Is It Faith or Good Works (That Gets U Into Hvn)?

[avory]

I'm going to post a reply to your very first post, geekgrrl. You asked if it's faith or good works that get us into heaven. And then you went on to say that "if i was a heinous criminal, could I get into heaven?"

Well, firstly, let me say that it is not good works that "get you into heaven." First of all, there is Biblical evidence to support this, but if you don't believe in the Bible, try common sense: It is impossible for any human to do good works which outweigh his bad. It's impossible to be a "good person," simply because our inherent human nature won't let us.

It is faith in God that saves you. Just let me know if you want verses, I'd be more than happy to supply them. Now, on to your "heinous criminal" question. Yes, you could be a heinous criminal, and then be saved suddenly by having faith in God. But the sincere acceptance of Christ as your savior generally doesn't go hand in hand with heinous criminal acts. So no, you don't have to suddenly become a perfect person, accomplishing a good deed whenever possible. But there are verses which say that the world is God's enemy, and a person cannot be both with the world and with God. So you must choose one or the other.

No, if you become a Christian, you don't have to instantly drop everything. You can go right on doing what you were before. But, eventually, you will realize that you simply can't go on with what you're doing. You'll see that it's simply detrimental to your life, and it's just not helping.

I hope that my ramblings have cleared things up a bit.

 

[geekgrrl]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

[...]

As to your charge that "religion" is "synthetic faith" because it compells behavior through threat of punishment...

You must understand the ancient covenant. Covenants are relationships that are formed for the benefit of both parties. Obedience isn't compelled through threat, it is volunteered ("submission"). Marriage is a covenant relationship that you enter into for the benefits...yet if you violate the terms bad stuff will happen. You don't get married for fear of the consequences of not being married. You are committed for the positive benefits of the relationship. See what I mean?

Maybe, but nobody asked me if I wanted to be part of any such covenant. What if I don't? I don't recall authorizing anyone to negotiate in my name. So I guess I'm a snowball in hell, right? If so, for what reason? For not wanting to sign up for the same satellite TV service as someone else?

Everything that Western religion says or does is predicated on punishment for lack of compliance. Show me where Jesus says that it's okay not to believe in him because of natural human skepticism.

And, by the way, doesn't this ever-present threat of unpleasant consequences fly in the face of the Christian concept of free will, that each of us is free to accept God/Jesus/whoever or not? What good is free will when you're told by none other than Jesus that "nobody gets to the Father but through me" and that those who don't accept him aren't eligible for "eternal life"?

God made no fewer than seven covenants throughout the Bible. The Covenant with Israel is well known, but apparently very misunderstood. In that (the Mosaic Covenant) the two identified parties are God and the nation of Israel. Israel promised to take YHWH as God, and God promised to take Israel as His people. And Israel would have land, be victorious in battle, have ease and peace, be fruitful etc...all the things that were important to Ancient people. All this would be theirs IF...they remained faithful to God and followed his commands.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked as a six-year-old when my parents sent me to schul (Sunday School) at the Reform synagogue they belonged to: Why does God need to negotiate as if he were buying a car? "Throw in the spinners and the fine Corinthian leather buckets and I'll buy it!" Why does God need anything from us?

Or, to put it another way: why would God bother to craft a set of laws for us when we are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves? I have to go back to the ant colony analogy. Why does he want to butt in and tell the ants what to do and how to do it when he already made them with the understanding and knowledge of how best to survive in their own habitat?

So, how do we know that God's "laws" aren't really "laws" made up for us by a ruling class who wants to preserve the status quo, with an additional interest in imposing belief as a tool for fine-tuning manipulation of people by guilt and fear?

If you reverse your thinking, you answer your own question. Not "We must be good or we will go to hell." But, "We are going to hell, so we must become good." Hell is already our destination. It is only through belief that we can have eternal life.

I don't see where Jesus demands anything from us. Did you have anything in particular in mind?

From what you and Montalban have cited here, from other reading I've done, and from my general exposure to religion in this culture, I think Jesus demands a great deal from us, not the least of which is blind faith. And all I'm saying is, if he really is God, why doesn't he respect that God-given propensity toward skepticism in thinking human beings?

Why does he threaten to punish us for being as he made us? A logical person would conclude that, if God is logical, then either he isn't threatening us, but rather that someone else is; or God is not logical as was first supposed; or God is a sick sadist who created us only to torment us, like a man who fathers children only so he can indulge his lust for pedophilia. Even I don't buy that last one, but it presents itself as a logical possibility nonetheless.

Faith is a suspension of disbelief, the same sort of phenomenon that occurs when you read a novel or watch a movie -- you know it's just a story, but you grant some artistic license to the author or filmmaker so you can enjoy the entertainment value of the work. You can suspend disbelief because the story sufficiently mimics reality to make the story credible. Religion goes a step farther: it asks us to suspend our judgment based on our knowledge of the real world in favor of utterances by church authorities who proclaim themselves more able than the rest of us to interpret the Bible and other scripture, as if these documents had any credibility beyond being the recorded thoughts of men themselves.

If Jesus had something of value to say to us, well, he was educated in the temple, so says the Bible, so why didn't he see fit to write it down himself for all posterity, if his teachings were so important? Being God, if he was such, he would have recognized the human propensity to change minor details of a story as it is handed down from one person to the next until the story becomes unrecognizable. So why would Jesus not have written his words for us himself, rather than entrusting such great eternal truths to the apostles who were subject to the same human propensities of misinterpretation and storyline modification?

