The Blood of Christ

[bling]

[SIZE=medium]Been studying Hebrews to teach an adult class and was taken back by the number of references to sacrificial blood, which got me thinking.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Each week we partake of the Lord’s Supper (bread representing the body and the wine representing the blood) all in remembrance of what Christ did by/with/on the cross.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Since there are two memorials actions we go through are there two separate actions of Christ, we are trying to bring to memory?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Would it have to do with the fact that Christ body hung on the cross once for all times bring to mind the atonement sacrifice and the blood continuously is flowing over us washing/cleansing us of sin? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Going back to the Old Law the blood was not offered up in the burnt offering, but was used to outwardly cleanse everything, so how did the Jews of old view the Lamb on the altar compared to the blood shed from the lamb?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Do you feel Christ’s blood flowing over you cleansing you? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The fact that we drink the wine representing Christ’s blood, does that mean we are being cleansed internally (our hearts)?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What literally happened to the physical blood of Christ are there remains at the foot of the cross in Jerusalem? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Does that blood still drip in heave on the Mercy Seat?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Did God need/want that blood to be taken from the body of Christ to satisfy God, or do we need that blood outside of Christ’s body flowing over us? [/SIZE]

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, the blood is put figuratively for the sacrifice which is put for the atonement that it brings. It is not the fluid itself that is necessary to bring atonement. If this were the case Jesus could have just periodically bled out whatever amount was necessary to obtain justice that God requires.

Eating the bread and drinking the wine indicates that we are likewise sacrificing our lives just as Christ did His. However, this does not mean that we are sacrificing our lives as a means of atonement, only that in His kingdom, self sacrifice is a prerequisite to entry.

The literal blood on Calvary dried up and disappeared just like blood does everywhere.

Christ's sacrifice was an "eternal sacrifice". It will continue to cleanse all those whom God has chosen for eternal life.

The only reason Christ's blood was shed was to pay the penalty of sin. Justice had to be carried out. Were Jesus not to have sacrificed his life, we would all be condemned. If we were to have mercy without Christ's sacrifice, God would not be just or righteous.

 

[pom2014]

There is no command in scripture us to have the ritual that the Catholic church calls the Eucharist.

Nor any that says we must do it over and over again.

This is a tradition of that church, that strangely was carried over with the reformation even though they disdain other traditions of the Catholic church.

The ritual has no real usage in Christian lives, apart from it makes some people feel better by repetition. Tradition for tradition's sake.

 

[tom55]

pom2014: If you were to read the OT you would see how bread (manna) and wine tie's in with the NT. Jesus said he is the bread of life. At the last supper he said "do this in remembrance of me". Since Jesus said DO THIS, isn't that a command? He also said do it often. Doesn't that mean "over and over again"? Jesus said we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. Have you read the Didache? It gives specific instructions on how the present the Eucharist. Read the Didache and 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:27, 29 then tell me the Eucharist is not only scripturally based but also traditionally based since the beginning of Christianity!

 

[shnarkle]

There is no command in scripture us to have the ritual that the Catholic church calls the Eucharist.

Nor any that says we must do it over and over again.

This is a tradition of that church, that strangely was carried over with the reformation even though they disdain other traditions of the Catholic church.

The ritual has no real usage in Christian lives, apart from it makes some people feel better by repetition. Tradition for tradition's sake.

To say that there is no command, in a sense is correct. Christ says, "Do this in memory of me". Do what? Have a meal? Observe the Passover? The bible also states "believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved". Is this a command? It's a statement of fact.

There are countless doctrines of the Catholic church that have been carried over into Protestantism, that have no scriptural basis whatsoever, e.g. usury, dietary laws, Sabbath observance etc. The Catholic church prides itself on this fact spotlighting its authority to 'change laws'.

 

[shnarkle]

pom2014: If you were to read the OT you would see how bread (manna) and wine tie's in with the NT. Jesus said he is the bread of life. At the last supper he said "do this in remembrance of me". Since Jesus said DO THIS, isn't that a command? He also said do it often. Doesn't that mean "over and over again"? Jesus said we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. Have you read the Didache? It gives specific instructions on how the present the Eucharist. Read the Didache and 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:27, 29 then tell me the Eucharist is not only scripturally based but also traditionally based since the beginning of Christianity!

Jesus didn't say to do it often. He said, "As often as you do this, do this in memory of me". As often as they do what? Have supper, or observe Passover? Obviously Christians interpret the former interpretation. The problem here is that we have a direct command from Paul stating that "Christ is our Passover, therefore let us keep the feast". The feast of Passover? No, Passover was never a feast. The Feast he is referring to is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. There is no point in keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread without remembering Christ's sacrifice which is explicitly associated with the Passover or "the preparation day". Christ was speaking to fellow Jews observing the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and pointing out that as often as they observe Passover to remember him as he is our Passover.

