Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

While this is very interesting, it is irrelevant. Yes or no?

It wasn’t as far as our limited discussion , but for others , that go back 1800 threads,perhaps .There was much discussion on Augustine, who had solid quotes for a type of real presence and simultaneously for the figurative , similar to Wycliffe. There was also discussion of Greek philosophy,similar to Wycliffe.Without further reading I would lay odds that Wycliffe based his eucharistic views , as against transubstantiation, to be based upon scripture (for sure) AND Augustine’s writings, that Augustine would disagree with CC RP. Wycliffe was no Catholic slouch .He was very learned , I would say much more than Luther.

 

[dcana]

It wasn’t as far as our limited discussion , but for others , that go back 1800 threads,perhaps .There was much discussion on Augustine, who had solid quotes for a type of real presence and simultaneously for the figurative , similar to Wycliffe. There was also discussion of Greek philosophy,similar to Wycliffe.Without further reading I would lay odds that Wycliffe based his eucharistic views , as against transubstantiation, to be based upon scripture (for sure) AND Augustine’s writings, that Augustine would disagree with CC RP. Wycliffe was no Catholic slouch .He was very learned , I would say much more than Luther.

Thank you for your answer. I’m not sure why you keep bringing in other things into this discussion, such as quotes from Wycliffe, Greek philosophy, St. Augustine, and so on. I just asked you a simple question and now you have answered it. I do not know whether or not to continue with this line of discussion. Last night I was thinking that after you answered I would be satisfied, go back to my usual trolling, leave the deep philosophical questions to you, St. Augustine, Plato, and others who know so much more than I, and let the Holy Spirit do whatever He wills - that’s probably for the best. I know nothing of philosophy myself and barely much more about theology. Having such knowledge is a good thing, but not necessary. What is necessary is to have a simple faith in Jesus and His words. If anyone attempts to use philosophy, theology, or Scripture study to explain away in any way the Words of the Word of God because they don’t like them, can’t “understand” them, or they just don’t fit in with their current belief system, then God help them. It would be better for them if they had never been instructed. Jesus preached to simple folk. Very simple. None of them had any degrees and none of them knew a thing about Greek philosophy. They did have Jesus and His words. And a simple fisherman said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” The first 1,800 years or so of the Church were in pre-modern times, when most people - the vast majority, actually, could not read or write, and never went to college. And why should they? They had no real need for such things. What they could do, however, was to listen and understand spoken language. Did you ever wonder why God chose to become incarnate in the place that He did and at the time He did? He could’ve chosen any time and place He wanted to. And He did - 2,000 years ago in Palestine. The “fullness” of time could’ve been today. We’d have no problem with Bible translations or verifying Jesus’ miracles because they would all be recorded on camera. Getting back to what I was saying before, those who were instructed were the Pharisees and the scholars of the Law. All their instruction turned out to be their downfall, because they became proud, self-righteous, and thought themselves superior to the “simple folk.” I’m not comparing you with them in any way, by the way. I don’t know you from Adam. It’s so ironic that those who had studied the Word of God so exhaustively, to the point that I’m sure they could quote any passage from it verbatim by heart, could not recognize the Word of God when He came to them in the flesh.

I think it is good for a person who does not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and says that what Jesus really means when He says (fill in the blank) is (fill in the blank) to at least admit that Jesus gave them *something *to eat and drink, and they ate and drank it. At least to visualize it happening instead of just mentally “skipping” over the verses when they upon them or studying them intently only for the purpose of coming to understand what Jesus really meant when He said such confusing things as, “This is my Body.” You might not think so, but I do. I call to witness the amount of time you (and many others) have spent in arguing that “eating” does not really mean eating, but something else, like “having Faith in Jesus” or “believing on the Word.”