 

[geekgrrl]

I'm going to post a reply to your very first post, geekgrrl. You asked if it's faith or good works that get us into heaven. And then you went on to say that "if i was a heinous criminal, could I get into heaven?"

Well, firstly, let me say that it is not good works that "get you into heaven." First of all, there is Biblical evidence to support this, but if you don't believe in the Bible, try common sense: It is impossible for any human to do good works which outweigh his bad. It's impossible to be a "good person," simply because our inherent human nature won't let us.

It is faith in God that saves you. Just let me know if you want verses, I'd be more than happy to supply them. Now, on to your "heinous criminal" question. Yes, you could be a heinous criminal, and then be saved suddenly by having faith in God. But the sincere acceptance of Christ as your savior generally doesn't go hand in hand with heinous criminal acts. So no, you don't have to suddenly become a perfect person, accomplishing a good deed whenever possible. But there are verses which say that the world is God's enemy, and a person cannot be both with the world and with God. So you must choose one or the other.

No, if you become a Christian, you don't have to instantly drop everything. You can go right on doing what you were before. But, eventually, you will realize that you simply can't go on with what you're doing. You'll see that it's simply detrimental to your life, and it's just not helping.

I hope that my ramblings have cleared things up a bit.

Hi, avory, welcome, because I see you're new here (I'm fairly new myself).

You might want to go and read some of the other excellent posts in this thread and you will see that there have been lots of citations already, both of biblical and other sources. So you might find that some of what you were going to post has already been posted.

Just one question, though. I gave the example of being a heinous criminal, and, yes, logical self-consistency would insist that if I suddenly pledged my allegiance to a faith that demands righteousness (according to its definition of "righteousness"), I should adjust my lifestyle to conform to my new beliefs.

But what if I'm not a heinous criminal, just an ordinary, everyday person (which is, in fact, exactly what I am)? Am I still compelled to make changes in my life, as you suggest? I'm human, I make mistakes, and occasionally I get angry and do or say things I shouldn't, but, like most people, I mean well and I try to "work hard and play by the rules". I mean no one ill, wish no one harm, and would try to help someone in need if it were a personal appeal and not a mass mailing. Does this sound pretty much like an average person? I like to think so. So, if I suddenly blurt out this faith in Jesus, what changes would I need to make in my life to guarantee myself a place in heaven? Or didn't my acceptance of Jesus automatically guarantee that for me?

 

[Montalban]

So you must only know about Him (according to your own theory) by being told about Him.
Why does He need to learn?

Yes, I was told about God, same as you and most other people, sometime during their early childhood.

So you were told of the God that you believe in, or another idea about God?

As for why God "needs to learn", it's not so much that he needs to, more that he wants to experience his creation as his creatures see it. What do you do for novelty, for new experience, when you've been it all and done it all? Be what you haven't been and do what you haven't done. But if you're God, how do you do that? Well, create someone through whose perception you can experience things as if for the first time. Why can't God create an agent to go and report back how things look and feel from a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-ubiquitous perspective? How do we know, after all, that God doesn't get bored, if he's everything that our religionists say he is?

I still don't get it. Why you would think it necessary to learn when you're perfect already; unless you don't like the idea of God being perfect.

We might also learn to trust the kid on top. And know that his observations are correct.

I'd have thought that you would write, "And have faith that his observations are correct." We're not debating knowledge, remember? We're debating faith, and the need for it.

I can acquire knowledge through faith. My quote is about recognising that some people know what they talk about, so one can put faith in what they say and know what they say is true...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in citing the preceding. But to the extent that I "get it", let me say that each of us has not only the right to challenge claims of miracles, but the obligation to do so. One of the outgrowths of perception + reason is what is best simply referred to as a "bullsh*t meter". We have such a meter built in for a reason. We survive best (and nations stay free for the longest period of time) when we refuse to believe any claims of supernatural phenomena on their face, without abundant substantiation in the real world.

It goes to accepting, sometimes, the authority of others. We do it all the time. When we hear "Person "X" is armed and extremely dangerous" we have faith that the authorities are correct. We know to keep away from such a person. This knowledge from faith might be ill-founded, but it doesn't negate the fact that we can have knowledge from faith.

Your citation above seems to suggest that appeals to authority are the equivalent of credible evidence and scientfic substantiation. In academia, you can cite authorities who have become such because they have done substantial real-world research which has been peer-reviewed before their work has been deemed worthy of addition to the body of scientific knowledge. But when you cite masters of the church, religionists, people of faith, as authorities to certify the validity of supernatural events claimed to have happened in the real world, the authority behind these citations vanishes, because their expertise is acknowledged to be in the realm of faith, and they are not seen as qualified investigators of real-world phenomena.

An appeal to authority, by my understanding, is only fallacious if we seek an expert to cite knowledge outside his field of understanding. I could be wrong, in this. But what Michel de Montaigne was doing was citing his faith of Augustine in theological matters, and rested on this 'authority' in other theological matters.

BTW, just FYI, I don't think Monsieur de Montaigne was around in 1993

I didn't state that he was. The citation I gave you is a common enough referencing format for quotes from printed sources; to author, year of the edition I'm quoting from, the title, and who published it. Though I was remiss in leaving out the page reference. It is the Harvard referencing style common to university essays. There are examples of it at the bottom of
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/training/referencing/harvard.htm

I think I just realized why the Orthodox Church doesn't sell well outside of the Near and Middle East, eastern Europe, and Russia. The following sentence (which you wrote above) is revelatory in the extreme: the Ecumenical Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen.
That's a killer right there. At least the pope is usually a European, and part of a culture we Americans share with Europe (because, for the majority of us, our ancestors come from there). But Turkey? Not even the pope has to be a European. Africans and South Americans were in the race during the recent papal election. If your patriarch has to be Turkish, that leaves out everyone else in the whole world. Talk about parochial!

