Tell that to Lula. Were you Catholic the obviousness of that "figurative" statement would be a lot more literal, wouldn't it? Transubstantiation isn't so symbolic for everyone.



He came in before there was sin, right? Before the fall of man. Don't you find that odd? "Good" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". I'll say again that if Satan was in the Garden of Eden, then it wasn't perfect.



Again, I'd point out that he was able to kill all of Job's family, and basically run amok because he and God supposedly had a bet on the subject. Do you think God would kill off an entire family on a bet? I don't.

Yes.....and Well not really I guess. Satan rebelled against God. The first thing he did was go after what God loved. He's still doing that. We fall for his bag of tricks every time. Have you ever read Ezek 28? It's another picture of Satan. Here's a bit of it.

"You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold on the day you were created, they were prepared. You were annointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God, you walked among the firey stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of god and I expelled you, O guardian cherb, from among the firey stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor...."



I was Catholic. Like I asked her on that other site, why does she ignore John 6:63 which explains it? She quoted all the scripture around it but left out that very importand one.

The reason is because it puts a wrench in the transubstantiation belief. It was never meant to be taken literally. That's why some of the disciples left. They couldn't take it that way. Besides.....it's like holding up a picture and saying...."this is me." It's not really you. It's a picture of you. When Christ held up the bread and said "this is my body," he wasn't saying it was really his body but that it was a picture of his body. It represented his body. How could it be his body? He was right there bodily in front of them. Makes no sense. Like I said...if it makes sense, seek no other sense.



I don't either. Everything is done for God's glory. God allowed this to happen and what was the result? God was glorified. Job came thru the trial refined as silver. Do you know much about how silver is refined? It's always put on a very high hot heat but the eyes of the silversmith never leaves it. It's almost finished when the mark of the silversmith can be seen. Job came thru the fire and God's mark could be seen. He blessed him and rewarded him for his great faith in God. He's a great example for us all and the reason we have the book of Job. We never go thru a trial without coming out changed and turned in a diff direction.

Jesus never said we would be without troubles and trials. He did say tho that when we go thru them he would be with us. I've seen many people come to Christ as a result of witnessing other people's trials or Job experiences. It's been said the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the faith.

Which is something that God wouldn't really have to allow, just like He wouldn't have had to allow Satan into the Garden.



Because she sees that scripture differently. You don't have a problem with the idea that scripture being symbolic or highly interpreted... UNLESS... someone comes to a different conclusion. That's why it seems so hypocritical when you offer the "where does it end" argument about interpretation.

You interpret, they interpret. For some reason you believe, though, that the way in which that is accomplished is different. That's why you always call other people's interpretation worldly wisdom, and deem your own something else.



OH, sorry. God didn't allow the death of Job's family on a bet, it was so that He could look good. Well... that's... um, different, I guess. LOL. This is a vicious, self-centered god you worship, KFC.

I almost hate to get involved because you guys get so deep. But this is a book I spent some time identifying with during a bad time in my life. So the following is what I got from it....



Unless you look at it from an eternal perspective.

I don't think God saw Job's family as "dead." I think he watched them cross the line from the land of the living into eternity with Him.

When Job was restored everything he owned before was doubled, EXCEPT the number of children. I think that's because his children weren't dead, they just had a change of address.

I think of it this way. There is a time in a child's life when they believe you are gone forever when you leave the room. They grieve, they scream and cry and have REAL emotions about you being gone forever. Some kids (my youngest) could go for hours just in horrible torment over my departure.

But as a parent I try to comfort but in the end I know I'm not gone forever, just changing locations. I can see both sides of the equation.

I don't think God sees death like we do, and therefore is not bound by what I perceive to be good and bad it.

I understand that, Tova, I do, but then why would we have such a "culture of life"? Murder is one of our most heinous sins. Abortion is opposed by who? The religious most often. If death was just a "change of address", why would it matter so much?

I know this is going to come back to the supremacy of God and how God is allowed to do stuff that we aren't, but in the end it feeds off our basest definition of death. If death isn't "bad", it's odd that we have few tragedies that amount to as much as death. At least you lived through it, right?

God told Satan about Job:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life."

If death is just a change of address to a better place, why not just go ahead in the end and kill Job, and let him be in heaven with his first, murdered family? Murder it was, because it was a purposeful taking of their lives, and it was sanctioned by God based on little more than a boast or wager. Perhaps God is above the law, and for me to do it is murder, and for him to do it is akin to helping someone move.

The distinction seems awfully convenient, though, and pointed much more toward validating the unsavory beliefs of primitive people as inerrant.

