I
ibneahmad
Guest
Jesus did not start it; so why he should be present?
- Status
B
benedictus2
Guest
You do not know that which you speak of.
First of all, you are not Christian. Second of all you do not know the Bible.
I think the only ones who can argue with regards this matter are the Protestants because they at least believe in he Bible.
R
Radical
Guest
no, I believe that it is only your assumption that Augustine is speaking about a transubstantiated presence. Remember Augustine is a neoplatonist and so before you can declare that the quoted phrase indicates a RBP, you must eliminate the possibility of a neoplatonistic interpretation (that does not involve a RBP)… We have also seen how Augustine used very realistic language for a figure of speech …not to mention the other possibilities that exist outside of a RBP. Here Augustine is really saying no more than what Jesus said at the Last Supper. You should know that I see no reason why any one should take Christ literally at the Last Supper, so why would I think Augustine should be understood literally when he does little more than repeat those words?
I note the realistic language, but we have observed again and again how realistic does not mean literal
what is the key? That the bread is still bread and referred to as such? That the wine is still wine and referred to as such? The question is: how does Jesus give saving blood to us through wine that is still wine?
yes, that is right out of scripture…Christ poured out his blood at the cross (he poured wine at the last supper). Christ related the bread and wine to his own body and blood…it was a figure then and still was a figure for Augustine.
I can’t help but note that John the Baptist once said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” If I apply your “rule of consistency”, then I must conclude that, if Jesus wasn’t really a domestic farm animal, then he can’t have literally taken away the sin of the world. I trust you will understnd if I decline to follow your rule.
No, in my last two posts I explained why I think this claim of yours is simply wrong.
yes, he does…he talked about what was seen and what was understood…he did not talk about what was seen and what was present via a change of substance.
right, the reality is achieved by faith or by understanding, (a good approach for neoplatonism) but not by any conversion of the substance of bread to a body’s substance. That latter idea is entirely absent.
well, it should at least be mentioned …somewhere…in all of Augustine’s many, many words.
R
Radical
Guest
but he hasn’t told them HOW…and that is something that he thinks still needs to be explained at that stage in the sermon…so obviously, merely telling his audience that the bread is the body of Christ still leaves the HOW untouched. In other words, it doesn’t provide the HOW answer of “by a real bodily presence” with an, “…and, there is another HOW that I still need to tell you about.”
agreed…he emphasized the unifying aspect of the sacrament (which was a spiritual reality) You seem to think that use of “reality” means that a RBP is under consideration…it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.
again, HOW are these things transformed? WRT the people, is it a spiritual transformation or a transubstantial transformation? I still wait for anything from you (or Harmless, if I read him incorrectly) to show that the transformation is transubstantial wrt the bread (or blood)…and not just a spirtual transformation
we agree that there is an emphasis on unity in those sermons, but I will stick with Wills, Kilmartin and van der Meer in declaring that there is no evidence of a RBP in any of those sermons.
Your use of the these Sermons is exactly why I bothered (some pages back) to explain (my limited understanding of) the Platonistic/neoplatonistic approach…You might be forgetting the ancient view point that the symbol/figure of a thing somehow shares in the power of the thing that it symbolizes. As such, in the neoplatonist view, if God injects the saving grace/ the unifying grace (“earned” by the body of Christ on the cross) into the bread, then by taking that bread (which is a figure of that body) the participant shares in the grace of the body. Further, (from a neoplatonistic outlook), b/c the reality of a thing is best defined by the power it possesses, one could declare that by giving the (empowered) bread and wine, “the Lord Christ gives to you HIS BODY and BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”. No RBP is contemplated. The figurative understanding describes a spiritual reality and the spiritual reality is “more real” than a material reality. You have not produced anything that requires a change in the substance of the bread…and that is something you won’t find in Augustine. The bread can be called the body of Christ (meaning incarnated body) b/c it (after consecration and belief) possesses (some of?]) the saving and unifying grace possessed by the incarnated body. The bread can be called the body of Christ (meaning the Church) b/c it (after consecration and belief) possesses (some of?]) the saving and unifying grace possessed by the Church. In neither case is it that the bread’s substance is replaced by the substance of the incarnated body or the substance of the Church.
obviously, I wasn’t clear enough…like you I see that Augustine focused primarily on the unity achieved by the Eucharist and so when that focus is in play, it is the Church that is on the altar. On the other hand, if it is the saving grace imparted by the Eucharist that Augustine has in mind, then it is the incarnated body of Christ that is on the altar. Neither, is on the altar by way of a substantiated presence. Both are on the altar through the bread that symbolizes those things…What is actually on the altar is bread and wine and grace and nothing else.
