Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[katiemygirl]

Since churches are made up of people, I'd say no church in existence today is the same as it was 24 hours ago.

There was an Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who said, "It is impossible for a man to step in the same river twice. For the river he steps in a second time has changed, so it is no longer the same river. The man, too has changed and is no longer the same man he was when he stepped in the river before." (BTW, Socrates said many people of Ephesus were followers of Epicurean philosophy. I imagine there were still many who believed in it when Paul wrote his letter to the church, there.)

Epicurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since not even the same church can be the same--in every aspect--today as it was the day before, obviously no church in existence today can ever possibly be the same as a church of A.D. 80! So the answer to your question must be no.

I disagree. If I can recreate my great great grandmother's biscuits using her recipe, then the church can also be copied, using the Bible recipe. All we need to do is look at is the New Testament church and follow their pattern. Imho, the catholic church today bears little resemblance to the NT church. I believe it would stand out like a sore thumb amongst the congregations of the first century both in government and, worship practices. Yes, the people are the church, and people change, but neither God nor His word ever change.

You're right! A topic for another day.

 

[katiemygirl]

I'm unable to find anything in the scriptures about the morality--or lack thereof--of cloning human beings. Please point out a chapter and verse that explains whether as a Christian, I should be for or against it.

I can't either. Neither do I think I need to know about cloning for my salvation or to be pleasing to God. Do you?

I would also add that God did provide an answer to these kinds of dilemmas. He covers it pretty much in Romans 14. If something seems wrong to you, and it's not explicity stated in the Scriptures, then it is wrong FOR YOU. If it seems right, even though it's not explicitly stated in the Scriptures, then it is right FOR YOU. I believe God gives us leeway to make decisions about things He was not specific about according to our consciences.

 

[katiemygirl]

Do you partake by drinking wine or grape juice?

Juice. A thorough study will show that Jesus did not drink fermented grape juice.

A topic for another time.

 

[katiemygirl]

So what you have here are several different topics of discussion. To make it easy, I will reply to each one separately. It will be a lot of work for both of us to discuss so many topics in one discussion thread, but I'm game.

I'd like to finish the Lord's Supper topic to the point that we reach some sort of conclusion, if that's okay.

 

[katiemygirl]

OK. Do you have an online source to confirm this? I will answer the other question as soon as I'm able. Good discussion! Looking forward to continuing it.

So continuing with the Lord's Supper, here is the official stand of the catholic church from their catechism.

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

 

[Spockrates]

I disagree. If I can recreate my great great grandmother's biscuits using her recipe, then the church can also be copied, using the Bible recipe.

I'd say the buiscuits you create will be similar, but never identical. In fact, no two biscuits your grandmother made were exactly the same.

All we need to do is look at is the New Testament church and follow their pattern. Imho, the catholic church today bears little resemblance to the NT church. I believe it would stand out like a sore thumb amongst the congregations of the first century both in government and, worship practices. Yes, the people are the church, and people change, but neither God nor His word ever change.

So look at the Book of Acts. The Jewish Christians were no longer welcome in the houses of worship called synagogues. The Greek Christians chose to stop attending worship services in pagan temples. They had no church buildings of their own. So they worshipped in each other's homes. Your own church is not the same in all aspects, for you said it is not a house church.

You're right! A topic for another day.

No problem. Let's move on.

 

[katiemygirl]

I'd say the buiscuits you create will be similar, but never identical. In fact, no two biscuits your grandmother made were exactly the same.



So look at the Book of Acts. The Jewish Christians were no longer welcome in the houses of worship called synagogues. The Greek Christians chose to stop attending worship services in pagan temples. They had no church buildings of their own. So they worshipped in each other's homes. Your own church is not the same in all aspects, for you said it is not a house church.



No problem. Let's move on.

The place of worship has no bearing on whether a church is a true church or not. It's teachings, worship practices and organization does. I'm saying the church can be exactly as it was in 80 A.D. if these things are followed.

Back to the Lord's Supper....What's your stand on transubstantiation at this moment? And what do you think about witholding the fruit of the vine from the people?

Off to the dog park. Be back later.

 

[Spockrates]

Juice. A thorough study will show that Jesus did not drink fermented grape juice.

A topic for another time.

33 "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’"
(Luke 7)​

The thing about alcohol is it kills bacteria. Ancient people mixed it with water to keep themselves from getting sick. You've probably heard the expression, "If you go to Mexico, don't drink the water"? Well, in the ancient world, wherever you went you could not drink the water, unless it was in some wilderness free of animal and human waste.

