Literal or Symbolic?...

[AntalKalnoky]

CHESTERTONRULES;8388154:

Others have rebutted this better ,also showing that Augustine’s RP is not Trans. I thought Catholics are not either/or both /and . I am sorry ,but Augustine ALSO lays a good argument for the use of figurative speech in john 6.

Transubstantiotion is a fancy new word, as is Bible. Think Jesus was spinning when He Said repeatedly ‘Ye can Not Have Life, unless you Eat my Flesh, Drink my Blood.’ How do you ge Symbolism out of Christ’s own Words, David?

 

[benedictus2]

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 .

Well you said it above, IF we focus ourselves from the literal eating. But the point is you CAN’T focus from the literal eating. There is nothing in the text that indicates that they did not understand Jesus in the same manner as those who left. There is nothing in the text that indicates they understood Him to be speaking figuratively.

They stayed NOT BECAUSE they understood any differently. As a matter of fact, if you say that they stayed because they believed He was Son of God, then that means they stayed believing He was Son of God and if He was saying eat my flesh, well by jove, they will eat His flesh because He was Son of God. They don’t know as yet how but because they believed Him they knew that they can trust His commands.

 

[benedictus2]

] Yes ,as Peter and Paul write, His words are our milk and meat for the new life.

Specifically to which verse are you referring ?

.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…

Sorry but no - not when you take in the original audience. There is only one figurative way of understanding it and that is the one I already explained

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

Very good logic. Those who received it directly from the apostles would obviously understand more what the apostles meant, than anyone 1900 years divorced from the apostles and divorced from the Church that Christ founded. A Church founded 1500 years later would be hard pressed to determined what - if any - may have been lost or added in the transmission. They would have to rely on historical documents which just happen to support the Catholic position.

Secondly, since the Catholic Church is still here and we can still find out what the Catholic Church means, then no - not quite like - “Once Saved Always Saved”. The Church is still here to show that that is definitely 20th century invention. You know, the kind of “doctrines of men” that we must be wary of.

Secondly ,the first successors did not teach CC RP.

Sorry, but the succesors DID. They did not believe it was figurative. That is why the first Christians were accused of cannibalism by those who were un-initiated.

No, I do not believe CC RP is apostolic.

But what you believe or not believe does not matter. Only the truth matters. Your believing something makes it neither true nor false. Religious truth is independent of your belief.

That being said, what is universal/catholic is that He came in the flesh and atoned for or sins at Calvary .

No that is just another one of your inventions. What is universal and Catholic is the Church. Universal and Catholic does not apply to atonement. Having said that though, the grace that comes from His salvific death is indeed given to all.

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 .

So? We can equally affirm that and still say the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What you have said there only illustrates that you only have half of the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Others have rebutted this better ,also showing that Augustine’s RP is not Trans. I thought Catholics are not either/or both /and . I am sorry ,but Augustine ALSO lays a good argument for the use of figurative speech in john 6.

Please explain why you think Augustine lays a good argument for the use of figurative speech in John 6?

Also, how do you know that Augustine’s understanding is not in line with Transubstantiation?

 

[rbarcia]

Catholics believe that there was a first man and first woman, our parents, who "transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”. (from the Catechism).

That wasn’t my question. Do catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The first man and woman were actually Adam and Eve, in the garden created in 6th day?

So were Adam and Eve symbolic of those first people or literally the first people, similar to what Blood and Flesh literal question?

 

[PRmerger]

That wasn’t my question. Do catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The first man and woman were actually Adam and Eve, in the garden created in 6th day?

So were Adam and Eve symbolic of those first people or literally the first people, similar to what Blood and Flesh literal question?

They were literally the first people.

 

[benedictus2]

That wasn’t my question. Do catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The first man and woman were actually Adam and Eve, in the garden created in 6th day?

So were Adam and Eve symbolic of those first people or literally the first people, similar to what Blood and Flesh literal question?

How is the literalness of John 6 even related to Adam and Eve?
As I asked you before, do you think Jesus is also symbolic?

There are things that are allegorical, there are things that are literal. One must determine which is which. This is where you may be struggling.

 

[JonNC]

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.

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.

Quite no, Cory. That would be like saying that the human nature of Christ contains the divine nature, and that is not the case. So it is not the case of Sacramental Union. Your argument gets into substances/accidents, and we just don’t go there. We believe what Christ says, that “this [bread] is my body”, not “contains”, not “is mixed with”, not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.