Just curious, David. In your church, do you do what He instructed in remembrance of Him? We can all agree, whether we believe in Jesus’ real presence or not, that He commanded His Apostles to do what He was doing, in remembrance of Him, when He would be no longer visibly with them, in about 43 days or so. So, do you do it? Certainly, “it” must involve coming together as the People of God, the Body of Christ, just as Jesus gathered together the Twelve in the Upper Room. It would involve the eating of bread and the drinking of wine (so to speak, anyway, from our perspective). And it would involve someone in a position of leadership, with authority over the congregation, who says something to them as he gives them the bread and wine. It couldn’t be that when Jesus said to “do this” that He was referring simply to the eating of bread and the drinking of some wine. I could go downstairs right now and do that myself. I guess someone could argue that if they chose to. But that’s not what the Apostles understood Him to mean. How do I know? The Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the 2,000 year history of the Church. If you do have some sort of “memorial service,” how often do you celebrate it? I’m sure you are well-aware that the Acts of the Apostles describes the first Christians getting together on the Lord’s Day and breaking the bread. Well, the Lord’s Day, just like every other day, whether you want to believe it is Sunday or Saturday (like some do) comes around once a week. If you do not celebrate the “Lord’s Supper,” why don’t you?

 

[dcana]

So much for my “succinctness.” I can be succinct, but, as you see, usually ramble on and on. Sorry, I’ve got to go to bed now. I’m going to try to make it to Mass tomorrow morning.

Peace

 

[david_ruiz]

Thank you for your answer. I’m not sure why you keep bringing in other things into this discussion, such as quotes from Wycliffe, Greek philosophy, St. Augustine, and so on. I just asked you a simple question and now you have answered it. I do not know whether or not to continue with this line of discussion. Last night I was thinking that after you answered I would be satisfied, go back to my usual trolling, leave the deep philosophical questions to you, St. Augustine, Plato, and others who know so much more than I, and let the Holy Spirit do whatever He wills - that’s probably for the best. I know nothing of philosophy myself and barely much more about theology. Having such knowledge is a good thing, but not necessary. What is necessary is to have a simple faith in Jesus and His words. If anyone attempts to use philosophy, theology, or Scripture study to explain away in any way the Words of the Word of God because they don’t like them, can’t “understand” them, or they just don’t fit in with their current belief system, then God help them. It would be better for them if they had never been instructed. Jesus preached to simple folk. Very simple. None of them had any degrees and none of them knew a thing about Greek philosophy. They did have Jesus and His words. And a simple fisherman said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” The first 1,800 years or so of the Church were in pre-modern times, when most people - the vast majority, actually, could not read or write, and never went to college. And why should they? They had no real need for such things. What they could do, however, was to listen and understand spoken language. Did you ever wonder why God chose to become incarnate in the place that He did and at the time He did? He could’ve chosen any time and place He wanted to. And He did - 2,000 years ago in Palestine. The “fullness” of time could’ve been today. We’d have no problem with Bible translations or verifying Jesus’ miracles because they would all be recorded on camera. Getting back to what I was saying before, those who were instructed were the Pharisees and the scholars of the Law. All their instruction turned out to be their downfall, because they became proud, self-righteous, and thought themselves superior to the “simple folk.” I’m not comparing you with them in any way, by the way. I don’t know you from Adam. It’s so ironic that those who had studied the Word of God so exhaustively, to the point that I’m sure they could quote any passage from it verbatim by heart, could not recognize the Word of God when He came to them in the flesh.

I think it is good for a person who does not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and says that what Jesus really means when He says (fill in the blank) is (fill in the blank) to at least admit that Jesus gave them *something *to eat and drink, and they ate and drank it. At least to visualize it happening instead of just mentally “skipping” over the verses when they upon them or studying them intently only for the purpose of coming to understand what Jesus really meant when He said such confusing things as, “This is my Body.” You might not think so, but I do. I call to witness the amount of time you (and many others) have spent in arguing that “eating” does not really mean eating, but something else, like “having Faith in Jesus” or “believing on the Word.”