The practice of sterilizing water with alcohol continued up until the American colonies. Only then did it begin to be replaced by the new practice of boiling water to make tea, which also killed much of the bacteria. Today we have water treatment plants, so boiling water or sterilizing it with some alcohol is not necessary. But in some places wine is still mixed with water, such as in Italy, where even children have their drinking water sterilized with a little wine. The interesting thing is that in Italy, alcoholism is nowhere near the problem it is in the U.S. Many Italians for the most part look at getting drunk as socially unacceptable.

So it might be likely what they drank at the Last Supper was more water than wine, but it is highly unlikely it was alcohol free. Hence the fruit of the vine in which you partake is in all likelyhood not the same.



But I agree to move on to other topics you started.

 

[Spockrates]

The place of worship has no bearing on whether a church is a true church or not. It's teachings, worship practices and organization does. I'm saying the church can be exactly as it was in 80 A.D. if these things are followed.

My apologies. When you said all aspects, I misunderstood. I guess my answer is the same. Just as no two churches were exactly the same in teaching, practice or organization then, so to no two churches are exactly the same in these three today. Similar? Yes. Identical? No.

But please tell me how your own church's organization--that is, government--is exactly the same as that if the church 10 years after the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Roman general Titus in AD 70.

 

[Spockrates]

Back to the Lord's Supper....What's your stand on transubstantiation at this moment?

I think scripture can be logically interpreted to support the idea. Again, Jesus' words are in no way unambiguous to me. "This is my body," can mean either, "This is [like] my body," or "This [really] is my body".

Now I hear you when you say Jesus did not say the bread was his literal flesh, but Catholics are just as certain when they tell me, "Jesus did not say the bread was only a symbol of himself." It reminds me of the people of the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. They were so used to seeing the world through emerald lenses, they just took it for granted the whole world was green! Catholics have emerald glasses, non-Catholics have ruby glasses, or glasses of a different hue. Me, I wear no glasses. Though my vision might be blurry, one thing is clear to me: The world looks different when not colored to favor one hue over another.

I still am unsure who to believe, but I find Jesus' words in John compelling: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," (John 6:55). The word real seems to me to denote actual or literal food.

So if you were to ask me, "What do you believe about ghosts? Are they real people?" I would believe you are asking me if ghosts are actual people, not symbolic people--if they literally exist as people. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if ghosts exist as metaphors!

And if you were to ask me, "What do you think of Jesus' flesh? Is it real food?" I would believe you are asking me if his flesh is actual food, not symbolic food--if it literally exists as food. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if his flesh exists as a metaphor.

So too, if you were to say, "Ghosts are real people," I would believe you to be asserting ghosts are actual and literal people, not symbolic people. So when Jesus says, "My flesh is real food," I believe he is likely saying his flesh is actual and literal food, not symbolic food.

Eating might be a metaphor, but not food. So it is logical to induce he meant his flesh which we must eat is actual food and literally exists as food. But please tell me, what do you believe food is a metaphor for in Jesus words, "For my flesh is real food"?

And what do you think about witholding the fruit of the vine from the people? Off to the dog park. Be back later.

Still waiting for you to provide a link demonstrating the Catholic Church withheld wine from parish members.

 

[katiemygirl]

I think scripture can be logically interpreted to support the idea. Again, Jesus' words are not unambiguous. "This is my body," can mean either, "This is [like] my body," or "This [really] is my body".

Now I hear you when you say Jesus did not say the bread was his literal flesh, but Catholics are just as certain when they tell me, "Jesus did not say the bread was only a symbol of himself."

Me, I still am not sure who to believe, but I find Jesus' words in John compelling: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," (John 6:54). The word real seems to me to denote actual or literal food.

So if you were to ask me, "What do you believe about ghosts? Are they real?" I would believe you are asking me if ghosts are actual, not symbolic--if they literally exist. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if ghosts are metaphors for something else.

So I'm thinking Jesus statement should be understood a similar way. I would be mistaken if I thought he was saying his flesh is a metaphor for something else. Eating might be a metaphor, but not his flesh. So it is logical to induce he meant his flesh which we must eat is actual and literally exists.

But please tell me, what do you believe his flesh is a metaphor for?



Still waiting for you to provide a link demonstrating the Catholic Church withheld wine from parish members.

I posted earlier from the catholic catechism their theology which essentially says that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread alone. Look back at my posts from this morning.

If you google the catholic encyclopedia, you can read their own history of the eucharrist. It's all there, if you don't mind navigating through the weeds. They even give their reasons why they stopped serving the fruit of the vine....something about the possibility of someone spilling it. The section is very long, but if you want proof from an unbiased source, it's there. I think most catholics, especially the older ones, will tell you that prior to abt. 1970, fruit of the vine was not served to the people. Some catholic churches still do not serve it. Some do.

