Protestantism summed up in a simple verse from scripture

[Milliardo]

Sonseeker, it would also help to know, as pointed out by othes here, that the early Church Fathers took John 6 very literally. Now, do you mean to tell us that Protestant notions of it are much more superior than the understanding of the early Fathers, some of whom (like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Ireneaus of Lyons) were disciples of the Apostles themselves? Or, again, does this indicate that the Protestant understanding is a denial of Christ’s own words, and seeks only to impose its (Protestantism’s) own understanding of it, setting aside our Lord’s words as well as the testimonies of the Church’s earliest witnesses?

 

[Mickey]

Milliardo:

Sonseeker, it would also help to know, as pointed out by othes here, that the early Church Fathers took John 6 very literally. Now, do you mean to tell us that Protestant notions of it are much more superior than the understanding of the early Fathers, some of whom (like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Ireneaus of Lyons) were disciples of the Apostles themselves? Or, again, does this indicate that the Protestant understanding is a denial of Christ’s own words, and seeks only to impose its (Protestantism’s) own understanding of it, setting aside our Lord’s words as well as the testimonies of the Church’s earliest witnesses?

Good point Milliardo! If St Ignatius of Antioch got it wrong, then the Apostle John had it wrong. I think not!

 

[vern_humphrey]

No need to pole vault over mouse droppings. Matthew, who was there says:

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.”

How can it be other than a literal statement? Does Matthew say "Understanding Jesus to be talking in metaphores, we studied the bread very carefully and found it to be made of wheat?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[sonseeker]

Mickey, et al.,

Vincent Arong, by his own admission, states that his argument is “awkward,” I believe that “awkward” is better stated as “weak.” The reason it is weak is that he does not possess a proper definition of a metaphor. Let’s begin by defining metaphor in contrast to simile, as I believe that it will make the understanding of metaphor clearer.

A simile says that one thing is “like,” or “as,” another. One thing resembles another thing: *All flesh is as grass *(1 Pet 1:24; cf Is 40:6ff; Jas 1:10ff). A metaphor says that one thing “is” another thing: All flesh IS grass. It immediately carries the figure across. As seen from those two statements then, the metaphor is not as “accurate” or “true” as the simile. In other words, the mark of the simile is “resembles;” the mark of the metaphor is “represents.” The carrying across of the figure of this representation is contained in the verb “is,” (RyanL “is” no doubt laughing to himself), but pay attention, as “is” is the marker of the metaphor: I point to picture, and say, “This is my father,” “this is my cat,” “this is my house,” etc. Note again, as I said above, the mark is “representation.” The picture is not my father, cat, house, but rather, a “representation” thereof. The metaphor is confined to *one thing *IS another thing. Again, the figure is contained in the verb: is.

Let’s look at some O.T. metaphors (there are many): *The Lord *IS my Shepherd (Ps 23); *The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11); *His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4); Now, some N.T. metaphors: You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13); *This *IS my body (Mt 26:26); notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present; I’ll give examples of that in a moment): Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body.

In the Mt 26:26 passage the pronoun “this” (touto, touto), is neuter, and is made to agree with “body” (swma, soma), which is neuter, and not with “bread” (artoV, artos), which is masculine. That is the case in metaphors in the Greek.

Here are some examples: Zech 5:8: *This *IS Wickedness. “This,” (fem) does not agree with “ephah” (to which it refers), which is neuter (LXX), but with “wickedness,” which is feminine.

Zech 5:3: *This *IS *the curse. *“This” (fem), agrees with “curse,” which is feminine, and not with “flying roll,” which is neuter (LXX), and to which “this” refers.

Mt 13:38: *…and the good seed, these *ARE the sons of the kingdom. “These” (masc) agrees with “children of the kingdom” (masc), and not with “seed,” which is neuter, and to which it refers. And there are more.

Mt 26:26: *This *IS my body. “This” (neuter), agrees with “body” (neuter), and not with “bread” (masc), and to which “this” refers.

So, if we apply Arong’s argument and the understanding that all of you have regarding Mt 26:26, to Mt 13:38, then we must conclude that the “sons of the kingdom” are not represented by “good seed,” at all, but are, rather, literally seed. I think not. You run into the same the difficulty with cup and blood of the covenant in that passage and in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(contined from post #65)

Because the verb eimi, eimi is used, and because its use refers to *signifying, *or *amounting to, *and not to *becoming, *there is, then, no intention stated Mt 26:26 (or any of the other examples given), that the bread *becomes *the body. Another verb must be used to show a “change” from “this bread” to “my body”. The metaphor, with its use of the verb “is,” is clearly stating representation. If an actual “change of substance” is meant, then a verb other than “eimi” (to be) must be used. The verb ginomai (ginomai) is used to indicate “change,” or “to become.” Let’s look at things becoming something different.

