The Holy Grail

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
This thread is not about relics it is not about the holy grail it is about an inconsistant position which hold that Jesus was literal in v 19 and symbolic in v20
It shows and proves the fallacy of the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
Symbolic and literal meanings do sometimes coexist in scripture - and these can occur in the SAME verse having literal and symbolic senses, not just neighbouring ones! So it’s not inconsistent to say one and the same passage can be BOTH literal and symbolic, let alone that one passage is literal and the next symbolic.

John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation are a good example.

Now of course they were real churches in John’s day, John really wrote to them (obviously, hence Revelation!) and almost certainly had the real problems that he describes - at that time that he was writing. Otherwise they would’ve been scratching their heads over the nonsense he was writing.

At one and the same time those literal churches represented the entire Church of God in its various ages and stages and problems.
 
LilyM said:
Symbolic and literal meanings do sometimes coexist in scripture - and these can occur in the SAME verse having literal and symbolic senses, not just neighbouring ones! So it’s not inconsistent to say one and the same passage can be BOTH literal and symbolic, let alone that one passage is literal and the next symbolic.

John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation are a good example.

Now of course they were real churches in John’s day, John really wrote to them (obviously, hence Revelation!) and almost certainly had the real problems that he describes - at that time that he was writing. Otherwise they would’ve been scratching their heads over the nonsense he was writing.

At one and the same time those literal churches represented the entire Church of God in its various ages and stages and problems.
Click to expand...
Thwhats going on here. The churches in Revelation are BOTH literal and symbolic.
Is Luke 22 literal or symbolic. Be consistant and be intellectually honest.
 
Hisalone said:
This thread is not about relics it is not about the holy grail it is about an inconsistant position which hold that Jesus was literal in v 19 and symbolic in v20
It shows and proves the fallacy of the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
Actually, Catholics take both verses literally. What you aren’t grasping is that the New Covenant isn’t the cup, it is the wine, which has become the Blood of Christ. The contents of the cup are important, not the cup itself.
 
Hisalone said:
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus takes the bread and holds it and calls the bread His body -----Catholics believe it literally.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
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.

Jesus picks up the cup and says this cup is the new covenant. ------Catholics believe it symbolically.

INCONSISTANT interpretation.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness!!! Why didn’t I see it before!!! I have been SO BLIND! It was right there in front of me all this time… These poor poor Catholics, can’t they see they have been interpretting this passage the WRONG way for 2000 years???

…

…

…

oh wait…

We’ve been celebrating the Eucharist for over 2000 years since Christ first instituted it… there goes that theory.
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
Click to expand...
Thank you for demonstrating why it’s crucial that we understand Scripture in the light of 1) the rest of scripture, 2) the context of when it was written and 3) within the Tradition and teachings of the Church.

Otherwise we’d end up with silly ideas and think that the HOLY GRAIL was the literal new covenent, sheesh! You totally proved why we need the Church so badly, and that Jesus sure knew what He was doing!
Code: 
  *I'm sorry for the fairly uncharitable post, but please! It really seems you are on a mission of sorts, and aren't taking any steps to hide it from us.*


 Merry Christmas all the same, and Peace be with you....   At the very list this thread gave me a smile :D
 
Lujack said:
Actually, Catholics take both verses literally. What you aren’t grasping is that the New Covenant isn’t the cup, it is the wine, which has become the Blood of Christ. The contents of the cup are important, not the cup itself.
Click to expand...
If any Catholic believes the cup is the new covenant they would be badly mistaken.
 
AshleyBelle said:
Oh my goodness!!! Why didn’t I see it before!!! I have been SO BLIND! It was right there in front of me all this time… These poor poor Catholics, can’t they see they have been interpretting this passage the WRONG way for 2000 years???

…

…

…

oh wait…

We’ve been celebrating the Eucharist for over 2000 years since Christ first instituted it… there goes that theory.

Thank you for demonstrating why it’s crucial that we understand Scripture in the light of 1) the rest of scripture, 2) the context of when it was written and 3) within the Tradition and teachings of the Church.

Otherwise we’d end up with silly ideas and think that the HOLY GRAIL was the literal new covenent, sheesh! You totally proved why we need the Church so badly, and that Jesus sure knew what He was doing!
Code: 
  *I'm sorry for the fairly uncharitable post, but please! It really seems you are on a mission of sorts, and aren't taking any steps to hide it from us.*


 Merry Christmas all the same, and Peace be with you....   At the very list this thread gave me a smile :D
Click to expand...
What has been demonstrated is your lack of consistancy in interpreting scripture.
 
Hisalone said:
If any Catholic believes the cup is the new covenant they would be badly mistaken.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. Any Catholic who believes the cup is the new covenant would be badly mistaken.

If you agree with that, why the thread?
 
Hisalone said:
Thwhats going on here. The churches in Revelation are BOTH literal and symbolic.
Is Luke 22 literal or symbolic. Be consistant and be intellectually honest.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing inconsistent or intellectually dishonest about one verse being literal and the next symbolic. Or even one WORD being literal and the next symbolic.

People frequently, in both speech and writing, DO mix literal truth with symbol or metaphor - often within the same phrase or sentence. A man can say to his spouse ‘my wife, my turtledove, my beloved, my rose …’ and be perfectly well understood NOT to be literal in every one of those words, NOR symbolic in every one of them.

