Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[pneuma07]

Okay. Let’s see what constitutes a situational understanding.
In the map instance, I’m drawing a map. Clearly, that which I’m drawing on is a piece of paper, and it is readily observable that it is not in fact the highway, but is actually a road.

Frankly, I’m not sure how else one could qualify a situational understanding except by empiricism. Clearly, the last supper involved what was very obviously bread. They knew the food (edited) had symbolism in their traditions, and here Jesus was saying that this now represented a new covenant in his own body and blood. I don’t think this would have been at all difficult to accept.

Indeed, that is interesting. I’ll have to look into that more carefully before accepting or rejecting that idea.
.

Dear PCM,

      Paragraph 1.  Fine.  Dealing with a map we all know that we see representations of highways, towns and rivers there. I can

without ambiguity say: "Look, this IS the highway or the town ", pointing to the map.

Paragraph 2. Here we must be careful. The point is not whether
it could be acceptable that a bread IS a bread. It certainly was.
The point is whether it was situationally obvious for the Twelve in the Upper Room that if Jesus is telling them emphatically “this bread IS my body”, He means that the bread IS a bread, just somehow symbolically related to His Body.

Considerations such as the absolute exceptionality of their whole experience alongside Jesus, what they already knew about Him,
what they had been told according to John 6 ( yes we’re back
to John 6, too, as a part of the context here, and I hope you have time to consider how your reading of verse 63 has been addressed) tell us that in that extraordinary context, it was not so obvious to the Twelve that “this bread IS my body”, means “this bread is just bread”. Therefore, an “estì” to mean a simple “represents” would not be an appropriate choice of words in this case, (unless we’re aware of a well rooted particular idiomatic expression making it clear for the Twelve what “is my body” means, other than “is my body”.) Particularly to transmit a central message.
For, there is little doubt about that message in the Upper Room being central.

Paragraph 3. Fine

 

[JReducation]

MaryJ and Pax

Thanks for your kind remarks regarding my post No 23.

I didn’t follow-up along that line, as no one seemed to be interested in it. I have to admit that John’s mysticism can be very daunting to some people.

Nonetheless, I believe that it is through his mystical approach to Christ that he actually offers the best explanation of who Christ is and what Christ signs to, not just what they mean.

One of the advantages of being a mystic, which John was and the other Gospel writers don’t seem to have been, is that the mystic arrives at a spiritual union with God.

The other writers of the Gospels were holy men, don’t get me wrong. But John had not only met Jesus personally, but he also spent much of his life as a contemplative. He was able to reach a spiritual union with Christ that can only be achieved at the level of the soul. In mystical theology we call this infused contemplation.

It is clear from John’s Gospel that John had reached such a level of union with God. At this level the individual ceases to think, talk or even imagine. The Holy Spirit does all of the work. so that one’s understanding of God is not through one’s meditation or even because of what we have heard and seen, but what we know about God is placed there by an act of infused grace.

When John teaches about Christ he has an insight that few people in history have ever experienced. There are others, but that does not apply to this thread.

It’s fascinating to see how John understands that Jesus offer of his body and blood as food are signs, not symbols. John, being well educated in Greek thought, knew the difference between a symbol and a sign. He places Jesus’ discourse on his body and blood (Ch 6) in his Book of Signs.

Many people don’t know that John’s Gospel is really four books in one. Many of us have seen such works. John deliberately writes a book of signs. In his Greek educated mind, a sign actually does what it says and says what it does. A symbol represents some important idea, message or belief, but it is not the same as the thing that it represents.

It is extremely important to recognize that John’s discourse in Ch 6 is being presented as a sign. This means that in his mind, Jesus words meant what they said and what they said would be done as they were said. Jesus would give his body and blood as actual physical food. On the flip side, this food would be the actual body and blood of Christ. Because as I said before, John uses the Greek’s definiton of signs. Therefore, if he is food, then the food is Jesus. In Greek logic, this is the way signs worked.

John would not have used Greek language and logic, had he not had some insight into Christ’s meaning. This insight comes from his mystical life. As he grew older and deeper in the faith and through prayer, he became a contemplative. At some point, the Holy Spirit speaks to his soul. What his writing does is try to put into theological language what has been revealed to his soul though infused contemplation.

