Do We Believe in "Three Gods" as the Rabbis Claim?!

[Johann]

They're Platonic as far as considering matter (water, bread) as a non-player in our salvation is concerned. That's why they tend to dismiss baptism's importance. Also, they are Nestorian in that they do not believe matter and Spirit can be combined as in the Burning Bush or as in Christ's clothing during his Transfiguration. That's why they dismiss the Eucharist as just a symbol.

Sounds something like--

GNOSTICISM (from Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge," cf. I Tim. 6:20)

I. The setting of the first century

The Roman world of the first century was a time of eclecticism between the Eastern and Western religions. The gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons were in ill repute. The Mystery religions were very popular because of their emphasis on personal relationship with the deity and secret knowledge. Secular Greek philosophy was popular and was merging with other worldviews. Into this world of eclectic religion came the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (Jesus is the only way to God, cf. John 14:6). Whatever the exact background of the heresy, it was an attempt to make the exclusivism of Christianity (i.e., John 14:6; 1 John 5:12) plausible and intellectually acceptable to a wider Greek-Roman audience. It is possible that Gnostic thought originated in fringe Jewish sects (i.e., one example: DSS Sect). This may explain some of the Jewish elements of NT books related to Gnosticism.



II. Some of the basic tenets of the heresy by internal evidence from 1 John.

A. a denial of the incarnation of Jesus Christ

B. a denial of the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation

C. a lack of an appropriate Christian lifestyle

D. an emphasis on knowledge (often secret)

E. a tendency toward exclusivism and elitism



III. Incipient Gnosticism of the first century

A. The basic teachings of Incipient Gnosticism of the first century seem to have been an emphasis on the ontological (eternal) dualism between spirit and matter. Spirit (high god) was considered good, while matter was inherently evil. This dichotomy resembles

1. Platonism’s ideal versus physical

2. heavenly versus earthly

3. invisible versus visible There was also an overemphasis on the importance of secret knowledge (passwords or secret codes which allow a soul to pass through the angelic spheres [aeons] up to the high god) necessary for salvation.

4. possibly an influence from Zoroastrianism

B. There are two forms of Incipient Gnosticism which apparently could be in the background of 1 John

1. Docetic Gnosticism, which denies the true humanity of Jesus because matter is evil

2. Cerinthian Gnosticism, which identifies the Christ with one of many aeons or angelic levels between the good high god and evil matter. This "Christ Spirit" indwelt the man Jesus at his baptism and left him before his crucifixion.

3. of these two groups some practiced asceticism (if the body wants it, it is evil), the other antinomianism (if the body wants it, do it)

C. There is no written evidence of a developed system of Gnosticism in the first century. It is not until the middle of the second century that documented evidence existed (see Nag Hammadi Texts). For further information about "Gnosticism" see

1. The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas, published by Beacon Press

2. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, published by Random House

3. The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible by Andrew Helmbold



IV. The Heresy Today

A. The spirit of t
his heresy is present with us today when people try to combine Christian truth with other systems of thought.

B. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when people emphasize "correct" doctrine to the exclusion of personal relationship and lifestyle faith.

C. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when people turn Christianity into an exclusive intellectual eliteness.

D. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when religious people turn to asceticism or antinomianism as the best way to find favor with God.

J.

 

[synergy]

Sounds something like--

GNOSTICISM (from Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge," cf. I Tim. 6:20)

I. The setting of the first century

The Roman world of the first century was a time of eclecticism between the Eastern and Western religions. The gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons were in ill repute. The Mystery religions were very popular because of their emphasis on personal relationship with the deity and secret knowledge. Secular Greek philosophy was popular and was merging with other worldviews. Into this world of eclectic religion came the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (Jesus is the only way to God, cf. John 14:6). Whatever the exact background of the heresy, it was an attempt to make the exclusivism of Christianity (i.e., John 14:6; 1 John 5:12) plausible and intellectually acceptable to a wider Greek-Roman audience. It is possible that Gnostic thought originated in fringe Jewish sects (i.e., one example: DSS Sect). This may explain some of the Jewish elements of NT books related to Gnosticism.