For mainstream Christianity this is all done away with, and effectively irrelevant.

 

[BreadOfLife]

To say that there is no command, in a sense is correct. Christ says, "Do this in memory of me". Do what? Have a meal? Observe the Passover? The bible also states "believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved". Is this a command? It's a statement of fact.

There are countless doctrines of the Catholic church that have been carried over into Protestantism, that have no scriptural basis whatsoever, e.g. usury, dietary laws, Sabbath observance etc. The Catholic church prides itself on this fact spotlighting its authority to 'change laws'.

And this is a false statement - as are the anti-Biblical claims of Pom2014 that the Eucharist has "no usage" in the lives of Christians.
Jesus Himself instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Funny - but I don't read anywhere that He said "This is just a symbol of my Body" and "This is not really my Blood, but a metaphor."
Jesus said in NO uncertain terms, "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood."

In the great Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:22-71), Jesus states emphatically that we MUST eat His flesh and drink His Blood - and most of the people were so shocked by this that they left Him and returned to their former way of life (John 6:66). He didn't stop to explain Himself - He left it up to their faith. THIS is why He said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father” (John 6:65).

After the people left Him, He turned to the apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67).
No explanation, no teaching - He just counted on their faith.

John 6:53-56
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRUE DRINK.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Like YOU and Pom2014 – they just couldn’t handle what Jesus was telling them.

 

[shnarkle]

And this is a false statement - as are the anti-Biblical claims of Pom2014 that the Eucharist has "no usage" in the lives of Christians.
Jesus Himself instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Funny - but I don't read anywhere that He said "This is just a symbol of my Body" and "This is not really my Blood, but a metaphor."
Jesus said in NO uncertain terms, "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood."

The reason for this ignorance, among other things; stems from an intentional deception perpetrated by the establishment. I translated Attic and koine Greek in a Catholic college that, to their credit; never once injected Catholic doctrine into the texts we translated. The text you refer to is one of the most ridiculous examples of stupefying ignorance known to Christianity. The fact that you conflate the figure Symbol with the figure Metaphor only spotlights the woeful state of affairs in the world today that almost no one has a clue what they are talking about anymore, especially when it comes literature, not to mention church doctrine. The truth is evident to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of elementary Greek. To be perfectly blunt, one need only be able to understand basic English and have basic reading comprehension skills. Of course a closed mind trumps all, so I will explain the basic facts for anyone else who may be interested.

This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". At least, I've never heard that claim. The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."

Q.E.D.


The best explanation I have heard from the most well educated Catholic clergy is that the author mistakenly used the wrong verb; nobody's perfect.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The reason for this ignorance, among other things; stems from an intentional deception perpetrated by the establishment. I translated Attic and koine Greek in a Catholic college that, to their credit; never once injected Catholic doctrine into the texts we translated. The text you refer to is one of the most ridiculous examples of stupefying ignorance known to Christianity. The fact that you conflate the figure Symbol with the figure Metaphor only spotlights the woeful state of affairs in the world today that almost no one has a clue what they are talking about anymore, especially when it comes literature, not to mention church doctrine. The truth is evident to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of elementary Greek. To be perfectly blunt, one need only be able to understand basic English and have basic reading comprehension skills. Of course a closed mind trumps all, so I will explain the basic facts for anyone else who may be interested.

This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". At least, I've never heard that claim. The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."

Q.E.D.


The best explanation I have heard from the most well educated Catholic clergy is that the author mistakenly used the wrong verb; nobody's perfect.

Thank you for that obvious anti-Catholic cut-and-paste job. A little google search was all I needed to discover that YOU didn't write it.
Unfortunately, even though YOU were duped by this ignorant diatribe - it is not a true representation of the linguistic implications of John 6.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that YOU claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Oh, by the way - you might want to take note of the fat that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”. HOWEVER, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to gnaw and rip apart one's food - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten by the Jews, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.

It is also important to note what happened after this. Did Jesus plead with them or explain that he was speaking “metaphorically” or “symbolically”? Absolutely not. He turned to the Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?" Here it is completely evident - except to those who refuse to see - that Jesus meant what he said.

This is why the Real Presence in the Eucharist was UNANIMOUSLY believed and taught by the Early Church Fathers.
Not ONE of them took it to mean that it was just a "Symbol" as YOU falsely claim . . .