In other words, John’s description of the sign (body and blood of Christ) is not just something that he heard Christ say and later recalled. It’s an understanding that the Holy Spirit infuses into his soul. Understanding of what? Understanding of Jesus’ words.

Those of us who are not at the same level of mystical prayer as John have to settle for his testimony that he heard Jesus say this and that the Holy Spirit infused in his soul that these were more than words. Jesus was talking about a sign that he would give humanity. That sign would be his body and blood as real food.

 

[maryj]

JReduction, Very precise and clear. An excellent explanation. I dare say probably one of the best I’ve ever heard. I’ve often times wondered why so many catholics have such an affinity for this Gospel. Seems easy to understand now. Thank you.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

PC Master;3182681:

Second, let’s look at what it’s a continuation of. In Egypt, the Israelites were enslaved. God promised to save them, and demonstrated his might by slaying all the first-born children among the Egyptians.

Whom did he spare?
Those who had slain a lamb and done with it according to his instructions (spreading the blood accordingly, etc).

This line has irony. “…Those who had slain a lamb…” Wasn’t the Lamb of God slain by the decendents of those that were spared?

God instructed them to remember this by holding the passover meal every year. This wasn’t just some kind of a party. This was serious stuff – commemorating a miracle in accordance with God’s instructions. Can you imagine the offense if someone abused that commemoration? I can only imagine that the reaction would be rather extreme.

Wasn’t the Eucharist and the Crucifixion at that Passover?

Oh but Pc ,
they had to EAT THE LAMB. Not a symbol of the lamb, THE lamb. Not a burger, not some fish, but the lamb. And your right this was not just some kind of party, it was serious stuff. As is the Holy Eucharist, it is the LAMB of God. How is it that God would expect of the Jews to eat the Lamb that had been sacrified, and for us to only eat the “symbol” of the Lamb of God that was sacrificed?

These references excite the soul…it makes all fall into place.

Thank you.

 

[PC_Master]

I know im butting in…

If you have reasonable ideas to contribute, you’re more than welcome to do so (at least as far as I’m concerned – I can’t speak for others, but I suspect they would not object either).

…but I would like to add that the Jews actually believed that they where partaking in the same and original passover

Can you corroborate this claim with evidence?

Exodus 12:14, speaking of the Passover, says that “this day shall be to you for a memorial”, and then gives instruction on its yearly practice. A memorial is not the actual thing. It is a remembrance of something (which is the word Jesus used at the last supper – remembrance). God wasn’t smiting the firstborn every year – he did it once. The Israelites left Egypt once. The successive celebrations of Passover were a memorial of that event.

(Exodus 12:26-27) “When your children ask you ‘what does this rite of yours mean’? You shall reply, ‘this IS the **Passover sacrifice **of the Lord who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; when he struck down the Egyptians and he spared our houses’.” .

Notice two things:

1. Again, “is”. In this case, the word isn’t represented by a specific Hebrew word. The translators inserted the word to make sense of the passage in English. As I’ve covered, “is” could mean “represents”.
2. Alternatively, and possibly more likely, it could be read that “this is the Passover sacrifice” is simply identifying the form of what they were doing. Having a roasted lamb, consuming it all, etc – “these things are a part of the Passover sacrifice”.

It need not be taken literally that it’s the same sacrifice.

Now if you happen to have evidence to support your claim, by all means present it.

And what is the new Passover? In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Jesus is called the paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed and it tells us to keep the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Aye. Jesus was the new Passover lamb. Just as with the first time, when God delivered the people from Egypt, there was a miraculous event, followed by celebrations of that event every year. Think of it as a re-definition of Passover.

PC Master: If Bill Clinton who is also Protestant felt the need to make a subset of this thread about what the definition of “Is” is regarding Jesus saying “This IS my body and this IS my blood” would you participate in it to be absolutely sure that you know what the definition of “Is” is so you could enlighten us more in this thread?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. As far as I know, Bill Clinton isn’t here. And if he wanted to discuss that particular instance, I might indeed be involved.

What do you think the definition of “Is” is?

