Protestants: How do you determine what is literal in the Bible and what is not (specifically John 6)?

[distracted]

Jesus said unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you do not have life in you…

At the Last Supper He said “This IS My Body” (emphasis added), not “this is a symbol of my Body” or a representation thereof…

 

[CAS64]

Jesus said unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you do not have life in you…

At the Last Supper He said “This IS My Body” (emphasis added), not “this is a symbol of my Body” or a representation thereof…

Exactly. So what is your point??

 

[distracted]

hmmm… i feel the point is very clear:

What is literal in the Bible and waht is not - to a Protestant…

 

[CAS64]

hmmm… i feel the point is very clear:

What is literal in the Bible and waht is not - to a Protestant…

You just quoted what Jesus said at the Last Supper and I said, “Exactly, so what’s your point.” So, what is the point?

 

[Th0t]

His point is, Jesus MEANT exactly what he said. "This IS my body. This IS my blood.’ Can’t get any more clearer than that I think.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes that is what Jesus said. The disconnect is how this has anything to do with how Protestants view literalism. Which on its face is nonsensical since there is no uniform claim about “all Protestants.” I think the OP is confused. Start with stating what you think and then we can straighten you out.

In general I would say that I make determinations on the meaning of scripture based on reading the best exegetical minds on the subject of biblical scholarship.

 

[JonNC]

Jesus said unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you do not have life in you…

At the Last Supper He said “This IS My Body” (emphasis added), not “this is a symbol of my Body” or a representation thereof…

As proof of the real presence, I think the Last Supper accounts are a better source than John 6, though I’m not willing to argue against John 6 in this area.

I think, early on here, the responses have been from nonCatholic western Christians who share your belief in the real presence. Maybe others will come on here to discuss a symbolic POV.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

Augustine suggests one rule and in fact uses John 6:53 as an example.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

This is not to deny the Real Presence, but it shows that John 6 was not always viewed as clearly as some might think.

 

[Peter_J]

Augustine suggests one rule and in fact uses John 6:53 as an example.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

This is not to deny the Real Presence, but it shows that John 6 was not always viewed as clearly as some might think.

Interesting quotation. I wonder if it would be worth having a thread just on Augustine’s view of the Eucharist.

 

[CAS64]

His point is, Jesus MEANT exactly what he said. "This IS my body. This IS my blood.’ Can’t get any more clearer than that I think.

AND I agreed with that, SOOOOO, what is your point exactly??? for the third time

 

[Cluny]

The loudest literalist is actually a selective literalist.

By the very nature of the Bible, total consistent literalists cannot exist.

Consider these quotes from the Gospel: “And Judas went out and hanged himself.” “Go thou and do likewise.”

 

[distracted]

Yes that is what Jesus said. The disconnect is how this has anything to do with how Protestants view literalism. Which on its face is nonsensical since there is no uniform claim about “all Protestants.” I think the OP is confused.

you are right… I am confused… I can’t figure out why i keep coming to CAF when approximately half the posters here are rude, inconsiderate and argumentative… and don’t really address the OP but just seem to want to criticize and belittle…

 

[distracted]

As proof of the real presence, I think the Last Supper accounts are a better source than John 6, though I’m not willing to argue against John 6 in this area.

I think, early on here, the responses have been from nonCatholic western Christians who share your belief in the real presence. Maybe others will come on here to discuss a symbolic POV.

Jon

hmmm… could you explain the 2nd paragraph??

POV?

why would non-Catholics believe in the Real Presence… and stay outside the Church???

 

[Our_Refuge]

Augustine suggests one rule and in fact uses John 6:53 as an example.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

This is not to deny the Real Presence, but it shows that John 6 was not always viewed as clearly as some might think.

I disagree. Augustine was not calling the Eucharist a figure. He was referirng to “Except…you have no life in you”

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

 

[LutheranDK]

AND I agreed with that, SOOOOO, what is your point exactly??? for the third time

You’re not making sense…

 

[JonNC]

hmmm… could you explain the 2nd paragraph??

POV?

why would non-Catholics believe in the Real Presence… and stay outside the Church???

POV = point of view

Well, first there are other issues that divide us, sadly. Lutherans, most Anglicans, Orthodox, and others all hold to the real presence. Why would you think we would not believe in the real presence simple because our communions are not fully united?

Jon

 

[distracted]

POV = point of view

Well, first there are other issues that divide us, sadly. Lutherans, most Anglicans, Orthodox, and others all hold to the real presence. Why would you think we would not believe in the real presence simple because our communions are not fully united?

Jon

well, not to be a snot or anything… but you can belive something IS whatever, but that doesn’t make it so…

In order for the Real presence to be real and present, one has to have a valid priest to confect the host… a validly ordained Catholic priest …

Some Lutheran churches (very rare) may have this because their pastor may be a former priest… but most do not…

 

[distracted]

Interesting quotation. I wonder if it would be worth having a thread just on Augustine’s view of the Eucharist.

yeah… an maybe someone could dis-entangle the meaning of his words for us…

True, i am tired and not all that well-focused right now… but i read his words (by some poster here)… and didn’t get it… seemed like he was saying that if it is a command it is to be taken literally but if it is… something LIKE a command, it isn’t…

:whacky::hypno: :coffeeread:

 

[JonNC]

well, not to be a snot or anything… but you can belive something IS whatever, but that doesn’t make it so…

In order for the Real presence to be real and present, one has to have a valid priest to confect the host… a validly ordained Catholic priest …

Some Lutheran churches (very rare) may have this because their pastor may be a former priest… but most do not…

Yes you are being a snot! Just kidding. Of course that is the Catholic view from an apostolic succession position, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t say it, because I know you are a good Catholic. But consider this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

you are right… I am confused… I can’t figure out why i keep coming to CAF when approximately half the posters here are rude, inconsiderate and argumentative… and don’t really address the OP but just seem to want to criticize and belittle…

The point was that we couldn’t address the OP simply because the question made no sense. In fact there was no question posed at all. We simply asked for clarification of what you were trying to get at. It seems apparent you have something in mind that you assume about “Protestants.” We are still waiting to hear what it is. Nothing rude about it. You’re the one seemingly trying to cover embarrassment that you can’t state your issue.