It’s a natural part of language to do so, and the writers of the Bible were no different to you or I in their use of language.

There’s certainly no law of language that a sentence or a phrase must be symbol if the preceding words were symbol, or literal if the preceding words were literal. And thus no dishonesty or inconsistency in declaring another’s speech or writing to mix truth and metaphor in this way.
 
When Yeshua said that “This is the new covenant”, he meant that this was his blood, which would be spilled, bringing in the new covanent and fulfilling the old.

Hisalone, you say that yours is the proper interpretation of this text.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU, AGAINST ALL ODDS AND 2000 YEARS OF CHURCH HISTORY, TRADITION, AND TEACHING, ARE CORRECT AT LAST?:eek:

The holy grail is a legend, a mix of celtic, british, and christian myths brought together.

Also, how can a cup be the new covenant, when a covenant is an agreement, not an object:confused: . Just look at the way the word is used in the bible, or just check any dictionary…
 
Hisalone said:
This thread is not about relics it is not about the holy grail it is about an inconsistant position which hold that Jesus was literal in v 19 and symbolic in v20
It shows and proves the fallacy of the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
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, 16 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.
29
Click to expand...
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 8 for many.
25
Click to expand...
I notice that you don’t quote from Matthew and Luke. If you do, your premise goes right out the window. Note Jesus tells the apostles to drink. As you have already been told, it is the wine turned to Jesus’ blood that is being referred to. When it says this cup it is obvious that it means the wine in the cup. Even to day we ask if you want a cup of coffee, tea, or whatever. We will say, “Do you want another cup?” It is ridiculous to say that someone is offering a cup. No it is the liquid inside we are offering. Likewise, Jesus, as seen in the other Gospels is speaking of the wine which He has turned to His blood not the cup itself. The inconsistency is your reasoning.
 
Hisalone said:
This thread is not about relics it is not about the holy grail it is about an inconsistant position which hold that Jesus was literal in v 19 and symbolic in v20
It shows and proves the fallacy of the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
This is the tragedy of Protestantism and faulty personal interpretation - there are too many faulty personal interpretations that lead to more and more wacky beliefs.

I don’t know of any Protestant denomination that holds your position so ALL of them would be wrong as well - right? Hisalone is the only one who has this all figured out, right?

**There are many cult leaders in history who had the same ego.:rolleyes: **
 
Originally Posted by Lujack
Yes, that’s correct. Any Catholic who believes the cup is the new covenant would be badly mistaken.
If you agree with that, why the thread?

In your first post you state the cup IS the new covenant. Now you say different. You are inconsistant.
 
Hisalone said:
I am awaiting a response.
How can you take v19 to mean literal
and v20 to mean figurative?
Click to expand...
I answer this I take both literal. I pointed out to you that when I ask if you want another cup. I am not literally offering you the cup but what is in the cup. You ignore the other Gospels in order to promote this falsehood.
 
adrift said:
I answer this I take both literal. I pointed out to you that when I ask if you want another cup. I am not literally offering you the cup but what is in the cup. You ignore the other Gospels in order to promote this falsehood.
Click to expand...
I dont understand the point you make that I ignore other gospels.

As for the first point. Neither the cup or what is in it is the New Covenant. The new covenant is --if you believe then God will come in our hearts and write His laws on our minds and put them in our hearts.
 
Hisalone said:
I dont understand the point you make that I ignore other gospels.

As for the first point. Neither the cup or what is in it is the New Covenant. The new covenant is --if you believe then God will come in our hearts and write His laws on our minds and put them in our hearts.
Click to expand...
review post 39.
I do believe that Jesus left us a Church so that we could be sure of His teachings and not have false prophets who say He is here when He is not.
 
Hisalone said:
Everyone who is of the assumption that the new convenant is something that we asw Christians own has been under a false allusion. The new covenaant is the cup that Jesus used in the Last Supper. This cup which is called the Holy Grail has been missing since the time of Jesus thus we do not have a new covenant but must live under the Old.

According to Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers. The connection of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail legend dates from Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie (late 12th century) in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Great Britain; building upon this theme, later writers recounted how Joseph used the Grail to catch Christ’s blood while interring him and that in Britain he founded a line of guardians to keep it safe. The quest for the Holy Grail makes up an important segment of the Arthurian cycle, appearing first in works by Chrétien de Troyes.[1] The legend may combine Christian lore with a Celtic myth of a cauldron endowed with special powers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail
Click to expand...
How did the cup arrive at Antioch from Jerusalem and the site of the last Supper? The Acts of the Apostles inform us that Barnabas and Saul journeyed to Antioch. It is speculated that the cup was brought there by them and was eventually entrusted to the car of the faithful. the Acts record that for a whole year Barnabas and Saul labored in Antioch and that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians for the first time (Acts 11:26).
Kouchaki Freres, the fortunate antique dealer who acquired the cup shortly after its discovery in 1910, placed his treasure on display at the Louvre 20 years later and showed it again in 1933 at the World’s Fair, where it was honored with its own hall at the Century of Progress exhibition. After visits to other museums in the United states, the Kouchakji family relinquished responsibility for its safety to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Here it is occasionally displayed in the Cloisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top