Indeed this parochialism is a down-side. But I must point out that he is not 'the Orthodox Pope', he is not in the same position as a the Pope is to the Roman Church. He has the same powers as any other bishop.

To be bluntly honest, Turkey is not a country anyone here in the U.S. knows or cares much about. I'm not trying to be offensive or rude, just forthright.

I agree about Turkey. They have butchered many Christians, sometimes even into the modern era (such as at Smyrna c.1922 when the US did nothing).

See
http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

No one stopped the Turks invading Cyprus in the 1970s (because they're a 'good' US ally)

 

[Montalban]

Well, firstly, let me say that it is not good works that "get you into heaven." First of all, there is Biblical evidence to support this, but if you don't believe in the Bible, try common sense: It is impossible for any human to do good works which outweigh his bad. It's impossible to be a "good person," simply because our inherent human nature won't let us.

What? You haven't heard of jail?
Jail is a type of pennance - though it's forced upon the 'sinner'.

The judge doesn't just say at the end of the court case "Do you declare that you are sorry?"

Faith without works is dead.
James 2:14-26

No, if you become a Christian, you don't have to instantly drop everything. You can go right on doing what you were before. But, eventually, you will realize that you simply can't go on with what you're doing. You'll see that it's simply detrimental to your life, and it's just not helping.

I hope that my ramblings have cleared things up a bit.

You just undermined your own argument.

Therefore, faith alone is not enough! Actions have to be put in place or the declaration of faith is as meaningful as if a husband says "I love you" every night, before going out and fornicating.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Oops, forgot the Muslims, did we...?

Why didn't his sacrifice convince the Muslims? If it was so important for everyone in the world to worship him, why didn't Jesus deal separately with all cultures, especially the large Muslim population (post Muhammad, preferably, in order to get the last word)?

It's a really good question...

As Montalban said, Muslims didn't arrive on the scene until about 1,000 years after Christ's death. But there is an important point in their theology which might explain why they reject Christ: according to their tradition, they are descended from Ishmael, Abraham's older son. And there is a certain amount of jealousy that their ancestor was passed over to be the line through which the Promised One came. Obadiah (a minor Prophet in the OT) addressed his message to the Edomites, who were descendants of Ishmael, berating them for they way they treated the Israelites when the Israelites were getting the short end of the stick in battel they had fought. This shows that the animosity between Ishmael's and Isaac's descendants is very long-lived.

As for why didn't Jesus appear to all the different cultures? Jesus' purpose was to die for mankind, not preach to them. He entrusted the preaching to his disciples.

The Mormons of Utah claim that Jesus made a side trip to early America to deal with the native population. (I don't know what they offer as proof.) I've never heard anyone else anywhere claim that Jesus paid them a visit.

The proof is a book of "writings" that Joseph Smith found buried on his farm in (I think it was) New York. And Angel appeared to him and gave him a code which would help him translate these ancient books, which Joseph claimed was lost scripture. In recent days, it has been proven that the writing Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Mormon was actually and Ancient Egyptian burial scroll swiped from some poor saps tomb. Salt Lake City will not comment.

Since Jesus apparently didn't see fit to enlighten the post-Muhammad Muslims, they apparently didn't learn virtues like turning the other cheek. In fact, throughout their history, they've shown themselves quite a bloodthirsty lot, with the world's most intolerant faith of all the majors, the most oppressive to women and non-believers. As we've seen, they relish sawing off the heads of the defenseless and innocent with dull knives. And they think themselves truly brave warriors of God when they're slaughtering women and children and old men. (They turn tail and run from armed soldiers.) And Jesus never thought these barbarians were worth a visit, or at least a little special attention?

The Crusades were the Church's famous attempt at converting the Infidels.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

First, geekgrrl, I just want to say you have some powerful and challenging questions!

Maybe, but nobody asked me if I wanted to be part of any such covenant. What if I don't? I don't recall authorizing anyone to negotiate in my name. So I guess I'm a snowball in hell, right? If so, for what reason? For not wanting to sign up for the same satellite TV service as someone else?

Actually, you're in like flin because you were born Jewish. You got grandfathered into the contract..."Israel and all her descendants." It's the rest of us that are in a heap of trouble!

But seriously, when Israel committed spirtual adultery by worshipping other gods, the covenant was broken. So God made a new Covenant, this time with the whole world. For anyone who has faith there will be eternal life. I'm sure you are familiar with it, but I'll quote it just the same so you can see it in the terms of the covenant:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Everything that Western religion says or does is predicated on punishment for lack of compliance. Show me where Jesus says that it's okay not to believe in him because of natural human skepticism.

This reference is in regard to people who would doubt:

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus understood that people would doubt. Look at how patient he was with Thomas... "Feel me Thomas. Stick your finger in my holes. I'm for real! Stop doubting and believe!" Thomas was blessed because he believed. How much more so those who believe and don't get to stick their fingers in the holes!

And, by the way, doesn't this ever-present threat of unpleasant consequences fly in the face of the Christian concept of free will, that each of us is free to accept God/Jesus/whoever or not?

I think you should let go of the idea that what good or bad happens to us in this life is a result of our choices and actions. The Bible says the rain falls on the just and the unjust. In other words, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.

And the threat of hell does not fly in the face of free will. We chose to go to hell or not. God doesn't send anyone to hell. We go to hell over His dead body.

