Carl in Asheville wrote: Well, I am an elect holy one of God who happens to be Black; so I'll say it unapologetically: Black Lives Matter is a self-ascribed Marxist organization and racists that incite violence and anarchy using terrorist tactics; and they are anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-Christ. There is absolutely nothing positive nor neutral to say about them. Those who support them are either just as evil as they are or simply naive. In my humble opinion, it becomes a defining moment of allegiance towards righteousness as people decide if they are for or against them.
Well said, brother Carl.
Bill O has an opinion about them, too. https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1254866718182848&_rdr
John UK wrote: Hi Dan, help me out here, please. Are you sure that David uses symbolic language to describe the water that the three men brought from Bethlehem as the blood which was still running quite freely through the veins of the three men? What is he saying? And how does that compare to the blood of Jesus Christ, which he says we have to drink (either literally or spiritually) in order to abide in him and he in us? John 6:56 KJV (56)Â He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
The water became blood to David metaphorically because the lives of the three men had been spared in order to procure it. He offered it to the Lord as such.
Concerning Christ, we are also speaking metaphorically.
I hope you are not leaning toward transubstantiation, brother. It almost sounds like it.
John UK wrote: Bro, Jesus could have said: ...this represents my body. but he actually said: ...this is my body. Now if he was being enigmatic and secretive, you could say: "He came unto his own (the Jews), but because he spoke to them in mysterious speech, deliberately done so that they could not understand it, his own received him not." expanded John 1:11. Why would God send his Son into the world to save sinners, and then make it impossible for them to understand what he was saying?
The following is a good example of using the kind of symbolic language I have in mind: 2 Samuel 23:16-17 KJV And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD.  And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it.
John UK wrote: Absolutely, except you will find that in the Christian walk, you will find many different true Christians who hold different interpretations. However, Matthew 13:36 KJV (36)Â Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. The disciples of Jesus here knew full well he was spiritualising, all through Matthew 13, as you and me both do. Please note that, Dan. And so his disciples asked him to explain the parables. But when he said, at the last passover, "Take, eat, this is my body..." none of them asked him to explain what he meant. Why not? Simply because they took him literally, and it was simple though strange. The purpose of eating unleavened bread in passover was quite different, so there is no parallel there.
Noted. Good point.
But brother, tell me what you think the disciples believed they were actually doing when they were taking and eating. Was it symbolic or what?
John UK wrote: Hi Dan, That's fine, but then you have to wonder why this happened:- John 6:52 KJV (52)Â The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John 6:60 KJV (60)Â Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:61 KJV (61)Â When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:66 KJV (66)Â From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. It seems to me that if Jesus was spiritualising, there would be no offence, and his disciples would not have departed from him for saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The fact that Jesus let them go shows that he was being literal, and they just couldn't cope with that.
You can't be serious. Are you testing me?
There were several times when Jesus spoke in ways that only those with spiritual eyes and ears could perceive the hidden truths being taught. Like in Matthew 13.
Taking literally what is not intended to be literal (or should I say seeing only the physical aspect of a spiritual lesson) was and is a way God separates false disciples from true ones.
John UK wrote: Hi Dan, yes I also usually like John Gill's comments. John 6:55-56 KJV (55)Â For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56)Â He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. If Gill is correct, and to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood is a spiritual event, how do you personally accomplish that, seeing as it is of such paramount importance? In other words, to dwell in Christ and for Christ to dwell in us, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Does this have anything to do with the communion? 1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV (16)Â The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The word we translate as 'communion' means fellowship. Something to think about.
I believe we spiritually eat/drink of Him when we feed on His word (you are what you eat ... spiritually ). When we take communion we are picturing in a physical way a feeding on Him together and remembering His death till He comes.
James Thomas wrote: Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. John 6:33 For the bread of God IS HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
So the HE which came down is the Word, the 2nd Person of the Godhead, clothed in human flesh.
