Literal or Symbolic?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_GreyPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heb 9:24-“For Christ is NOT entered into the holy places made with hands ,which are the figures of the true,but into heaven itself…” Didache: “He tabernacles in our hearts”
When God created man from water and dust by His Word, man does not become a living being until God “breathed” into man new life.

Israel built a tabernacle and temple from their own hands for God’s presence to be known in the Shekinah cloud.

Man makes bread by killing the wheat and combining many wheat members to become one and perfects them through fire to make bread with man’s own hands… so does man take a bunch of grapes and crushing the grape, causing the bleeding of grapes to make wine, this is the only greatest gift man can offer God, which to non catholics is a symbolic Jesus. This symbolic bread and wine by themselves can never make it to heaven.

What Jesus does; He takes this bread and wine and Jesus Himself not man, is the one who takes these gifts (bread and wine) made by the hands of man, and changes them into His body, blood soul and divinity.

This Eucharistic (sacrificial offering) thanksgiving gift perfected by Jesus Christ which is not made by hands but made by the Word of God himself now made flesh, Is the only sacrificial offering God accepts, which the Catholic Church commanded by Jesus, celebrates this Eucharist everyday from the rising of the sun to its setting…as the prophets foretold…

Malachi 1:11 **From the rising of the sun to its setting,

my name is great among the nations;**

**Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere,

and a pure offering;**

For my name is great among the nations,

says the LORD of hosts.

**12But you profane it by saying

that the LORD’s table is defiled,

and its food may be disdained**.

If you think that the Eucharist is made by human hands? Then you have a gross misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Incense offering and a Pure offering is the Eucharist celebrated in the Mass since the resurrection of Jesus, when both are offered up to God in Spirit and Truth.

Along with our Prayers (incense) and our pure offering (Jesus body, blood) which is the only sacrificial Lamb that God accepts for the sins of the world. Without Jesus RP sacrificial gift you have no forgivness, any other gift or symbol is not acceptable to God.
 
We’re looking at a Passover Seder, which has a ton of food-oriented symbolism. This symbolism isn’t meaningless, rote, or any other disparaging term you might choose for it- this is one of the most important nights of the year for Jews (look around the table- Jesus and His disciples, all Jews).

Speaking more specifically to food-oriented symbolism, let’s take a look at the specific symbolic foods that Jesus chose, starting with the Matzo.

Matzo means unleavened bread. Different kinds of symbolic meanings are attached to it at different parts of the meal. More toward the beginning of the meal (I’m talking about Dayenu territory here), it symbolizes the affliction and slavery of Egypt, connections can be made between striations on the bread and striations on the back of a slave, and the unleavened bread eaten by Hebrew slaves is called to mind. As with all such symbolism during this meal, the term “anamnesis” should be close to the front of your mind- it is a “remembrance,” but not just a recollection of a memory. These things are called to mind in such a way that every Jew participating in the Seder considers themselves as if they were (in succession) a Jew enslaved in Egypt, a Jew being called and led out of Egypt, and a various other points, a Jew engaging in other blessings of God, other sufferings, and other notable times of deliverance. They obviously don’t believe there’s dozens of “substance” changes that are happening throughout the meal, but it is a bit of an insult to call this “just” a symbolic memorial, or “merely” a pointless thing that doesn’t mean anything. Doing so displays an unacceptable level of ignorance with regard to what Jesus and His disciples were doing that night, as well as an ignorance for many centuries of Jewish tradition that led up to this point.

Moving on with the Matzo, its place in the Seder makes it the symbol of transition from the bitterness of slavery in Egypt to the sweetness of physical, political, and religious freedom after leaving Egypt. And finally, leaven has always been closely associated with sin within Judaism, so the lack of leaven is a very straightforward representation of a lack of sin on the part of Jesus and it symbolizes “poor man’s bread” at early points in the Seder as well as humility and humbleness later on.

On to the cup. Exactly which cup he chose is unclear, and we don’t even know if there were a total of 3, 4, or 5 cups used in this Seder. This one happened near the middle of a 4-century period of transition in which the number of cups in any given Seder was not well-standardized; that wasn’t accomplished until the earliest part of the fourth century. But there are some general things that can always be said about the cups, no matter when you’re looking at or how many of them you’re looking at.