At the very least, is can represent two concepts:

1. Literal identification – This is my hat.
2. Representative identification (symbology) – (Pointing to a map.) This is Highway 123.

There are more, of course, but they are not relevant to this topic. As previously covered, it seems that the situation determines which of these two meanings is intended.

Jesus used the “bread” and “wheat” imagery in many of his teachings. It is clear that everything He did was leading up to the crucifixion and the breaking of his body (bread) as the perfect and only sacrifice acceptable to God and the formal start of the New Covenant of friendship and goodwill between God and Man sealed with Divine Blood.

Totally agreed.

As for what you quoted, the “Lord’s Prayer” – you emphasized that it says “Give us this day our daily bread”. This seems a reference to physical food, which we must eat daily to survive. I don’t think it applies to the topic at hand.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Oh no, they were not just ordinary lambs. They were unblemished lambs, with no broken bones.

Agreed. I wasn’t implying “ordinary” – I was saying that they were just physical, “normal” lambs. These commemorations of the original Passover (where God passed over the Israelites) were just that – commemorations. They weren’t the actual thing. Likewise, commemorations of the last supper are not the actual event that they symbolize (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross).

But my point was that an interpretation of John 6 existed before John 6 was canonized in scripture, so why isn’t that important, considering those making the interpretation of John 6 conversed directly with those who discussed this matter with Christ Himself?

Perhaps it does matter, but I’m not addressing it right now. Also, bear in mind that even if there were opinions formed after…even very shortly after the gospel was composed, this doesn’t necessarily mean they were without flaw, nor does it mean that all such opinionated persons were either discussing this with John, nor dealing with the theology of transubstantiation.

Jesus fulfilled the OT, not abolished it.

Absolutely.

Paragraph 2. Here we must be careful. The point is not whether
it could be acceptable that a bread IS a bread. It certainly was.
The point is whether it was situationally obvious for the Twelve in the Upper Room that if Jesus is telling them emphatically “this bread IS my body”, He means that the bread IS a bread, just somehow symbolically related to His Body.

It’s no different than when Jesus used the analogy of being the bread that came down from heaven. Did he mean he was really bread? Nope. He’s just symbolically representing it to explain to the people.

Considerations such as the absolute exceptionality of their whole experience alongside Jesus, what they already knew about Him,
what they had been told according to John 6 ( yes we’re back
to John 6, too, as a part of the context here, and I hope you have time to consider how your reading of verse 63 has been addressed) tell us that in that extraordinary context, it was not so obvious to the Twelve that “this bread IS my body”, means “this bread is just bread”. Therefore, an “estì” to mean a simple “represents” would not be an appropriate choice of words in this case…Particularly to transmit a central message.

So you’re saying that not only would the twelve have not thought that the bread was bread (and not Jesus actual body), but that they would have thought it perfectly acceptable that the bread actually, literally was his body? I think that’s a stretch to say that they would have denied their own senses, and assumed that Jesus was speaking literally, even when he’d said so many things previously in a figurative way.

Indeed, if Jesus were saying it so literally, I would have expected questions from the twelve. I mean, at this point, they didn’t even yet understand the importance of service, as opposed to leadership. They were fearful when Jesus was executed. No, these men were not suddenly full of understanding in what Jesus was saying, if it was so literal. (They also did not yet have the guidance of the holy spirit.)

It just doesn’t fit.

This line has irony. “…Those who had slain a lamb…” Wasn’t the Lamb of God slain by the decendents of those that were spared?

Well, some say he was actually killed by the Romans (as it would have been illegal for the Jews to do so), but yes, I get what you’re saying. What point are you trying to make, though?

Wasn’t the Eucharist and the Crucifixion at that Passover?

Yup. Some even go so far as to say that Jesus’ blood would have been covering the Ark of the Covenant as was supposed to be done with the lambs (but had not been done this way for generations).

There’s no doubt of the symbolism that Jesus was a sacrifice for all mankind, in kind with the passover lamb.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

John, being well educated in Greek thought, knew the difference between a symbol and a sign.

In his Greek educated mind, a sign actually does what it says and says what it does. A symbol represents some important idea, message or belief, but it is not the same as the thing that it represents.