Great question. In my mind murdering is taking an opportunity for God to work by going against His express decree. In effect snubbing God and what I know He says is wrong and saying I gotta better way.

I think God didn't allow Satan to take Job's life because it would have ended the lesson on God's character and justice that comes with Job's restoration at the end of the story. (Which frankly was the part that carried me through a very hard time.)

I don't think God is saying He will always save his believers from death at Satan's hand. Can He? Sure! But I don't think that was the point of saving Job, or Job's restoration. What I learned from Job's life being spared is...

1. Satan must ask God's permission to take the life of a believer. (Protection/engagement)
2. God can redeem our lives when it appears He has abandoned us. (Hope)
3. Sometimes there are bigger things than my suffering (the world got the book of Job, and what did Job get? He still suffered, He still lost the immediate satisfaction of being with his first children.)



I do get this. Really. IT makes perfect sense when you write it out. All I can tell you is how I decide these things in my mind.

I am unable to think of God as evil. So when I read something alone that makes me thing WHAT? I can throw it out, or I can try to figure it out using the rest of what I know about Him.

I love my kids. But I am capable of doing things to them, or allowing things to be done, that when taken by themselves may seem unloving and barbaric, EVIL.

For example, if we are out in the woods and my son is trapped under a fallen tree. For the sake of argument lets say I have to save him being devoured by a beast who I know will prowl the woods at night, but can only do that by cutting off his arm with a sharpened stick. If I started hacking away, blood flowing, my child screaming, and someone came upon us...they'd say I was barbaric, cruel, not worthy of being a mom.

But if say my husband came upon us, and he knew the chapters before and after this incident of our lives, he knew me from spending time with me, he would believe I was doing (allowing) my child to suffer for his better good.

Would he still question me about it? Yeah. And maybe at the end he'd disagree with my method but then he wasn't there to offer a better solution. Though I am sure he'd say my free will got me into the situation in the first place!

So when I read something that seems "evil" I ask myself...am I seeing the whole picture? Will God allow the innocent to die to save the wicked? I know He will. So then my definition of evil may be limited to coming onto the scene after the arm is already half way off.

That may not work for anyone else. Seems to work for me.

Which is exactly what I do. The difference is, taken as a whole, there's too much there. I don't believe God is evil, or a murderer, either. I have the choice of excusing the mythological behavior of God, or accepting that much of what we have in the form of "history" is truly mythological.

Maybe I am mistaken. If I am, though, I am mistaken in the effort to keep things that I know to be wrong... wrong. If I were to excuse it when God does it, or when God tells a nation to do it, then murder, genocide, etc., isn't wrong, it just becomes a matter of discretion. Who gets to decide? Moses? Joshua? Who now, in our time?

no, I just want them to use ALL of scripture. They are, as very common to many groups out there, only use what serves the group. In the case of transubstantiation, 6:63 is omitted. I see this all the time. The reason is simple. Christ made it very clear. The words he was speaking were spiritual. They were not physical. Transubstantiation is when the bread and wine turn into his "physical body and blood" and Jesus flat out says no, that's not true. But they don't use the verse. It's one thing to come up with a diff interpretation and disagree and it's another entirely of leaving out parts of it and being dogmatic to boot on just the remainder.



when? Time and Date please? You keep doing this Baker. We talked once in one segment about the diff between God's wisdom and man's wisdom. That was it.



and statements like this show me you just want to argue for argue's sake. If I said yes, God was making a bet with Satan. I would get blasted by you. "What kind of God makes bets?" If I say it's for God's glory I get....." so,
it's so he can look good? What a vicious, self-centerred god you worship."

So again, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with you Baker. Because you just like to argue.




Not only did I agree with much you said Tova, I've said some of the same exact things before....we must be reading the same book.....lol.

The only thing I would say is that we are now living in the land of the dead and the land of the living is over yonder. Remember Christ said...."Let the dead bury the dead."

carry on.....

No, it's a no-win situation because you are defending something that is heinous. God and Satan betting that if they kill off a guy's family that he won't be righteous. Arguing the merits of that situation will always be a no-win situation.

I see what you mean Baker.

And in a way I think most people (including me) do the same thing when reading scripture. Like if I come across something that seems to not fit with who I know God to be, I believe if I search long enough I will usually find an answer that satisfies my doubt/question/disbelief, but a lot of the time I don't search because in the end I know God is good, and I am lazy.

I will "set it aside" until I can look into it further and that usually happens when something similar (in my mind at least) is happening in life.