The cup is primarily associated with Exodus 6, particularly the phrases “I will bring out,” “I will deliver,” “I will redeem,” and “I will take/release” (has to do with bringing them into the land). Variations aside, we’re looking at Exodus 6:6-7 in every possible scenario and we’re looking at a group of Jews with God’s deliverance and redemption held in more careful consideration than at any other night of the year.

This is what led into Jesus saying “This is my body…eat, this is my blood…drink, do this in remembrance (anamnesin) of me.” And Jesus’ disciples did know what anamnesis was all about- they did it every year, and it just so happens they were in the middle of doing a lot of it on that night. But what is this remembrance all about? That’s pretty easy, once you put it in context. He was making a tangible connection between Jewish Passover tradition and Christian tradition going forward. He was indicating that the things symbolized by the bread and the wine are fulfilled in Him- the bread symbolizes affliction and a progression toward freedom, and His body (about to be sacrificed on the Cross) is the fulfillment of a more permanent, more universal progression from suffering to freedom. The wine symbolizes tremendous acts of God in Jewish history where He takes His chosen people, delivers them, brings them out, redeems them, and takes them into their God-given inheritance. Jesus’ blood is what the type is pointing toward- by His blood we are redeemed, even the Gentiles, by His blood we are delivered from sin and taken out of bondage to it, the new covenant is in His blood. Jesus is taking a couple of the symbolic elements most central to the Seder and saying “These symbols point to me.” No, no, no, don’t look down at the symbolic food in front of you. Yes, it’s important, but it’s a type just like it’s always been. Look up. Look at the Savior- He just said something extremely important about who He is. He’s not identifying the symbolic elements as things that were substantially changed without accidental changes (all of which is foreign to that place and time). He’s not instituting vessels of “sacramental grace” that will pour grace into the vessel of your body. If you’re a Jewish disciple of Jesus at this place and time, these ideas don’t even exist- superimposing it on their understanding screams “anachronism.” But if you’re a disciple of Jesus participating in the Last Supper with Him, you do know quite a bit about anamnesis. You know all about remembrance. And you definitely know what Jesus just said about Himself- this is tantamount to saying “I am God,” or at least a claim to have key attributes of God along with the ability to carry out every kind of redemptive act that was talked about all through the Seder. This is the context that lets you understand what Jesus’ disciples understood.

Of course, you don’t go anywhere near this if you’re anti-Semitic. Judaism can’t be part of your contextual process if you hate Jews.
 