Mk 4:39: …*the wind died down and it *became perfectly calm. Lk 4:3: *…tell this stone to *become *bread. *Jn 2:9: *…the headwaiter tasted the water, which had become wine. *(transubstantiation). Acts 26:28: *…you will persuade me to become a Christian. *And many others.

You must understand the language that is used, and what it meant in its use and construction at the time that it was used. If you do not, you will continue in your misunderstanding. Gentlemen, I will visit this thread tomorrow, but I may not post here anymore, as I believe tension here will escalate, and I do not want to be involved in a shouting match; that is not profitable for any of us.

I have reasoned from the scriptures, which are able to give me wisdom that leads to salvation which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15), using sound grammatical practice to make my case. I believe transubstantiation is a misunderstanding. I must, therefore, disagree, and leave it at that. I have no illusion that I will change your minds on the issue.

As far as Thal59’s two questions at the end of his post # 58, I have the Spirit of Christ, indeed the whole Trinity dwelling within me; therefore, I fear nothing.

Grace, :tiphat:

Bill

 

[dumspirospero]

It must be exhaustive to go through all that trouble to explain something that is wrong…Protestants have to write dissertation length arguments to try and prove Catholics wrong about True Presence…while Catholics only have to quote Scripture to reveal the truth…

(contined from post #65)

Because the verb eimi, eimi is used, and because its use refers to *signifying, *or *amounting to, *and not to *becoming, *there is, then, no intention stated Mt 26:26 (or any of the other examples given), that the bread *becomes *the body. Another verb must be used to show a “change” from “this bread” to “my body”. The metaphor, with its use of the verb “is,” is clearly stating representation. If an actual “change of substance” is meant, then a verb other than “eimi” (to be) must be used. The verb ginomai (ginomai) is used to indicate “change,” or “to become.” Let’s look at things becoming something different.

Mk 4:39: …*the wind died down and it *became perfectly calm. Lk 4:3: *…tell this stone to *become *bread. *Jn 2:9: *…the headwaiter tasted the water, which had become wine. *(transubstantiation). Acts 26:28: *…you will persuade me to become a Christian. *And many others.

You must understand the language that is used, and what it meant in its use and construction at the time that it was used. If you do not, you will continue in your misunderstanding. Gentlemen, I will visit this thread tomorrow, but I may not post here anymore, as I believe tension here will escalate, and I do not want to be involved in a shouting match; that is not profitable for any of us.

I have reasoned from the scriptures, which are able to give me wisdom that leads to salvation which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15), using sound grammatical practice to make my case. I believe transubstantiation is a misunderstanding. I must, therefore, disagree, and leave it at that. I have no illusion that I will change your minds on the issue.

As far as Thal59’s two questions at the end of his post # 58, I have the Spirit of Christ, indeed the whole Trinity dwelling within me; therefore, I fear nothing.

Grace, :tiphat:

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

dumspirospero:

It must be exhaustive to go through all that trouble to explain something that is wrong…Protestants have to write dissertation length arguments to try and prove Catholics wrong about True Presence…while Catholics only have to quote Scripture to reveal the truth…

Apparently you’re not familiar with the recent discovery of Luke’s cassettes. Luke as we know, investigated everything very carefully, and naturally used a mini-tape recorder. The transcript for this particular interview has just been made public.

“Like, He hands out the bread and says ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’ And we’re like Whoa, Dude! This has got to be some kind of a metaphore. Like who would give us bread at the dinner table and expect us to EAT it?”

 

[dumspirospero]

LOL Vern…you crack me up.
vern humphrey:

Apparently you’re not familiar with the recent discovery of Luke’s cassettes. Luke as we know, investigated everything very carefully, and naturally used a mini-tape recorder. The transcript for this particular interview has just been made public.

“Like, He hands out the bread and says ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’ And we’re like Whoa, Dude! This has got to be some kind of a metaphore. Like who would give us bread at the dinner table and expect us to EAT it?”

 

[RyanL]

sonseeker:

You can be honest with me, I won’t break.

ok, i’ll be honest. you’re dead wrong, and this is perilous to your eternal soul.

John 6:

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
…
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

i have no idea what’s so “hard” about a metaphore that teaches the same thing He has been saying all along. these *same *people who leave in john 6 are the *same *folks who hung around in john 5 when Jesus said this:

22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

if they weren’t scandalized in john 5, what was soooo different in john 6 that they would leave and Christ Himself would let them?!? could it have been the case that they were taking Christ as literally as we are now, but (like you) they could not accept it?

i truly hope you keep posting - you are a faithful servant of God, and we value your dialog. i believe i can speak for the majority here when i say that we’ll be civil as long as you are.