In the end, when we are face to face with God, I don't believe the quibbling over inerrancy will matter. Both sets of believers essentially believe God is good, He is sovereign. IMHO that is one of the purposes of scripture.

God and Satan betting that if they kill off a guy's family that he won't be righteous. Arguing the merits of that situation will always be a no-win situation

ok let's look at this situation from a diff angle. You seem to have a problem with God's method in handling Job...not that I blame you, it's hard for any of us to read about this nice guy who didn't deserve such anquish. But we know that God works for good all things......and has a purpose and plan that can be hard for us to understand especially when we see it from afar.

We know God allowed it. We see that. We know Job came thru this trial refined as silver. We know also he was greatly rewarded for his faith receiving more than he had previously. But why does God allow this to happen?

For me I can see the answer in the NT when we read the story of the disciples on the boat rowing for their lives in a huge storm. John 6, Mark 6 & Matthew 14. The same story is recounted three times and I think for a reason..

First we see Christ had just done this big miracle with the loaves and the fishes. He then MAKES them get into the ship and go to the other side.....knowing full well they would hit this big storm. He basically sent this storm into their lives on purpose. We see in JMark 6:48 that he SAW them struggling thru this. It was like 3 am and they were exhausted. While he let them struggle, he didn't let them sink.

This went on for many hours, at least six, and he allowed it to happen. We also know this is the second storm they had encountered since they hit one earlier in Mark 4. Why did he do this? Well we get a hint in 6:52. They had just seen him perform the miracle with the bread but it says they didn't really consider the miracle for their heart was hardened which basically means they were spiritually insensitive to the truth concerning the deity of Christ.

After he made them get into the ship, it says he went into the mountain to pray. I believe he was praying for them. So yes, he was watching them, he saw them struggling and yet he continued to let this happen while he prayed for them.

When all seemed hopeless he came out to them walking on the water. They were afraid thinking he was a ghost. From what I understand there's a superstition that says if you see a ghost at sea it means you are going to die. So they probably thought they were as dead men. It says when he came into the ship, the sea died down and they were amazed beyond measure and wondered. In Matthew we see they worshipped him and said "You are the Son of God."

The whole reason for our trials is not to sink us but to strengthen us. He grows us thru our trial. It's when we go thru these times we draw closer to God. In Mark 4 when the first storm hit we don't see such worship. They saw the miracles with the bread yet they still were not convinced. But look, a real storm came into their lives and what did it do? It grew their faith. They saw Jesus in the middle of it. Jesus meets us there. He's in our storms as well.

Job also was in the middle of the storm yet he trusted God throughout it. He said, "tho God slay me, yet will I trust him." His faith was huge to begin with I can only imagined what it was like in the end.

God probably wouldn't do that to me or to you, because our faith may not be as great as Job's. We know that he only gives us what he thinks we can handle. The more storms that come into our lives, we need to remember the stronger we become. So we shouldn't balk or rebell against it, but ride it out and pray and remember God is in the middle of the storm with us WATCHING us.

Isn't that what the Footprints' Poem is all about?

I know GOD does. Not the character in your story. The character in your story kills and plagues people to show off, for "his glory". There is no way that is the behavior of a perfect God. It does look an awful lot like the old gods of that era, playing tricks, being jealous, having contests with others, etc.

Put two and two together. You say God knows everything in time and space. So God already knew that Job wouldn't fail. So there was no 'test' involved, you don't need to test someone if you are omniscient and know how the test will end up.

So you simply have a primitive, anthropomorphic god making a bet with a demi-god. There's nothing odd about it, you see it in lots of other mythologies. What is odd about the situation is that Christians, who are so totally critical of paganism, would let such a pagan portrayal of their God slip past them.

but that's just it Baker. The test wasn't for God. He did know. It was for Job and it was for us. Job was an example for us. I think that was the crux of Tova's reply as well. Job's faith was strengthened and we are encouraged when we go thru our own trials. I know alot of people that use Job as their guide book when they are struggling with death and disease.



did you even read what I just wrote? Did you even take into consideration the story in the gospels or any others that God allowed to go thru trials? I don't see much meditation going on in your mind on this since I just wrote that about 10 minutes ago. Good Golly Baker.....at least think about it.

I guess it's just how you CHOOSE to see it. I CHOOSE to see these things as examples for us. It encourages me and it angers you.



Then you might as well paint Jesus with the same brush. Jehovah God of the OT is Jesus of the new. How cruel of him to watch his disciples whom he loved, fight for their very lives for hours knowing he could have stopped it hours earlier. How could he?