John uses the Greek’s definiton of signs. Therefore, if he is food, then the food is Jesus.

In Greek logic, this is the way signs worked.

JR,

Follow-up question. Could you explicate this more? By “Greek” do you mean John’s contemporaries or do you mean more ancient Greek thought?

Could you point us to or cite some sources that explain the Greek understanding of semiotics?

Thank you!
VC

 

[maryj]

So you’re saying that not only would the twelve have not thought that the bread was bread (and not Jesus actual body), but that they would have thought it perfectly acceptable that the bread actually, literally was his body? I think that’s a stretch to say that they would have denied their own senses, and assumed that Jesus was speaking literally, even when he’d said so many things previously in a figurative way.( quote Pc.)

How could it possibly be a stretch for 12 men who had spent 3 years with Him, seeing miracle upon miracle. Did their senses deny them when He fed the masses with the loaves and fish? Did their senses deny them when He walked upon the water? Did their senses deny them when He raised the dead? Did their senses deny them when He turned the water into wine? I think they knew that He was God and that God can do all things. They knew how He spoke, He always clarified if they mistook Him. No need to clarify when you are speaking literally.

 

[maryj]

Totally agreed.

As for what you quoted, the “Lord’s Prayer” – you emphasized that it says “Give us this day our daily bread”. This seems a reference to physical food, which we must eat daily to survive. I don’t think it applies to the topic at hand.

Continued…

I don’t disagree with this statement BUT I think it means and awful lot more than just physical food. I believe it means everything that sustains us, and for the catholic, it is the Eucharist that sustains us. So it does apply to this situation for a catholic. I 've got house work to do, and a roof that needs shoveling!! it has been a delite… carry on.

 

[Odell]

Can you corroborate this claim with evidence?

Exodus 12:14, speaking of the Passover, says that “this day shall be to you for a memorial”, and then gives instruction on its yearly practice. A memorial is not the actual thing. It is a remembrance of something (which is the word Jesus used at the last supper – remembrance). God wasn’t smiting the firstborn every year – he did it once. The Israelites left Egypt once. The successive celebrations of Passover were a memorial of that event.

God commanded Israel to commemorate this national deliverance in a “memorial feast” that would be a “perpetual institution” (see Exodus 12:14,17).

Israel’s worship, not only in the Passover, but in the other festivals and customs instituted by God through Moses, was a worship of ritual remembrance.

What was remembered? God’s salvific intervention in Israel’s history - especially in the exodous - and His covenant with Israel. The ritual remembrance included the reading or narration of His saving deeds, along with the offering of sacrifices.

And Israel was taught to believe that in these rites of remembrance they were brought into a mysterious sharing and participation in the covenant that God made with their ancestors centuries before.

We see this most clearly in the covenant renewal ceremony recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. In this remembrance, Moses explains, the original covenant made at Mount Sinai is **“actualized,” **or made present in their midst.

(Deuteronomy 5:1-4, 15, 23,25; 6:20-25) "Not with our fathers did He make this covenant, but all of us who are alive** here **this day. The Lord spoke with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up to the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to announce to you these words of the Lord. . . "

Moses is remembering a series of events that took place on Mount Sinai during the first generation after the Exodus **(see Exodus 19-20). **Yet he is describing them as if the assembled Isralites are themselves there, as witnesses and participants in those events.

Notice his intense stress on the present moment - us, you, alive, here, this day. **Though the covenant was made long ago **on Sinai, it is present in their midst.

In recalling the covenant, they aren’t rehearsing the facts of a past event. In their remembrance, through the power of God, they are being made contemporaries of those events. Those events are being made present. In remembering the covenant, they are made heirs to that covenant, part of the family of God created by the covenant.

In every celebration of the Passover, men and women of every generation **remembered the day when they themselves came forth from the land of Egypt ** **(see Deuteronomy 16:3). **The exodus is something that they personally participate in. Every Israelite, even today, speaks of the exodus in the first person. It is “what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt” (see Exodus 13:8).

The New Exodus

This is the rich Old Testament background to Jesus’ command at the last supper.