I suggest you do some of your own research on this. There's plenty of evidence from catholic websites which support what I have said. Not to mention, I am living proof. I grew up in the catholic church, and never, not one time was I offered the fruit of the vine. I have no reason to lie about this.

Jesus commanded that we remember Him when taking these two elements. By what authority did the catholic church change Jesus' command?

 

[Spockrates]

I posted earlier from the catholic catechism their theology which essentially says that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread alone. Look back at my posts from this morning.

If you google the catholic encyclopedia, you can read their own history of the eucharrist. It's all there, if you don't mind navigating through the weeds. They even give their reasons why they stopped serving the fruit of the vine....something about the possibility of someone spilling it. The section is very long, but if you want proof from an unbiased source, it's there. I think most catholics, especially the older ones, will tell you that prior to abt. 1970, fruit of the vine was not served to the people. Some catholic churches still do not serve it. Some do.

I suggest you do some of your own research on this. There's plenty of evidence from catholic websites which support what I have said. Not to mention, I am living proof. I grew up in the catholic church, and never, not one time was I offered the fruit of the vine. I have no reason to lie about this.

Jesus commanded that we remember Him when taking these two elements. By what authority did the catholic church change Jesus' command?

Sorry, I edited my post. Please re read it. What concerns me is what Jesus meant when he said, "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." Of less concern is what a denomination that believes this should do once it believes Jesus' words are true. If Catholicism is in the wrong, perhaps one of the Orthodox churches is not.

So the current goal for me is to figure out what Jesus meant, first, then worry about what Christian denomination best follows his meaning second. Don't you agree?

 

[Spockrates]

So I wonder. What do you think of these premises of mine?

If you were to ask me, "What do you believe about ghosts? Are they real people?" I would believe you are asking me if ghosts are actual people, not symbolic people--if they literally exist as people. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if ghosts exist as metaphors!

And if you were to ask me, "What do you believe about Jesus' flesh? Is it real food?" I would believe you are asking me if his flesh is actual food, not symbolic food--if it literally exists as food. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if his flesh exists as a metaphor.

So too, if you were to say, "Ghosts are real people," I would believe you to be asserting ghosts are actual and literal people, not symbolic people. So when Jesus says, "My flesh is real food," I believe he is likely saying his flesh is actual and literal food, not symbolic food. For I cannot think of any other reason why he would make this choice of words. While his words are ambiguous in Matthew 26:26, they seem the opposite in John 6:55.​

 

[katiemygirl]

Me, I still am unsure who to believe, but I find Jesus' words in John compelling: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," (John 6:54). The word real seems to me to denote actual or literal food.

So if you were to ask me, "What do you believe about ghosts? Are they real people?" I would believe you are asking me if ghosts are actual people, not symbolic people--if they literally exist as people. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if ghosts exist as metaphors!

And if you were to ask me, "What do you think of Jesus' flesh? Is it real food?" I would believe you are asking me if his flesh is actual food, not symbolic food--if it literally exists as food. I would be mistaken if I thought you were asking if his flesh exists as a metaphor.

So too, if you were to say, "Ghosts are real people," I would believe you to be asserting ghosts are actual and literal people, not symbolic people. So when Jesus says, "My flesh is real food," I believe he is likely saying his flesh is actual and literal food, not symbolic food.

Eating might be a metaphor, but not food. So it is logical to induce he meant his flesh which we must eat is actual food and literally exists as food. But please tell me, what do you believe food is a metaphor for in Jesus words, "For my flesh is real food,"?

I don't know what Bible version you quoted John 6:54 from, but the word "real" is nowhere to be found in the original Greek text. Jesus never said my flesh is "real."

How is Jesus saying, "This is my body; This is my blood" different from Him saying "I am the door; I am the vine; I am the bread of life, I am the good shepherd?" This question really requires an answer.

Do you believe Jesus is a door, a vine, a piece of bread, an actual shepherd?

I believe all of these are metaphors, including John 6:54, which you cited. In verse 35 Jesus calls Himself the bread of life? Do you take that literally as well as verse 54? Is Jesus a literal piece of bread.

My own belief is that Jesus is speaking of spiritual food, not physical.

At the last supper, do you think Jesus took His own flesh and blood and gave it to the apostles?

There are too many questions you have left unanswered. I've raised many points, but you have not addressed them.

 

[Spockrates]

I don't know what Bible version you quoted John 6:54 from, but the word "real" is nowhere to be found in the original Greek text. Jesus never said my flesh is "real."