John from UK, I like John Gill's commentary (usually) and here is an excerpt for his comments on John 6:53 "... the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins"
John UK wrote: But the bread that Jesus would have used in the passover meal, when he said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you" (1 Cor 11:24) was unleavened Jewish matzah bread. This is a flat, cracker-like bread especially prepared for the passover. And unlike ordinary bread, which can only be torn, it breaks with a snapping sound (breaking of bread). Now in John 6:55-56, Jesus says, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." The greek word for "eats" in this verse is 'trogo' which means 'to gnaw or crunch' like when eating nuts. This shows that Jesus was not talking about eating spiritually, but about physically eating, about chewing with a crunching sound. When I heard of this I included in my shopping yesterday some Ryvita bread and sure enough, they snap, and crunch while eating.
Thank you John. But I still believe Jesus was referring to spiritual "eating" using a physical object (matzah) as a symbol.
John UK wrote: Thanks Chrisgp for your testimony concerning attendance at Brethren assemblies. The usual way for visitors to be accepted in the closed table, is for them to bring a letter of introduction from the elder/s at their local assembly, informing that they are in good standing with the Lord and with their own assembly. In the assembly I attended for about six years, the sisters were permitted to wear a headcovering or a hat, so some would wear a shawl or some such thing, just draped over the head. They were not permitted to speak at all during the breaking of bread, not to pray even, or introduce a psalm or hymn. However, I had some great experiences of the Lord in that company, because everything was done extempore, nothing pre-planned, all was dependent on the Holy Spirit leading and guiding and motivating. Some gatherings were most wonderful. It was only yesterday that I came to know why the Bible called it the "breaking" of bread. Do you know why?
Dr. Tim wrote: We weep because rioters and looters commit crimes without being arrested. We weep because our mayors and governors are stupid cowards. We weep because the very ones demanding justice for one man demand impunity for themselves. Most of all we weep because God has, for the most part, been abandoned in our land and we are seeing His righteous hand of judgment.
Dear Dr Tim, please stop and check what you have written here to see if it expresses the Spirit of Christ or the spirit of rebellion. I could be wrong but it may be the latter if you can call the ministers that God has appointed "stupid cowards" as if Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 were never given to us. There is already a huge lack of respect for authority which is part of the problems we are seeing and your comment adds to the problem.
Please don't take offence, brother. This may just be a blind spot of which I'm sure I have many.
John UK wrote: I bought a NKJV, to go alongside my Scofield Annotated Bible (KJV), which I found in a junk shop and ought to have left there.
Amen to the Scofield junk comment! I used to rely on his notes in my Scofield Reference Bible until discovering how wrong they are (i.e. Jewish fables which Titus 1:14 warns about). I now keep it in a cabinet with other supposedly Christian books to refer to when refuting Dispensationalism.
John UK wrote: Jacobâ€™s Well was there. Jesus sat down by the well because he was tired from traveling. The time was about six oâ€™clock in the evening. John 4:6 God's Word 1995 Anyone see a problem with that?
My KJV says it was about the sixth hour which is around noon. That's a big difference/problem!
Thanks for posting all of the verses of that wonderful hymn, brother John. I trust that they are from those that the Count originally penned. Only one of the three hymnals in my possession even has it and it has verses 1 and 2 which match what you posted. But 3 and 4 in no way compare. They both start with "I believe".
Mike wrote: Suffice it to say the Lord gives and the Lord takes away. When he is ready to send a plague, it won't be the wimpy covid19. What we are seeing in the response is what fear of death among unbelievers can generate. Some here may remember a request a couple years ago for prayer for my grandson, who had a rare incurable cancer. He lost that round yesterday. I would appreciate prayer for my daughter and son in law and family in our shared grief, that in this time the Lord might draw them closer to himself and each other. We are not allowed to go and be with them, not because of the virus, but because of that fear of death that imprisons so many.
brother, I'm sorry about that bad news and will be praying.