R
Radical
Guest
yes, but it is qualified by a recognition that he carried himself in a “certain way”…a way different from actually carrying his real body…Christ literally carried the bread which signified his body…that is the certain way. See my earlier post #156
yes, Christ humbled himself in going to the cross.
no, Christ humbling himself by giving his life on the cross is something that we recall every time that we participate in the Lord’s supper (every time that we look at the bread)…it is part of the “sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us”.
this is just over-reaching IMHO. If we are to play this game then you should note that when the Jews approached Christ they saw him with their eyes and grabbed his arms etc. (his real body and not some body allegedly present by way of transubstantiation) and so, if there is a perfect one-to-one parallel that you want to use, then you would need a visible body of Christ at your Eucharist so that we can see and touch the wounds. If you can’t do that, then please note that there are quite a few differences that you are ignoring and any conclusion made with that sort of picking and choosing is questionable at best
sure there is, b/c I have now given you a number of examples from Augustine describing the eating as a figurative thing. For Augustine is was:
Is the body of Christ really consumed? Hardly…Sermon 227
Believe, and you have eaten already…Tractate 25
For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread…Tractate 26
He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members…Tractate 26
he that dwells not in Christ…neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth]…Tractate 26.
His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting…Tractate 27
…and as shown above, your “rule of inconsistency” doesn’t work.
R
Radical
Guest
well, I have already dealt with this at posts #156 and #196 on this thread. I’ll repeat #196 here to make your life just that much easier:
Boniface was concerned about deceit. Parents, at the baptism of an infant verbally represented that the infant had faith, even though the infant did not have to ability to possess faith. Boniface was concerned that this was a flat out lie. Augustine attempted to justify that (mis)representation by explaining how Sacraments worked. His answer can be summarized as:
a) On every Good Friday we say that Christ suffers, even though he suffered once for all time many years ago (…and not that he continues to suffer and die until the end of time)
b) On every Easter Sunday we say that Christ rises from the dead, even though he rose only once many years ago (…and not that he continues to rise from the dead until the end of time)
c) we say (a) and (b) b/c of the “likeness” that exists between the original day and the subsequent days and no one would foolishly nit-pick and call us liars for saying (a) and (b) b/c the events are sacramently celebrated on those days. (…and not that the event is repeated every day of the year).
d) we can truly say that Christ is offered as a sacrifice every day, even though he was offered as a sacrifice only once many years ago
e) sacraments (signs) bear a resemblance to the things they point to
f) b/c of that resemblance (no mention of it being b/c of a real bodily presence) sacraments are, in a certain manner, the thing they point to (…again, if there is any doubt on this, refer to Augustine’s the “how” of Augustine’s sermon 272 and again, it is “in a certain manner” and not that they are really the thing that they point to)
Therefore, every Good Friday is, in a certain manner, the date of Jesus’ death, every Easter Sunday is, in a certain manner, the date of Jesus’ resurrection, and every day is, in a certain manner, the date of Jesus’ sacrifice. None of these events is described as still continuing. Further, Augustine’s view does not rest on the modern understanding that the sacrifice is re-presented/ made present at the Eucharist…it has to do with having “points of real resemblance”. From there Augustine goes on to justify the respresentation about the infant possessing faith:
g) b/c sacraments are, in a certain manner, the thing they point to, an infant that receives the sacrament of faith, in certain way possesses faith even though the infant is not yet a believer in the sense of having that faith which includes the consenting will of those who exercise it, and
h) therefore, the parents aren’t lying.
note how Augustine, in making his arguments, does not distinguish between how it works with the Eucharist and how it works with the other Sacraments. Specifcally, he does not say that it works wrt the Eucharist b/c a real bodily presence is involved or that a never ending sacriifce is involved and that it works wrt the other sacraments for different reasons. ** In fact, if a real bodily presence was involved in the Eucharist, then his argument would be negated **, b/c after all, if there was that sort of difference between the sacraments then one coud not properly argue from one (the Eucharist with a real bodily presence) to the other (baptism with no RBP). You should also note that (b/c Augustine is trying to justify the practice of parents stating something that is obviously impossible) he is forced to claim as much for the sacraments as he possibly can.