What good is free will when you're told by none other than Jesus that "nobody gets to the Father but through me" and that those who don't accept him aren't eligible for "eternal life"?

You can accept the terms of the covenant or not. Your choice.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked as a six-year-old when my parents sent me to schul (Sunday School) at the Reform synagogue they belonged to: Why does God need to negotiate as if he were buying a car? "Throw in the spinners and the fine Corinthian leather buckets and I'll buy it!" Why does God need anything from us?

Or, to put it another way: why would God bother to craft a set of laws for us when we are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves? I have to go back to the ant colony analogy. Why does he want to butt in and tell the ants what to do and how to do it when he already made them with the understanding and knowledge of how best to survive in their own habitat?

So, how do we know that God's "laws" aren't really "laws" made up for us by a ruling class who wants to preserve the status quo, with an additional interest in imposing belief as a tool for fine-tuning manipulation of people by guilt and fear?

This made me smile.

You asked what God could learn. I think you imagine that if he is all-knowing, all-powerful, etc...He must be bored OUT OF HIS MIND! What mountains are there left to conquer? He's done it all! How does he keep from going batty with Boredom and WHAT IS IN IT FOR HIM? (Am I close? )

So I'll tell you what God wants to know...Do you love him? Do you love him enough to seek to be like him? Do you love him enough to worship him even when there's nothing in it for you (see Job). Will you be faithful to him even when life is dumping on you? And when he has removed every barrier that would prevent you from seeking his face, will you come? Will you accept him and his sacrifice?

From what you and Montalban have cited here, from other reading I've done, and from my general exposure to religion in this culture, I think Jesus demands a great deal from us, not the least of which is blind faith. And all I'm saying is, if he really is God, why doesn't he respect that God-given propensity toward skepticism in thinking human beings?

When you say "demand" I think foot-stomping pouty tantrums. Jesus doesn't do that. But he does "demand" as in he has standards...an illustration would be like applying for college. Let's say the college of Jesus would have the admission standards of Wal-Mart (as in anyone who wants to can go in) but to stay in would require the diligent effort of a Harvard student.

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13-14

Why does he threaten to punish us for being as he made us? A logical person would conclude that, if God is logical, then either he isn't threatening us, but rather that someone else is; or God is not logical as was first supposed; or God is a sick sadist who created us only to torment us, like a man who fathers children only so he can indulge his lust for pedophilia. Even I don't buy that last one, but it presents itself as a logical possibility nonetheless.

Again, you've got it backwards. God isn't threatening to punish us, he is offering to save us.

Faith is a suspension of disbelief, the same sort of phenomenon that occurs when you read a novel or watch a movie -- you know it's just a story, but you grant some artistic license to the author or filmmaker so you can enjoy the entertainment value of the work. You can suspend disbelief because the story sufficiently mimics reality to make the story credible. Religion goes a step farther: it asks us to suspend our judgment based on our knowledge of the real world in favor of utterances by church authorities who proclaim themselves more able than the rest of us to interpret the Bible and other scripture, as if these documents had any credibility beyond being the recorded thoughts of men themselves.

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1

If Jesus had something of value to say to us, well, he was educated in the temple, so says the Bible, so why didn't he see fit to write it down himself for all posterity, if his teachings were so important? Being God, if he was such, he would have recognized the human propensity to change minor details of a story as it is handed down from one person to the next until the story becomes unrecognizable. So why would Jesus not have written his words for us himself, rather than entrusting such great eternal truths to the apostles who were subject to the same human propensities of misinterpretation and storyline modification?

Because it's about a RELATIONSHIP. Jesus came to make it possible for us to have a relationship with God. He came to show us how to live...he didn't just tell us.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

First, geekgrrl, I just want to say you have some powerful and challenging questions!

Did you address my post about the Eucharist? I might have missed it; if you enjoy 'powerful and challenging questions'

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

That doesn't answer the challenge because Jesus is still insisting on belief.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Did you address my post about the Eucharist? I might have missed it; if you enjoy 'powerful and challenging questions'

Not yet. The posts tend to pile up on me over the weekends.

You said that Jesus was comparing himself to the manna from heaven in the passage from John...which I agree with as far as he also compared himself to a gate and a vine. Nobody ever says he literally is a gate and a vine. It is clearly metaphorical.

As for the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples were eating the Passover Meal. By that point in history, the matzah (unleavened bread) had become a symbolic substitute for the lamb because of the diaspora (Lambs can only be sacrificed at the Temple, so for Jews who were not near enough to Jerusalem to make the trip, the matzah became the lamb. Even Jews who could have lamb would know this). Since yeast symbolized sin, the unleavened bread symbolized sinlessness. So when he said, "This is my body" he was saying, "I am the sinless Paschal lamb." You hear the emphasis on the word "body." I hear it on the word "my."

If you take into consideration (as I believe I learned from you) the first generation of Early Church Fathers were completely gentile. So they wouldn't have the knowledge of Jewish culture and the symbolism of the feasts. It would be understandable if they mistook Jesus' statement as literally meaning his body.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

That doesn't answer the challenge because Jesus is still insisting on belief.

There is a point when skepticism must yield to faith, and Thomas's came quickly. I understood the question as "Does Jesus understand when people don't believe right away?" I think this story shows Jesus willingness to meet more than halfway the heart that searches for him. But in the end we must believe or walk away.

 

[Rev.]

