Communion is just a symbol!

[susanlo]

I can agree with teeth and bellies and eating by faith. Did he say spiritual gnawing?

I don’t know if Augustine used this phrase or not. He has a lot of writings.

I do remember Tertullian having a writing with similar type of language. He is writing about the resurrection of the flesh. He is saying that although salvation is spiritual, there will be a resurrection of the flesh through spiritual salvation. He uses John 6 to illustrate a point.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

“CHAP. XXXVII.–CHRIST’S ASSERTION ABOUT THE UNPROFITABLENESS OF THE FLESH EXPLAINED CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR DOCTRINE.
He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, **we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit “profiteth,” for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death."

 

[benhur]

I don’t know if Augustine used this phrase or not. He has a lot of writings.

I do remember Tertullian having a writing with similar type of language. He is writing about the resurrection of the flesh. He is saying that although salvation is spiritual, there will be a resurrection of the flesh through spiritual salvation. He uses John 6 to illustrate a point.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

“CHAP. XXXVII.–CHRIST’S ASSERTION ABOUT THE UNPROFITABLENESS OF THE FLESH EXPLAINED CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR DOCTRINE.
He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, **we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit “profiteth,” for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death."

Hi s,

I think Augustine said “leave your teeth and bellies behind” , as in not literal eating save spiritual or by faith.

But yet yes, he wrote many things, and unfortunately does not really clear the air on the matter. Seek and ye shall find.

It is interesting that some take the only half the verse physically literal (eat His flesh) but not the other half, “you will not die like your forefathers in the wilderness”. I mean we all physically do die , like our forefathers. Of course He was speaking spiritually, as was /is on the eating, as your quote suggests.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi PR,

His death and ascension are totally relevant to the discourse. One is implied and the other explicitly mentioned. The discourse is a package. Your question is the culmination of 60 preceding verses.

The cross was and is still the biggest stumbling block for Jews.

One can not separate the bloody death of the Messiah from “eating and drinking His flesh”

The eagle/hawk have quite an ability to micro focus on their prey, but not so good on the bigger picture, and fly smack into the truck driving in between.
I answered above. The eating and drinking of His blood was the culmination. They understood it in the context of the previous 60 verses (not a micro transubstantiation context), but disbelieved and found it “absurd”. the micro view is also quite telling.

Blessings

 

[Faith1960]

Greetings, Ben.

History has proven that while there have been bad popes, none of them, I repeat none of them, have taught error.

Pax

How do we know that for certain? There are things we can’t prove, like Marys Assumption and things taught hundreds of years ago.

 

[PRmerger]

I answered above.

You answered above?

Since I just posed the question in post # 198, you’re saying your answer to my question is in post # 200?

Or are you saying that this is your answer:

Hi PR,

His death and ascension are totally relevant to the discourse. One is implied and the other explicitly mentioned. The discourse is a package. Your question is the culmination of 60 preceding verses.

The cross was and is still the biggest stumbling block for Jews.

One can not separate the bloody death of the Messiah from “eating and drinking His flesh”

The eagle/hawk have quite an ability to micro focus on their prey, but not so good on the bigger picture, and fly smack into the truck driving in between.

If so, I really don’t see the answer to my question, which is, again, a very simple question, and is a very simple answer.

I will pose it again, and if you respond with obfuscation, and NOT A DIRECT ANSWER, I will have no choice to, sadly and regretfully, end all discussions with you.

What is the “hard saying” that the disciples were murmuring about in John 6?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

How do we know that for certain? There are things we can’t prove, like Marys Assumption and things taught hundreds of years ago.

Because Jesus promised that it wouldn’t happen in MATT 16

And secondly, the Catholic Church is the Church He established and the one who birthed the bible. Therefore, the burden of proof will always be on the protesters.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

I question “modern” as if the first church was “old fashioned” in knowledge and history. They very well knew of Aramaic, and many other languages, including the universal Greek. The debate then is almost the same as today. Aramaic is not a stumbling block for anyone.

Kepha is most probable but not the only Aramaic word evolving around rocks ans stones. One must not rule out gesturing, which is just as probable as any gender rationale.