Just curious, David. In your church, do you do what He instructed in remembrance of Him? We can all agree, whether we believe in Jesus’ real presence or not, that He commanded His Apostles to do what He was doing, in remembrance of Him, when He would be no longer visibly with them, in about 43 days or so. So, do you do it? Certainly, “it” must involve coming together as the People of God, the Body of Christ, just as Jesus gathered together the Twelve in the Upper Room. It would involve the eating of bread and the drinking of wine (so to speak, anyway, from our perspective). And it would involve someone in a position of leadership, with authority over the congregation, who says something to them as he gives them the bread and wine. It couldn’t be that when Jesus said to “do this” that He was referring simply to the eating of bread and the drinking of some wine. I could go downstairs right now and do that myself. I guess someone could argue that if they chose to. But that’s not what the Apostles understood Him to mean. How do I know? The Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the 2,000 year history of the Church. If you do have some sort of “memorial service,” how often do you celebrate it? I’m sure you are well-aware that the Acts of the Apostles describes the first Christians getting together on the Lord’s Day and breaking the bread. Well, the Lord’s Day, just like every other day, whether you want to believe it is Sunday or Saturday (like some do) comes around once a week. If you do not celebrate the “Lord’s Supper,” why don’t you?

Thanks for your thoughtful answer .Only have amoment ,but we do have "eucharist communion in our church .We do have a pastor /president of the service .By the way .i am not sure the book of Acts supports todays CC dogma on priesthood necessity for transubstantiation .A qyestion for you which you said you would field is are you "spiritual ? Do you have a spiritual “man”,the inward man ,as Paul speaks of ? If so ,how does this man eat .How do we feed the Spirit? “.Two hearts beat within this chest .One is cursed and one is blessed .One I love and one I hate .The one I feed will dominate”

 

[wmscott]

Again you are assuming that we as humans can put a finger on someone and say “see he has the RP in him” we can’t, again it is between God and that individual. You seem to think that once someone receives the RP that they are no longer sinners, is this the case? As a Catholic the RP is our “Personal Relationship” with Christ. I know you understand that concept. However it is more tangible through the Sacraments, which are the efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church.

Yes there are those individuals who after receiving the Most Holy Eucharist are aglow with peace and thanksgiving, I have been one of those folks at some point or another. But it is not every single time, as a sinner approaching the throne of God; my outward demeanor does not always convey what my inner being is experiencing. If you are asking for proof that the RP really exists well I guess what it really boils down to is a matter of faith. Your non-Catholic faith tells you it is only a symbol. My faith leads me to believe in the RP.

So tell me when there are two or more gathered in Christ’s name, isn’t Christ supposed to be there among then? Is it really Him that is present? Or is it just symbolic. What are the effects of Him being there among the two or more? Do folks leave church the same, some going to eat, some for a smoke, some to meditate etc.? Could you tell which ones have Christ flowing thru them? Do they speak differently? Or because it was symbolic it really did not have any affect?

David Ruiz, would like you response to this post, especially the last paragraph.

 

[david_ruiz]

David Ruiz, would like you response to this post, especially the last paragraph.

Not in eucharistic fashion . Not bodily, but as I have stated, I need His spirit, more than His flesh.Yes,indeed where two or more are gathered there he is spiritually .Many claim the same for the eucharist - he is there spiritually.I myself do not believe he spiritualy inhabits the elements , but for sure He inhabits our eaucharistic praises and thanksgiving,and blesses the remembrance. (“He inhabits the praises of his people”). gotta go …

 

[david_ruiz]

David Ruiz, would like you response to this post, especially the last paragraph.

Just reread ,some of the last paragraph I believe are my statements/questions , about the effectualness of communion dogma

 

[dcana]

Thanks for your thoughtful answer .Only have amoment ,but we do have "eucharist communion in our church .We do have a pastor /president of the service .By the way .i am not sure the book of Acts supports todays CC dogma on priesthood necessity for transubstantiation .A qyestion for you which you said you would field is are you "spiritual ? Do you have a spiritual “man”,the inward man ,as Paul speaks of ? If so ,how does this man eat .How do we feed the Spirit? “.Two hearts beat within this chest .One is cursed and one is blessed .One I love and one I hate .The one I feed will dominate”

What does your presider say when he passes around the bread and wine? Do you have wine? How often do you have your “eucharist communion?”

I did not claim that the Book of Acts supports the belief in the necessity of a priest for the consecration of the elements.