He aimed to institute a new Passover memorial, one that would remember His “exodus” (see Luke 9:31), the mighty act of salvation acommplished by His life, death, and resurrection, by which all peoples and generations are freed from sin and death.

The new memorial instituted by Jesus wasn’t to be a nostalgic reminiscence of Christ’s last meal, or His days on earth. Like the Passover, it would be a liturgical memorial that would re-present, “actualize” - make actual - God’s mighty work.

In the Eucharist, the once-and-for-all sacrifice of the cross becomes present, God remembers and renews the covenant made in Christ’s blood **(see Luke 22:20), **and we who worship through this memorial are made sharers in the power and promises of that covenant.

What Moses told the Israelites about the covenant and Sinai could be said of us: Not with our fathers, the apostles in that upper room, did Jesus make this new covenant. He made it with all of us who are alive here this day. The Lord spoke with us face to face when He said, “Take . . . eat. . . This is my body . . . Take . . . drink . . .This is the cup of my blood . . . Do this in memory of me.”

continued…

 

[Odell]

Notice two things:

1. Again, “is”. In this case, the word isn’t represented by a specific Hebrew word. The translators inserted the word to make sense of the passage in English. As I’ve covered, “is” could mean “represents”.

1. Alternatively, and possibly more likely, it could be read that “this is the Passover sacrifice” is simply identifying the form of what they were doing. Having a roasted lamb, consuming it all, etc – “these things are a part of the Passover sacrifice”.

It need not be taken literally that it’s the same sacrifice.

Your right but I think scripture is overwhelming with what I have just given you. again this is from that study that I gave you the link to. now you have a good argument that cant be easly dismessed but I would like to know what you think of what I have given you.

not to mention what the early fathers tought. And what Hebrews and Revelations teach about us being present at the eternal sacrafice. That is why John sees him as a Lamb as if slain in revelations. He was there called up in spirit and he saw the eternal sacrafice.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

Follow-up question. Could you explicate this more? By “Greek” do you mean John’s contemporaries or do you mean more ancient Greek thought?

Could you point us to or cite some sources that explain the Greek understanding of semiotics?

Thank you!
VC

VC, that’s a very intelligent question and I’d be happy to look up some articles online on Greek semiotics so that you don’t have to go shopping for very expensive books. I’ll send them.

As to John’s knowledge and use of Greek thought, from reading the earliest copies that we have of his writings and those of his disciples, they (including John and his disciples) seem to have been very knowledgeable of Aristotle, Socrates and Euclid. There are words in the documents that were used in the writings of these Greek thinkers. There were also words of more contemporary (to them) Greek language such as “Logos”. In Greek, the old word Logos, was not the spoken word as we use in grammar and linguistics, but it meant a living Word, as in having its own nature, self-awareness and identity.

The word “sign” was different from the word “symbol”. The Greeks used sign to represent something efficacious, meaning that it had power. Again, only something that is infused with life has power and authority. Inanimate objects have no power and no authority. They represent.

John deliberately called some of the things that Jesus did SIGNS. He used the word, knowing that his readers would interpret them to have infused power and authority.

One must ask who does the infusing. This is where John ties in the Greek Logos. The Logos does the infusing. So that every sign that comes from the Logos, also has the power of the Logos and cotains the Logos in some mystical way.

For John to have used the word Sign instead of Symbol when he meant symbol would have been either a deliberate deception and intent to mislead or a grave error. If we believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired, then we must rule out error and accept deliberate intent on the part of the writer.

To believe that John intended to mislead his readers by attributing the characteristics of signs to what were really symbols would mean that John was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but had his own agenda. That would make his Gospel and his other writings errant or false teachings.

The exegetical tension rises. Is John in error and teaching error or is he right and is this such a profound mystical revelation that it makes sense that those who did not share or understand the revelation would walk away? That is the all important question.

The conclusion of the early church is that the latter was the case. John had received a revelation from Christ. Through his spiritual union with God he came to understand the true meaning of this revelation.

The Body and Blood of Christ, given as bread and wine were truly his Body and Blood. This was one of the signs that Christ is the pre-existent Lord over all that is created, as John so beautifully puts it in his Prologue.