How cruel it was to let Lazarus die when he could have stopped it. How cruel he was NOT to heal everyone he met instead of selectively healing those he chose. How cruel it was for him to let a man be blind from birth with the only reason being for his glory to be shown. How cruel it was that only one thief on the cross was saved while he let the other go to hell.

So you were just joking when you said it was for god's glory? I wonder if you'd feel satisfied to know that God let Satan kill your kids to be an example to your neighbors. What an asinine way to excuse bronze age mythology as inerrant.




I choose, you don't. You HAVE to see it that way, or your whole house of cards folds. You've admitted that. If one word isn't reliable, then you can't trust the whole thing.

According to you, if Job goes, so does Jesus. So no, you can't talk about "choosing" to me, because I'm the one with the choice. You have to take it and make yourself believe it is right, or lose God entirely.

That's why I have said, and maintain, that you worship a book. God isn't the final standard, that paper and ink is. If it fails, then so much for God. Your faith is in the words of MEN, sadly, and men aren't inerrant.



Only if the Bible were written all at once by the same person. In reality it is a collection of things they slapped together based upon their own beliefs at the time. That's why you have to believe Job, because Jesus falls flat if you don't. If you didn't NEED the Bible to be inerrant, you wouldn't have that problem.

So, you hang your faith on the CHANCE that they could have put together an inerrant history of God on earth. Ignoring the fact that they picked and chose based upon their own errant beliefs. Ignoring the fact that right there in black and white are acts by "god" that we wouldn't stomach today.

In my opinion you hang your faith on blaspheme. If God isn't the jealous, trickster, warrior God of old, then so much for Him. It's the book or nothing.

So you were just joking when you said it was for god's glory?[/quote]

No, but do you know what this means? What does Glorifying God mean to you? What does it mean when Paul said whatever we do we do for the glory of God? Whether it be eat, drink or sleep?





slapped together? Really? Ok. Stay tuned. I'll be back on that statement later.

The bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books united by a common theme. Like a tapestry it weaves together the story of God's redemption of the human race. That these books should be collected, agreed upon and accepted as God's word is a miracle in itself of God's providence. It will be here long after we're dead and there will be another KFC and Baker debating this same subject.



no you are putting words in my mouth. The paper and ink only reveal what God left for us to know about him. At least I have that. You have whatever you want to imagine God is like based on what you want to believe. I can believe anything I want also and be just like you, but I choose instead to believe in what God has REVEALED to us via written scripture written by fallible men, yes....but directed by the HS which is infallible. The words in scripture have proven beyond a doubt to me and countless others that this is indeed from God to us.

I guess it's take it or leave it. I CHOOSE to take it.

KFC POSTS: I am a truth seeker no matter where it leads me . It's not opinion I'm after, mine or anybody else's when it comes to the truth. I just want the truth above all.

KFC POSTS: I believe that Jesus is not only the solution...he's the truth and I don't say that lightly. To believe otherwise we'd have to call him a liar.

KFC POSTS: Jesus always used common things to teach a literal truth so I'd disagree here. He used common everyday things, like a door, bread, wine, water, wine, etc.

KFC POSTS: I was Catholic. Like I asked her on that other site, why does she ignore John 6:63 which explains it? She quoted all the scripture around it but left out that very importand one.

The reason is because it puts a wrench in the transubstantiation belief. It was never meant to be taken literally. That's why some of the disciples left. They couldn't take it that way. Besides.....it's like holding up a picture and saying...."this is me." It's not really you. It's a picture of you. When Christ held up the bread and said "this is my body," he wasn't saying it was really his body but that it was a picture of his body. It represented his body. How could it be his body? He was right there bodily in front of them. Makes no sense. Like I said...if it makes sense, seek no other sense.

KFC POSTS: no, I just want them to use ALL of scripture. They are, as very common to many groups out there, only use what serves the group. In the case of transubstantiation, 6:63 is omitted. I see this all the time. The reason is simple. Christ made it very clear. The words he was speaking were spiritual. They were not physical. Transubstantiation is when the bread and wine turn into his "physical body and blood" and Jesus flat out says no, that's not true. But they don't use the verse. It's one thing to come up with a diff interpretation and disagree and it's another entirely of leaving out parts of it and being dogmatic to boot on just the remainder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given what you said in the first post, I do not wish to impugn, even by implication, your sincerity. However, you are sincerely mis-interpreting Jesus’ solemn words concerning the Bread of Life to his disciples while at the synagogue at Capharnaum. This is about the only part of the Bible that must not be taken literally. This is predictable when one understands this is an oral teaching of the Protestant forefathers that has been handed down ever since the Protestant Revolt. Protestantism got rid of a lot of things that are Biblical beginning with the Bread of Life and Christ’s Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Whether you know it or not, you are following that tradition and denying what the Protestant forefathers denied. You say, as they did, that what Jesus said was never meant to be taken literally. However, it is certain that His Apostles took Jesus’ words literally as well as those He spoke during the Last Supper. So did the early Church and virtually all of Christendom. The Church Fathers certainly agree that Christ’s words were to be taken literally and not as a figure of speech or symbolically.