I suppose I would say I was “spiritual” but this is a very vague term. It is used most often today in opposition to “religious” which in some peoples’ minds has a pejorative sense, as if one is truly “enlightened” then one can only be “spiritual” but not “religious.” Whatever. Do I have a “spiritual man?” Yes, my “spiritual man” is the Life of Christ within me. It is what resulted when I was born-again when I became a new creation in Christ. It is what yearns for God, to love Him and obey His commandments and what inspires me to live a Christ-like life. This man eats in many ways: by the reading of Scripture, by prayer in all its forms, and through Sacramental grace. Where is the quote from? I have to admit, I don’t particularly like it. It’s too “dualistic” for me, as if I were half good and half evil, sort of like Mr. Spock being half-human and half-Vulcan, though I do understand the sense of it, especially the part about “the one I feed will dominate.” The way I see it, the life of Christ is something that actually exists in me. It is my soul, indwelt by the Holy Trinity and enlightened and sanctified by His grace, which is a real thing, though intangible. The “other man” I see as my natural inclinations towards evil that fight against the good inspirations of the good God. As such, it would be a metaphor, not something that actually “exists” inside of me, per se. We “feed” the other “self” by not doing the things above, instead living a “worldly” life (as per John) enmired in sin, which enslaves us. God transforms me to be like Himself, as far as I allow Him to.

 

[dcana]

I neglected a most important manner of feeding the “spiritual man”: though simply living - day by day, year by year. The life of grace grows within us when we cooperate with God in His work, which is what we are, according to Scripture. “To those who have much, more will be given them, to those who have little, even what they have will be taken away.” I know from experience that there’s no such thing as “standing still” in the spiritual life. Either you’re moving forward or moving backward. If you “stand still,” you move backwards, as if on one of those escalators (“people movers” is what I believe they’re properly called) you see in airports. And you can’t move back forever. Eventually, the track ends and you fall down. Fortunately, my imaginary escalator has no end - or rather, it does have an end but this end is God, who has no end. The thing with this escalator is the father you go, the easier it is to move and the faster you move, both forward and backward. God and His saints urge us forward, and the devil calls to our “other self” to go the other way. Remember what happened to Lot’s wife when she looked back? She turned into a pile of salt. (wasn’t there a Star Trek episode where people were turning into salt? - but I digress) . Also, see Jesus:

1. “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
2. “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
3. “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

Life is a struggle and we can and will grow in grace through our lived experience with God through the trials of life, again, as far as we let Him, by the exercise of our free will, which is itself aided by God’s grace.

 

[dcana]

Wow. I was just in the shower and realized that my so-called “metaphor” doesn’t quite work. Sorry, I didn’t quite think that one through. I should win some kind of award for that one. Here, I think I’ll give myself one : :yeah_me: Well, maybe nobody’s currently reading this thread. My escalator needs some modifications:

1. You would need to be walking in the opposite direction. However, this does not work with a real escalator because if you walk at a slower pace than the track is moving, you move backwards, and I think God is pleased with any movement forward, no matter how small the step.

or

1. You move in the same direction as the escalator, but if you stop, its direction reverses. Again, not quite the way they work. I suppose you could make one work in such a way, but its only real purpose would be to make my analogy make sense.

Take your pick. Either way they’re pretty bad.

So, David, how would you answer your questions? Do you have a spiritual “man,” the inward man, as Paul speaks of? If so, how does this man eat? How do you feed the Spirit?

Peace

 

[david_ruiz]

]What does your presider say when he passes around the bread and wine? Do you have wine? How often do you have your “eucharist communion?”

Many times the “presider” will say who should participate, or to encourage the worthily participation, that is are you saved, and are you in good standing in the body, with the Body of Christ .That is, are you supposed to get right with anyone .Then the words of remembrance are said , “On the night that he was betrayed He took the bread …” Yes He says, " take , eat: this is my body broken for you: do this in remembrance of me."
Then the full “cup” statement. We celebrate once a month , with broken matzo crackers and grape juice (in an earlier post "wine’ was said to be anywhere from grape juice with no fermentation to full fermentation and quite alcoholic) ,as Jesus said “fruit of the vine”.

I did not claim that the Book of Acts supports the belief in the necessity of a priest for the consecration of the elements.