 

[shnarkle]

Thank you for that obvious anti-Catholic cut-and-paste job.

I was born and raised a Catholic. I have sixteen years of Catholic education. I will always be grateful to God for granting me the gift of such a fantastic education. I will be always grateful to the nuns who patiently endeavored to educate and discipline me through the formative years of my life allowing me to go on to higher education. I pointed out that the brothers who facilitated never injected Catholic doctrine into my language tutorials. I can only applaud their restraint in objectively sitting back and allowing us to see what the texts actually state. How is this anti-Catholic? How is pointing out the facts anti-Catholic? Is this a debate group, or just a place to rant?


A little google search was all I needed to discover that YOU didn't write it..

While we're all so impressed by your ability to do a google search this doesn't negate the content of what I posted. Address the argument, not the person presenting it.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:

Not only does this baseless assertion not refute what I posted, it doesn't even address it. When one presents an argument for debate. It needs to be addressed. If it cannot be addressed then the point is automatically counted for the one who presented the argument. In other words, you concede the facts of the argument are valid. Baseless assertions do not refute the argument.

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body,.

And what pray tell does it mean to discern the body? Are we not all members of the body? Is not the church the many membered body of Christ? You are simply begging the question.

eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that YOU claim is only a symbol..

Ah, so you admit that you didn't even read it. The only other conclusion is that you didn't understand it because nowhere was it stated that this is the figure Symbol. You also don't understand the significance of figurative speech as it is always to emphasize what is being stated, never to demean or lessen. It is not "only" his body. It is clearly so much more, but then there's no point in repeating what I already posted as you aren't going to read it anyways.

Oh, by the way - you might want to take note of the fat that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”. HOWEVER, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to gnaw and rip apart one's food - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole

The figure Hyperbole means "to throw under" so once again you don't know what you're talking about.

as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically.

The figure Metaphor means to "represent", but you obviously prefer to use the term to mean "figuratively", but of course this is also ridiculous as you just asserted that this was precisely what he did do by using the figure of speech Hyperbole. So whichever way you choose to interpret your own words, they make no sense.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.

No doubt. I couldn't agree more. Jesus himself explains that it isn't given for all to know what he's talking about this was his reason for using parables, figures of speech in the first place. It is only for those who are determined to search diligently for the truth never just accepting the assertions of others.

It is also important to note what happened after this. Did Jesus plead with them or explain that he was speaking “metaphorically” or “symbolically”? Absolutely not. He turned to the Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?" Here it is completely evident - except to those who refuse to see - that Jesus meant what he said.

And what he said wasn't meant for those who don't want to bother to know the truth.

This is why the Real Presence in the Eucharist was UNANIMOUSLY believed and taught by the Early Church Fathers.
Not ONE of them took it to mean that it was just a "Symbol" as YOU falsely claim . . .

That's it? That's all you're going to use to back up your position? You're going to point out that what I posted bears some resemblance to something you googled online, claim that I'm somehow attacking Catholics, ignore what I posted altogether with regards to the fact that it is the figure Metaphor that is being used by the gospel writer, present some scripture with no reasons to show how this fits your position other than to just reassert your same claims ,and then once again make the false accusation that I said it was the figure Symbol when anyone that bothered to read my post can see that it was the figure Metaphor?

If you'd rather just engage in ad hominum attacks and trolling, then please pm me and we can do that until you've had enough abuse. Otherwise, either address the arguments I've presented or I see no reason to show you a courtesy you refuse to show others.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was born and raised a Catholic. I have sixteen years of Catholic education. I will always be grateful to God for granting me the gift of such a fantastic education. I will be always grateful to the nuns who patiently endeavored to educate and discipline me through the formative years of my life allowing me to go on to higher education. I pointed out that the brothers who facilitated never injected Catholic doctrine into my language tutorials. I can only applaud their restraint in objectively sitting back and allowing us to see what the texts actually state. How is this anti-Catholic? How is pointing out the facts anti-Catholic? Is this a debate group, or just a place to rant?
While we're all so impressed by your ability to do a google search this doesn't negate the content of what I posted. Address the argument, not the person presenting it.
Not only does this baseless assertion not refute what I posted, it doesn't even address it. When one presents an argument for debate. It needs to be addressed. If it cannot be addressed then the point is automatically counted for the one who presented the argument. In other words, you concede the facts of the argument are valid. Baseless assertions do not refute the argument.
And what pray tell does it mean to discern the body? Are we not all members of the body? Is not the church the many membered body of Christ? You are simply begging the question.
Ah, so you admit that you didn't even read it. The only other conclusion is that you didn't understand it because nowhere was it stated that this is the figure Symbol. You also don't understand the significance of figurative speech as it is always to emphasize what is being stated, never to demean or lessen. It is not "only" his body. It is clearly so much more, but then there's no point in repeating what I already posted as you aren't going to read it anyways.

