In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[OzSpen]

What a wonderful confrontational controversy this continues to be.

What if, decades after Christ, Jewish scribes, in accordance with the purpose for their existence, simply garnered such as Jesus’ disciples/apostles could best remember Jesus to have said, and committed those memories to writing along lines that they genuinely felt best reflected what Jesus might have said?
And what if, centuries later the modern Gentile equivalent of those ‘scribes’, who then translated those ancient writings, (which I’m told had no punctuation or division into sentences) into their best understanding of an equivalent to such a ‘foreign’ system of ‘writing’, got it wrong in respect of what Jesus might actually have originally said and meant by it?
And what if every one of the countless ‘amateur experts’ who use Christian forums as their ‘soapbox’ for pronouncing their conflicting views (based on such dodgy literary development) also misrepresent what Jesus might have originally said and meant?
(I say “amateur experts” in the sense that no recognised biblical authority worthy of the title bothers himself with writing to Christian forums)

Beam me up Scotty.

Nice try, Mike, but it's nothing more than your self-created hypothesis that needs testing with the evidence.

To this point, what you've stated here contains your presuppositions that need testing. As for 'no recognised biblical authority' frequently Christian forums, that is not based on evidence. I happen to know of a biblical scholar from Princeton Theological Seminary who bothers himself with contributing to another Christian forum that is much larger than this one. Therefore your statement is found to be incorrect.

I can provide his name to interested people who PM me, but I won't do that in an open forum as it would not be appropriate to promote another forum.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Evangelical Protestants of the “low church” or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or “blessing”). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a “reduction” of Christ’s Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.

The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, is the Event in salvation history which has raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! Given that all created matter was “good” in God’s opinion from the start (Gen 1:25), and now is “glorified” further by the wonder of the Incarnation, why is it that such beliefs are still held? What is the scriptural basis? Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn’t deny the goodness of matter per se, but then their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling.

Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Nor was the Atonement purely “spiritual.” Quite the contrary! It was as physical as it could be, as well as obviously spiritual. Protestants speak much (or used to, anyway) of “the Blood,” and rightly so (see Rev 5:9, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Jn 1:7, etc.). It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, if not essential aspect of the Propitiatory Atonement. One can’t avoid this. “By his bruises we are healed” (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that most Protestants appear to possess a distinct and pronounced presuppositional hostility to the sacramental idea of the Real Presence, flowing as it does so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and Crucifixion itself. To me, this smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. And I think that if any bias must be present going into a study of the Eucharist, it ought to be in favor of a material, Real Presence standpoint, for the following scriptural reasons:

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the “Body” of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30), and marriage (including the sexual act) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33, esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was “persecuted” by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5).

Not only that, there is the whole repeated strain in St. Paul’s thought of identifying with Christ and His sufferings, very graphically and literally, or so it would seem: 2 Cor 4:10, Phil 2:17, 3:10, 2 Tim 4:6, and above all, Col 1:24; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 6:4-10, 11:23-30, Gal 2:20, 6:17, Rom 12:1.

Again, if this be the case, why not a literal Eucharist (and indeed, Paul sure seems to believe in that very thing, too)? It makes all the sense in the world, and is indicated strongly by Scripture in the first place.

Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration: Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7). Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14).
Then there is the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)!

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle!

Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, “pagan” spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge “low church” Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.

sacramentalism

 

[Mungo]

As I haven't been following this thread I can't contribute much at this stage. But perhaps Tom will excuse me if I chip in on this one:

Hi Tom,
Regarding the eating and drinking of "Jesus' flesh and blood" being 'literal', how long will it be before it has all been consumed and none remains?
Or is it not that 'literal'?

Mike,

Those are profound questions. Thank you for asking them. I eagerly await an answer from Tom.

Oz

As the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ's body, not the accidents, then the question has no meaning because quantity is an accident.
(similarl;y with the wine being changed into Christ's blood)

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I'm not the slightest bit interested in articulating my theory. I spent a lot of time exegeting the Scripture for you to demonstrate that you can't understand basic exegesis of the text.
I will not be discussing further with you as we are not on the same page of Scripture and are speaking past each other.
Remember what Augustine taught: 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44). You have not been able to refute that.

