't receive the Eucharist. Scripture makes no reference on either side. One can't build a definitive position on either side using absence of evidence. ==> if the Eucharist was necessary for salvation, it would be a MAJOR oversight by both Peter and the Holy Spirit to NOT insist they take the Eucharist immediately, or to not mention in Scripture that they did, if their salvation was contingent upon it.

The bolded portion is YOUR fallible interpretation of the passage which has NO refence anywhere in this passage, flies in contradiction to the actual words of Jesus, and is not found ANYWHERE in Church history. ==> it is EXACTLY the words of Jesus. He says the exact same thing about belief in him as he does "eating his flesh":

John 6, verse 40: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should **have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.**"

John 6, verse 54: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.**"

"Believing in him" and "feeding on his flesh" are shown to be the SAME THING in these verses.

When Jesus discusses faith, he dramatically shifts his language to eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He doesn't say "whoever believes in my flesh and blood." He says eat and drink. The Greek word used (trg) means to gnaw, munch, or chew. It is an unmistakably physical term. It is not a synonym for belief. ==> a complete non sequitur. Saying "gnaw, munch, or chew" is just emphasizing the analogy, not magically turning it into a literal phrase. We do this all the time in our own expressions. It doesn't mean we're being literal. You're simply reading your own presupposition into it.

In the first section of the discourse (vv. 3547), when Jesus wanted to talk about faith, He used the word (pisteu) believe. He used it repeatedly and clearly. If He had meant only belief in verses 5358, He would have continued using that word. Instead, He deliberately switched to the viscerally physical language of eating and drinking flesh and blood. ==> he was merely analogizing his earlier statement of belief in physical terms of eating. It really isn't that hard to understand this. You're forcing the passage to say what you presuppose.

The crown understood Him to mean literally. They didn't leave because "believing in him." They left because of scandal. ==> they left because they failed to understand him. Jesus let them go on with their misunderstanding, just as he had let people before do the same throughout his ministry.

Why should anyone accept your made-up interpretation that is NOT found in Church history? ==> you don't know all of church history, so how do you know?

---

Responses in bold above.

You guys really overthink this. You believe and feel closer to God at one denomination go. If you don't, don't. Not that complex, Jesus wasn't complex. Follow him. If the RC leads you there, great. If some other one does, go there. Don't let the man made **** get in the way.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys really overthink this. You believe and feel closer to God at one denomination go. If you don't, don't. Not that complex, Jesus wasn't complex. Follow him. If the RC leads you there, great. If some other one does, go there. Don't let the man made **** get in the way.

---

The man made sh** getting in the way is EXACTLY what Roman Catholicism produced. That's the point. You just can't grasp this. Following Jesus will lead a person AWAY from the RCC.

I mean, look at yourself. You are in line with Pope Francis' queer agenda for the church. You obviously are not of the truth.