The figure Hyperbole means "to throw under" so once again you don't know what you're talking about.

The figure Metaphor means to "represent", but you obviously prefer to use the term to mean "figuratively", but of course this is also ridiculous as you just asserted that this was precisely what he did do by using the figure of speech Hyperbole. So whichever way you choose to interpret your own words, they make no sense.

No doubt. I couldn't agree more. Jesus himself explains that it isn't given for all to know what he's talking about this was his reason for using parables, figures of speech in the first place. It is only for those who are determined to search diligently for the truth never just accepting the assertions of others.

And what he said wasn't meant for those who don't want to bother to know the truth.

That's it? That's all you're going to use to back up your position? You're going to point out that what I posted bears some resemblance to something you googled online, claim that I'm somehow attacking Catholics, ignore what I posted altogether with regards to the fact that it is the figure Metaphor that is being used by the gospel writer, present some scripture with no reasons to show how this fits your position other than to just reassert your same claims ,and then once again make the false accusation that I said it was the figure Symbol when anyone that bothered to read my post can see that it was the figure Metaphor?

If you'd rather just engage in ad hominum attacks and trolling, then please pm me and we can do that until you've had enough abuse. Otherwise, either address the arguments I've presented or I see no reason to show you a courtesy you refuse to show others.

[SIZE=12pt]Ummm, time for an English lesson:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]hy·per·bo·le[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]hīˈpərbəlē[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]noun[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Hyperbole” simply means to exaggerate. Jesus uses “hyperbole” in John 6 when He compares eating his flesh to the way an animal eats (Trogo) and rips apart his food.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I now understand why you chose to cut and paste rather than to argue the point yourself. Your poor grammar, sentence structure, etc. make it difficult to understand your point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for your being raised a Catholic – that’s all well and good. However, it is blindingly clear that you left the Church out of sheer ignorance and nothing else. Had you actually understood the teachings of Christ’s Church – you would never have left.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The metaphorical teachings of Christ are plain and clear when He speaks about himself being a “Door” (John 10:9) or that He is a “Vine” (John 15:5). We know this because He is neither a Door nor is He a Vine. He is fully man and fully God.

HOWEVER, in the Bread of life discourse – He doesn’t claim to be anything He is not. He states that we must consume Him just as the Paschal Lamb was to be consumed by the Jews. The ONLY place He uses exaggeration is in the WAY we must consume him (Trogo, instead of Phago).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As to your confusion about the “Cup” being transformed into the blood of Christ – I’ll let a much more educated mind than you or I explain:[/SIZE]

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God IS the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is IN that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS the body of Christ and the chalice IS the blood of Christ.(ibid. 272).

[SIZE=12pt]Finally, your anti-Catholicism is evident by your acrimony. You said:
“The text you refer to is one of the most ridiculous examples of stupefying ignorance known to Christianity.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’m not presenting MY opinions but the official teachings of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. YOUR statement is both ignorant and uncalled for because you pit the Church against Christianity. If you actually knew what you were talking about – you would understand the Catholics ARE Christians and were, in fact, the very FIRST Christians.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]PS –[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] “Discerning the body”[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] means to discern one’s OWN body –or rather, one’s sinfulness.[/SIZE]

 

[epostle1]

The reason for this ignorance, among other things; stems from an intentional deception perpetrated by the establishment. I translated Attic and koine Greek in a Catholic college that, to their credit; never once injected Catholic doctrine into the texts we translated. The text you refer to is one of the most ridiculous examples of stupefying ignorance known to Christianity. The fact that you conflate the figure Symbol with the figure Metaphor only spotlights the woeful state of affairs in the world today that almost no one has a clue what they are talking about anymore, especially when it comes literature, not to mention church doctrine. The truth is evident to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of elementary Greek. To be perfectly blunt, one need only be able to understand basic English and have basic reading comprehension skills. Of course a closed mind trumps all, so I will explain the basic facts for anyone else who may be interested.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as "High Priest." But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.”

Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father. Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

If His priesthood is eternal, He offers symbols / metaphors to the Father on our behalf? How can a symbol or a metaphor be eternal?

This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". At least, I've never heard that claim. The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."

Q.E.D.


The best explanation I have heard from the most well educated Catholic clergy is that the author mistakenly used the wrong verb; nobody's perfect.

Did your teachers separate the Passover/seder from the Crucifixion?