Oz

You are right. I have not been able to refute that. Augustine did it for me 1600 years ago.

Here is your partial quote in context: This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Later that paragraph goes on to say, "But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of himself that ge gave, not the meat which perishes, but that which endures to eternal life. Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave.

So as you can see by putting your 5 word quote into context AND quoting other things Augustine said about the Eucharist your THEORY has been destroyed.

The person YOU cited as someone who you thought backed up what YOU believe actually says opposite of what YOU believe.....but you don't want to talk about it? I suspect it is because you are embarrassed that you didn't know what Augustine ACTUALLY said and now that you do know you don't want to admit your wrong. How sad.

 

[tom55]

Hi Tom,
Regarding the eating and drinking of "Jesus' flesh and blood" being 'literal', how long will it be before it has all been consumed and none remains?
Or is it not that 'literal'?

Was He (or God) only able to multiply the loaves of bread and fish and nothing else? Could he have kept multiplying them? Or are you putting restrictions on Gods abilities?

 

[BjornFree]

Hi Tom, for those who believe in transubstantiation I accept your explanations of how it might 'work' (not that I personally believe in it, though).

 

[tom55]

Hi Tom, for those who believe in transubstantiation I accept your explanations of how it might 'work' (not that I personally believe in it, though).

Thank you Oneoff for your reasonable response. Jesus did say it was a hard saying to accept but we have the choice to accept it or reject it and walk away. I choose to accept it.

 

[tom55]

Did Jesus taste like crackers and grape? Obviously not, Jesus was speaking spiritually about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That doesn't make it any less real.

At the Last Supper Jesus gave his Apostles bread/wine, saying this is my body/blood and told them to eat/drink it. When they ate/drank it I am willing to bet it tasted like crackers and grape (wine). Sooooo therefor it is not "obvious".

 

[tom55]

Well apparently some Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was teaching us to be cannibals?!

It has been historically recorded that the early Christians (within the first 200 years of Christianity) were accused of being cannibals because THEY BELIEVED the Eucharist to be His body and blood just like scripture says.

So for you to say that "....apparently some Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was teaching us to be cannibals" should be corrected to accurately say "Apparently, since the beginning of Christianity, Christians believed it to be His body/blood AND they were accused of being cannibals by non-Christians.

Furthermore, to be EVEN MORE ACCURATE, there are many Protestants that believe the same thing.

John 6:66

 

[lforrest]

At the Last Supper Jesus gave his Apostles bread/wine, saying this is my body/blood and told them to eat/drink it. When they ate/drank it I am willing to bet it tasted like crackers and grape (wine). Sooooo therefor it is not "obvious".

So if you started gnawing on Jesus' arm it would taste like wheat bread(unleavened of course). Your teaching Jesus was equally God, man, and bread.

 

[tom55]

So if you started gnawing on Jesus' arm it would taste like wheat bread(unleavened of course). Your teaching Jesus was equally God, man, and bread.

In Scripture there are occasions where angels take on human appearances in order to carry out Gods work. Is the angel an angelic being or a human being? The touch, smell, sight of the angel would make it appear to be human however it is still an angel. If an angel can take on human form then isn't God able to humble himself under the appearance of bread (just like he said) in order that we might receive him?

Cannibalism is when one physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. A Fundamentalist/Protestant would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to agree with scripture. Catholics eat the flesh and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Therefor neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic.

Two thousand years ago it would have been cannibalism is if a disciple had tried literally to eat Jesus arm. Now that he is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, just like he said he would, cannibalism is not possible. Jesus said it was his body/blood, Paul re-affirmed it, the early Church Fathers and early Christian writings re-affirm it. So your accusation that it is MY teaching is not biblically or historically accurate. This teaching and belief has been around for 2000 years. The popular belief that it is NOT his body and blood has only been around or more prevalent since the Reformation. So YOUR belief is new, not historical and not biblical.

 

[OzSpen]

It has been historically recorded that the early Christians (within the first 200 years of Christianity) were accused of being cannibals because THEY BELIEVED the Eucharist to be His body and blood just like scripture says.