david it is one thing to misinterpret God’s Word to your own interpretations, that is between you and God when you add or subtract from His Word.]But to add your own content and interpretation to my commentary is offending. Where do you get “YOUR ON GOING DEATH” from? This is your own interpretation. The Word I used as well as “Fulton Sheen” is “Redemptive death”.
Gabriel 12 -You did not say “redemptive death” ,you said "ongoing Redemptive death and Resurrection ".I am sorry I did not perfectly repeat your words .Hopefully no one was mislead ,after all your original quote I plainly showed just 5 lines above my “misquote”. Sorry again -you said "ongoing Redemptive death " .The point still stands that the early Christians ,in my opinion, did not use such a term or idea. They were continually thankful -having eucharist- for His one time sacrifice.
What the early Christians did is still practiced unchanged in the Catholic Church.
As long as we are being held to perfection here with our words,which is ok, for iron sharpens iron, it all depends on what dating you use for early Christians.If you mean the church during apostolic times,they did not do things like today’s Catholics.If you mean early Christians as in 4-5 th century ,then you may have your points.
IF you believe the Early 'Christians were just fine, why are you not practicing Christianity like them,
Again ,by the grace of God ,I believe some of “my” practices are the same,like eucharisting.
in the True presence of Jesus?
The mass and communion I do not believe were the focal points of being a Christian .The focal point of being Christian was and I believe still is , personally meeting and fellowshipping with Jesus. What was the focal point for the apostles during those three years of the Lord’s ministry ? Was it any sacrament or ritual ? No ,though they did observe some. They walked, and talked, and cried, and laughed, and ate, and slept with Jesus .Did they need any ritualistic focal point? He was the focal point, as it intersected with every aspect of life. And is He not alive and well here among us and in us .Did He leave ? Is He not truly present ? You may say it is both ,he is present amongst us but also in th Eucharist ,to be adored. I admit to be distracted by the idea, that I would lose focus that you and I could be His monstrances, His tabernacle ,as the Didache says.Rituals and practices are are only outword sharing of that inner focal point.
For your information my commentary is never my own “theology”, as you inspire yourself to be of your own opinion of late theology. I assure you, my commentary is supported by “Fulton Sheen” and many other great minds of Christian antiquity who refute any type of symbolic Jesus. What you believe and what has been handed down these past 2000 years from Jesus are not the same as you interpret to believe today and never will be.
Yes you have my past bishop ,and many other passionate Catholics,who espouse real presence. RPis not 2000 years old ,however, nor are rebuttals only 500 years old .RP is lacking the first hundred years ,symbolism is strongly spoken by Augustine (along with some form of RP possibly),and Tertullian ,and strongly again in mid 1300’s with Fr.Wycliffe, followed by an avalanche of “reform” the next several centuries.
St.Paul reveals His Catholic faith in the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist in both letters to the Corinthians
. Again, this can be debated ,just as John 6 and the Supper verses can.They are part of our shared heritage.
The complexity of your arguments of the RP in the Eucharist,
Complexity is your word .You know I used simplicity .I believe there was simplicity with the apostles and first century church, as evidenced in scripture and respective ECF’s .Complexity is the 13th century decree (4th Lateran ?) of transubstantiation and the 16th century decrees(Trent) of proper observances of Eucharist .But , this is all in the eye of the beholder, or as you correctly say ,a matter of faith and heart.
 
If you think that the Eucharist is made by human hands? Then you have a gross misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Incense offering and a Pure offering is the Eucharist celebrated in the Mass since the resurrection of Jesus, when both are offered up to God in Spirit and Truth.

Along with our Prayers (incense) and our pure offering (Jesus body, blood) which is the only sacrificial Lamb that God accepts for the sins of the world. Without Jesus RP sacrificial gift you have no forgivness, any other gift or symbol is not acceptable to God].
We were speaking of Eucharistic adoration ,hence I thought of Monstrance ,and tabernacle somewhat .Jesus is placed in the golden monstrance or in his tabernacle or behind a veil .Hence, the consecrated elements ,His full body, blood, divinity, and soul, Jesus ,enters a place made by human hands .I was not speaking of the communion elements…I believe Barnabus ,early ECF talks against incense and sacrifices.I believe his context was to OT, but to me it indicates the “catholic” church did NOT use incense or think of Mass as a sacrifice in any way .
 
Ahhh, now your catching on…and what happened after this false understanding? Answer; John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”…66 “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went with him.” Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” david?

“it is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”. It is the Word of God in the Holy Spirit that brings those things into existence which did not exist…“This is my body, This is my blood”. These mysteries are ordered by the Word of God, not david or man.

Hebrews 11:3** By faith **we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible" (WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH) (body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present in His Eucharist). When and where does your faith begin by order of the Word of God?

Paranthesis mine:)

Can you give an example? If you apply this biblical faith to creation? we can agree then; and it is not difficult to believe when God speaks His Word those things into existence which did not exist before. Example God spoke to the dust and the water and they became man. Faith in God is not difficult. Only when we refuse to believe Jesus Word, when we walk away from faith in Jesus, “as a result of this (lack of faith in Jesus Christ) many of His disciples returned to their former way of life” Jn.6:66
Gabriel 12 .i enjoy scriptural viewing.It fits your point ,and I would surely use those scriptures from your point of view .However ,I can only quickly say ,just because He can, does not mean He did. ( early ECF)
 
.

]Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Just do it . Break bread , repeat the Words, experience the mystery and give thanks - hence, let us eucharist.
Jon
Thank-you The line is so thin isn’t it? Still a line ,between the mystery of His love to the death for us, while we were yet sinners , and the mystery of transubstantiation .Thank-you for sharing- these are intimate things of the heart of faith . I still find the latter an unnecessary focus. I mean , I see your sincere awe of the Eucharist , but I find it competing with the awe of His presence , period .You must admit ,you have a two fold focus ,one Calvary and two transubstantiation.I find only one focal point,(Calvary) but with the original method of apprehending Him ,in spirit ,as I did when I first met Him, and then continued, whether in prayer, or singing, or reading. That method ,of His presence , is constant.Transubstantiation has become more than just a “method” or ritual of remembrance ,it has usurped the thing that it was to memorialize. It has become an actual way to supposedly receive a special impartation .Heck ,if I believed it, I would be more excited about the “receiving” ,instead of my “giving” thanks and memorializing. Hence the distraction from thanksgiving for Calvary, switching to thanksgiving for what I just received. A fine line ,but ever so deep ,in my opinion.
 
More specific, please. Sandwich bread? Snack food? Or a religious symbol used for a particular purpose on one specific night of the year?
Was the bread at Seder a religious symbol?

When they were told to bake the unleavened bread before they fled Egypt, what did that symbolize?

Remember, at Passover, the Jews are remembering that meal that their forefathers had in Egypt. Back then, what was the unleavened bread a symbol of? If you re-read the passage, God instructed them to bake the bread. Was God doing symbolism when He told them to do this?
 
Thank you benedictus 2. But it seems that right from the get go "what it is " is not that easy .Genesis for example, what was the light in day one ,given He did not create our sun and moon till day four ? Indeed ,the spirit must interpret the “what it is”.
Aaah, but the sun only lights OUR planet. There are other suns out there that give light.
The whole point of Genesis is that God’s word is creative.

So we come back to the Eucharist. It would have remained bread and wine had any it just been any Tom, Dirk and Harry making the pronouncement. But it wasn’t. The One making the decree is the Word through Whom the cosmos came into being.
 
Was the bread at Seder a religious symbol?
Yes. The bread eaten by Jesus and His disciples at the Last Supper was a symbol. All the food in a Seder is symbolic- it’s a symbolic meal. There were different pieces of bread that had different meanings throughout the meal, but there is a central theme to them that allowed Jesus to connect God’s past redemption with His present and future redemption.
When they were told to bake the unleavened bread before they fled Egypt, what did that symbolize?
On the actual night of Passover? Nothing. Additionally, God hadn’t yet told them how and when to have a yearly remembrance of it. That happened in the 23rd chapter of Leviticus. From that point on, the matzo wasn’t something that they actually needed to hurry up and eat- it was symbolic of their ancestors’ deliverance from Egypt, a remembrance of it, and included a mindset where each Jew considered him/herself as if they were one of those ancestors.
Remember, at Passover, the Jews are remembering that meal that their forefathers had in Egypt. Back then, what was the unleavened bread a symbol of?
Jesus and His disciples weren’t “back then.” As meaningful as anamnesis is, it doesn’t actually take you back there. They were having a symbolic meal, chock full of symbols. Two of the most important symbols were matzo and wine.

I like how you’re thinking, though. It looks like you’re beginning to see the importance of taking the mind and perspective of the original audience into account. But you do raise an interesting point. Let’s take a look at it very quickly.

Suppose Jesus had done all of this on the actual night of Passover. There are no symbols at that meal. There is unleavened bread, but it’s not a symbol of anything (yet). It’s just something God told them to do, and they’re doing it quickly. If Jesus had spoken to those Jews and told them “This is my body”…number one, that really would have come out of left field. Number two, they wouldn’t have been able to reach any kind of rational understanding of what he said…if He had done it then, which He wouldn’t and didn’t, and if He did He would have needed an explanation or a different choice of words. This is purely academic; please remember the only purpose of this is to demonstrate that context matters and the perspective of the appropriate audience is what matters. This audience (the one Jesus wasn’t talking to) was thousands of years away from anything like “substance” and “accidents,” and while symbolism existed, they wouldn’t have had any specific symbol on hand to help them with what He said.