You say that you just want (me) to use ALL of Scripture. Okay, let’s do just that. Let’s put the entire narrative, St.John 6: 22-72, in front of us and read it through carefully and see if Jesus is literally (or not) saying that we should eat His flesh in the substance of bread.

St.John 6:22-24: "The next day the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. But the other ships came from the Tiberias ; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for Jesus."

The narrative opens on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee with the feeding of the 5,000, the only miracle recorded in all 4 Gospels. After the people were fed, Jesus withdrew to the hillside to be alone. Night fell, and the disciples went down to the lake without Him, and embarking on the only boat available sailed for Capharnaum, which was on the Western shore.

V25-26:"and when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves are were filled."

They found Jesus and asked him when (but not how) he had made his way there apparently thinking he had walked around the lake. Jesus did not answer their question, but uttered to them a reproach which proved Him to be a discerner of their hearts. They sought Jesus for bread to sustain mortal life, however, Jesus fed them such that faith being awakened, they might be prepared to receive the bread (His Body and Blood) which will give them everlasting life.

V27:Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you. For Him hath God, the Father sealed."

He told them to work to earn food which gives eternal life. Jesus had provided them their fill of natural bread, now He began to speak of supernatural bread. Here, meat is referred back by the word "that". "Meat" refers to His Body, His Flesh. "Which the Son of Man will give you." can only refer to Jesus, in this case as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus, the Son of Man, gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Through the eating of His Body and Blood in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, our divine faith is strengthened by the grace of having God present in us.

V28: They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" V29: "Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent."

V. 30: “They said therefore to him: what sign dost thou show , that we may see, and may believe in thee? What dost thou work?”

In verse 30, the colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capharnaum begins. The Jews ask him what signs (miracles) He could perform and as a challenge they noted V. 31.

V31: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Could Jesus top that they were asking.

V32-33: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you. Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my father fiveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world."

Jesus told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. And that He was the fulfillment of all that Moses did and stood for. The change from the past tense, gave, to the present, giveth, is significant. The bread of the past--the manna in the desert--satisfied the Israelites' physical needs and sustained them for the journey to the promised land. Now, the new bread---the Son of God--is in their midst, and He has promised so much more than manna. He has come to satisfy every hunger the human heart could ever know. Jesus is greater than Moses. Moses gave them a food that perished every night, and he led them to an earthly promised land. Jesus, however, gives Himself as the bread of eternal life.

V34: "They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread."

Give us this bread they insisted.

"give us always" --The Jews being fleshly-minded, could not perceive of the Lord's words. They thought He was promising some miraculous earthly food, such as the manna, and that it would take away all necessity of providing for their daily bread.

V35: "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." .

Jesus told them , It is I who am the bread of life.
"of life"--thus Our Lord promised: to give i.e. to sacrifice His Body for the life of the world. 2.) to give His Body to be our food and in this sense the Jews, as we shall see, understood His words. Jesus is the Bread of Life who satisfies every hunger and thirst. Both the OT and the NT speak about God as "bread" that gives life to God's people. In the Last Supper, Jesus chose bread as the sign and instrument of the greatest of gifts, that is, His life in the Eucharist. St. Luke 22:19-20.

V36-37: "But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will not cast out."

Christ continues to make His point with the Jews getting more explicit.

V38: "Because I come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."

V39: "Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day."

V40: " And this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day."

Jesus promises that He will not lose anyone whom the Father gives Him. He will raise them up to new life.

V41-42: "The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?"

Jesus was getting more and more explicit and the Jews started to complain and question, but still understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus repeated what He said before, then summarized. "I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven."

V43-44: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves." No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him in the last day."

"Draw him"--not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of His heavenly grace. We cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws us--unless the Father stirs us to hope in His mercy and love. This is a free gift of God, however, we have to love God and want to truly be with Him.

V45: "It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me."
V46-47: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, Amen, I say to you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life."

V48-51: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

Notice that Jesus repeated what He had said before. I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven.