So for you to say that "....apparently some Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was teaching us to be cannibals" should be corrected to accurately say "Apparently, since the beginning of Christianity, Christians believed it to be His body/blood AND they were accused of being cannibals by non-Christians.

Furthermore, to be EVEN MORE ACCURATE, there are many Protestants that believe the same thing.

John 6:66

'Christians are cannibalistic, incestuous, ass-worshiping magicians who practice dangerous superstitions. Or at least that is what early critics thought' (source).

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Your claim is:
Let's check who is really right or wrong. It's an issue of biblical interpretation in context.
If you are WRONG then you are divisive. When Jesus says this is my flesh/blood and you then say it isn't....you are being divisive. One of us is right and the other is wrong.
No pointing fingers. He is flat out wrong and so are you if you don't believe what Jesus said. I believe what Jesus said.
John 6:47-58 (ESV) states:


1. Let's deal with the meaning of vv 53-54, '53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

Here, Jesus repeats a truth he stated as the second part of v. 51, 'If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever'. Note the emphasis in v. 53, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ... you have no life in you.' Now v 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh ... has eternal life'.

2. What will be the result of this? 'I will raise him up on the last day' (v 54).

3. Who is the one whose flesh is eaten? He has the title of 'the Son of Man' (v. 53). Yes, he is a fleshly human being - a man - while on earth, but God has placed his seal of approval on him (Jn 6:27 ESV).

4. So the meaning is that the Son of Man is a title given to Jesus, but it does not overlook the fact that he is a flesh and blood human being. The supreme revelation of God is through Jesus, the Son of Man. Unlike any other fleshly human being, he has the amazing ability to grant one eternal life if one 'eats' of him.

5. 'Drink his/my blood' is added in vv 53 & 54. The Jews objected strongly to this statement (see v 51). Why? The law of Moses forbade the drinking of blood (see Gen 9:2-4 ESV). So to drink the blood of the Son of Man was offensive or abominable to them.

6. John 6:54 & 6:40 have a close connection:
(1) v. 54, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day', and (2) v. 40, 'For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'.

The only major difference between these two verses is eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood vs. looking to the Son and believing in Him. We come to an obvious conclusion of interpretation: The eating the flesh and drinking the flood is a metaphorical way of referring to looking to the Son and believing in the Son. How come? The result of both activities is the same - receiving eternal life and being raised on the last day.

7. This caused the eminent church father, St. Augustine of Hippo, to state: 'Believe, and you have eaten' [Tractate 25.12 (John 6:15-44)].

8. There are no indications in John 6:53-54 that this refers to the Lord's Supper. If we make it refer to the Eucharist, it means that one of the things necessary to receive eternal life is to participate in the Lord's Supper to eat the body and drink the blood. This would amount to works religion, which is antithetical to New Testament Christianity (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

9. There are cannibalistic overtones if one accepts the literal body and blood instead of the metaphorical meaning that points to looking to Jesus and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

10. When John stated, 'And I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:40, 54), it demonstrates that eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally does not confer immortality/resurrection at the last day. The Lord's Supper/Eucharist is not designed for immortality. However looking to the Son and believing in Him are for that purpose.

Like you, I also believe what Jesus said but when he spoke of eating the body and drinking the blood, it was a metaphor for looking to the Son and believing in Him to receive eternal life.

Careful exegesis of the text is needed to discern what it actually means.

Oz

Jesus was being metaphorical when he said he was a door or the light or when he called his disciples the salt of the earth. In FACT in John 10 in the "door" statement it even states that he was using a figure of speech. He said those things ONE time and no one got up and challenged him. No one walked away because they KNEW it was a metaphor. Paul did not preach that Jesus was in fact a door or an actual light and you bring damnation upon yourself if you don't believe Jesus is a door. Paul DID preach that the Eucharist was His real body and blood and you bring damnation upon yourself if you don't believe it. The Didache does not say you have to believe Jesus is a door. It does say Do not give what is Holy to dogs. The ECF did not say you have to believe Jesus was a door. They do say that the Eucharist is his body and blood. Jesus said FOUR times it was his body and blood and made the door/salt comment only one time. He prefaced his body and blood teachings by saying TRULY TRULY I say to you.....! He did not preface his door and light statement by saying truly, truly I say to you I am a.....door/light.