Jesus’ disciples did have the symbols, though. They weren’t Jews on the actual night of Passover. They were Jews thousands of years later celebrating Passover at the time appointed in Leviticus, talking about and eating these very symbols, and engaging in a remembrance (anamnesis) of some of the ways in which God had delivered His people in the past. You’re right to point out how their mindset was different from that of the Jews leaving Egypt. I hope this also helps you see how and why Jesus’ words wouldn’t have made sense to them while it did make sense to His disciples. I also hope you’ll endeavor to change your own mindset so it’s less like that of the more ancient Jews and more like that of the Jews that Jesus was talking to.
If you re-read the passage, God instructed them to bake the bread. Was God doing symbolism when He told them to do this?
That was in Genesis, yes? The yearly celebration of Passover (you know, the reason Jesus and His disciples were in Jerusalem) wasn’t something that God set up in Genesis. He set that up in Leviticus. When that was set up, when the tradition was established, and when the remembrance actually started happening- that was exactly when God started “doing symbolism” with the Passover.
 
Aaah, but the sun only lights OUR planet. There are other suns out there that give light.
The whole point of Genesis is that God’s word is creative.
This connection fails to land because the creation thing is different from the Last Supper thing in ways that are significant and important. When God created the universe, that was ex nihilo- out of nothing. The “ex nihilo” starting point is vastly different from the “matzo symbol” starting point. And before you go there, it’s different from the five loaves and two fish for the same reason. The loaves and fish are just loaves and fish. They’re things you eat so you get calories and have energy. They aren’t symbols. The matzo and wine are, though. It makes a difference. It’s something you have to pay attention to. And it causes you to reach conclusions that you wouldn’t otherwise reach while ignoring the fact that they’re symbols and pretending that you can compare it to non-symbolic situations in meaningful ways.

You want to come up with a meaningful comparison, find a situation where someone (Jesus or anyone else) is talking about a long-standing symbol of great significance. Make that your starting point and see what you come up with. If symbols aren’t involved, the comparison fails for lack of relevance.
 
Aaah, but the sun only lights OUR planet. There are other suns out there that give light.
The whole point of Genesis is that God’s word is creative.

So we come back to the Eucharist. It would have remained bread and wine had any it just been any Tom, Dirk and Harry making the pronouncement. But it wasn’t. The One making the decree is the Word through Whom the cosmos came into being.
Ye ,but he is also selective,even in Genesis,as illustrated above.Is he literally a shepherd and we sheep by His creative word . Is He litereally the Greek alphabet, and we letters and words in His big book,that revealtions says He has ? Is He really Light ,and if so ,why did He have to create it then ? Again , no one is doubting that He can be all these things, only how His creative word is to be interpreted , for he also created the discerning mind,soul and spirit of a man .
 
Forgive my response cooterhein, but your question and comments helps me to clarify things without having to repeat them. Thank you
cooterhein;8370328]This connection fails to land because the creation thing is different from the Last Supper thing in ways that are significant and important. When God created the universe, that was ex nihilo- out of nothing. The “ex nihilo” starting point is vastly different from the “matzo symbol” starting point.
God spoke creation into existence, as the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters, but when God created man, God created Adam from the created dust and water.

Later God created woman from an existing man’s rib. God used a part of creation and changed them into flesh. Just as Jesus changes bread and wine into His body and blood.

Jesus (The Word of God made flesh) took upon himself a human nature, when the Holy Spirit over shadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary. Thus Jesus “God incarnate” spoke His Word to the bread and wine and these created elements became His body and blood.

