Jesus was talking in a symbol

[Bill_Pick]

Bill many times. Are you looking for an example??

YES. I know of some but I think we may have more BTW is ND a school,smile

 

[Eucharisted]

Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John, vi, 26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by “bread of heaven” Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John, vi, 52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Köstlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a three-fold food in His address, the manna of the past (John, vi, 31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John, vi, 32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John, vi, 27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers—Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John, vi, 54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John, vi, 51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ’s mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed” (John, vi, 54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”, has a figurative meaning, namely, “to persecute, to bitterly hate some one”. If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, “to drink some one’s blood”, in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Is., xlix, 26; Apoc., xvi, 6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”. Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

OCE: The Eucharist

 

[Bill_Pick]

Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John, vi, 26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by “bread of heaven” Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John, vi, 52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Köstlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. For Christ mentions a three-fold food in His address, the manna of the past (John, vi, 31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John, vi, 32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John, vi, 27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers—Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man’s faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” (John, vi, 54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” (John, vi, 51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ’s mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed” (John, vi, 54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”, has a figurative meaning, namely, “to persecute, to bitterly hate some one”. If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, “to drink some one’s blood”, in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Is., xlix, 26; Apoc., xvi, 6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”. Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

OCE: The Eucharist

Thank you for a very good answer,have a good night and may Our Lord bless you

 

[planten]

I stumbled upon this forum a few minutes ago and registered just to tell you that metaphors never use the word like, so for you to say " I might agree if metaphorical language such as the word “like” was used" seems extremely foolish.

** I agree with this 100%. Example: If you are pointing to a brave man, you say, “Oh, he is a Lion.” You will never say, “oh, He is like a lion.” That would be foollish.

Because then he would need to have lot of ugly hair and a tail too.

Please understand.**

 

[planten]

1. I would rather take Him at His word than not take Him at His word, how about you?
2. I didn’t say positions but propostions. Say “God the Father” or “Father” in reference to God in front of a muslim and they will accuse you of blasphemy. The double standard is that they demand that we accept God on their terms but in turn refuse to accept how we speak of God on our terms.

True fraternal dialogue requires patience and understanding. It is impolite to demand that someone must speak in your language alone or in your terms alone.

**The G P, I agree to you that some fanatic Muslims may get angry when you say that Jesus had a Father God. That Jesus was the son of God. That Jesus was god.

There should be no harm if you are teaching such things peacefully. No one should hurt you. Because that would be preaching your faith. The other party may or may not believe what you said. No one should harm you.

It is sure as anything that no one is trying to preach peacefully. The Muslims are not believeing in preaching at all. Some of them feel they could do better by Jihad. That is all wrong. There are other Muslims who seriously believe in peaceful preaching without politics.

The procedure of the christians involves abuse of the prophet Muhammad. They cannot forget that. So there could be no preaching at all.

I had told that Jesus used to talk in parables, in symbols. I gave an example too. I stopped short of the final words because it could upset the Catholic faith completely. The Catholics have noted the evident result of that example of the vineyard. So they are not interested that I explain the whole example.

After all Jesus said something interesting and very important; Why are Catholics so upset and against going into the details of that teaching of Jesus. We as Muslims believe and admire that symbolic lesson of Jesus.**

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I stumbled upon this forum a few minutes ago and registered just to tell you that metaphors never use the word like, so for you to say " I might agree if metaphorical language such as the word “like” was used" seems extremely foolish.

You went through all that just for me? Awww Shucks!

Oh, thank you all-wise and all-knowing Cnote. What would I or any of us do with our lives if we didn’t have such like you to correct our grammer!? :bowdown:

You charity and love in dealing with my ignorance is much appreciated! Please God, let me never offend Cnote11’s acute sense of the language arts with my horrible grammer ever again!

 

[Cnote11]

You went through all that just for me? Awww Shucks!

Oh, thank you all-wise and all-knowing Cnote. What would I or any of us do with our lives if we didn’t have such like you to correct our grammer!? :bowdown:

You charity and love in dealing with my ignorance is much appreciated! Please God, let me never offend Cnote11’s acute sense of the language arts with my horrible grammer ever again!

Heathen! How dare ye bare ones self in my presence and spell grammar with an e. For this you should be banished from my forum for all eternity. Yes, I own this forum now.

Either way I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument, hopefully with the intent that you will better it and help with your further interpretation of all things holy. I would just hope that you knew the difference between a simile and a metaphor, it was a holy and righteous deed I bestowed upon you.