RyanL

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Dumspirospero
It must be exhaustive to go through all that trouble to explain something that is wrong…Protestants have to write dissertation length arguments to try and prove Catholics wrong about True Presence…while Catholics only have to quote Scripture to reveal the truth…

Amen.
And how ironic is THAT?!?

 

[Mickey]

dumspirospero:

It must be exhaustive to go through all that trouble to explain something that is wrong…Protestants have to write dissertation length arguments to try and prove Catholics wrong about True Presence…while Catholics only have to quote Scripture to reveal the truth…

This is so sad indeed, dumspiropero. I’ve seen it so many times; long dissertations about metaphor, simile, metonym, etc., etc., etc–all to prove that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is not truly present in the Holy Eucharist. But we are not able to remove the scales from their eyes.

I thought I might post something that Bill could relate to since his forte seems to be based on peculiar usage of words and phrases, but alas, Vincent Arong has admitted awkwardness.

And so we are left with the Holy words of Jesus Christ Himself: “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed”.

PS–Please don’t take this as a personal attack, Bill. You have attacked the focus of our communion with Christ; the pinnacle of The Divine Liturgy; Our physical union with Christ as we live on this earth. I will defend the Blessed Sacrament now, and ever, and forever, Amen. I am defending Christ, and His bride, the Holy Catholic Church.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[dumspirospero]

Oh it is very ironic…considering protestants believe in literal interpretations and rely solely on scripture to defend their points of view…this is very out of character for protestants who are sola scriptura by their very beliefs…how can they, by nature of their core beliefs, use something outside of scripture to defend their position???

catsrus:

Amen.
And how ironic is THAT?!?

 

[pkmksk]

The problem with sonseeker’s argument is simple. Jesus spoke Aramaic, his words were translated into Greek at a later date. Same thing with the age old argument of Peter (petros or petra.) Doesn’t really matter because none of the Greek words were spoken by Jesus. If you want to get into figurative language and apply it to the argument then you have to skip the Greek and go to the language spoken by Christ, Aramaic.

The Greek language is not relevant when applying it to this argument. Now if you could use it metaphorically in Aramaic, then I would find the argument much more believable. Petra/Petros is not relevant because Kepha was the word used to name Peter and it’s meaning(Kepha) is without question. Same thing applies to the usage of a Greek metaphor to dismiss transubstantiation, it ain’t relevant.

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

BRAVO!

 

[vern_humphrey]

pkmksk:

The problem with sonseeker’s argument is simple. Jesus spoke Aramaic, his words were translated into Greek at a later date. Same thing with the age old argument of Peter (petros or petra.) Doesn’t really matter because none of the Greek words were spoken by Jesus. If you want to get into figurative language and apply it to the argument then you have to skip the Greek and go to the language spoken by Christ, Aramaic.

The Greek language is not relevant when applying it to this argument. Now if you could use it metaphorically in Aramaic, then I would find the argument much more believable. Petra/Petros is not relevant because Kepha was the word used to name Peter and it’s meaning(Kepha) is without question. Same thing applies to the usage of a Greek metaphor to dismiss transubstantiation, it ain’t relevant.

Rudyard Kipling did a satire on people who deny Shakespear wrote his plays. The “original text” talks about “shaking spears, drinking Flemish wine and eating pork.”

The “scholar” ignores the “shaking spears” part of the text, and goes into a long dissertation about how Flemish wine is hock, and "this gives us almost en clair ‘hoc scripsit Francis Bacon.’"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[dirtydog]

sonseeker:

The greek word translated eat is esqiw. It is used 158 times in the N.T. 99 times in the Gospels, 59 times in the epistles and Revelation. There is nothing special about it; it means to eat for sustenance, or nourishment.

Where do you get that? Everywhere I look, it is trogo.

from greekbible.com

o trwgwn mou thn sarka kai pinwn mou to aima ecei zwhn aiwnion, kagw anasthsw auton th escath hmera:

trwgw,v {tro’-go}

1. to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) 1a) of animals feeding 1b) of men 2) to eat

 

[Thal59]

You must understand the language that is used, and what it meant in its use and construction at the time that it was used. If you do not, you will continue in your misunderstanding. Gentlemen, I will visit this thread tomorrow, but I may not post here anymore, as I believe tension here will escalate, and I do not want to be involved in a shouting match; that is not profitable for any of us.<<

God bless you for this, sonseeker. I never found this attitude on the Protestant websites I visited.

I have reasoned from the scriptures, which are able to give me wisdom that leads to salvation which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15)<<

I disagree. All wisdom comes from God, not from Scriptures. Indeed, most Protestants I know offer a prayer to the Lord asking for wisdom before they read the scriptures. If scriptures could impart wisdom, there would not be the multitude of interpretations held by the multitude of Protestant denominations.