The substance that brings these created mysteries to life and reality is when the Spirit is breathed into the nostrils of Adam, and when the Holy Spirit changes the substance of bread of wine which become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Although when we look at our humanity we don’t see walking dust and water, these elements have been changed to flesh by order of the Word of God. Same with the Eucharist, although we see, taste bread and wine according to the flesh, yet the eternal reality is that these elements by order of the Word of God have “Transubstantiated” into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation means that to the flesh these elements “avail nothing” because to the flesh they remain bread and wine (to our senses), But to the soul and eternity “It is the Spirit that gives life” as Jesus reveals in John 6:63. Jesus died to save our souls not our flesh. Because we will be given new bodies in the resurrection.
You want to come up with a meaningful comparison, find a situation where someone (Jesus or anyone else) is talking about a long-standing symbol of great significance. Make that your starting point and see what you come up with. If symbols aren’t involved, the comparison fails for lack of relevance.
Revelation 5:6 “Then I saw standing n the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders a Lamb that seemed to have been slain”. This is the “ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE DEATH THAT TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD, ONCE AND FOR ALL”.

Scripture reveals Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated on the right of the Father. Why is Jesus “STANDING” as a Lamb as though slain?

Could this heavenly liturgy that reveals a sacrificed Lamb, be an eternal living symbol in heaven, revealing the Eucharist in the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World?

To which Jesus commands us to eat His (Lamb) sacrificial flesh and drink His sacrificial blood, so that our souls will have eternal life in Him.

Peace be with you
 
Gabriel of 12;8367295:
.So eating His flesh ,literally, is false understanding ?
Eating His flesh in the way that His fallen away disciples understood is a false understanding, and the way you mistake the Eucharist to be a symbol and not Jesus true body, blood soul and divinity as Jesus states, “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood in order to have eternal life”.

Eating His flesh literally as a cannibal eats dead flesh is a false understanding, The consuming of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist is never the same as the literal false understanding, because Jesus Lives.

The Spirit reveals to my faith, that the Eucharist is the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity.

**Do you think the Holy Spirit reveals bread and wine to be symbol of Jesus body and blood?

Why would “Truth” need to decieve, pretend or look to a symbol to remember a dead Jesus?

Praise God Jesus lives and never has to use a symbol to recall His redemptive death, when Jesus makes His presence known to our souls because His presence lives in the Eucharist, when He never leaves us orphans.

If you have a symbolic Jesus, then you are left an orphan, because Jesus is never present in any symbol. “Behold I make all things new” = Jesus.**
 
Forgive my response cooterhein, but your question and comments helps me to clarify things without having to repeat them. Thank you
Thanks for clarifying.
Later God created woman from an existing man’s rib. God used a part of creation and changed them into flesh. Just as Jesus changes bread and wine into His body and blood.
Something is lacking in this connection. The bread and wine that Jesus distributed at the Last Supper was already well-established as symbolic elements of an entirely symbolic meal. A symbolic meal that Jesus and His disciples were participating in on that night and at that exact time. Adam’s rib wasn’t a symbol of anything. It was his rib. This distinction is important. That’s what I hope to demonstrate with this little exercise.
Scripture reveals Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated on the right of the Father. Why is Jesus “STANDING” as a Lamb as though slain?
Good question. What are the odds that any answer I give on an internet message board can replace the answer you found in “The Lamb’s Supper,” by Scott Hahn? Did I know he used to be a Presbyterian minister but now he’s a Catholic apologist? Yes, I did know that, thanks for bringing him up.
Could this heavenly liturgy that reveals a sacrificed Lamb, be an eternal living symbol in heaven, revealing the Eucharist in the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World?
That’s not quite what I’m looking for. Here’s what I was after: Other situations where people talk about symbols and equate them with something other than what the symbol is “in and of itself.” Non-biblical examples are just as welcome as biblical ones. As a general example, maybe you find something about the American flag where someone says it “is” something other than…well, a symbol, or an emblem, or a piece of cloth that has red and white stripes with a certain number of white stars on a blue field. If you can find something more biblical, that’s good too, but I can’t think of anything offhand. I’ll see what I can come up with, though. I do have a more specific example that has to do with the cross- it’s actually a Catholic source having to do with the crucifix, but the quote of interest goes with “cross.” But I’ll wait and see what other people come up with.
 