V52-53: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world. Then the Jews ask, incredulously, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Setting aside all respect for Him, they spoke of Him as "this man" and loudly disputed with one another, how it was possible for Jesus to give them His flesh to eat. Our Lord wished them to believe the fact, and leave the how to Him.
At last, they understood Him literally and were stupefied.

V. 54-57: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Christ repeats His words with extra ordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His Blood.
Here Jesus repeats and explains even further. He tells us we can have no life in ourselves unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. The man that eats My flesh and drinks My blood enjoys eternal on the last day. My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink. The man who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives continually in Me and I in him.
And there was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings", for there were none. His listeners understood Him quite well. No one of them any longer thought He was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically. If they had, why was there no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was a confusion, Christ explained what He meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, Christ repeated what He said becoming more and more explicit.

KFC, you are keeping company with the disbelieving Jews when you say this isn’t literal. Even the Jews took Jesus literally after He repeated it enough. Many times over He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four (4) times He said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood". John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper--it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

V58-60: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that come down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said teaching in the synagague, in Capharnaum."

"live by me"--Because Christ's flesh and blood are inseparably united to Himself, the Son of God. So intimate is the union with Him of those who receive Him that He compares it to the union between the Father and the Son.

V 61-62: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"

"Who can hear it?"---Or who can believe it? And these were His disciples, people who were already used to His remarkable ways having seen His miracles. They took Him literally and wouldn't believe Him. They would not accept faith and believe in Him, in what He says He is and what He says He will do. Here, "Does this offend or scandalize you?"---But if you see me, the Son of Man, go up to heaven with my glorified body, will you not then believe that I can give my body to you to be your Food?

V 63-64: "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

“If then” Jesus made one more attempt to win them to faith.
“Son of man ascend” means but if you see me, the Son of man, go up to Heaven with my glorified Body, will you not then believe that I can give My Body to you to be your food?

Christ by mentioning His Ascension, would confirm the truth of His power and divinity that he had before asserted. As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help His disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. St.John 14:29. And, at the same time, He warns them not to think of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a gross, carnal manner and receive His words badly.

“the flesh profiteth nothing” Flesh, as flesh cannot give life, but you must not think of the dead flesh, for it is a question of the Flesh of the Son of man, in which dwells the Spirit of God, gloryifying it, and filling it with divine power. My Flesh, united to the Spirit of God, has life-giving power.
"spirit and life" For the Flesh which I mean (that you eat) is penetrated by the Holy Spirit and united to the living God.

V65-66: "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given it be given him by my Father."

Judas betrayed Him and he was one of the Twelve. Christ knew that some would not believe, including the one "who he was that would betray Him". It is here in the rejection of the Holy Eucharist that Judas fell away.

V67: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked with him no more."

They went back to their ordinary way of living and to their various occupations. Their chief object in following Our Lord had been the hope which they built on an earthly Messias and they cared nothing for our Lord's spiritual and supernatural promises. They now formed a part of the unbelieving mass of Jews. However, besides the 12 Apostles, there still remained the 72 disciples whose sending forth by Our Lord is later in the chapter 41, as well as some other disciples and some holy women. Thus His disciples were sifted. Those whose vocations were real and whose faith was firm, remained with Jesus. Whereas many of the weak and wavering could not stand the test to which their faith was put and left Him.

This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking Him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews and the disciples who had accepted everything up to this point would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol. But He did not correct these first protesters, He let them go.

V68: "Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away?"

"will you also go away?" Jesus made no further attempt to keep back those who wished to leave Him. On the contrary, He searchingly asked the Apostles: "Will you also go away?" He left it to their free will to forsake them if they chose, and forced them to make a clear and open declaration of their intentions.

V69-72: " And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray Him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

St.Peter said this because of his faith. He believed Jesus was God, and he told him so, "thou art the Christ." "We have believed and have known". This is what this whole discourse is about--- belief and faith. Who has it and who doesn’t. Simon Peter answered in the name of the rest of them. "Who but thou can lead us unto life?" They know Jesus is the only one to eternal life, even if they cannot understand the mysterious words that Jesus spoke, they still did not doubt them. They remained true to Our Lord, openly confessed Him to be the Son of God, and placed themselves in opposition to their unbelieving fellow-countrymen. If that isn't giving God the glory, then what is?
Christ's revelation in this discourse is utterly remarkable. He fulfilled every one of His promises at the Last Supper when He instituted the most Holy Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist.