Christ is Lord of Creation, for through him and for him everything was created. His body and blood as bread and wine are one sign of Christ’s Lordship. Because he is the Lord of creation, he can give his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. To show that he is Lord, he does it. Just as he says in other Gospels, “so that you may believe that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins I say to you, take up your bed and walk.” These are Jesus’ proofs of his eternal divinity and power.

Even though wheat and grapes are part of Creation, the Lord of Creation, can use them to literally feed his people with his body and blood, as Lord of Creation, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. They are not meant to feed us to satisfy bodily hunger, but to satisfy the hunger of the soul. The sould longs for union with God. It longs for a real union, not a symbollic union, for symbols do not satisfy hunger. I don’t satisfy my physical hunger with the symbollic “M” outside of McDonald’s. Neither is the hunger of the soul satisfied symbollic bread and wine.

Christ says that he must ascend so that the Holy Spirit can come. Through the Holy Spirit all this is made possible.

Just as Christ becomes incarnate in Mary through the Holy Spirit, he becomes incarnate in bread and wine through the Holy Spirit. This is why the church prays,

“Father, pour forth your spirit that this bread and wine, the fruit of creation and the works of our hands may become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.”

The sign is the work of the Trinity of which John speaks in his Prologue.

What purpose did this sign serve? Two purposes: it is another stamp of Christ’s majesty over creation and a sign of Christ’s eternity. He physically remains with us. Just as the tomb couldn’t keep him prisoner and away from his people, neither can time, matter or physics.

 

[HailMary]

I think the weight of an early Christian’s testimony should be considered. Take a look at a simple evening prayer which sheds light on how the early Christians believed on this matter.
NIGHT PRAYER
(Nightime Hymn of Mar (Saint) Ephrem)

O Lord, through the Cross by which you humbled yourself, grant me restful sleep and deliver me from nightmares and disturbances. Give me an angel of light to guard my body, and,** by your living Flesh which I have eaten**, deliver me from hateful feelings.

May the fortress of your mercy shelter my soul, which is your image. May your right hand overshadow my body, which your hands have fashioned. May the fortress of your mercy shelter me like a defending shield, and when my body is silent and asleep, may your power be its guardian. Amen.

Let my sleep be like the perfume of incense ascending before your Greatness.** By the intercession of her who bore you**, let the evil one not approach my bed. By your sacrifice for all, chase away Satan, lest he harm me. Fulfill your promise in me, and by your cross protest my life.

 

[PC_Master]

JR,

Follow-up question. Could you explicate this more? By “Greek” do you mean John’s contemporaries or do you mean more ancient Greek thought?

Could you point us to or cite some sources that explain the Greek understanding of semiotics?

I’d very much like to see some evidence to support this as well.

How could it possibly be a stretch for 12 men who had spent 3 years with Him, seeing miracle upon miracle. Did their senses deny them when He fed the masses with the loaves and fish? Did their senses deny them when He walked upon the water? Did their senses deny them when He raised the dead? Did their senses deny them when He turned the water into wine?

When he fed the masses, the twelve actually saw the people taking the bread, and saw how much was remaining. Did they understand how it happened? No. But they did see evidence of it. It was observable.

Walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, causing the apostles to catch so many fish by moving the net to the other side of the boat…all of these were miraculous, but again, empirically observable.

Jesus died and rose again – could they explain how? No. But they did see it with their own eyes. The same is true for those who were cured of illnesses, blindness, leprosy, and so on.

And yet, a supposedly miraculous event at the last supper is supposed to be the only miracle Jesus performed which had no observable proof of its happening? That seems very unlike Jesus, if scripture is any measure of what he was like.

I think they knew that He was God and that God can do all things.

No doubt. This is not in dispute. I am certainly not saying he cannot do things – rather that he did not. Likewise, the apostles, believing him to be the son of God, wouldn’t believe that he could not do things, but certainly this didn’t stop them from questioning his teachings when they were unclear.

They knew how He spoke, He always clarified if they mistook Him. No need to clarify when you are speaking literally.