Anyways, the inspired, inerrant text is Greek with two distinct words. Like many truths it is left to “interpretation”, to the eyes of the beholder, conditional as always upon divine illumination.

Finally, I do not rigidly object to Peter being both petras/petros *in principal *because in the end the church is indeed built upon Peter, and the other eleven apostles, per Revelations. It is scriptural that our forefathers in the faith were then stones (kephas) laid upon that foundation. Peter finaly says we are “living " stones” being hewn into place today.

Blessings
Blessings

Greetings, Ben.

The two “distinct” words, weren’t actually all that distinct then.

This is one of the reasons I always pose the question as to why the EO Church and Luther never used such a argument when they had all the motivation to do so. Languages fluctuate over time and things get lost in meaning, unfortunately.

And you make a very good point about gesturing and it’s another factor that makes interpretation difficult. And it’s why as a Catholic I would say we need a visible and united Church and the scope of tradition in regards to proper interpretation. Otherwise, people are drinking poison, cutting their hands off and plucking their eyes out.

jimmyakin.com/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

Greek is an inflected (not “reflexive”) language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

When the book of Matthew was being written in Greek, why didn’t the inspired author write that the church would be built on ‘Petros’ or ‘you’?

…you are Petros, and upon Petros I will build my church…
or
…you are Petros, and upon you I will build my church…

What did the first century author mean to be represented by this petra?

Different possibilities but I side with this explanation:

1. It is a stylistic variation to avoid a redundancy in terms. For example, if I was speaking to a Mr. Stone, it would sound clunky and redundant to say, “I tell you truly, you are Stone, and on this Stone I will build my organization.” It would sound better (less redundant) to say, “I tell you truly, you are Mr. Stone, and on this Rock I will build my organization.” We regularly use such stylistic variation in English to avoid redundant language (that is the whole reason for pronouns – I, me, my, he, him, his, she, her, hers — to avoid endlessly repeating the same nouns over and over again), and stylistic variation is used in other languages as well, Greek included. It makes things sound better and smoother.

jimmyakin.com/why-petros-was-not-used-twice-in-matthew-1618

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And equal is still equal.
Last I heard the apostles were all male, all part of the Bride. Indeed there is no confusion within a kings rule, but from king to king there is some variance,and evntually, some confusion (else no schisms).

Only when the King returns will every knee bend and confess in unity.
We are not theologians (at least not I) but words have distinct meanings and reasoning’s for their use. Far from “whatever” for dialogues of this topic thru the ages.

Blessings

Yes, but people are different and have different roles in the eyes of the Lord, which Is why I pointed to the marriage of a couple for a clear demonstration.

I find it interesting as to why Eve first sins, yet the bible tells us sin came into the world through Adam. (Romans 5:12)

Men/women are equal but the God of order prefers the “doctrine of federal headship”(to use a protestant description) and that’s why sin enters through Adam instead. This, like the papacy, is another demonstration of Godly order.

I think most understand the significance of God changing a person’s name. Abram to Abraham was a big deal for obvious reasons, likewise so is Simon to Peter imo. Curious as to why the others don’t have a name change if they were all so equal in mission/office. Only happens to Peter and to a lesser extent, Paul, who who both had unique roles in the formation of the early church.

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if Augustine used this phrase or not. He has a lot of writings.

I do remember Tertullian having a writing with similar type of language.

Tertullian is not an Early Church Father.

Rather, he is considered an early Christian writer, and some of his writings reflect the kerygma, but much of his writings do not.

 

[Darryl_B]

Tertullian is not an Early Church Father.

Rather, he is considered an early Christian writer, and some of his writings reflect the kerygma, but much of his writings do not.

Augustine is difficult because he travelled through other schools of thought before his eventual entry into orthodox. So it depends at what point something was written in that journey as to the amount it can be “gospelled”. Even some of what he expresses can appear to be contradictory to himself.

Tertullian on the other hand seems to have journeyed a path in the opposite direction (away from the orthodox).