But what if I'm not a heinous criminal, just an ordinary, everyday person (which is, in fact, exactly what I am)? Am I still compelled to make changes in my life, as you suggest? I'm human, I make mistakes, and occasionally I get angry and do or say things I shouldn't, but, like most people, I mean well and I try to "work hard and play by the rules". I mean no one ill, wish no one harm, and would try to help someone in need if it were a personal appeal and not a mass mailing. Does this sound pretty much like an average person? I like to think so. So, if I suddenly blurt out this faith in Jesus, what changes would I need to make in my life to guarantee myself a place in heaven? Or didn't my acceptance of Jesus automatically guarantee that for me?

I get so stuck on that word "compelled." No, we are not compelled. No dictator Saviour saying "You must do this, you must do that." Just "Follow me."

But the journey changes you. As you seek a relationship with him, you want to become more like him. There is no need for the Law because the Holy Spirit writes his law on your heart. You no longer need a list of rules to live by. If you actively listen with your heart, the Holy Spirit will guide you in what is right and wrong. The trick at this point is to be obedient because disobedience silences the voice...kinda like turning up the car radio so you can't hear that annoying sound the car engine is making as you drive along. The more you obey, the louder the voice becomes and the easier obeying becomes next time.

I'm not talking about scitzophrenia or anything It's more like "intinct" and "conscience" all rolled into one. But sometimes that vocie will tell you to do something you wouldn't ordinarily do. Say for example you are on your way home and you are suddenly compelled to stop at the store for bread. It's crazy cause you know you already have bread. But you can't get that thought out of your mind. So, fine, you stop and by the bread. When you get home, your elderly neighbor calls and asks for bread because her daughter is on vacation and can't run errands for her. After the fact, you can see (with eyes of faith) that the Holy Spirit directed you to stop for bread and you can now hear that "difference" in the voice against those other internal voices that say things like "My kingdom for a piece of chocolate!"

Of course, now you must think I'm a mad woman. It's better felt than telt (told).

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Not yet. The posts tend to pile up on me over the weekends.

I have had a long weekend, Queens Birthday holiday (unique for Australians because it's not actually her birthday).

You said that Jesus was comparing himself to the manna from heaven in the passage from John...which I agree with as far as he also compared himself to a gate and a vine. Nobody ever says he literally is a gate and a vine. It is clearly metaphorical.

I agree to these instances 'gate' etc, being metaphors. Your problem (as I see it) is to counter the instances from Paul and others that I have cited that state in the instance of the 'bread' it is NOT metaphorical. It comes up so many times. And St. Paul says it is not a communal meal (I think I may have said combative, and even in one instance combative such is my poor use of spell-checking).

As for the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples were eating the Passover Meal. By that point in history, the matzah (unleavened bread) had become a symbolic substitute for the lamb because of the Diaspora (Lambs can only be sacrificed at the Temple, so for Jews who were not near enough to Jerusalem to make the trip, the matzah became the lamb. Even Jews who could have lamb would know this). Since yeast symbolized sin, the unleavened bread symbolized sinlessness. So when he said, "This is my body" he was saying, "I am the sinless Paschal lamb." You hear the emphasis on the word "body." I hear it on the word "my."

I hear it on 'my' too. It is Him saying it is His. I don't disagree with the fact that Jesus was a Jew who practiced Jewish practices. He was also instigating a new covenant, and thus we are not Jews. It was in fact the cusp; the last Passover, the first Eucharist. It is why St. Paul said that it was no just a combative meal, any more. His whole being, and life were a transition from the Old to the New covenant. He would not have eaten pork, but we have no proscription against that.

If you take into consideration (as I believe I learned from you) the first generation of Early Church Fathers were completely gentile. So they wouldn't have the knowledge of Jewish culture and the symbolism of the feasts. It would be understandable if they mistook Jesus' statement as literally meaning his body.

This is not an appeal to credulity, but I am shocked.

Firstly, the Early Church Fathers weren't completely gentile. Second this is a very sad statement to make.

The first generation of Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius were taught by the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a Jew and he was taught by the Apostles too.

Your statement is an attempt to undermine everything from after the Apostles as being tarred with error. We can now, according to you suspect everything the said and wrote (even though I cited epistles that pre-date the Bible; so somehow they believed that the "Body" was real, but slipped by presenting a Bible that (according to you) suggests the opposite). This is a terribly slippery slope you have now gone upon. Somehow, you must reckon, the Apostle's teaching was lost until Martin Luther miraculously was able to discern the 'truth'. You must have a very low opinion of both the Apostles ability to teach and their choice's ability to learn.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

There is a point when skepticism must yield to faith, and Thomas's came quickly. I understood the question as "Does Jesus understand when people don't believe right away?" I think this story shows Jesus willingness to meet more than halfway the heart that searches for him. But in the end we must believe or walk away.

The reference to Thomas was diretly posted in response to the following challenge.

"Show me where Jesus says that it's okay not to believe in him because of natural human skepticism."

Thomas is not an 'instance' of Jesus saying it's okay for people not to believe in Him. It's an instance of Jesus rebuking Thomse for believing only upon seeing.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Firstly, the Early Church Fathers weren't completely gentile. Second this is a very sad statement to make.

The first generation of Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius were taught by the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a Jew and he was taught by the Apostles too.

Your statement is an attempt to undermine everything from after the Apostles as being tarred with error. We can now, according to you suspect everything the said and wrote (even though I cited epistles that pre-date the Bible; so somehow they believed that the "Body" was real, but slipped by presenting a Bible that (according to you) suggests the opposite). This is a terribly slippery slope you have now gone upon. Somehow, you must reckon, the Apostle's teaching was lost until Martin Luther miraculously was able to discern the 'truth'. You must have a very low opinion of both the Apostles ability to teach and their choice's ability to learn.

