Literal or Symbolic?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_GreyPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
david_ruiz said:
Careful, for some said Augustine was a switch hitter, batting from both sides of this plate .He said by believing we eat, “leave your teeth and bellies behind”
Click to expand...
And He also said that Jesus carried Himself at the last supper when He said “This is my body”
. The bible also says we are His temple, and does not allude to RP as Him getting inside us .
Click to expand...
And what do you eat my flesh means if not getting inside us. Does one eat something and it remains outside of one? You know what, I think what you need to do is find a quiet place, take some time to relax and then slowly and meditatively read John 6. The reason you argue in the manner you do is because you are getting away from the Word of God, you are getting away from the text.

So do this. Pray the Gospel meditatively. Not just to mine for information but to encounter Christ in these Words. Let the text speak for itself.
He tabernacles in us by regeneration, by faith, the gift of God.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed He does that too. But just because He does that too does not mean that He is not truly and really present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
 
benedictus2 said:
Do protestants believe in a real life Jesus Christ or is He just symbolic? Were the apostles real live people or symbolic?
Click to expand...
This is getting siily. Tell me, is there really a tree of life ,where the fruit makes you live forever ? " …lest he take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," Gen 3:22 . Do you believe Jesus is a shepherd and we are sheep, literally . Come on ,figurative ,symbolic ,allegorical stuff, as well as literal, is to be found in Holy Writ.
 
david_ruiz said:
So he chose the unleavened bread and wine to represent the lamb in the Passover, which is really Jesus ?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is the new covenant.

Matt 26
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
 
david_ruiz said:
So he chose the unleavened bread and wine to represent the lamb in the Passover, which is really Jesus ?
Click to expand...
Jesus was creating a new passover in His body and blood. His blood would be poured out in a new covenant for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus chose his words specifically to begin a new Passover. The Jews in the Old Covenant had to eat the lamb of the passover and pour out its blood. St. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. a 1st century Jew would know he was celebrating a Passover meal with Jesus if he was at the Last Supper.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ our Lord gave his literal flesh and blood for the life of the world. As a lutheran I’ve never had any problems accepting that. Rather that is considered a necessity, otherwise I think you would be obliged to call yourself a gnostic. Concerning the Holy Eucharist, the lutheran teaching is rejecting the teachings suggesting transubstantiation as well as a geniuinely symbolic approach. But I accept the lutheran teaching of RP. Through the Words of Consecration the flesh and blood of Christ is vere adsint (=at hand, present) in, with and under bread and wine. The belief in the presence in this way is strongly connected to the genuine promise that lies within the Words of Consecration. When the words outspoken recognizes “the body of Christ” and “the bread” - praedicatio identica, this is, according to lutheran interpretation, not understood as a transsubstantiation. Both statements are fully valid (“This is real bread” and “This is the body of Christ”). The unity between bread and flesh is not physical but sacramental, i.e. it exists only in the context of the sacrament and according to the word of promise given.

This approach to the issue of the eucharist is a parallell to the fact that the personal unity between God and man in Christ is not to be considered as a transformation of the human to something divine. On the contrary it means that this man, Jesus Christ, is truly God at the same time. In the same way the bread in the eucharist truly is bread, but at the same time, in a way that exceeds our human understanding, realle is the body of Christ.

In other words, like Saint Augustine of Hippo said: Praesentiam credimus, modum nescimus (the presence we believe, the way we do not know).
 
The_Cappadocian said:
Jesus Christ our Lord gave his literal flesh and blood for the life of the world. As a lutheran I’ve never had any problems accepting that. Rather that is considered a necessity, otherwise I think you would be obliged to call yourself a gnostic. Concerning the Holy Eucharist, the lutheran teaching is rejecting the teachings suggesting transubstantiation as well as a geniuinely symbolic approach. But I accept the lutheran teaching of RP. Through the Words of Consecration the flesh and blood of Christ is vere adsint (=at hand, present) in, with and under bread and wine. The belief in the presence in this way is strongly connected to the genuine promise that lies within the Words of Consecration. When the words outspoken recognizes “the body of Christ” and “the bread” - praedicatio identica, this is, according to lutheran interpretation, not understood as a transsubstantiation. Both statements are fully valid (“This is real bread” and “This is the body of Christ”). The unity between bread and flesh is not physical but sacramental, i.e. it exists only in the context of the sacrament and according to the word of promise given.

This approach to the issue of the eucharist is a parallell to the fact that the personal unity between God and man in Christ is not to be considered as a transformation of the human to something divine. On the contrary it means that this man, Jesus Christ, is truly God at the same time. In the same way the bread in the eucharist truly is bread, but at the same time, in a way that exceeds our human understanding, realle is the body of Christ.

In other words, like Saint Augustine of Hippo said: Praesentiam credimus, modum nescimus (the presence we believe, the way we do not know).
Click to expand...
This is well said. It points to the reason for our Understanding of Sacramental Union. It is not an attempt to explain the process of how this happens, only the nature of Christ’s word, "This [bread] is my body.
And still we can quite easily speak of a change, as Melanchthon does in the Apology when he references Vulgarius, bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh.

Jon
 
david_ruiz said:
Actually ,yes .You did deny him and attack Him with calumny . Me too. Indeed my sins and yours put Him on the Cross. And while we were yet sinners, he graciously, beyond comprehension, ransomed us
Click to expand...
So therefore according to you, it is by sinning (calumny towards Jesus Christ) that we gain eteranl life? Heck, why should we stop sinning? Let’s all continue denying Jesus so that we may have eternal life - the more the better don’t you think? Otherwise if we don’t do that, we end up in hell.:rolleyes:

I don’t know about you, but denying Jesus, I hope to** not** do. It’s no wonder your theology is totally askew.

What was it Jesus said? If you deny Me, I will deny you? Didn’t He also say follow me? If we deny Him we would not be following Him at all.

And another point. Isn’t it that the whole point of His Sacrifice is that we will not deny Him?
 
david_ruiz said:
This is getting siily. Tell me, is there really a tree of life ,where the fruit makes you live forever ? " …lest he take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," Gen 3:22 . Do you believe Jesus is a shepherd and we are sheep, literally . Come on ,figurative ,symbolic ,allegorical stuff, as well as literal, is to be found in Holy Writ.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is getting silly if you do not learn to distinguish between what is figurative and what is not. And that is what you have failed to do.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
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?
Click to expand...
As real as the Flesh and Blood of the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of the Cross. Christ gave His Flesh and Blood, the same Flesh and Blood God asked to borrow from Mary.
 
The_Cappadocian said:
Jesus Christ our Lord gave his literal flesh and blood for the life of the world. As a lutheran I’ve never had any problems accepting that. Rather that is considered a necessity, otherwise I think you would be obliged to call yourself a gnostic. Concerning the Holy Eucharist, the lutheran teaching is rejecting the teachings suggesting transubstantiation as well as a geniuinely symbolic approach. But I accept the lutheran teaching of RP. Through the Words of Consecration the flesh and blood of Christ is vere adsint (=at hand, present)** in, with and under bread and wine**. The belief in the presence in this way is strongly connected to the genuine promise that lies within the Words of Consecration. When the words outspoken recognizes “the body of Christ” and “the bread” - praedicatio identica, this is, according to lutheran interpretation, not understood as a transsubstantiation. Both statements are fully valid (“This is real bread” and “This is the body of Christ”). The unity between bread and flesh is not physical but sacramental, i.e. it exists only in the context of the sacrament and according to the word of promise given.

This approach to the issue of the eucharist is a parallell to the fact that the personal unity between God and man in Christ is not to be considered as a transformation of the human to something divine. On the contrary it means that this man, Jesus Christ, is truly God at the same time. In the same way the bread in the eucharist truly is bread, but at the same time, in a way that exceeds our human understanding, realle is the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
This understanding will only hold true if we say that the risen Christ is ONLY Divine such that we have the union of the Divine and “non-Divine” in the “melding” of the Divine Christ with the bread.

But the risen Christ is BOTH Human and Divine so there is no necessity of understanding it in the above manner, a parallelism is not required. Rather we say that if it is the Body of Christ, then it IS the Body of Christ - both Human and Divine - and not that bread and Christ exist together in the bread that we see.

That is why transubstantiation alone makes sense. It IS Christ – how we do not know, but we can say that through substantiation – we may see, touch and taste bread – but it is no longer bread. The senses fail in apprehending this reality.
In other words, like Saint Augustine of Hippo said: Praesentiam credimus, modum nescimus (the presence we believe, the way we do not know).
Click to expand...
But it is only in the doctrine of transubstantiation that this statement by St Augustine makes sense. We know it IS Christ, how we do not know. It is easier to explain the how of Christ being present in the bread yet the bread remaining bread, than to say that the Bread IS Christ, we just do not know how. In the Lutheran understanding, it is more like the bread “contains” Christ, rather than the Bread IS Christ.
 
David Ruiz,

If you want your quotes to function more correctly, when you reply, the opening quote with the number should be the only quote enclosed in square brackets. If you have a second ’
’ then that will result in the kind of posts you have currently.
Click to expand...
The first quote should only be the one containing the name and the number unless you are embedding quotes within quotes.

So the very first entry should read something like "
40.png
abcde:
’ followed by space and then your reply. If another ’
’ appears, delete it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
]
benedictus2 said:
When they were asked if they will leave too , their answer did not indicate that they believed contrary to what the others believed
Click to expand...
Nor did it indicate anything but a figurative understanding. There answer seems “anemic” with, " to whom would we go", but if we change our focus away from literal eating, (which those that left could not), we find the apostles believed quite contrarily to them, for they believed He was the Son of God .Those that left did not. They (non-believers) were even going to commit calumny to Jesus ( Judas-vs 64- "for Jesus knew who would betray him) .
But the thing is they knew that Jesus had the “words of eternal life”.
Click to expand...
Yes ,as Peter and Paul write, His words are our milk and meat for the new life.

.
And the figurative meaning is the one I have already explained. So no, it definitely IS not figurative .
Click to expand...
Yes, and thank-you, your explanation fits my scenario, although there may several layers of figurative understanding, and I would not limit it to just your explanation…
econdly, as I have explained the apostles would have passed on their understanding of this to their successors. These first successors have taught the RP. So if you want to know how the apostles understood it, ask the Church that was founded on them.
Click to expand...
Good logic. It assumes nothing is lost or added in transmission though.Kind of like “once saved always saved” applied to CC and it’s dogma Secondly ,the first successors did not teach CC RP. No, I do not believe CC RP is apostolic.That being said, what is universal/catholic is that He came in the flesh and atoned for or sins at Calvary .We have unity in communion in Remembrance, offering up our thanksgiving-“eucharist”, to be done in order and worthily. He is with us and in us. We are his temple, and tabernacle, and are His priests. Alleluia .
 
:bible1:

Don’t believe Christ when He, and numerous early Church Fathers All Agreed in Real Presence? Think Christ was lying or spinning when He Said afterr He “blessed” Bread/Wine: “This Is My Body; This Is my Blood”; Unless ye Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood Ye Can NOT Have life within you"? Please Answer. Yes, or no, David Ruiz. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top