Or figuratively. So long as the intent is clear, there is no need for clarification. Jesus frequently spoke in parable and analogy. Why is there any reason to be confused if this seems to be another parable? Moreover, the very meal they were eating was the passover, a meal symbolic in its very nature – what’s so confusing about symbolism in a symbolic meal?

God commanded Israel to commemorate this national deliverance in a “memorial feast” that would be a “perpetual institution” (see Exodus 12:14,17).

Israel’s worship, not only in the Passover, but in the other festivals and customs instituted by God through Moses, was a worship of ritual remembrance.

Agreed.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

The ritual remembrance included the reading or narration of His saving deeds, along with the offering of sacrifices.

Bear in mind that God never set forth that they were to ritually read things, but rather to communicate the events that happened. Ritualism such as a liturgy was not indicated.

And Israel was taught to believe that in these rites of remembrance they were brought into a mysterious sharing and participation in the covenant that God made with their ancestors centuries before.

This is the second time this claim has been made. Please provide support for it.

We see this most clearly in the covenant renewal ceremony recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. In this remembrance, Moses explains, the original covenant made at Mount Sinai is **“actualized,” **or made present in their midst.

(Deuteronomy 5:1-4, 15, 23,25; 6:20-25) "Not with our fathers did He make this covenant, but all of us who are alive** here **this day. The Lord spoke with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up to the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to announce to you these words of the Lord. . . "

Many commentators indicate one of two things…

1. That the covenant was made not with “our fathers” (the patriarchs) only, but also with those alive today. That is, the covenant also applies to the “nation of Israel”.
2. That the covenant made with the patriarchs was different than the one made with the current generation. Abraham, et al had the covenant of circumcision, but not of the ten commandments.

Either way, I see nothing here that says anything about there being a mystical transport in time and space. Also bear in mind that the lifespan was longer, and that a great many who had been in Egypt were still alive, so saying that it was the same people is not unreasonable.

In recalling the covenant, they aren’t rehearsing the facts of a past event. In their remembrance, through the power of God, they are being made contemporaries of those events. Those events are being made present. In remembering the covenant, they are made heirs to that covenant, part of the family of God created by the covenant.

Even if that were so, being brought under a contract doesn’t necessitate being “transported” in place or time. What makes you think God would violate the temporal system he set up?

The language of the whole section is that of addressing the actual people who were in Egypt. Why is there reason to believe these were not them?

The exodus is something that they personally participate in. Every Israelite, even today, speaks of the exodus in the first person. It is “what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt” (see Exodus 13:8).

I know quite a few Jews, and none of them believe that it’s anything other than a commemoration of the actual event (I asked).

 

[maryj]

Warning-thread derail
Hail mary, thank you for posting the beautiful prayer. Our college age daughter has been struggling with terrible nightmares. I have forwarded this prayer on to her. God Bless Maryj

Back to your regularily schedualed thread:wave:

 

[maryj]

When he fed the masses, the twelve actually saw the people taking the bread, and saw how much was remaining. Did they understand how it happened? No. But they did see evidence of it. It was observable.

Walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, causing the apostles to catch so many fish by moving the net to the other side of the boat…all of these were miraculous, but again, empirically observable.

Jesus died and rose again – could they explain how? No. But they did see it with their own eyes. The same is true for those who were cured of illnesses, blindness, leprosy, and so on.

And yet, a supposedly miraculous event at the last supper is supposed to be the only miracle Jesus performed which had no observable proof of its happening? That seems very unlike Jesus, if scripture is any measure of what he was like.(quote pc)

Observable? Did they see HOW he multiplied the loaves? Did they see how He rose from the dead? etc…No I don’t think so, but they sure saw the benefits of those miracles. Just as we see the benefits of the Eucharist.

 

[Nita]

My apologies for not addressing all of the posts, but there are some things I need to clear up first.

I’m amazed you can keep up with all the posts at all - let alone respond! Congratulations.
I have to admit I have not read the last two pages of posts; there probably would have been two more pages by the time I finished. So I apologize if someone has already made the same response.

Originally Posted by Nita

The word of Jesus “This (bread He was holding) IS My Body”].
I can’t think of anything more worthy of belief/acceptance as true than the word of Jesus.