I am very sorry about this. I meant no insult to the early Church Fathers.

I think that early Church doctrine developed very much like this message board. Geekgrrl asks a question, you respond to her, I respond to you, she responds to you...and we develop our thoughts based primarily on what needs to be said about this central subject. But every once in a while, someone new comes in and reads something one of us wrote pages ago and has a new insight on that. That's what I think happened with Luther. The Early Church was up to it's eyeballs in Judiazers and Gnotics and paganism and persecution...doctrine was being developed to help them respond to what they were dealing with at the time.

"By grace are you saved through faith..." was in the Bible the whole time. A nugget that later Luther was able to pick up on because it was relevant to his experience of a works-based religion that was turning into abuse of the faithful. Luther invented nothing...it was a seed that didn't need to grow in order to deal with people who were trying to teach that Christ wasn't really crucified.

And perhaps it is that the doctrinal "thread" you come from understood the bread to be literally his body, but the doctrinal thread I come from went back and started from a different point so understands things in a different way. If that is true, there may be no way to resolve our difference on this matter.

So then the question becomes, is transubstantiation orthodoxy or heresy...and based on what evidence? (My follow up question would be "Does it matter?")

 

[Montalban]

Re: Faith without works is dead.

I am very sorry about this. I meant no insult to the early Church Fathers.

Firstly I am not personally insulted. I do lean towards incredulity. As I stated your logic would have it that the Early Church – which didn’t have a Bible for 300 years, maintained all sorts of errors and then remarkably managed to fashion a Bible together that contradicted all these errors that they’d developed.

That's what I think happened with Luther.

Sure, and that’s the point of contention in this thread.
Jesus often talked in things that seemed metaphorical:
John 3:3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
Note here that Nicodemus took Jesus’ words as a literal physical birth. What did Jesus do? He clarified His words for the sake of Nicodemus, to state that we must be born again, through the spirit. Thus Jesus also says “I am the bread of life”
In John 6: 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Note again the Jews took Him to mean a literal eating of His flesh, verse 52. Jesus confirms this interpretation. He says in truth. He says (55) “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”

Jesus goes to great lengths here to confirm that it is a real meal. St. Paul confirmed this by stating that the Eucharist is not a communal get together to eat and be merry.

"By grace are you saved through faith..." was in the Bible the whole time. A nugget that later Luther was able to pick up on because it was relevant to his experience of a works-based religion that was turning into abuse of the faithful. Luther invented nothing...it was a seed that didn't need to grow in order to deal with people who were trying to teach that Christ wasn't really crucified.

I have already dealt with this. Even Catholics believe we are saved through Grace. There is no contention that grace leads to salvation. The contention is that Luther invented the ‘faith alone’ mantra.

And perhaps it is that the doctrinal "thread" you come from understood the bread to be literally his body, but the doctrinal thread I come from went back and started from a different point so understands things in a different way. If that is true, there may be no way to resolve our difference on this matter.

Indeed the Bible verses can be interpreted often in many different ways; another proof that undermines another Lutheran invention; sola scriptura. That is why I endeavoured not just to give Biblical quotes but extra-biblical sources; including from pagans (through a secondary source) who recognised that the Eucharist was a partaking of the real body and blood of Christ; to which you interject a very novel, and really dangerous doctrine; that they were all in error. Which leads me to ask how do you accept the Bible; seeing as it was drawn from a number of sources (just some of which can be found at www.earlychristianwritings.com) by that very church. Somehow they were able to pull together out of these books a Bible that they themselves agreed with (their agreement was the measure of what would be accepted), and yet they produced something, which according to you is both an authority, and puts them in error.
This is a problem, as I see it, for you; as the Bible didn’t fall out of heaven fully formed.

So then the question becomes, is transubstantiation orthodoxy or heresy...and based on what evidence? (My follow up question would be "Does it matter?")

If Jesus commands you to do something… I would say that does matter.

The Early Church was up to it's eyeballs in Judiazers and Gnotics and paganism and persecution...doctrine was being developed to help them respond to what they were dealing with at the time.

And how did they discern the truth; considering that you feel that they were fallen. This seems to me to only add to your problems.

 

[Montalban]

Summary

There is no denial that 'the Last Supper' was held at Passover. Passover was a commeration of the actual sacrifice of the lambs so that the spirit of the Lord passed-over the Jews in Egypt.

However it is not a mere Passover meal. Jesus says at the beginning of the new covenant. And like the Jews practiced of the Passover 'covenant' it is to be repeated.
Mat 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them
Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

As the first Passover was a real sacrifice of the lamb, and as Jesus is the Lamb of God, this first convenant is to be a real sacrifice. However it is not a one-off event to be later commerated by simple meal gatherings.

It could be a 'metaphorical' expression excepting in In John 6: 50ff He insists the actual literalness of it.
John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

He repeats this a number of times througout the passage. He also tells us to take of His body and blood and do so in memory of Him; that is, to continue to take on His body and blood. We know this because in St. Paul repeats Jesus' command and then tells people partaking of this meal to realise the real body of Christ. He says it's not just a communal meal, which they did also practice. He is differentiating it from that stated here...
Acts 2

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.


St. Paul says that the Eucharist is NOT such a meal.
1 Cor 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?