Good.

Where is the quote from? I have to admit, I don’t particularly like it. It’s too “dualistic” for me, as if I were half good and half evil, sort of like Mr. Spock being half-human and half-Vulcan, though I do understand the sense of it, especially the part about “the one I feed will dominate.”

Heard it this past Sunday from a visiting preacher. It is very dualistic, but i think biblically sound . Paul is very specific to his dual nature , “Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver from the body of this death ? for I do that which I would not ,and that which I would not I do. Thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord”. He also says that in His flesh dwelleth no good thing. “I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is my members. So with my mind (inward man, I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin”. Romans 7 You seem to say almost the same thing with your spiritual life, you know, new life , born again, all things new. I think the more you detest your old man, the more you see it as depraved and with nothing good in it ,the more you will appreciate the grace of salvation-the more forgiven the more love, for the forgiver, Christ. It also leads to full reliance on His working for you, at Calvary (justification) ,and continuing on in your new life (sanctification). It is two natures indeed, diametrically opposed. Our flesh is at enmity with God. The old man understands not the things of God. The old must be put to death - no better rest than that, from self righteous works. That is why we eucharist -give thanksgiving, for the rest it represents .The symbol of unleavened bread in OT passover was for the reminder and goal for purity. Jesus fulfills that perfect purity, hence He chose not the Lamb to be representative element (even though he is the Lamb also) but the bread-unleavened

As such, it would be a metaphor, not something that actually “exists” inside of me, per se.

I have been saying figurative (metaphor) is using an earthly reality to depict a spiritual reality .I think it actually exists in us. Why do you think He even changes names -Saul to Paul, Jacob to Israel, Peter. I heard there was an old mid-eastern tradition that when a visitor/friend came to your tent, you would sit and sup with him. After the meal you would write something on a stone and pass it to Him, for no else to see. The guest would turn the stone over and read something intimate/special only between you .This may be the idea behind this scripture promise: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it”. Rev. 2:17. Alleluia !!!

 

[david_ruiz]

Wow. I was just in the shower and realized that my so-called “metaphor” doesn’t quite work. Sorry, I didn’t quite think that one through. I should win some kind of award for that one. Here, I think I’ll give myself one : :yeah_me: Well, maybe nobody’s currently reading this thread. My escalator needs some modifications:

1. You would need to be walking in the opposite direction. However, this does not work with a real escalator because if you walk at a slower pace than the track is moving, you move backwards, and I think God is pleased with any movement forward, no matter how small the step.

or

1. You move in the same direction as the escalator, but if you stop, its direction reverses. Again, not quite the way they work. I suppose you could make one work in such a way, but its only real purpose would be to make my analogy make sense.

Take your pick. Either way they’re pretty bad.

So, David, how would you answer your questions? Do you have a spiritual “man,” the inward man, as Paul speaks of? If so, how does this man eat? How do you feed the Spirit?

Peace

I,ll have to get back on your analogy of the" people mover’/escalator, which I also figuratively used on some earlier post .The reason why I asked about “your spiritual man” was that like our flesh is fed, so must our spirit be fed. Hence we can eat spiritually, we can “eat” Jesus. I eat His words (as you say reading,praying). I eat what He did in the flesh:spoke,died ,rose,ascended. Of course His flesh is nothing save the Spirit in Him , for God is spirit. Anyways, the “new man” eats spiritual food, not fleshly/ earthly elements/ carbon atoms.So eating is eating.The flesh eats by teeth and belly .The spirit eats by chewing on the Word and digesting with faith. For real. I do agree with your other ways of feeding the new man. …As far as moving forward, yes, I have heard it said you are either moving forward or backward .I hate that saying cause it definitely applies "pressure’’. Still it may be true but must be tempered by the other analogies of “standing” for instance. Hey, if you are being attacked and you don’t budge -no advancing ,no retreating, that to me is a good stand and a type of moving forward .The old Spartans tried to overreach their dominion and frequently attacked the peaceful Pelloponesia (?) to no avail. Some Spartans criticized their leaders for “training” the non-warrior state on how to fight . For along while the “p” people neither advanced against Sparta , but they did not retreat either and repelled all attacks But they eventually did learn how to fight ,ala Spartan blood , and actually defeated Sparta years later. So as they say, what don’t kill you makes you stronger .And there is much to “standing”.