II. Some of the basic tenets of the heresy by internal evidence from 1 John.

A. a denial of the incarnation of Jesus Christ

B. a denial of the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation

C. a lack of an appropriate Christian lifestyle

D. an emphasis on knowledge (often secret)

E. a tendency toward exclusivism and elitism



III. Incipient Gnosticism of the first century

A. The basic teachings of Incipient Gnosticism of the first century seem to have been an emphasis on the ontological (eternal) dualism between spirit and matter. Spirit (high god) was considered good, while matter was inherently evil. This dichotomy resembles

1. Platonism’s ideal versus physical

2. heavenly versus earthly

3. invisible versus visible There was also an overemphasis on the importance of secret knowledge (passwords or secret codes which allow a soul to pass through the angelic spheres [aeons] up to the high god) necessary for salvation.

4. possibly an influence from Zoroastrianism

B. There are two forms of Incipient Gnosticism which apparently could be in the background of 1 John

1. Docetic Gnosticism, which denies the true humanity of Jesus because matter is evil

2. Cerinthian Gnosticism, which identifies the Christ with one of many aeons or angelic levels between the good high god and evil matter. This "Christ Spirit" indwelt the man Jesus at his baptism and left him before his crucifixion.

3. of these two groups some practiced asceticism (if the body wants it, it is evil), the other antinomianism (if the body wants it, do it)

C. There is no written evidence of a developed system of Gnosticism in the first century. It is not until the middle of the second century that documented evidence existed (see Nag Hammadi Texts). For further information about "Gnosticism" see

1. The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas, published by Beacon Press

2. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, published by Random House

3. The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible by Andrew Helmbold



IV. The Heresy Today

A. The spirit of t
his heresy is present with us today when people try to combine Christian truth with other systems of thought.

B. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when people emphasize "correct" doctrine to the exclusion of personal relationship and lifestyle faith.

C. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when people turn Christianity into an exclusive intellectual eliteness.

D. The spirit of this heresy is present with us today when religious people turn to asceticism or antinomianism as the best way to find favor with God.

J.

Although dualism is noted in what you wrote, it does not single out what dualism has infected the most: the sacraments (aka: mysteries of the NT). Not that they are "mysteries" like Sherlock Holmes mysteries. They are sacraments within which matter and Spirit are combined. That's why the term Nestorianism is a more exact view of what Protestants believe about sacraments.

 

[Johann]

Although dualism is noted in what you wrote, it does not single out what dualism has infected the most: the sacraments (aka: mysteries of the NT). Not that they are "mysteries" like Sherlock Holmes mysteries. They are sacraments within which matter and Spirit are combined. That's why the term Nestorianism is a more exact view of what Protestants believe about sacraments.

Explain what you mean by "sacraments" and the "Eucharist" just so there is no misunderstanding from my side. My first thought is RCC-no offense.
J.

 

[synergy]

Explain what you mean by "sacraments" and the "Eucharist" just so there is no misunderstanding from my side. My first thought is RCC-no offense.
J.

Here is a video that goes through Christ's declarations as recorded in John 6 including His real presence in the Eucharist. It is lengthy but Jay ties many topics together in a "united way".

Deified Flesh: The Real Presence of Christ & the Eucharist - John 6 & More - Jay Dyer (Half)

We continue our next lecture on the Gospel of John in the controversial chapter of Jesus' proclamation that salvation is directly connected to the partaking ...

www.youtube.com

 

[e v e]

What a pity-ever heard of Messianics?

there are genuine souls
on this earth who do listen to Him... I did not refer to them....
as they are souls from God...
but I was not referring to them.

I referred to a situation...
of the other type of souls, in enmity to Him....
and its teachers and scribes and false preachers and rabbis
...and within this group there are certainly 'messianics'
faking love of God...

judaism and its rabbis reject christ...
their 'land' is but an earthly land and not His Land.