…using sound grammatical practice to make my case.<<

This is true. You have used sound grammatical practice in an attempt to prove something from the Greek translations of what was initially said. But all of the grammatical sleight-of-hand you have used still does not address the reality that the apostles, the early church fathers, and all of the scholars and saints of the church accepted the Lord’s words on a literal basis for over 1,500 years until modern day Protestants decided to argue the point.

In other words, should I accept the unified agreement of the literal interpretation of the Lord’s words that has stood for almost 2,000 years now, or should I accept the convoluted symbolic grammatic explanation of one called sonseeker? No offense, sonseeker, but there are too many saints and doctors of the church that do not agree with you; so, neither do I.

As far as Thal59’s two questions at the end of his post # 58, I have the Spirit of Christ, indeed the whole Trinity dwelling within me; therefore, I fear nothing.<<

If this were true, you would recognize the Lord’s words in exactly the same context as the church fathers, wouldn’t you?

Thal59

 

[Milliardo]

sonseeker:

Mickey, et al.,

Vincent Arong, by his own admission, states that his argument is “awkward,” I believe that “awkward” is better stated as “weak.” The reason it is weak is that he does not possess a proper definition of a metaphor. Let’s begin by defining metaphor in contrast to simile, as I believe that it will make the understanding of metaphor clearer.

A simile says that one thing is “like,” or “as,” another. One thing resembles another thing: *All flesh is as grass *(1 Pet 1:24; cf Is 40:6ff; Jas 1:10ff). A metaphor says that one thing “is” another thing: All flesh IS grass. It immediately carries the figure across. As seen from those two statements then, the metaphor is not as “accurate” or “true” as the simile. In other words, the mark of the simile is “resembles;” the mark of the metaphor is “represents.” The carrying across of the figure of this representation is contained in the verb “is,” (RyanL “is” no doubt laughing to himself), but pay attention, as “is” is the marker of the metaphor: I point to picture, and say, “This is my father,” “this is my cat,” “this is my house,” etc. Note again, as I said above, the mark is “representation.” The picture is not my father, cat, house, but rather, a “representation” thereof. The metaphor is confined to *one thing *IS another thing. Again, the figure is contained in the verb: is.

Let’s look at some O.T. metaphors (there are many): *The Lord *IS my Shepherd (Ps 23); *The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11); *His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4); Now, some N.T. metaphors: You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13); *This *IS my body (Mt 26:26); notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present; I’ll give examples of that in a moment): Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body.

In the Mt 26:26 passage the pronoun “this” (touto, touto), is neuter, and is made to agree with “body” (swma, soma), which is neuter, and not with “bread” (artoV, artos), which is masculine. That is the case in metaphors in the Greek.

Here are some examples: Zech 5:8: *This *IS Wickedness. “This,” (fem) does not agree with “ephah” (to which it refers), which is neuter (LXX), but with “wickedness,” which is feminine.

Zech 5:3: *This *IS *the curse. *“This” (fem), agrees with “curse,” which is feminine, and not with “flying roll,” which is neuter (LXX), and to which “this” refers.

Mt 13:38: *…and the good seed, these *ARE the sons of the kingdom. “These” (masc) agrees with “children of the kingdom” (masc), and not with “seed,” which is neuter, and to which it refers. And there are more.

Mt 26:26: *This *IS my body. “This” (neuter), agrees with “body” (neuter), and not with “bread” (masc), and to which “this” refers.

So, if we apply Arong’s argument and the understanding that all of you have regarding Mt 26:26, to Mt 13:38, then we must conclude that the “sons of the kingdom” are not represented by “good seed,” at all, but are, rather, literally seed. I think not. You run into the same the difficulty with cup and blood of the covenant in that passage and in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”

(continued below)

Again, sonseeker, let me ask you: do you think the early Church Fathers got it wrong in their understanding of John 6? After all, such men as St. Polycarp were taught by the Apostles themselves. St.Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John himself, and in turn he taught St. Ireneaus of Lyons. So, as I asked, do you mean to tell us here, by your stubborness, that Protestantism is far more superior than the early Fathers, and indeed even the Apostles themselves who taught them? Do you want to tell us that Protestantism’s interpretation is better than the Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel, and who taught these very men? Please answer my points.

 

[sonseeker]

dumspirospero:

It must be exhaustive to go through all that trouble to explain something that is wrong…Protestants have to write dissertation length arguments to try and prove Catholics wrong about True Presence…while Catholics only have to quote Scripture to reveal the truth…

Actually it took about an hour; I always enjoy explaining God’s word.

Bill

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

Actually it took about an hour; I always enjoy explaining God’s word.

Bill

From foregoing quote, strike “explaining,” insert “refuting.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif