Why did Jesus not explain the metaphorical meaning of his teaching to the Apostles? Whenever he spoke to the people in parables, he would always explain the meaning of his teaching to the Apostles. But no such clarification is given to them.
Totally. But one must have on the trekkie goggles for it to make sense.See? Even you can make an absolutely correct connection without explcitness.
And that’s just from a funny remark.
That just confirms how awesome I am. I am scared for my profs when I go for my Masters in Theology specializing in Catechetics. evil laughter ensues
So true and yet, so often ignored.
Yeah, and I showed where Jesus uses these in John 6 - but no response. It certainly makes an even stronger case. In English, the distinction is non-existent and it is easy to come with different meanings of eat (possibly), but the Greek is quite explicit and cannot be seen figuratively. I mean, if it is to be mean figuratively/symbolically, then that means that Christ choose His words very, very poorly - which isn’t possible, He’s God and He doesn’t mince words.
I did find it interesting that you were posting from Strongs. But I was reading it on my phone at the time (I’m sick - mostly lying down) and was running too low on phone battery to comment. Someone earlier gave a real intricate reading of the passage with these words - from the original Greek. But finding verification in a Protestant source is a real coup.
Is it not true that some church fathers held to uncatholic beliefs?
Depends what you mean by “interpreting literally”. There are a number of interpretative guidelines that must be adhered to if we are truly to understand the scriptures. Sometimes a strict literalism is required sometime metaphorical. It depends on the context and what is being discussed.
I was impressed and enlightened. But like I said, I was reading on my phone at the time and didn’t have the battery power to answer. And actually, I should go back to resting again.
Thats the problem. Catholics are claiming the Eucharist is God. I know of no passage of scripture that supports that.
So you have Jesus saying “truly I say to you, unless you eat my body you will have no life in you,” Jesus saying “this [literally is] my body,” St. Paul saying that you’re profaning the blood of the Lord if you partake it unworthily, you have the disciples recognizing Jesus when partaking in the Eucharist, and you have every Apostolic Father admitting that it’s the most important part of the faith.
If Jesus truly was God Incarnate, how do we know this since he had a physical body exactly the same as any other man? Why was there no change in the body? Yes, he did miracles, but many other prophets did miracles just as astounding (or more astounding) than Jesus’ miracles. Jesus was also not the only human to rise from the dead. Plenty of other people rose from the dead, including Lazarus. The only evidence that we have that Jesus is God is that He claimed to be God. But he’s not the only person in history that has ever claimed to be God. Even today, with the New Age movement, plenty of people are discovering their own divinity. So, why should I believe that Jesus is God, without any physical evidence?
Let’s correct that. You ignore all the passages of Scripture that support that.
Which ones? Can you show me in context that this is what is being said?
I hope you will be feeling better soon.
I deliberately chose a Protestant source to show the meaning of the original Greek since we are discussing the topic with Protestants.Well, except for John 6:51-58 & 66-67, 1 Corinthians 11:27, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19-20.
JA4-
Oh, there are multitudinous passages that support that, just go back and read over this thread. Basically, Jesus says “This is my Body/This is my Blood.” Jesus is God. The rest is easy to figure out.
Just so you know, I heard a Brooklyn accent when I read that.