 

[Johann]

Here is a video that goes through Christ's declarations as recorded in John 6 including His real presence in the Eucharist. It is lengthy but Jay ties many topics together in a "united way".

Deified Flesh: The Real Presence of Christ & the Eucharist - John 6 & More - Jay Dyer (Half)

We continue our next lecture on the Gospel of John in the controversial chapter of Jesus' proclamation that salvation is directly connected to the partaking ...

www.youtube.com

@synergy I was going to answer you-from notes-but I don't hold to the real presence of the Divinity of Christ-transmutation-in the Eucharist.
I am doing my work and have noticed Jay has been refuted many times on YouTube.
If this makes me a spiritual ignoramus with a anathema against me from the Church fathers, well, I am known by our Father-where two or three are gathered in My Name---

Besides-I am not qualified to speak for the Church fathers and how they interpreted the Scriptures-I follow the Scriptures and find Utley priceless in helping me to understand the beauty in Christ Jesus-His chesed to me and to all who would listen and study the Scriptures for themselves.

Guess this will be a huge disappointment to you but I am still being "unleavened" from Calvin and TULIP.

All good?
Johann.
The video is a refutation from Protestants to Jay-and there are many more.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

DO WE BELIEVE IN "THREE GODS" AS THE RABBIS CLAIM?!

A better question is: why would anybody listen to, or take seriously ANYTHING that a Jewish "Rabbi" says????

They dropped the ball 2000 years ago (more than that actually), and remain IGNORANT of GOD, even though they were given the FIRST CHANCE at knowing Him.

 

[synergy]

@synergy I was going to answer you-from notes-but I don't hold to the real presence of the Divinity of Christ-transmutation-in the Eucharist.
I am doing my work and have noticed Jay has been refuted many times on YouTube.
If this makes me a spiritual ignoramus with a anathema against me from the Church fathers, well, I am known by our Father-where two or three are gathered in My Name---

Besides-I am not qualified to speak for the Church fathers and how they interpreted the Scriptures-I follow the Scriptures and find Utley priceless in helping me to understand the beauty in Christ Jesus-His chesed to me and to all who would listen and study the Scriptures for themselves.

Guess this will be a huge disappointment to you but I am still being "unleavened" from Calvin and TULIP.

All good?
Johann.
The video is a refutation from Protestants to Jay-and there are many more.

Looks like that is a Calvinist podcast. I have my share of Calvinist haters that have called me very colorful insulting names. I started watching the video and after 10 minutes I got tired of their inability to focus on what exactly they don't like about Jay. These people need to focus.

 

[Johann]

Looks like that is a Calvinist podcast. I have my share of Calvinist haters that have called me very colorful insulting names. I started watching the video and after 10 minutes I got tired of their inability to focus on what exactly they don't like about Jay. These people need to focus.

Friend-the "eternal offering" in the Eucharist is a caricature-Christ offered Himself ONCE-Aorist-and once for all.
So it is fine with you that Jay-sitting there with smug look and condemn every Protestant and Catholic with an anathema from the "Church fathers?"
These people on the podcast need to focus-focus on what the Church fathers wrote or focus on Jesus and the Scriptures?


1Co 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, and not with meat: for ye were not as yet strong enough, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet fleshy: for whereas there is among you jealousy, and wrangling,..., are ye not men, and walk according to a man ?
1Co 3:4 For whenever one saith, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos ; are ye not men ?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but servants through whom ye believed, even as the Lord appointed to each one ?
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God That was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one thing: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
John 6:54
He that eateth (ho trōgōn). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like pisteuete in Joh_6:29. The verb trōgō is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56, Joh_6:58; Joh_13:18; Mat_24:38. Elsewhere in the Gospels always esthiō or ephagon (defective verb with esthiō). No distinction is made here between ephagon (Joh_6:48, Joh_6:50, Joh_6:52, Joh_6:53, Joh_6:58) and trōgō (Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56, Joh_6:57, Joh_6:58).

Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord’s Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life.

To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood.

Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (Joh_6:51). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.
RWS

Except ye eat the flesh ... - He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this?

There he stood, a living man - his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk?

Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.

The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper.

That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.

The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
Joh_6:55
Is meat indeed - Is truly food. My doctrine is truly that which will give life to the soul.
Alford.

We must not expect Christ's personal presence with us in this world; for the heavens, which received him out of the sight of the disciples, must retain him till the end of time. To that seat of the blessed his bodily presence is confined, and will be to the end of time, the accomplishment of all things (so it may be read); and therefore those dishonour him, and deceive themselves, who dream of his corporal presence in the eucharist.

Praise God for sane Scholars!
J.

 

[Frank Russell]

seems to refer to the Oral Tradition of the Jews

Thus Rabbi's teaching things such as Christians believing in three Gods is a continuation of the same oral tradition.

 

[Johann]

...and within this group there are certainly 'messianics'
faking love of God...

And vice versa-certain Christians "faking" their profession-yes?
Johann.

 

[Johann]

Thus Rabbi's teaching things such as Christians believing in three Gods is a continuation of the same oral tradition.

Oh, I am all for believing in the Triune God-just read John 6. Or 1-6.
J.
Now that we have a basic understanding of Hebrew adjectives and numbers, let's take a closer look at the Biblical Hebrew word for "one." In Genesis 42:13 we find the phrase "one man," which in Hebrew is איש אחד (iysh ehhad). The word iysh means "man" and the word ehhad means "one." But notice, the adjective ehhad does not precede the noun like other numbers; it instead follows it like all other adjectives but, it is clearly being used for the number "one," but it does not act like a number. Let's look at another example. In Genesis 27:44 is the phrase "few days," which in Hebrew is written as ימים אחדים (yamim ehhadiym) The word ימים (yamim) is the plural form of the noun יום (yom) meaning day. The word אחדים (ehhadiym) is the plural form of the word אחד (ehhad), which we previously found to mean "one." But notice that this word operates like all other adjectives and not as a number. It is plural because it is modifying a plural noun (unlike numbers) and it follows the noun it is modifying (unlike numbers). How can the word אחד (ehhad) be used as a number, but not as a number? If ehhad is not a real number meaning "one," is there a Hebrew word that does mean "one" and acts like a number? Yes, there is, but it is rarely used in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew for the number thirteen is שלוש עשרה (sh'losh es'rey), which literally translates as "three ten." The Hebrew for the number Eighteen is שמונה עשרה (sh'mo'neh es'rey), which literally translates as "eight ten." The number eleven is written two different ways in the Hebrew Bible. The first is אחד עשר (ahhad asar), which can literally be translated as "one ten." The second is עשתי עשרה (ash'tey as'rey). We already know that as'rey means "ten," but where did ash'tey, which clearly means "one," come from? An important side note is that the word ash'tey (meaning "one") is only used in the Bible when it is combined with the word as'rey (meaning "ten") to mean "eleven."

As languages evolve over time certain idiosyncrasies occur within that language. Let's take an example from the English language. Nouns are made plural by adding "s" to the end of the noun. Some examples are boys, girls, trees, pots, pans and of course there are many others. But some words do not follow this rule of grammar. For instance man becomes men, mouse become mice, and deer is used for both the singular and plural. Many idiosyncrasies occur in Hebrew as well. The usual plural suffix for masculine Hebrew words is iym, which can be found in words like beniym (the plural form of ben - sons), batiym (the plural form of beyt - houses) and hariym (the plural form of har – mountains). However, the word for face is paniym (a singular noun with a plural suffix). The Hebrew for a tree is eyts, but the plural form etsiym means wood.

The word ehhad is one of the idiosyncrasies of Hebrew and apparently, the original Hebrew word for "one" was ash'tey, but at some point in history, before the Bible was written, the word ash'tey was replaced with the word ehhad, except in some cases when it is attached to the word as'rey to mean "eleven." But if ash'tey was the original word meaning "one," and the original meaning of ehhad was a "unit," which is "one" part of the whole. We can also see this through some words that are closely related to ehhad. The verb יחד (Y.HH.D, Strong's #3161) means "to unite" or "to join together." From this verb comes the noun יחד (yahhad, Strong's #3162), meaning "together," and the noun יחיד (yahhiyd, Strong's #3173), meaning "solitary."