HERE IS YOUR COMMENT AGAIN: In the case of transubstantiation, 6:63 is omitted. I see this all the time. The reason is simple. Christ made it very clear. The words he was speaking were spiritual. They were not physical. Transubstantiation is when the bread and wine turn into his "physical body and blood" and Jesus flat out says no, that's not true. But they don't use the verse. It's one thing to come up with a diff interpretation and disagree and it's another entirely of leaving out parts of it and being dogmatic to boot on just the remainder.

The reason is because it puts a wrench in the transubstantiation belief. It was never meant to be taken literally. That's why some of the disciples left. They couldn't take it that way. Besides.....it's like holding up a picture and saying...."this is me." It's not really you. It's a picture of you. When Christ held up the bread and said "this is my body," he wasn't saying it was really his body but that it was a picture of his body. It represented his body. How could it be his body? He was right there bodily in front of them. Makes no sense. Like I said...if it makes sense, seek no other sense.
-------------------------------------------------

Now let’s go over what you say a sentence at a time.

KFC says, “It was never meant to be taken literally. That's why some of the disciples left. They couldn't take it that way.”

Of course Christ meant what He said to be taken literally. That’s why He was so explicit and repeaded Himself. He said 12 times that He was the bread that came down from heaven and four times that they would have to “eat My flesh and drink My blood”. Christ did not correct these first protesters---these proto-Protestants. Some of them, like you, couldn’t/wouldn’t take it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Last Supper, Christ holds up the bread and says, “This is my Body...” and of this KFC says, “he wasn't saying it was really his body but that it was a picture of his body. “
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then KFC says, “How could it be his body? He was right there bodily in front of them. Makes no sense. Like I said...if it makes sense, seek no other sense.”

KFC, the argument from the evidence of the senses is weak since even a rudimentary understanding of transubstantiation makes one realize that the dogma, by definition, cannot be refuted through an appeal to the sensory perception since there is not supposed to be any perceptible change to the Eucharistic elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC says that it makes no sense when Christ held up the bread and said "this is my body," he wasn't saying it was really his body but that it was a picture of his body. It represented his body. How could it be his body? He was right there bodily in front of them. Makes no sense.


Christ was present at the Last Supper in two ways. He was present at the table in a natural way, that is, physically present as were the Apostles. And He was present in the Eucharistic elements in a sacramental way,which is precisely the way He is present in them today, in Catholic Churches throughout the world. That Christ can be present simultaneously in two ways is a mystery, (a mystery being a religous truth that cannot be comprehended fully by reason), but it is not an impossibility. Something doesn’t become impossible simply because we cant’ understand it. After all, God is present everywhere---all Christians acknowledge that--and that is as much of a mystery as Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Are we to deny God’s omnipresence because we cannot conceive how He does it? If Christ, who was on earth as a natural body and now reigns in heaven in a glorified body, certainly He can make bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. We can’t limit God’s acts to our own understanding.

Douay Rheims V 63-64:"If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

I’ll even give the same verse in the King James Version, so you feel right at home. (Please note that DR has 72 verses in all and that’s because 51 and 52 are combined into one verse in the KJV as 51.)
KJV V. 62-63: “what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up 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.”

You appeal to Verse 63, in an attempt to repudiate or disprove Christ’s revelation that He is present, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist. This was the same verse that anti-Catholic Jimmy Swaggart used in a 1984 debate on the question, “Is the Real Presence real?” By citing V.63, do you think that Christ, who had just commanded His disciples to eat His flesh, now said there doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh profiteth nothing” means? And were the disciples to understand the line, “the words I have been speaking to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for “symbolic”.

In St.John 6:64 the word “flesh”, is not used in the same sense as in 53-59. It’s being used more in the Pauline sense in which it is contrasted with “spirit”. The contrast is between unaided nature and nature elevated by grace. Compare St.John 3:6, “what is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of spirit.”

After carefully reading the entire narrative, Jesus undoubtedly promises that He will give us His very flesh to eat. Twelve months later, He kept that promise, at the Last Supper taking bread and saying, “This is my Body...” The word of God is power unlike anything that we can fathom. And when He held the bread and said, ‘This is my Body..., His physical body was present. Now since the appearances or qualities of bread did not change, there was only one way left in which the bread could become His body, and that was according to substance. The logic is clear enough. Could God do it? Yes. Did He do it? Yes, for His words to the Jewish disciples bear no other logical explanation. I admit that the Real Presence of Christ’s body in the Holy Eucharist is as much of a mystery to be believed as an act of faith as the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The difficulties in my mind as to how God could do this is of no value against the fact that He did do it. If you believe Genesis literally, then it follows that you can’t say the omnipotent God did not do this, for He who created substance out of nothing , can put it through any subsequent changes that He might wish.