 

[wmscott]

Are you really so dead-set against the very plain words of Jesus that you will not even answer? Well, I take that back. It is only partially true. You quoted a verse of Scripture that said that they drank of the cup, so presumably your answer to the second question is “yes.” How about the first part of the question? Maybe you want to ask me a question. Shoot. I’ll give it a go. And then you can answer mine.

I was at a class at Church last night called Theology of the Mass Explained. One of the points brought out was how so many of our Protestant brothers and sisters so readily accept that Jesus could change wine into water, but find it incredible or inconceivable that Jesus can change wine into blood. This statement made me think of this thread and how some Protestants inadvertently put limits on God in order to preserve their own brand of theology.

 

[david_ruiz]

I was at a class at Church last night called Theology of the Mass Explained. One of the points brought out was how so many of our Protestant brothers and sisters so readily accept that Jesus could change wine into water, but find it incredible or inconceivable that Jesus can change wine into blood. This statement made me think of this thread and how some Protestants inadvertently put limits on God in order to preserve their own brand of theology.

First let me say thank-you for the kind words calling us brothers and sisters .I believe I shall paraphrase Tertullian ,3-4th century brethren and Father, “Let us not suppose that just because God can that He did , but let us surmise from scripture to see whether it is so .” The teacher of the class is either ignorant or disengenuous to the non-RP cause. Of the 1800 posts on this subject that I have been partially privy to (lot of reading) I don’t believe there has been one person saying it is just too “incredible or inconceivable” ,at least if stated by itself , as you have. It insinuates that He can not .It also avoids the real reasons given why it would be incredible/inconceivable interpretation. But thanks to CC for this forum for the oportunity to express the real reasons for differing interpretations.

 

[wmscott]

First let me say thank-you for the kind words calling us brothers and sisters .I believe I shall paraphrase Tertullian ,3-4th century brethren and Father, "Let us not suppose that just because God can that He did , but let us surmise from scripture to see whether it is so ."And there have been many scriptural references provided, you and others just choose to not believe. The teacher of the class is either ignorant or disengenuous to the non-RP cause. I highly doubt that the “Priest” who taught this class is ignorant or disingenuous, quite the opposite. Of the 1800 posts on this subject that I have been partially privy to (lot of reading) I don’t believe there has been one person saying it is just too “incredible or inconceivable” ,at least if stated by itself , as you have. It insinuates that He can not .It also avoids the real reasons given why it would be incredible/inconceivable interpretation.I am not saying that God cannot, I am saying that many Protestants find that God cannot because of the way they interpret scripture. Which leads to their own brand of theology, which in turn inadvertently places limits on God. But thanks to CC for this forum for the oportunity to express the real reasons for differing interpretations.

 

[david_ruiz]

wmscott:
Originally Posted by david ruiz
First let me say thank-you for the kind words calling us brothers and sisters .I believe I shall paraphrase Tertullian ,3-4th century brethren and Father, "Let us not suppose that just because God can that He did , but let us surmise from scripture to see whether it is so And there have been many scriptural references provided, you and others just choose to not believe. wm scottThe teacher of the class is either ignorant or disengenuous to the non-RP cause. I highly doubt that the “Priest” who taught this class is ignorant or disingenuous, quite the opposite.wmscott .Of the 1800 posts on this subject that I have been partially privy to (lot of reading) I don’t believe there has been one person saying it is just too “incredible or inconceivable” ,at least if stated by itself , as you have. It insinuates that He can not .It also avoids the real reasons given why it would be incredible/inconceivable interpretation.I am not saying that God cannot, I am saying that many Protestants find that God cannot because of the way they interpret scripture. Which leads to their own brand of theology, which in turn inadvertently places limits on Godwmscott. But thanks to CC for this forum for the oportunity to express the real reasons for differing interpretations.

