Protestantism summed up in a simple verse from scripture

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

As I said, “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.”

Anyone who reads the whole scripture on this point cannot reasonably claim that He did mean the bread and wine were to be His literal body and blood, to be eaten and drunk regularly by His followers.

No Vern, what I don’t understand is that you are saying “one cannot reasonably claim that He did mean…” do you mean, “one cannot reasonably claim that He did not mean…?”

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

Thal59:

It would be irresponsible for Jesus as a teacher, to miscommunicate so vital a teaching by using figures of speech when straight, literal talk is demanded. (…unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you shall not have life in you. This is too important and too central a point regarding salvation for Jesus to even risk confusion with artful speech.)

Your logic about Christ’s irresponsibility is causing you to impose upon the text something that is not there. You are assuming, based upon a pre-suppostion, that the passage is literal, in fact, that it must be literal. I, and many others, see it as figurative. Below, I will list some more figures of speech as they apply to the Blood of Christ.

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

No Vern, what I don’t understand is that you are saying “one cannot reasonably claim that He did mean…” do you mean, “one cannot reasonably claim that He did not mean…?”

Bill

Typo. The meaning is clear from context – Jesus tells the Apostles to eat His body and drink His blood, and hands them the bread and the cup as he did it.

Clearly, He meant it literally.

 

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

Typo. The meaning is clear from context – Jesus tells the Apostles to eat His body and drink His blood, and hands them the bread and the cup as he did it.

Clearly, He meant it literally.

Thanks Vern, that’s what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

Your logic about Christ’s irresponsibility is causing you to impose upon the text something that is not there. You are assuming, based upon a pre-suppostion, that the passage is literal, in fact, that it must be literal. I, and many others, see it as figurative. Below, I will list some more figures of speech as they apply to the Blood of Christ.

Bill

“Sola Scruptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.”

There are too many attestations to Jesus telling the Apostles to eat His body and drink His blood, and handing them the bread and the cup as He did it.

Clearly, He meant it literally.

 

[Mickey]

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD)–disciple of John the apostle

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

IRANAEUS (149-202 AD)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation**, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, **HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CH****RIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God**, **WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE – flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

 

[sonseeker]

Thal59:

This is too important and too central a point regarding salvation for Jesus to even risk confusion with artful speech.)

The central point of the cross is the substituionary atonement, and Christ will not violate God’s command to not eat blood (as well as the eating of human flesh). That command was given in Gen 9, before there was a Jewish nation.

The importance of our Lord’s blood, as figuratively representing His atoning sacrifice, is seen in its divine application to gospel believers at their salvation and during their lifetime:

a) At salvation

1) **Eph 1:7; Rev 1:5—*metalepsis—***Two Metonymies, one contained in the other, but only one expressed

(Here’s an example of metalepsis:

If I say that a man was such a drunk that He “drank his watch,’’ I don’t mean that he drank the band and the face and the hands and all the gears. But I first use the word “watch,’’ (by Metonymy) for the money he got when he sold it, and then, by a second Metonymy, the money is put for the drink it purchased, and that he drank.)

2) Heb 9:14—**cleansed of sin’s defilement—**metalepsis
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

3) Acts 20:28—**Purchased—**metalepsis
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

4) Jn 6:53-54—**Given spiritual life—**idioma
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

**5)**Col1:20—**reconciled to God—**metalepsis
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

6) Heb 13:12—**sanctified—**metalepsis
12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

7) Eph 2:13—**made near to God—**metalepsis
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

8) Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 12:24—made recipients of the salvational promises of the new covenant mediated by Jesus

Luke 22:20—metonymy—cup for contents of cup which is His blood
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

1 Corinthians 11:25—metonymy—cup for contents & metalepsis—blood = death = atonement
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Hebrews 12:24—metalepsis
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

(continued below)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Funny, isn’t it, how Christians have been wrong for 2,000 years – including those who actually learned from the Apostles, and even the Apostles themselves, who received the Bread and the Cup from the hand of Christ?

I guess the Apostles didn’t understand the nuances of their native Aramaic.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #48)

b) During our Christian Lifetime

1) Hebrews 10:19—an approach to God—metalepsis
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus**,**

2) 1 John 1:7-9—Parental forgiveness—metalepsis

7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin**.**
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins* and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness*.

3) John 6:54-56—Spiritual Renewal—idioma
54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life*, and I will raise him up on the last day.*
55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

4) 1 Cor 10:16—**fellowship with Jesus and His people—metalepsis
16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

**5)**Rev 12:11—**victory over our spiritual enemies—**antenantiosis (antenantiosis: emphasizing negatively in order to express the positive in a very high degree. Example of antenantiosis: I’m no fool = I’m very wise. Also Pro 12:3; 7:21; 18:5)

11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death**.**

Notice in some of the verses: Has someone come and literally “cleansed” you with the blood? Has the blood come and literally “brought you near?” Did those in Rev. 12 overcome because they had some of the blood with them? No. Those are figures of speech.

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

Funny, isn’t it, how Christians have been wrong for 2,000 years – including those who actually learned from the Apostles, and even the Apostles themselves, who received the Bread and the Cup from the hand of Christ?