 

[Faith1960]

Because Jesus promised that it wouldn’t happen in MATT 16

Pax

What verse?

 

[benhur]

This, friend, is a nonsequitur.

Whether or not those things are “hard sayings” is irrelevant to this discussion.

Please answer this question: when the disciples murmured among themselves “This is a hard saying…” (and left him because of it )…what was the “this” they were referencing?

I am wholly expecting a direct answer to my question, friend. It’s a pretty easy one. And if you won’t directly answer it, that will be quite telling…that is, you know the answer but refuse to state it, because of the repercussion.

Hi PR,

The “many” non believing disciples found a literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood a hard saying and absurd. The “many” departed…

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

The “many” non believing disciples found a literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood a hard saying and absurd. The “many” departed…

Blessings

Awwww. Thank you for showing good faith and answering directly the question.

Love you! Mwaahhh! (that’s a kissing sound). :kiss4you:

So, now you referenced some other “hard sayings” of Jesus, like the crucifixion and ascension…

Do you think his disciples would have been good disciples for leaving Jesus when he proclaimed these 2 “hard sayings”?

 

[benhur]

Awwww. Thank you for showing good faith and answering directly the question.

Love you! Mwaahhh! (that’s a kissing sound). :kiss4you:

So, now you referenced some other “hard sayings” of Jesus, like the crucifixion and ascension…

Do you think his disciples would have been good disciples for leaving Jesus when he proclaimed these 2 “hard sayings”?

Hi PR,

I am glad you are happy with my direct answer.

Of course it is not good for a disciple to leave Jesus generally speaking. It is also clear from the context it is also even more not good to be a disciple for the wrong reason, for not believing, as “many” did, from the beginning. It was “good” then that the “many” departed. Hence the hyperbole of finally having to "gnaw ‘’ on Him, in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

I am glad you are happy with my direct answer.

Of course it is not good for a disciple to leave Jesus.

…Of course it is not good for a disciple to leave Jesus…over a “hard saying”.

Like many disciples did when they were told they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

There is no doubt that the “hard saying” was the command to eat His flesh. Literally.

Because no one leaves Jesus over a rather soft and squishy command to eat His flesh symbolically.

 

[benhur]

…Of course it is not good for a disciple to leave Jesus…over a “hard saying”.

Like many disciples did when they were told they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

There is no doubt that the “hard saying” was the command to eat His flesh. Literally.

Because no one leaves Jesus over a rather soft and squishy command to eat His flesh symbolically.

Hi Pr,

Exactly my point. Jesus knew the non believers would take it literally and leave.

The question is why did the others stay ? I doubt they stayed understanding literal.

Scripture is explicit only in this . Those that stayed believed Christ had the words of eternal life, with no explicitness on literal /symbolic etc… Those that departed did not, and were tripped finally by some of His words. At best you can only say the unbelievers took it literally.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Pr,

Exactly my point. Jesus knew the non believers would take it literally and leave.

And he let them misunderstand him?

Isn’t then their rejection of him actually the fault of Jesus?

Do you see what you have to embrace in order to reject the Catholic view on this?

 

[PRmerger]

And he let them misunderstand him?

Isn’t then their rejection of him actually the fault of Jesus?

Do you see what you have to embrace in order to reject the Catholic view on this?

ben, which is more likely…which is something a good person does, vs something a very bad teacher/leader does:

-issues a command, knows that people misunderstand it, lets these people leave to their own destruction even though they’ve misunderstood what he said, but doesn’t call them back to correct their misunderstanding…

OR

-issues a command, lets these people leave to their own destruction because they leave fully understanding, and rejecting, what he has commanded

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi Pr,

Exactly my point. Jesus knew the non believers would take it literally and leave.

The question is why did the others stay ? I doubt they stayed understanding literal.

Scripture is explicit only in this . Those that stayed believed Christ had the words of eternal life, with no explicitness on literal /symbolic etc… Those that departed did not, and were tripped finally by some of His words. At best you can only say the unbelievers took it literally.

Blessings

Although the disciples didn’t understand at first they fully understood it some time later at the Last Supper.