He is saying that when the believers come together normally to eat together it is NOT the same as the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is different.
1 Cor11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

He is saying that partaking of this bread and cup in sin is to sin against the flesh and blood of the Lord BECAUSE it is the flesh and blood of the Lord as proclaimed by Jesus (John 6:55)

St. Ignatius of Antioch(1/2) repeats this, and it is continually repeated by the Church Fathers; St. Justin Martyr (3), Tertullian(4) and so on; all BEFORE the Bible was compiled.
(1) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

(2) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 20:2

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

(3) Justin Martyr, First Apology "CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

(4) Tertullian "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" CHAP. VIII

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html





Rev made a very weak statement about the first generation of Holy Fathers were ignorant of the Jewish ways. St. Igantius came from Antioch. Antioch had a strong Jewish population.

 

[cavehunter]

These are the basic beliefs of the LDS church. The church I belong to.

1 WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own• sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind• may be saved•, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith• in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called• of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach• the Gospel and administer in the ordinances• thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation• of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word• of God as far as it is translated correctly•; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal• many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering• of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion• (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign• personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal• glory.

11 We claim the privilege• of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship• how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject• to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law•.

13 We• believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

A man must have faith in Christ. He must ask for repentence of our sins. Christ payed for them but if we do not repent it is like slapping him in the face saying that we don't care. Christ gave us the ability to repent. If a man tried to repent without the Atonement occurring there would be nobody to pay for the sins.

There are two forms of sin. One is where we do what we shouldn't such as stealing, murdering, or fornicating. The other form of sin is where we don't do what we should such as serving others, tying the knot and having kids, and doing whatever God needs us for.

 

[Montalban]

These are the basic beliefs of the LDS church. The church I belong to.

1 WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Is Jesus the same as God – as in a Trinity with God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own• sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

We believe this too, that we term “Original Guilt” rather than “Original Sin”.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

But not succession from them

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation• of tongues, and so forth.

Speaking in tongues is a gift that, when seen in a Biblical light is far from many modern manifestations. I don’t know how you have it, but for Pentecostals, they believe that the seemingly gibberish is Divine. This goes against the example from Acts where-in everyone understood what was said.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word• of God as far as it is translated correctly•; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So why have a Book of Mormon?

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal• many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Why is God continually giving revelations? Wasn’t Jesus a good enough teacher?

10 We believe in the literal gathering• of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion• (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign• personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal• glory.

This American idea is based on what?

11 We claim the privilege• of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship• how, where, or what they may.

And yet St. Paul spoke out against this; he continually wrote to churches to call them into line.

12 We believe in being subject• to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law•.

What if the law is unjust?

A man must have faith in Christ. He must ask for repentence of our sins. Christ payed for them but if we do not repent it is like slapping him in the face saying that we don't care. Christ gave us the ability to repent. If a man tried to repent without the Atonement occurring there would be nobody to pay for the sins.

How did Christ ‘pay’ for our sins?

 

[Rev.]

On a literal interpretation of John 6:52-59

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. John 6:52-59

In order to understand Jesus to literally mean we eat his flesh, there are several points we have to ignore:

1) Jesus use of allegory throughout his teachings. We have said this before and discussed it and agreed that Jesus does indeed teach through allegory. But it is significant to note that Jesus used allegory throughout chapter 6 before this particular passage. What would cause him to change from an allegorical treatment of himself as bread (saying that he was the living bread come down from heaven) to a literal treatment of himself as bread?

2) The use of the Greek.

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" v. 52.

The word "his" does not appear in the Greek text. They were not understanding that Jesus wanted them to eat him as you claim.

54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Where the text is bolded, those words are translated from the Greek word trogos which means "To gnaw, to chew, to munch." This is a different word than the one used to describe the Israelites eating the manna, or even eating the Living Bread. That makes its use significant.

There are two points about the use of this word--one is that the definition emphasizes the sound one makes in eating. It seems to be more about the enthusiasm with which one eats rather than eating itself. Secondly is the tense of the verb--a continuous action. So Jesus wants us to chew him enthusiastically like Bubble gum? A literal interpertation of these verses would require us to understand it this way.

3) Understanding these verses literally causes difficulty in proper understanding of other verses.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. (John 6:58 )

We should then understand this to mean that literally eating the flesh of Jesus should cause us to literally live forever...but we keep having funerals.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63 )

If the flesh counts for nothing, why do we have to eat Jesus?

A note on this verse:

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink v.55

This addresses the later (gnostic) teaching that Jesus didn't actually come in the flesh, that his suffering on the cross didn't actually happen and that his resurrection wasn't real. He did come as real flesh and blood and he did die and rose again.

 

[Quertol]

What is really sad is John 6:66

Many departed from Christ and walked with Him no longer...

 

[Montalban]

Re: On a literal interpretation of John 6:52-59

In order to understand Jesus to literally mean we eat his flesh, there are several points we have to ignore:

1) Jesus use of allegory throughout his teachings. We have said this before and discussed it and agreed that Jesus does indeed teach through allegory. But it is significant to note that Jesus used allegory throughout chapter 6 before this particular passage. What would cause him to change from an allegorical treatment of himself as bread (saying that he was the living bread come down from heaven) to a literal treatment of himself as bread?

It is not ignoring it Rev. It is why Jesus DID state it is really His flesh. He re-emphasises it to make it know that this really is the case.
He says it explicitly
"For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." He is thus giving you a signal that we can’t look at this as allegory. What other way do you think He means it when he is saying in effect “This really truly is this…” ?

2) The use of the Greek.
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" v. 52.
The word "his" does not appear in the Greek text. They were not understanding that Jesus wanted them to eat him as you claim.

Where does your word ‘his’ come from? It is the English translation of the Greek, for scholars understand that it refers to Jesus’ flesh because Jesus said “Truly you must do this”.