I guess the Apostles didn’t understand the nuances of their native Aramaic.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Vern, you are sly

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

The central point of the cross is the substituionary atonement, and as far as the symbolism of the O.T. and N.T. sacrifice, Christ will not violate God’s command to not eat blood (as well as the eating of human flesh). That command was given in Gen 9, before there was a Jewish nation.

The importance of our Lord’s blood, as figuratively representing His atoning sacrifice, is seen in its divine application to gospel believers at their salvation and during their lifetime:

What part of Luke 22,19-20 is not meant to be taken literally?

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. What part of Matthew 26,26-28 is not meant to be taken literally?

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

What part of Mark 14,22-25 is not meant to be taken literally?

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. 25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

What part of First Corinthians 11,23-27 is not meant to be taken literally?

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

Vern, you are sly

Bill

Not so sly as to think when Jesus Himself hands you the bread and says “Take and eat; this is my body,” He means it any way but literally.

 

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

What part of Luke 22,19-20 is not meant to be taken literally?

Vern, the hands of His body are holding the bread, and the mouth of His body is telling them that the bread is His body. His body is His body; the bread is a symbol of it. The whole of the last supper is to be done in remembrance of His death, and the shedding of His blood, in the place of the one who believes. There is no explanation given here, or anywhere else in the scripture, as to the bread becoming His body, or the wine becoming His blood. As Mickey does above, the only appeal is to those who were neither the Lord, nor one of His apostles. I believe this to be figurative. You believe it to be literal. We are at an impasse. :ehh:

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

Not so sly as to think when Jesus Himself hands you the bread and says “Take and eat; this is my body,” He means it any way but literally.

I understand that you are not that sly.

Bill

 

[RyanL]

Bill,

Not to be un-charitable, but your last name wouldn’t be Clinton, would it? I only ask because he is the only one I have ever heard try and distort the meaning of the word “is” as much as you have!

Perhaps you could simply conceed that if Catholics are guilty of any sin, it is that we simply believe Jesus too much?

RyanL

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

The central point of the cross is the substituionary atonement, and Christ will not violate God’s command to not eat blood (as well as the eating of human flesh). That command was given in Gen 9, before there was a Jewish nation.

I sure hope that was not a veiled reference to cannibalism. Only the most vehement anti-Catholics resort to that ploy. And we sure have had enough of them on this forum. But I think you are above that, Bill.

It never ceases to amaze me of the multiple hoops some people will jump through to deny the Real Presence. Even Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation, but as revisionist theology progressed, alas it continues to be revised. Anyway, here is a little food for thought. (Pun intended).

A Grammatical Consideration of the Last Supper Eucharistic Discourses
by Vincent Arong

The Koine of the Last Supper discourse has some interesting elements:

Matthew 26:26 “Touto estin to soma mou.” (“This is my body”, or literally, “This is the body of me”)

1 Corinthians 11:24 supports this even more forcefully: “Touto mou estin to soma” (Literally, “This of me is the body”)

If bread (Gk. artos) really is the symbolic referent for Christ’s body, then we should find touto referring to artos. However, the grammar shows otherwise: touto is a neuter demonstrative adjective. Artos is a masculine noun. Since the grammatical genders do not match, touto cannot refer to artos; the “this” that Jesus speaks of does not refer to bread. Therefore, not only is the object in his hands not bread, but bread is not a symbol for his body. What is the “this” that Jesus gives to the disciples that obviously looks, tastes, feels and smells like the bread?

Here’s the answer: Touto is neuter, so it has to refer to a neuter noun. Artos is out, since it’s not neuter, and so the only other possibility is soma (body), which is neuter. Thus, “this” refers to the Body of Christ, not to bread.

If you look further, there something in the grammar that indicates a literal meaning: As I wrote above, Touto (This) refers to the Soma (Body) because the latter is the only term in the context that matches the grammatical gender of the former.

If Jesus meant it symbolically, then it would look like this:

“This is the body of me” (Matthew 26:26)

“This of me is the body” (1 Cor 11:24)

Can we say that his body symbolizes his own body? It sounds rather awkward in construction. Usually a symbol is distinct from its referent (unless it has to do with concepts that definitely show “a making present” correspondence between a sign and the reality it signifies). In the context of the Lord’s Supper, we don’t find anything that indicates such a correspondence between a symbol of the body and the body itself, so it begs a more reasonable alternative. On the other hand, if Jesus meant it literally, then it would look like this:

“This is the body of me” (Matthew 26:26)

“This of me is the body.” (1 Cor 11:24)

Can your body literally be your body? Absolutely. In fact, the literal meaning is recognizable even if the terms “literally” were absent, which is the case of the Koine original. Thus, the grammar indicates a literal construction that is more reasonable than a purely symbolic / metaphorical / figurative explanation.

The conclusion is that the “this” that Jesus gives – which looks, tastes, feels and smells like bread – is not bread at all but is Jesus’s very own body. Taking Jesus at his word, with the eyes of Faith, Catholics therefore confess that Jesus meant what he said: “My Lord and My God! Amen.”