The disciples walked away because they knew that Jesus WAS NOT talking metaphorically and they could not imagine eating His body and blood. If they thought it was another metaphor they would not have challenged him and they would have stayed just like they stayed when he used all the other metaphors. It was a hard saying for them.

It is a miracle HOW it happens and those of you with little faith that can not figure out this mystery that God has given us should remember 2 Corinthians 5:7

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus was being metaphorical when he said he was a door or the light or when he called his disciples the salt of the earth. In FACT in John 10 in the "door" statement it even states that he was using a figure of speech. He said those things ONE time and no one got up and challenged him. No one walked away because they KNEW it was a metaphor. Paul did not preach that Jesus was in fact a door or an actual light and you bring damnation upon yourself if you don't believe Jesus is a door. Paul DID preach that the Eucharist was His real body and blood and you bring damnation upon yourself if you don't believe it. The Didache does not say you have to believe Jesus is a door. It does say Do not give what is Holy to dogs. The ECF did not say you have to believe Jesus was a door. They do say that the Eucharist is his body and blood. Jesus said FOUR times it was his body and blood and made the door/salt comment only one time. He prefaced his body and blood teachings by saying TRULY TRULY I say to you.....! He did not preface his door and light statement by saying truly, truly I say to you I am a.....door/light.

The disciples walked away because they knew that Jesus WAS NOT talking metaphorically and they could not imagine eating His body and blood. If they thought it was another metaphor they would not have challenged him and they would have stayed just like they stayed when he used all the other metaphors. It was a hard saying for them.

It is a miracle HOW it happens and those of you with little faith that can not figure out this mystery that God has given us should remember 2 Corinthians 5:7

Tom,

We know that Paul was not teaching that the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper were literal flesh and blood because of the language used in 1 Cor 11:23-27 (ESV),

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

The fact is that Paul was quoting Jesus who was in person and said that the bread was his body and the cup was his blood. Jesus could not possibly be referring to his literal flesh and blood because he was still there in person teaching them.

Here Paul teaches us that the Lord's Supper is to be conducted 'in remembrance of me'. So, the Lord's Supper is a memorial feast, not a time for fleshly and bloody miracles.

I find it quite ridiculous that you are advocating literal body and blood at the Lord's Supper when Paul clearly demonstrated that was not so.

I will not interact further with you on this because we cannot have a rational discussion when dealing with the actual words stated by Paul in teaching us about the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper.

Bye,
Oz B)

 

[tom55]

Tom,

We know that Paul was not teaching that the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper were literal flesh and blood because of the language used in 1 Cor 11:23-27 (ESV),

The fact is that Paul was quoting Jesus who was in person and said that the bread was his body and the cup was his blood. Jesus could not possibly be referring to his literal flesh and blood because he was still there in person teaching them.

Here Paul teaches us that the Lord's Supper is to be conducted 'in remembrance of me'. So, the Lord's Supper is a memorial feast, not a time for fleshly and bloody miracles.

I find it quite ridiculous that you are advocating literal body and blood at the Lord's Supper when Paul clearly demonstrated that was not so.

I will not interact further with you on this because we cannot have a rational discussion when dealing with the actual words stated by Paul in teaching us about the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper.

Bye,
Oz B)

I would love to deal "with the actual words stated by Paul in teaching us about the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper." How about if we start with a full quote instead of the partial quote that you provided so we can see what "Paul clearly demonstrated":

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Please tell me OZ. How can someone eat and drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner? How can one bring judgment upon themselves if it is just a symbol of his body/blood?

What else did Paul say: For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. How can a drink be spiritual if it is just a metaphor?

And then Paul flat out says what communion is so there will be no confusion among sensible men: I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

And then we follow like a rabbit trail thru the history of time how the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr etc. etc. support or mirror what Paul preached and Jesus said. Christian practice/belief for 1500+ years was the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Then came along the Reformation and all of a sudden it was fashionable to disagree with anything Catholic. Fortunately most Christians still believe communion is His real body/blood. Those who don't believe are heretical (holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted). So you can decide OZ if you want to be fashionable or believe what He said.