Now that we have a better understanding of the Hebrew word ehhad, let's go back and look at the phrase ימים אחדים (yamim ehhadiym) from Genesis 27:44. We already know that the word yamim meant "days," but now we know that ehhadiym is the adjective meaning a "unit." So we can translate this phrase as "a unit of days."

Genesis 11:1 is a very interesting passage in light of this discussion. The King James Version translates this verse as; And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. The phrase "one language" is שפה אחד (saphah ehhad). The word saphah literally means "lip," but is also used for "language." The word ehhad we know means "unit," but is also used for the number "one." So we can translate this as "one language." Also in this verse is the phrase דברים אחדים (devariym ehhadiym). The word devariym is a plural noun meaning "words" and the word ehhadiym is the adjective meaning "unit," and is written in the plural only because the word it is modifying is in the plural. So we can translate this phrase as "a unit of words."

The reason that I have gone into so much detail on the word ehhad is because of its appearance in two verses.

Hear O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is ehhad. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

...in that day Yahweh will be ehhad and his name is ehhad. (Zechariah 14:9)
What does it mean for Yahweh to be ehhad? Yahweh manifests himself in many different ways. He is the cloud that leads the Israelites through the wilderness providing them shade from the hot sun. He is also the fire that leads them providing them with light and heat at night. He is the destroyer and the savior. He is the prosecutor and the defender. Each attribute of Yahweh is a unit, and each unit manifests itself in different ways, but they all work together to form a "unity" in the same way that all the individual units of a bicycle work together in unity, allowing the bicycle to function properly. In Zechariah 14:9 it states that Yahweh's "name is ehhad." The Hebrew word for "name" is שם (shem, Strong's #8034), which has the more Hebraic meaning of "character." Yahweh's "character" is ehhad, meaning that Yahweh will always work in unity with himself. The next time someone asks you what God's name is, you can say, "His name is Ehhad!"

A History of the Hebrew Word for One | AHRC

The Biblical Hebrew word for

ancient-hebrew.org

Does this make any sense?

 

[Frank Russell]

Does this make any sense?

Veered off topic of what we were originally discussing, so it makes sense as a red herring.

 

[Johann]

Looks like that is a Calvinist podcast. I have my share of Calvinist haters that have called me very colorful insulting names. I started watching the video and after 10 minutes I got tired of their inability to focus on what exactly they don't like about Jay. These people need to focus.

video>

Why is the Catholic Eucharist Unbiblical? | Mike Gendron

youtu.be

Shalom
J.

 

[Johann]

Veered off topic of what we were originally discussing, so it makes sense as a red herring.

I am not here to "offer" red herring's-so let's continue.

 

[synergy]

Why is the Catholic Eucharist Unbiblical? | Mike Gendron

youtu.be

Shalom
J.

The people in the first video take us back to OT times, before the Cross and before Pentecost. If people want to view the Eucharist as a pre Cross and a pre Pentecost event then they are free to do so. I live in NT times wherein the Cross and Pentecost events now have their full spiritual effect on us.

I don't see the Eucharist in a Nestorian Protestant way nor do I see it in an Catholic Aristotle-philosophical way. I see it through the NT post-Cross and post-Pentecost Spiritual way.

 

[synergy]

Friend-the "eternal offering" in the Eucharist is a caricature-Christ offered Himself ONCE-Aorist-and once for all.
So it is fine with you that Jay-sitting there with smug look and condemn every Protestant and Catholic with an anathema from the "Church fathers?"
These people on the podcast need to focus-focus on what the Church fathers wrote or focus on Jesus and the Scriptures?

Can you innumerate whatever you think is un-Biblical from Jay?

1Co 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, and not with meat: for ye were not as yet strong enough, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet fleshy: for whereas there is among you jealousy, and wrangling,..., are ye not men, and walk according to a man ?
1Co 3:4 For whenever one saith, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos ; are ye not men ?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but servants through whom ye believed, even as the Lord appointed to each one ?
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God That was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one thing: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

So we should exempt your "sane scholars" RWS, Alford from this list of people not to follow?