Thank-you The line is so thin isn’t it? Still a line ,between the mystery of His love to the death for us, while we were yet sinners , and the mystery of transubstantiation .Thank-you for sharing- these are intimate things of the heart of faith . I still find the latter an unnecessary focus. I mean , I see your sincere awe of the Eucharist , but I find it competing with the awe of His presence , period .You must admit ,you have a two fold focus ,one Calvary and two transubstantiation.I find only one focal point,(Calvary) but with the original method of apprehending Him ,in spirit ,as I did when I first met Him, and then continued, whether in prayer, or singing, or reading. That method ,of His presence , is constant.Transubstantiation has become more than just a “method” or ritual of remembrance ,it has usurped the thing that it was to memorialize. It has become an actual way to supposedly receive a special impartation .Heck ,if I believed it, I would be more excited about the “receiving” ,instead of my “giving” thanks and memorializing. Hence the distraction from thanksgiving for Calvary, switching to thanksgiving for what I just received. A fine line ,but ever so deep ,in my opinion.
David,
I’m not speaking of Transubstantiation, as I’m not Catholic. I’m speaking of the Real Presence. I’m speaking soley of Christ’s words - this is my body. For the Catholic, they express the Real Presence as Transubstantiaion, and I’ll let them tell you whether or not, for them, it has usurped that which is remembered. For me, it is the simple words of Christ, the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for you. By faith, I trust His words, what He said to His disciples in the upper room.
But of Transubstantiation I will say this, I stand with Martin Luther when he said that before he would drink a mere symbol of Christ “wine” with the Swiss, he would accept Transubstantiation (drink blood, the same blood of Calvary)) with the pope.

Jon
 
Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?
Literal.

Otherwise why would He allow so many good disciples to leave Him on a misunderstanding - on a symbol vs literal comment.
 
Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?
Hi Grey Pilgrim,

Protestants say its symbolic… Catholic Church says the Bread, is literally the Flesh of Jesus Christ… Hmmm Jesus Christ, Says it literally and so does the Catholic Church.

Lets say the Protestants are correct, and it is only a symbol… But how can a “symbol” give life to the world? Hmmm. A symbol can not give life to the world, a symbol cannot do a thing! Amen

But I tell you what gives life to the world, and that eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ, litterally. Amen We must believe this in order to be a Christian or find ourselves leaving Jesus like those Jews who left him when Jesus spoke thus.

Can a symbol save One? No!

Ufamtobie
 
Literal.

Otherwise why would He allow so many good disciples to leave Him on a misunderstanding - on a symbol vs literal comment.
Sorry .couldn’t pass this one up .Believe what you want ,but the ones that left were not “good disciples”, and they believed in the literal ,certainly not symbolic.They were not good because in John 6 :64 “-For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not…” Contrast that to Peter, “we believe you are the Christ, the son of the living God”(nothing about eating). Apparently your “good disciples” did not believe this(Jesus is theMessiah) from the beginning (before the whole chapter discourse) … Why were they following then ? How do you show them their lack ? How do you separate the sheep from the goats ? and why?
 
Hi Grey Pilgrim,

Protestants say its symbolic… Catholic Church says the Bread, is literally the Flesh of Jesus Christ… Hmmm Jesus Christ, Says it literally and so does the Catholic Church.

Lets say the Protestants are correct, and it is only a symbol… But how can a “symbol” give life to the world? Hmmm. A symbol can not give life to the world, a symbol cannot do a thing! Amen

But I tell you what gives life to the world, and that eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ, litterally. Amen We must believe this in order to be a Christian or find ourselves leaving Jesus like those Jews who left him when Jesus spoke thus.

Can a symbol save One? No!

Ufamtobie
Indeed salvation is by works (water baptism ,Confirmation ,confession and communion at least once a year,and no mortal sins at time of death) ,and that within the Catholic Church doctrine .There can be no salvation outside ,according to your view. Hence all those who don’t believe in RP ,at their time of death, are doomed ,anathema.Yet Rome ,in her congeniality, says we are brothers ,perhaps of a different sort , but still “brethren”. Yet ,the nitty-gritty says otherwise .Indeed your RP Jesus says we must eat Him for eternal life , for salvation. Jesus says that. As you point out , there is no salvation in a symbol. Tell it like it is, for it is the truth and fruit of the RP dogma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top