PC Master
As I’ve said, I can say “this is highway X” while pointing at a line on a page or a map. The word “is” (Greek “esti”) can have figurative meanings, and does in scripture. Just check it out and you’ll see.
…

The map comparison is not equivalent or similar. To be similar to your highway/map example, Jesus would have had to take a sketch of Himself with other people, point at His image and say "This is my body.

In other words, it would have to be something whose only purpose and meaning would be to serve as a representation of Jesus’ body.

I intend to check out the gospels for “Is” usages. Without looking, I think they often

1. say “is like a ___”;
2. or in the discourse, comparative words will be used : “as” the branch, “so” you, etc.
3. or Jesus will explain the symbolism ("The field is the world, etc.)

I’m familiar with the “I am” statements, but they are a little different; Jesus is the subject of the sentence.
Note the difference between saying “I am the vine…” ---- and picking up a physical vine, holding it up and saying “This is Me”.

Nita

 

[guanophore]

While you can claim that transubstantiation actually did happen in scripture (as you obviously do), what is there to prove it?

I think the burden is on the Protester to disprove it, since Jesus plainly said it was. However, we have the Teachings of the Apostles and Fathers, and 1500 years of Church history believing the same.

A good argument. On the other hand, if you assume it to be figurative, and the actual reality to have been done once for all, there’s no need for priests to be the ones doing it – Jesus is the ultimate high priest, after all.

This is exactly true, and why there is no distinction between the Priest who acts in the Person of Christ, and Jesus, who is the one giving His Body and Blood. He allows the priest to share in His eternal priesthood.

While the illustration given is indeed colorful, it’s not very accurate. What does it mean to profane the body and blood of Christ? Is this not another way of saying that it’s a cause for great offense, because one is insulting that which is represented?

I suppose one could look at it that way, kinda like desecrating the American flag? But it is not the flag itself, but that which it represents that is defamed. However, Paul goes on to say that many of them have fallen sick, and some have died, and attributes this to the profanation. Howe does insulting a representaion cause that?

If someone ripped apart and stomped on a picture of a loved one of mine, I probably would be offended. Though it’s not actually the person, it is showing a severe disrespect for them, and that’s the same vein Paul was writing in, I believe.

I agree, but it would not make you “guilty of the loved one” just like doing it to the sacrament makes on guilty of the body and blood. Then there is the sickness, mentioned in the same passage.

While he didn’t actually use parables, he clarified in verse 63 that the words he was speaking had nothing to do with the flesh, but were spiritual truths.

No, he said that the flesh was of no avail understanding His words, because they were spiritual truths. You can’t say his words had nothing to do with flesh, or you also have to say His flesh He gave was of no avail.

If he was being literal, would you explain to me in what sense Jesus actually meant that his body was bread?

It feeds us. There are many instances of people surviving on no food at all but the Eucharist for weeks, months, and in rare cases, even years.

And since he was speaking literally, what about never being hungry or thirsty again? Even spiritually, I don’t think Roman Catholics hold that the Eucharist accomplishes this, much less figuratively.

On the contrary!

No, the overall context seems abundantly clear that he was demonstrating how much more satisfying a belief in him was than the manna in the desert was for the people of Israel.

I agree, but in His world, faith in Him = obedience .

Further, if he was speaking of the Eucharist, why did he say over and over that belief in him would result in everlasting life? How does that literally equate to the Eucharist?

This is a complex answer. To abbreviate, no one who is not in a state of grace should take communion, and no one can be saved unless they are in a state of grace.
PC Master;3181305:

And why does becoming more graphic necessitate literalism as opposed to symbolism?

How do you symbolically “gnaw” on Jesus Himself? Why did He use words about masticating food?

 

[maryj]

Or figuratively. So long as the intent is clear, there is no need for clarification. Jesus frequently spoke in parable and analogy. Why is there any reason to be confused if this seems to be another parable? Moreover, the very meal they were eating was the passover, a meal symbolic in its very nature – what’s so confusing about symbolism in a symbolic meal?

I believe you are in error here. I recall that anytime(at least in John) Jesus spoke in a figurative way he clarified these statments. So that lends itself to this…If he was speaking figuratively, why no clarification. I will look for proof of this for you if you wish.