John 6:54
He that eateth (ho trōgōn). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like pisteuete in Joh_6:29. The verb trōgō is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56, Joh_6:58; Joh_13:18; Mat_24:38. Elsewhere in the Gospels always esthiō or ephagon (defective verb with esthiō). No distinction is made here between ephagon (Joh_6:48, Joh_6:50, Joh_6:52, Joh_6:53, Joh_6:58) and trōgō (Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56, Joh_6:57, Joh_6:58).

Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord’s Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life.

To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood.

Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (Joh_6:51). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.
RWS

(John 6:53) Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.

Sounds like Christ connects eternal life to eating of the Lord's Supper.

Except ye eat the flesh ... - He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this?

There he stood, a living man - his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk?

Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.

Christ goes on to say the following in order to dispel cannibalism:

(John 6:63) It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.

The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper.

That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.

The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
Joh_6:55
Is meat indeed - Is truly food. My doctrine is truly that which will give life to the soul.
Alford.

We must not expect Christ's personal presence with us in this world; for the heavens, which received him out of the sight of the disciples, must retain him till the end of time. To that seat of the blessed his bodily presence is confined, and will be to the end of time, the accomplishment of all things (so it may be read); and therefore those dishonour him, and deceive themselves, who dream of his corporal presence in the eucharist.

Praise God for sane Scholars!
J.

Interesting how you dismiss everyone with 1 Cor 3:2-8 except for Alford and RWS.

 

[Johann]

Can you innumerate whatever you think is un-Biblical from Jay?

You haven't seen the rebuttals against Jay?

So we should include the names of people you quote (RWS, Alford) as people we should not follow.

Brother-I don't "follow" man-but the Lord Christ Jesus and A.T. Robertson gives a thorough refutation in the "divine, literal, perpetual offering of the Eucharist"
If you go on YouTube it is rife with my church debunks your church-if you don't believe as I do the deuterocanonical "curses" be up upon you-and the 7 anathemas! The Protestants against the Orthodox-the Orthodox against the Protestants.
And Jesus Christ lies "buried" under the writings of the Church fathers and Sages.
Something is wrong here-right?

(John 6:53) Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.

Sounds like Christ connects eternal life to eating of the Lord's Supper.

How do you eat the body of Christ in a LITERAL sense? Christ is no more here on planet earth-remember?

Interesting how you dismiss everyone with 1 Cor 3:2-8 except for Alford and RWS.

1Co 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, and not with meat: for ye were not as yet strong enough, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet fleshy: for whereas there is among you jealousy, and wrangling,..., are ye not men, and walk according to a man ?
1Co 3:4 For whenever one saith, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos ; are ye not men ?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but servants through whom ye believed, even as the Lord appointed to each one ?
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God That was causing it to grow.

I am not baptized eis/into Paul, Apollos, Calvin, Orthodoxy-but EIS the Messiah.

@civic just posted an excellent article-I suggest you read it brother.
J.

 

[Johann]

The people in the first video take us back to OT times, before the Cross and before Pentecost. If people want to view the Eucharist as a pre Cross and a pre Pentecost event then they are free to do so. I live in NT times wherein the Cross and Pentecost events now have their full spiritual effect on us.

I don't see the Eucharist in a Nestorian Protestant way nor do I see it in an Catholic Aristotle-philosophical way. I see it through the NT post-Cross and post-Pentecost Spiritual way.

Yet you hold the Eucharist is literal-again, my question is very simple-Christ ascended to heaven, and we are sealed with the Holy Spirit-is that not enough?
I'll refer you to the council in Jerusalem.
Shalom.
J.

 

[Johann]

imo we should not listen to the rabbis at all.


they did not listen, got cursed,

went into captivity,

and do not accept Christ.

Oh, I heartily disagree-there's many things we can learn and glean from rabbinical writings-just my honest opinion.
J.