Yes, my mistake! It's John 6:55.

 

[katiemygirl]

Sorry, I edited my post. Please re read it. What concerns me is what Jesus meant when he said, "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." Of less concern is what a denomination that believes this should do once it believes Jesus' words are true. If Catholicism is in the wrong, perhaps one of the Orthodox churches is not.

So the current goal for me is to figure out what Jesus meant, first, then worry about what Christian denomination best follows his meaning second. Don't you agree?

As I pointed out, the word "real" is not in the original Greek text.

I agree completely 100%! Learn what Jesus meant first. I would only caution you to not attach yourself to ANY group until you have thoroughly investigated them. Don't fall into Satan's trap. He's good at grabbing those who don't study for themselves.

The best advice I can give you is this. Read the gospel of John from the beginning through chapter 6 several times over. I like to listen to it being read aloud. I put on headphones and block out all distractions. Pray for guidance. Do your best to let go of any preconceived beliefs. Let the Holy Spirit teach you. Pay attention to how John develops the topic of bread.

Another point to consider is whether you wish to let the Bible be your sole authority, or are you willing to let the traditions of men guide you?

For me, the Bible alone is my guide. No exceptions!

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, my mistake! It's John 6:55.

Okay thank you.

I checked the interlinear. Jesus uses the Greek word "alethes" which means TRUE.

Jesus is saying my flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink. He's saying the food and drink are TRUE.

So what does Jesus mean by this?

Again, I think it's important to read the first 6 chapters of John to get the true context.

I need to get some things done here. Good discussion! Be back later if all goes well.

 

[Spockrates]

How is Jesus saying, "This is my body; This is my blood" different from Him saying "I am the door; I am the vine; I am the bread of life, I am the good shepherd?" This question really requires an answer.

Do you believe Jesus is a door, a vine, a piece of bread, an actual shepherd?

How about when he says, "I am the Son of God"? Not every "I am" statement should be taken figuratively, I think.

"Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son’?"

(John 10:36)
​

So then, why do I think Jesus was speaking literally when he said this and figuratively when he said, "I am the vine"? One reason: Immediatly after he said, "I am the vine," he added, "You are the branches." Since his apostles were not some form of sentient plant life, it's logical to infer he was speaking figuratively.

Same with, "I am the gate": He immediately followed this with, "You are the sheep." Since his apostles were not herd animals residing in a sheep pen, it's logical to assume he was using a figure of speech.

Same goes with, "I am the light of the world." He also says, "You are the light of the world." So light is used figuratively.

But what about the bread of life? He says in John 6 we are people who eat him. But we really are actual people. So it is difficult to determine if people who consume bread is a figure of speech or not.

I believe all of these are metaphors, including John 6:54, which you cited. In verse 35 Jesus calls Himself the bread of life? Do you take that literally as well as verse 54? Is Jesus a literal piece of bread.

My own belief is that Jesus is speaking of spiritual food, not physical.

At the last supper, do you think Jesus took His own flesh and blood and gave it to the apostles?

There are too many questions you have left unanswered. I've raised many points, but you have not addressed them.

But is spiritual food actual and literal food, or symbolic and figurative food? Consider the manna that fed the Jewish people for 40 some odd years after they left Egypt: Was it spiritual food or not spiritual food?

 

[Spockrates]

Okay thank you.

I checked the interlinear. Jesus uses the Greek word "alethes" which means TRUE.

Jesus is saying my flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink. He's saying the food and drink are TRUE.

So what does Jesus mean by this?

Again, I think it's important to read the first 6 chapters of John to get the true context.

I need to get some things done here. Good discussion! Be back later if all goes well.

Yes, I'm enjoying the dialog, too!

I think the word true can--and often does--mean actual or literal. For example, if I were to say, "My desk is made of true oak," I would mean it is composed of literal wood, rather than figurative wood. I might also mean it is actual wood, instead of fake wood, such as pressboard. In either case, the wood would be real--not symbolic or fake. So I would still infer Jesus is saying the food that is his flesh is real--not symbolic or fake.

Then again, if I were to say, "Jesus is the true lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," then I would mean he is a real symbolic lamb but not a real literal lamb. In that case, my inference would be incorrect. That which is true would in fact be a figure of speech! Seems John 6:55 is not as free of ambiguity as I first thought.



So then, what of true spiritual food and spiritual drink? Is it ever literal food and drink we consume with our mouths? Or is it always figurative food and drink we consume with our eyes or ears? What do you think?

 

[kepha31]

John 6:66 and a half...
"hey, come back here, I was only speaking figuratively!"