But on the issue of transubstantiation, I agree with Luther when he says;

This bothers me very little, for I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood.

Jon

 

[The_Cappadocian]

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

I see. So you mean that the most holy church father said transsubstantiam credimus and not praesentiam credimus? Since when did “presence” suddenly become equivalent to “transubstantiation”?

 

[rbarcia]

How is the literalness of John 6 even related to Adam and Eve?
As I asked you before, do you think Jesus is also symbolic?

There are things that are allegorical, there are things that are literal. One must determine which is which. This is where you may be struggling.

I am not struggling.

Jesus is Real

Adam and Eve were real.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not struggling.

Jesus is Real

Well, of course. There is no need to state this on a Catholic forum.

The question for you to decipher is whether Jesus is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. Did the apostles and the first 16 centuries of Christians get it wrong when they professed to believe in the RP, or were they merely following the faith, given once for all, to the saints?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8384953

Does not the Didache say we are His tabernacle ?

Unbelievable, your using an ancient Catholic document in her possession to support your symbolic Jesus here?

david ruiz; Jesus is divine and He enters and sups with us , with the inner man ,the regenerated spirit .

Your theology continues to grow on these threads; Now you have Jesus eating supper with you, without no bodily presence? Did you forget Jesus resurrected from the dead? I still cannot grasp how your belief’s are able to separate the divinity of Christ from His resurrected body? and then you claim that Jesus is only symbolically present. Since when did you ever see a spirit eat fish and bread before the apostles? When and why does a “regenerated spirit” need to "sup with a figurative Jesus?

I am sorry david ruiz, but your new sybolic Jesus or figurative “spirit” of Jesus welcomes more questions and doubts to Christianity than you are proposing. I don’t think your figurative Jesus would ever hold up to one hour of scrutiny by the CCC nor any CChurch council.

Have you really tested your new figurative, symbolic Jesus to real non bias biblical language test with a Hebrew theological emphasis? So far all you have introduced here is a new protestant theological man made invention of a figurative Jesus that does not exist.

Grant it; you convinced yourself that this new “spiritual”, “figurative” Jesus exists by introducing a new foreign interpretation to the scriptures which denies the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity, not to mention your new theology refuses to obey Jesus own words “This is my body”, to falesify Jesus own words to mean symbolically.

david ruiz; Paul says we are His temple ."Partake’ is usually a term referring to Communion ,but I use it in a broader, more literal way.I would hope any believer would say it in the broader sense for sure.

And here alone reveals our differences; You make yourself out to be your own popes, by referencing scripture in the “I” interpret, “I” use" scriptural content and words to mean what “I” believe them to mean.

I don’t want the responsibility nor the freedom to add or subtract from any of God’s Word, Jesus gave the world the Catholic Church since the resurrection the Infallibility and power of the keys to do so.

But I guess for one such as you with your own biblical liberties, no biblical curse does not apply to you for adding or subtracting from God’s Word, because these curses do not apply to you? Because a RP Jesus does not exist in your faith.

david ruiz; Actually I am amazed that thru the narrow gate of RP you apprehend His divinity,and yet it has never been said it is the only way to apprehend His Divinty.

NO man has ever taught or spoken in such a manner, Only Jesus Christ is the only one who commands the eating of flesh and drinking of His blood that one has “Divine” eternal life, who is the “narrow gate”.

david ruiz; Actually, if I have Him Divinely ,I have Him totally. Even the CC says if you have only one part of him, say his flesh ,you have him all, flesh ,blood souls divinity .So one gets you all, for both of us .

No david you misinterpret the CC. The CC is speaking of any particle of the RP of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity from the Eucharist. This does not apply to your proposed “figurative” divine life. Sorry, no again; this CC teaching (any particle) never applies “for the both of us”.

In addition our Eucharist comes from the Greek Eucharistia which means thanksgiving. For your information, Our Eucharist is much much more than has been revealed here. In relation to “Thanksgiving”, Jesus is our “Thanksgiving” when we worship God in Spirit and Truth in His Eucharist.

You have been arguing that “you” offer up “your own” thanksgiving to God. I am sorry david your own thanksgiving is not good enough to enter heaven. Jesus taught clearly “No one goes to the Father except through me”.

So you see david, without Jesus body, blood soul and divinity RP, how does “your own thanksgiving” go before the presence of God? Your thanksgiving and praise from your self, sad to tell you, but can never make it before the throne room of God, no matter how joyful you sing your songs and how much you supply “your own symbolic thangsgiving” these can never reach the Father, without the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Eucharist.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8396000]Quite no, Cory. That would be like saying that the human nature of Christ contains the divine nature, and that is not the case. So it is not the case of Sacramental Union. Your argument gets into substances/accidents, and we just don’t go there. We believe what Christ says, that “this [bread] is my body”, not “contains”, not “is mixed with”, not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.

But on the issue of transubstantiation, I agree with Luther when he says;

Greetings Jon; I am perplexed by some Lutherans that have denied “consubstantiation”. Firstly “Transubstantiation” is not an argument made by Catholics. Transubstantiation is a term used to educate scientifically to the intellectual skeptics who deny the Real Presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity in His Eucharist, so as to begin faith.

Transubstantiation need not be for Luther or any other who does not have a problem “believing Jesus Words, This is my body, This is my blood”.

Jon; I know I may have outdated authors on my book shelves. But “All” of my historical authors record Martin Luther holding to a true presence, but that He attempted to explain “communion, by calling it “consubstantiation”, when bread and wine remained present alongside the new substances of Christ’s body and blood” This quote was taken from one of many historians by the name of John Vidmar, OP a professor and historical archivist pg 192 “The Catholic Church Through the Ages.”

Question Jon, Now is there a new document Lutherans hold to long after Martin Luther died with his historical “consubstantiation theory?” Or did all historical authors record Martin Luther wrong, by having him holding to a “consubstantiation” explanation of the Real presence?

How is it that you reveal Martin Luther never holding to “consubstantiation” and many historical authors have him holding to it? Can you help me out here?

Thanks; Gabe;

 

[david_ruiz]

What sacrifice is offered at this altar?

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Oh please .The John 6 and Peter /rock discourse, indeed talk of divinity getting in us .The Father got inside Peter and revealed to Him that Jesus is His son . John 6 says you can’t profess what Peter did unless you are drawn by the Father to that truth. It does not say by RP eating you will have this enlightenment. Both chapters credit the Father for this. In the book of Acts, all the new regenerated souls who received similar revelation, and were filled with Divinity, had not even touched a consecrated element. Now if you want to say communion is a way of continued refilling, that is something else.There are ways to refill, to daily renew the spirit within us, per Holy Writ. None are directly attributable to RP communion.

.

Not just to mine for information but to encounter Christ in these Words. Let the text speak for itself.

I believe I have. Indeed the words speak, and I have eaten them, by his grace.

Quote:by dave
“He tabernacles in us by regeneration, by faith, the gift of God”. 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.]

Unfortunately CC states that it’s Eucharist IS needed for salvation ,apart from all the “other” indwelling "of Christ.The word is “anathema” upon me.

 

[david_ruiz]

:bible1: Jesus Christ said at The Last Supper: This is My Body…This is my Blood…Unless you Eat my Flesh…Drink My Blood, Ye can NOT have LIFE Within You.(Repeatedly.) When did he EVER say/suggest this is a Symbol, This is A Remembrance???

As far as Remembrance,that is what Jesus says it is ,in the last supper "consecration,also recorded in Corinthians .It is a Remembrance !!! It is your interpretation that says it is literal. Scripture does not say it is literal, nor figurative .

(4) Why did Jesus Christ Himself put Qualifiers on Receiving: 1Corr 11: 29: "He who Eats and Drinks Without Recognizing The Body

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Yes ,the Jews ate lamb,bread and wine .They were symbolic of the original lamb, bread, and wine, on the eve of the Great Exodus.The OT Passover/symbols /eating looked backward (Exodus) and forward (Calvary). Our new covenant symbols/eating looks backward (Calvary) and forward (Second Coming).

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Again, we both know better, for Paul addresses this, without denying my point .

I don’t know about you, but denying Jesus, I hope to** not**

do. It’s no wonder your theology is totally askew. Jesus also said we are either for him or against (sorry ,cant be CC “both/and”). So, were you born for Him or against him ?

And another point. Isn’t it that the whole point of His Sacrifice is that we will not deny Him?

Actually the whole point was because we DID deny Him. It is a done deal .Now if your are heart broken that your sins put him on the cross…

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Do you admit or deny that scripture uses figurative speech ,even about eating /drinking /milk/meat and His Word ?

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Thank-you .I will try ,and I do feel (am) like a rookie.

[/QUOTE]