---

 

[Bran_Stark]

I was at a class at Church last night called Theology of the Mass Explained. One of the points brought out was how so many of our Protestant brothers and sisters so readily accept that Jesus could change wine into water, but find it incredible or inconceivable that Jesus can change wine into blood. This statement made me think of this thread and how some Protestants inadvertently put limits on God in order to preserve their own brand of theology.

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all! The wine at Cana was really and truly wine; it did not look or feel or taste like the water it once was. No one doubts that God can turn wine into blood, the question is whether He would do so without changing the “accidents” as well.

 

[david_ruiz]

Originally Posted by david ruiz
First let me say thank-you for the kind words calling us brothers and sisters .I believe I shall paraphrase Tertullian ,3-4th century brethren and Father, "Let us not suppose that just because God can that He did , but let us surmise from scripture to see whether it is so And there have been many scriptural references provided, you and others just choose to not believe. wm scottThe teacher of the class is either ignorant or disengenuous to the non-RP cause. I highly doubt that the “Priest” who taught this class is ignorant or disingenuous, quite the opposite.wmscott .Of the 1800 posts on this subject that I have been partially privy to (lot of reading) I don’t believe there has been one person saying it is just too “incredible or inconceivable” ,at least if stated by itself , as you have. It insinuates that He can not .It also avoids the real reasons given why it would be incredible/inconceivable interpretation.I am not saying that God cannot, I am saying that many Protestants find that God cannot because of the way they interpret scripture. Which leads to their own brand of theology, which in turn inadvertently places limits on Godwmscott. But thanks to CC for this forum for the oportunity to express the real reasons for differing interpretations.

Scripture has been provided by both sides and we each chose to not believe the other(interpretation) .Your inference is a negative one , yet ironic cause it applies to any “debate”, and we both believe in the same scriptures, just differently .So why not just say that , with no negative connotation ? .I did not say the priest was ignorant /disengenuos.I said he mispotrayed the opposing view ,or at least put it in a negative way,without explanation.The teacher I repsect most is the one who presents his own faith /interpretation arguments/proofs , but can equally present the opposing view’s arguments and proofs. After all that ,if one wants to say the opponents are incredulous, fine. At least he was honest to their faith viewpoint. the"god can not" is also a strange negative way of putting things . What you say can be said of any viewpoint , but what does it avail except put yourself in a better light ,but I say disengenuosly .For instance I could say you are limiting God ,and saying He can not speak figuratively in the eating .He can not .It doesn’t help to say cause of your interpretations you limit God. Again ,why not just say you (others) interpret God /scripture differently ? Truth always puts a limit on possibilities. It is indeed very narrow minded. Alleluia.

 

[JonNC]

I was at a class at Church last night called Theology of the Mass Explained. One of the points brought out was how so many of our Protestant brothers and sisters so readily accept that Jesus could change wine into water, but find it incredible or inconceivable that Jesus can change wine into blood. This statement made me think of this thread and how some Protestants inadvertently put limits on God in order to preserve their own brand of theology.

Hi Wm,
The problem with your point, or that of your classmates, is that Christ did not say “this bread is changed into my body”. He said, This [bread] is my body". It seems that one could also claim that by making Transubstantiation a doctrine, one inadvertantly puts limits on God as well. It says that the substance of the bread must be changed, in order for it to be Christ’s body. Yet Christ nevers says this.

Now, far be it from me to claim that God doesn’t, or better, can’t change the substance of the bread and wine into flesh and blood, leaving only accidents of bread and wine for our senses to observe. That, too, would limit God. I’m just saying Christ didn’t say He does. He simply says that the bread IS His body, and the wine Is His blood. However He makes this happen, it is indeed a mystery.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .I believe His answer was bit sarcastic, tongue in cheek for the unbelievers, and prophetic of His ministry (death/ascension) at the same time for the believers. . . .

David,

I read all your replies, and I think we are miles apart in our understanding of John Chapter 6. We aren’t making any progress—we just keep going “round and round.”

Lots going on for me outside the forums. So, I’ll let you continue the discussion with others.

Peace to you from Texas (God’s country.) I’m sure I’ll bump into you again on another thread and we can disagree on another topic.

Anna