 

[OzSpen]

Please tell me OZ. How can someone eat and drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner? How can one bring judgment upon themselves if it is just a symbol of his body/blood?

Tom,

What is a metaphor? Tom's problem is that he does not understand what a metaphor is.

Metaphor is 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v metaphor). What's a figure of speech? It is 'a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v figure of speech).

If you understood the nature of metaphor, you would not make such a ridiculous statement as someone eating and drinking a metaphor.
When Jesus said, 'I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture' (John 10:9 ESV), he was not talking about being an actual wooden door. He was speaking about a means of entry into his kingdom. The door was a metaphor.

Do you get it, Tom? If you don't, we have no further basis for discussion.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

What is a metaphor? Tom's problem is that he does not understand what a metaphor is.

Metaphor is 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v metaphor). What's a figure of speech? It is 'a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v figure of speech).

If you understood the nature of metaphor, you would not make such a ridiculous statement as someone eating and drinking a metaphor.
When Jesus said, 'I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture' (John 10:9 ESV), he was not talking about being an actual wooden door. He was speaking about a means of entry into his kingdom. The door was a metaphor.

Do you get it, Tom? If you don't, we have no further basis for discussion.

Oz

I didn't "make...a ridiculous statement as someone eating and drinking a metaphor". I am saying the OPPOSITE. (maybe I am misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me?)

I agree with you and I have made it clear I agree with you that He was speaking about a means of entry into his kingdom and that the door was a metaphor.

Sooooo.....are you gonna answer my questions? Since you believe the Eucharist is not his body and blood how can someone eat and drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner? How can one bring judgment upon themselves if it is just a symbol of his body/blood? How can a drink be spiritual if it is just a metaphor?

 

[OzSpen]

Sooooo.....are you gonna answer my questions? Since you believe the Eucharist is not his body and blood how can someone eat and drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner? How can one bring judgment upon themselves if it is just a symbol of his body/blood? How can a drink be spiritual if it is just a metaphor?

Tom,

I've already answered it but you don't understand. This is my LAST try.

Metaphor is 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v metaphor). What's a figure of speech? It is 'a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v figure of speech).

The Lord's Supper is not the literal body and blood of Jesus but is a metaphor referring to something else. They are words used in a non-literal sense as a rhetorical device to point to the the meaning that is stated clearly in 1 Cor 11:26 (ESV), 'For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes'.

The meaning is simple. The bread and wine are a remembrance of Jesus' death: 'and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me' (1 Cor 11:24).

Get to know the meaning of a metaphor and you'll understand the meaning of this passage CLEARLY.

Bye,
Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I've already answered it but you don't understand. This is my LAST try.

Metaphor is 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v metaphor). What's a figure of speech? It is 'a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v figure of speech).

The Lord's Supper is not the literal body and blood of Jesus but is a metaphor referring to something else. They are words used in a non-literal sense as a rhetorical device to point to the the meaning that is stated clearly in 1 Cor 11:26 (ESV), 'For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes'.

The meaning is simple. The bread and wine are a remembrance of Jesus' death: 'and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me' (1 Cor 11:24).

Get to know the meaning of a metaphor and you'll understand the meaning of this passage CLEARLY.

Bye,
Oz

Hmmmm....I don't see in your answer anything about how one can drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner or bringing judgment upon one self if it is just a metaphor or how a drink can be spiritual if it is just a metaphor. You are the one who partially quoted Paul and when I fully quote him you don't seem to want to talk about Paul anymore. Why?

You took five words from Augustine of Hippo and try to make it look like he supports your theory but when one fully quotes him one see's you are being completely and utterly dishonest: For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." (sermon 227)

Now that I have fully quoted Augustine do you still consider him an "eminent church father" since what he believes is OPPOSITE of what you believe?

PS....Augustine even uses Paul's words to destroy your theory......I'm just sayin' :wub:

 

[OzSpen]

Hmmmm....I don't see in your answer anything about how one can drink a metaphor in an unworthy manner or bringing judgment upon one self if it is just a metaphor or how a drink can be spiritual if it is just a metaphor. You are the one who partially quoted Paul and when I fully quote him you don't seem to want to talk about Paul anymore. Why?

You again refuse to deal with the meaning of a metaphor.