 

[Thal59]

sonseeker:

Vern, the hands of His body are holding the bread, and the mouth of His body is telling them that the bread is His body. His body is His body; the bread is a symbol of it. The whole of the last supper is to be done in remembrance of His death, and the shedding of His blood, in the place of the one who believes. There is no explanation given here, or anywhere else in the scripture, as to the bread becoming His body, or the wine becoming His blood. As Mickey does above, the only appeal is to those who were neither the Lord, nor one of His apostles. I believe this to be figurative. You believe it to be literal. We are at an impasse. :ehh:

Bill

Sonseeker:

Vern, the hands of His body are holding the bread, and the mouth of His body is telling them that the bread is His body. His body is His body; the bread is a symbol of it. <<

Jesus fulfilled the OT. One of the first “symbols” was the bread and wine offered by Abraham and Melchizedek. To fulfill is to bring to a heightened or superior form or level, or even to make perfect. If Jesus fulfilled the OT, you cannot exit the NT with the bread and wine still being a symbol.

The whole of the last supper is to be done in remembrance of His death, and the shedding of His blood, in the place of the one who believes. There is no explanation given here, or anywhere else in the scripture, as to the bread becoming His body, or the wine becoming His blood. <<

Bingo!!! This is what I meant when I said… “You have beautifully demonstrated how attempting to translate scripture with scripture alone can be folly.” The Bible is true, but not comprehensive. One must look into Jewish history, traditions, and sacrifices to understand how Jesus fulfilled the “Todah” sacrifice with the Eucharist. If one does not search outside of Scriptures for this information, then all that is left is for what you have just done… paint yourself into a corner with copious examples of grammer and figurative speech that leaves you with unfulfilled symbols rather than the “real” and “literal” accomplishment that Jesus spoke and taught about.

All you have, sonseeker, is non-existant symbols, metaphors, grammar anagrams, and numerous conflicting interpretations.

Why do you not believe what Jesus spoke in plain terms? His words speak of an intimate union between redeemer and redeemed; physical as well as spiritual.

Is such a union between you and the Lord unappealing to you? What are you afraid of?

Thal59

 

[sonseeker]

RyanL:

Bill,

Not to be un-charitable, but your last name wouldn’t be Clinton, would it? I only ask because he is the only one I have ever heard try and distort the meaning of the word “is” as much as you have!

Perhaps you could simply conceed that if Catholics are guilty of any sin, it is that we simply believe Jesus too much?

RyanL

Not to be un-charitable, but…

I love you “I don’t mean to be, but…” guys. You can be honest with me, I won’t break.

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

Vern, the hands of His body are holding the bread, and the mouth of His body is telling them that the bread is His body. His body is His body; the bread is a symbol of it. The whole of the last supper is to be done in remembrance of His death, and the shedding of His blood, in the place of the one who believes. There is no explanation given here, or anywhere else in the scripture, as to the bread becoming His body, or the wine becoming His blood. As Mickey does above, the only appeal is to those who were neither the Lord, nor one of His apostles. I believe this to be figurative. You believe it to be literal. We are at an impasse. :ehh:

Bill

Funny how the people who were there, who heard His words, took the Bread and Cup from His hands, and who spoke His language as their mother tongue disagree with you.

 

[Milliardo]

sonseeker:

The Scripture does teach that Jesus uses figurative language (Jn 10:6; 16:25,29 etc.)

The language of John 6 with respect to His flesh and blood is a figure of speech, known as an idiom, or in the greek—idiwma—an idiom is a peculiar usage of words or phrases.

(definition of Peculiar: Belonging solely to, particular, singular, strange, belonging to one person, thing, class or people).

The word, then, is used in three significations:

1. The language peculiar to the vulgar, as opposed to what is classical, or proper language
2. The language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects.
3. The language peculiar to any particular author or speaker.

It is the second of these significations (language peculiar to one nation or tribe) that it becomes important in this passage as a figure or speech.

Why is that?

Because the writers of the testaments were, with the exception of Luke, Hebrews, they employed the use Hebrew idioms in their speech.

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymya figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Thus with Jn 51: I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

The idiomatic meaning: just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So with v 53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves

The idiomatic meaning: except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (by faith, belief in Him), you have no life in you.

(continued below)

Again, if Jesus is using an idiomatic expression, don’t you think He would have cleared this up with His Disciples? After all, 60 of them left, so He was responsible for giving an explanation to them. As well, Jesus is truth, and it would have been unlikely for Him to let go of 60 Disciples because they did not understand an idiomatic expression. Recall again that if this was an idiomatic expression, Jesus, as noted, usually would reveal its meaning to His Disciples, as we’ve seen Him do so in His parables. The fact He didn’t, and was even willing to let go of 60 (and indeed, even everyone else, by His question to the 12: “Would you go as well?”) indicate that He was not referring to any idiomatic expression or symbolism. He held His ground, and Peter and the others left realized that this was something that was not merely symbolic nor idiomatic. Jesus, take note, never made any other explanation about it again, which would further reinforce Catholic understanding of the chapter as against Protestant fantasies of it.