Beau Roberts

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach No but that is what you’re saying

@Beautiefighter @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach That's not what Christ is saying at all. Stop category shifting.

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jews said it in John 6. Protestants still say it.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach No it isn’t First Epistle of Peter 2:24 He bore our sins in His body on the tree Epistle to the Colossians 1:22 He has reconciled you in His body of flesh by His death Epistle to the Hebrews 10:10 We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ

@Beautiefighter @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach In this teaching, yes, that's exactly what Christ himself is saying.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Tell me simply. Does flesh profit nothing? Does the flesh of Christ, his body and blood profit nothing?

@Beautiefighter @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach And you disregard the final statement Jesus gives in response to everyone showing discomfort. A consistent theme in John is exactly this Physical Literal Wording -> Explanation that it is Spiritual

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach I did not disregard it. I challenged your interpretation of it. You think he said it was symbolic since he said the flesh profits nothing. I say that later contradicts his sacrifice. Either his flesh means nothing or it meant everything with his sacrifice on the cross. Not both

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Regardless we’ve gone off topic. Do you see how despite the literal language used in this passage, you defy it with your own symbolic interpretation? You disregard Jesus 4 times stating his literal words saying this is my flesh and blood. Your interpretation is fallible

Let's try this again. What is the full context of the passage. Let's look at verse 35 for some more clues. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. The gospel of John is filled with this kind of language, Jesus says something that people take literally and physically and he then explains that it's spiritual. Jesus did not double down on a physical interpretation when those listening were troubled by his words, he spoke spiritually, and then they left. So yes, the flesh, that of this world, is worthless. That has nothing to do with the cross and his sacrifice. You are category shifting my dude.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach You’ve essentially stated that Christs sacrifice on the cross has no significance since the flesh profits nothing. Meanwhile the actual significance of the cross was that God became man. Flesh and blood, lived a perfect life and was sacrificed

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach I’m not category shifting. You’ve stated that the flesh is worthless. Hebrews 10 19-20 tells us that God has opened a curtain for us with his body aka his flesh. If the flesh is worthless as your interpretation states then that means Hebrews 10 is wrong bc his flesh has nothing

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Jesus did speak literally. We know this bc the Jewish people are horrified. One is quoted as saying “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Then Jesus doubles down on this.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Whoever comes to him shall not hunger and who ever believes will never thirst because if they truly come and believe then they will partake in the Eucharist which is what he instructs us to do at the last supper

@robotcop1984 @dannon_sch @BillArnoldTeach But this actually proves my point. Scripture requires interpretation. If even something like that can be misunderstood, why do sola scriptura groups end up with dozens of conflicting doctrines on things like the Eucharist and baptism? And how do you reconcile that?

@Beautiefighter @dannon_sch @BillArnoldTeach You realize that the Latin Vulgate, as translated and interpreted by you church, said and taught that Moses had horns, right? Horns. Protestant reformers found out that was a mistranslation almost immediately. Rome didn't change it till the 19th century.

The Bible does not interpret itself. So who decides what it means?

@robotcop1984 @dannon_sch @BillArnoldTeach The “horns of Moses” comes from a known Hebrew ambiguity where qaran can mean radiance or a horn like projection. Let me be very clear, this was not a doctrinal teaching, just a translation choice in the Vulgate

@dannon_sch @BillArnoldTeach If this is true then why do multiple denominations that preach sola scripture have differing interpretations on the Eucharist and baptism among other things?

@BillArnoldTeach Gee, I don’t know. Maybe, read the context silly woman. The Bible does actually interpret itself.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach You are referencing John 6:63 where Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing Let me ask you this. Did Jesus’s sacrifice count for nothing? It was only his flesh after all? That doesn’t profit anything and doesn’t mean anything. He could’ve had a symbolic sacrifice right?

@Beautiefighter @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach The context around it tells us that the spirit is truth and gives life, and his words are spirit and truth. So, consume his words. It's pretty simple if you aren't cherry picking from the middle without reading to the end.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach If he meant this symbolically then why would people leave? Why would they say this is a hard teaching? That’s not a hard teaching at all since he uses parables often. It’s clear he meant this literally

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Jesus is literally the word made flesh This isn’t cherry picking. Infact you are cherry picking bc Jesus 4 times says his flesh is food, the Jews are upset at this and argue, Jesus doesn’t redefine, his disciples leave him. The context is he was talking about this literally

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach I also make the word and the Holy Spirit my infallible interpreter. I’ve read the Bible front to back multiple times and came to these conclusions on my own. Did the Holy Spirit teach us two different things and contradict itself? Or is one of us wrong? How do you know?

I am making the Word and the Holy Spirit my infallible interpreter. What I am doing right now, challenging my beliefs against yours using scripture is the method prescribed in scripture. I seek my answers not from men but God alone. Question me, attack my beliefs, if scripture supports you I will concede. But so far it hasn't, and I trust the Holy Spirit to continue to guide me to truth by continuously challenging my understanding of scripture in this way.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach But your own interpretation says John 6 is merely symbolic despite what scripture and the context around it says

You are attached to the idea that one needs a human pope. I reject that premise entirely, I believe God is enough. There is no such thing as an interpretation, there is eisegesis and exegesis. One is to read into scripture your own ideas, the other is to read the text as is extracting the meaning itself presents. I reject every "interpretation" if it is not 100% consistent with scripture. If it falters at all it is not good.

@DoctrineAudit @CookiesAndCason @MikeBishop85062 @BillArnoldTeach Here’s an example from John 6 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him If you were consistent then you would agree that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist based off of this