Finally, if you accept from this narrative that Christ can walk upon the waters, and that He could amplify 5 small loaves of ordinary bread to feed thousands of people and that Christ could act independently of natural laws, then despite your inability to see how He could do so, you must accept that He gave His very flesh to eat in the substance of bread. It all comes back to the question of searching the truth and asking yourself, do I really have faith in Christ or not?

Has anyone thought about how gross it is to think about the Eucharist being actually the body and blood of Christ?

Ya bunch of Hannibals!

Wow, KFC, it doesn't look like she's ignoring your verses at all. Apparently people can be just as diligent in the "inerrant" word and come to completely different conclusions. Do you really think the Bible translates itself?

Absolutely. He was pretty clear. He wasn't talking about the physical. That's why he asked what if you shall see me leave and ascend? He was saying....no, it's not physical. I'll be leaving. I'm leaving you with a spiritual truth. The physical or literal meaning of the words was plainly ruled out. So next you have to go to the spiritual meaning. I don't need to write pages to back this up. It's only unclear to the CC. Christ was NEVER about the physical. Just a quick overview of the gospels makes that perfectly clear.

Read the whole passage in context starting even with Chap 4 with the woman at the well. Then we go to the feeding of physical bread to the 5,000 directly before this present discussion and read for yourself. Remember when this was first taught by the CC the scriptures were not open to the general public. When they were, many did leave and this was one of those passages in question.

Bishop Augustine of Hippo (4th Century) said this:

"The hard saying cannot be taken literally since it would seem to be enjoining a crime or a vice: it is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord and secretly and profitable treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us." He sums the matter up Crede et manducasti. "Believe and thou hast eaten.

Actually if you look close at this you'll see this was not said at the last supper where Christ institutes communion. Most don't even think about that. In fact, John is the only gospel where he doesn't even cover the communion service as the other three gospel writers do. So the context isn't even communion.

So in this discourse Jesus is not even making a direct reference to Holy Communion although it does convey the same truth in words as Communion coveys in action.

I think you are missing the point. If the Bible translates itself, and the truth is apparent, then why are you sitting here differing with someone who believes as diligently in its inerrancy as you do? Why did she come to a difference conclusion?

It doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of translating itself, huh?

it does, but if you don't wish to use it in context, or use selective scripture than you can make it into whatever you wish it to be. That's why we have so many diff groups out there. Just follow the logic. ....if Christ was talking literally here (and he made it clear he wasn't) he'd also have to be a door, a vine, and a stream. Why don't we just call him a "transformer" and make him into whatever we wish?

I'm not coming from a denomination's "version" of the bible. I can tell you which verses a particular group teaches and reteaches ignoring anything that would contradict their dogma because I've been in so many of them. I also know that every single group out there has "answers to objections" so they cover themselves.

Just like "location, location, location is the mantra for those dealing in Real Estate.....context, context, context is the mantra for anyone studying biblical theology.



she's been taught real well by the CC and is very well equipped with their commentaries and DR. She's a very good Catholic. I admire her dedication. I like that. It doesn't match with the context or the rest of scripture...but it sounds good doesn't it? That's how it works.

So you decide. Is it literal? Or is it not? What do you think Baker? Are you Catholic?

And she couldn't say the same thing about you? Your point has always been the 'duh' point, that it would just make sense that Christ wasn't literally a door. Yet, here we are with someone saying the Christ was literally food.

She sees the same context that you do. Again, it doesn't seem to be so easily translatable, because here we have two people just as devoted to the truth of the text, and yet we have two different opinions.



And she could say that you've been taught real well by your religious doctrine. You didn't come up with it on your own.



I don't agree with either of you that often. Yet for some reason I don't know my bible, or I haven't read it with an open heart, or whatever.

What are you just contrary or is it just against me? Did you not notice that she listed all the verses in John but skipped one and I called her back on that very important one? It's not me that's skipping scripture and you know that. I know you know that. I know you're smart and I know you like to play dumb on occasion just to get my goat.



Well your comment says you're an equal opportunity basher but I see you as only bashing me....maybe I'm missing something? You could at least tell me when you DO agree even if it's not often. I try to do that with you don't I?

Well then, open your heart and get reading then. What's stopping you?

She doesn't "skip" that scripture, she just interprets it as not applying to the situation.



LOL, no, I don't bash Lula, heavens, who'd think that...

see, I told ya so.