54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Where the text is bolded, those words are translated from the Greek word trogos which means "To gnaw, to chew, to munch." This is a different word than the one used to describe the Israelites eating the manna, or even eating the Living Bread. That makes its use significant.

There are two points about the use of this word--one is that the definition emphasizes the sound one makes in eating. It seems to be more about the enthusiasm with which one eats rather than eating itself. Secondly is the tense of the verb--a continuous action. So Jesus wants us to chew him enthusiastically like Bubble gum? A literal interpertation of these verses would require us to understand it this way.

You are mostly correct. A literal interpretation of eat and chew does cause us to take it literally! Jesus is saying you must eat/chew/take Him into us. He is saying it really is food. You use a slight trick (sorry!) to evoke a different image; bubble gum, which we spit out; however it too is chewed. You have made no point other to re-emphasise that Jesus is asking us to take Him into us.
My understanding is that the word is trogein
“If we look at the Greek, the word phagein is used in verses 51,and 53, which means, "to eat". In verses 54, 56, and 58, the word trogein is use, which means, "to chew". These two word would only be used in reference to actual food. When Jesus said these things, he was addressing the same crowd that he had fed with five barley loaves and two fish the day before, about five thousand (John 6:10).”
http://grigaitis.net/?media=screen&submenus=off&doc=articles/cocansw/rites.html
And this is the point you’ve missed, regardless of wether we masticate, chew, gnaw, eat, bite etc, we are still taking Him into us, which is what He is asking us to do. That is, why He said that His flesh is real food.

3) Understanding these verses literally causes difficulty in proper understanding of other verses.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. (John 6:58 )

We should then understand this to mean that literally eating the flesh of Jesus should cause us to literally live forever...but we keep having funerals.

This is false. The death that is physical death is just an end to the body, but not the spirit, which has also it’s own spiritual birth; baptism, and does not die at the time the body dies. We do live forever in Christ.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63 )
If the flesh counts for nothing, why do we have to eat Jesus?

This is a verse from a different ‘lesson’. He is now talking about His spirit ascending into heaven which is the truth of what will happen.

A note on this verse:
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink v.55
This addresses the later (gnostic) teaching that Jesus didn't actually come in the flesh, that his suffering on the cross didn't actually happen and that his resurrection wasn't real. He did come as real flesh and blood and he did die and rose again.

I don’t understand your point. It does seem to me that when Jesus is saying something is really something, you disagree.

It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaias 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally. This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections.
http://www.holy-mass.com/real_presence.htm

In summary, Jesus is specifically asked are we to really eat His flesh and blood, and He says yes, it really is food and drink. He uses the words ‘chew’ in conjunction with ‘eat’ which you recognise. Strangely you seem to think that they are somehow very different acts. Thus you mistakingly re-emphasise the nature of taking Him into us – although you compare it to ‘bubble-gum’ which was unknown to them, so the imagery is slightly faulty – but it does give your readers a false image of ‘spitting it out’ at the end which is totally missing from the passage. It is in fact used in conjuction with the words ‘to eat’ within the same passages, thus undermining a hope-for re-interpretation.

Jesus emphasises this act AFTER some ask Him are they to truly do this. He says yes, He is really to be consumed. Aside from you interpreting Jesus’ own words telling you it really is food and drink, you’ve also ignored the other evidence I cited from the early church that continues on with that understanding… you did ‘write-off’ them with a unproven and sweeping statement.

 

[Montalban]

Re: On a literal interpretation of John 6:52-59

A better way to put this is...
The clue to how to interpret this is the interaction of the actors.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

The Jews hear Jesus words and ask Him are they to really eat Him? In other words “Is this true, or is it another allegory?”

And what does Jesus say?
I tell you it really is true. It is not an allegory. You must really eat me because my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Despite Jesus telling people that this is not an allegory, and that it really is true, you interpret as allegory. In doing so you introduce an attempt to deflect it, by looking at the word ‘chew’ instead of ‘eat’ (even though they’re used in conjunction). Somehow even the fact that Jesus is asking us to chew Him doesn’t seem to register.

 

[Quertol]

You are wronfd upon your interpretation... When Jesus is saying that his followers must "Eat His flesh" he is telling them that they must partake in what is was going to happen to Him. In essence that they would have to endure the same persecution... That is what this scripture is talking about. It goes on to say that a lot of His followers no longer followed Him because of this. They liked the whole blessings of Christ, but were unwilling to go through the trials and persecution...

 

[cavehunter]

Is Jesus the same as God – as in a Trinity with God the Father and the Holy Spirit?


We believe this too, that we term “Original Guilt” rather than “Original Sin”.

But not succession from them

Speaking in tongues is a gift that, when seen in a Biblical light is far from many modern manifestations. I don’t know how you have it, but for Pentecostals, they believe that the seemingly gibberish is Divine. This goes against the example from Acts where-in everyone understood what was said.

So why have a Book of Mormon?

Why is God continually giving revelations? Wasn’t Jesus a good enough teacher?

This American idea is based on what?

And yet St. Paul spoke out against this; he continually wrote to churches to call them into line.

What if the law is unjust?

How did Christ ‘pay’ for our sins?

So why have a Book of Mormon? Interesting question considering how the Old Testament was written before the New Testament. So why don't you ask,"Why have the New Testament we already have the Old."

You ask, "This American idea is based on what?"

What you fail to realize is that the highest concentrations of Jews are first in Israel then the U.S. The fact that this is not made up. This is revelation. So you should ask if it is revelation not why was it made up.