Lyrikal, you say that Augustine did not use the language of symbolism, but Augustine made it clear that he was using the language of resemblance to justify how we can truthfully say something that isn’t true (in a strictly technical sense).
of course it wasn’t to ignore the “reality of the sacrifices” (as you mean it)…there is no need to ignore a thing when one doesn’t believe that the thing exists.
R
Radical
Guest
tis odd that you think OCD III wasn’t dealing with the Eucharist. It seems that elsewhere, if Augustine mentions eating Christ’s flesh, then you claim he is talking about the Eucharist. It seems that elsewhere, if Augustine quotes John 6, then you claim he is talking about the Eucharist. Yet in OCD III, when he quotes that bit from John 6 where Christ requires us to eat his flesh and explains what that requirement means…then, oddly, Augustine isn’t talking about the Eucharist…I can’t help but think that your inconsistency is b/c, the figurative meaning that Augustine provided doesn’t support a RBP. All that you can do with OCD III is the “both/and approach”…which, from over here simply looks like you are saying that “I agree with the figurative explanation that Augustine expressly gave and I agree with the literal explanation that I will attribute to Augustine by inference”…and, from over here it doesn’t look like a very good inference.
It was indeed meant to void the literal interpretation. It was indeed meant to supply the correct interpretation…and it is entirely silent as to the possibility of any other type of interpretation
agreed, he doesn’t assert a RBP in any other passage so there is no need have his other writings “answer to OCD III”. A dissonance only exists if one wrongly assumes that Augustine’s use of realistic language means that he believed in a RBP.
agreed…but it doesn’t affirm the Catholic Eucharistic theology, and the way the figurative meaning is stated doesn’t leave a lot a room for another (RBP) meaning.
IMHO it is a strained harmonization…
R
Radical
Guest
well, I’ll try to explain it again.
- As I have already pointed out, Augustine indicated that Peter ate Christ’s flesh on that day when he first heard the bread of life discourse. He ate by believing in Christ. Now Augustine would say that Peter couldn’t have eaten that day unless he “had first worshipped.” Well we know that Peter never worshipped through the Eucharist that day b/c it didn’t exist. Therefore, we know that Peter’s eating of the flesh of Christ had nothing to do with a Eucharist, so why should I assume that Augustine’s claim (that “one cannot eat w/o first worshipping”) involves the Eucharist b/c it surely didn’t in Peter’s case. You could do the same analysis for Nicodemus where Augustine indciated that Nicodemus would have eaten Christ’s flesh (in John 3) if he had only understood Christ spiritually.
- I have provided a number of quotes showing that Augustine believed that eating Christ’s flesh was achieved through believing, through fellowship and through sharing in the suffering of Christ. Augustine did not say that it was done through believing together with eating the bread of the Eucharist. Augustine did not say that it was done through fellowship together with eating the bread of the Eucharist. Augustine did not say that it was done through sharing in Christ’s suffering together with eating the bread of the Eucharist. Why would I dare to insert into Augustine’s explanations that which he failed/refused to add himself (over and over again)?
yes, it is a Protestant approach…it is an approach that gives one the freedom to consider the possibilty that Augustine may differ significantly from the Catholic Church of today wrt Christ’s presence at the Eucharist. IMHO, an approach with that freedom has a greater likelihood of finding truth than one that lacks that freedom
it is an approach that allows Augustine to define for himself what constitutes eating Christ’s flesh
it is an approach that looks at all of Augustine’s words and not just snippets
it is an approach that takes into account that the ECFs had various philosophical views that colored their understandings
and it is an approach that notices the variety of views that existed among the ECFs wrt the Eucharist and does not try to force them into a artificial consensus.
tis somewhat odd that you mention Theodoret, for he is one of the ECFs that Kilmartin analyzes in The Eucharist in the West, precisely b/c Theodoret is one of the ECFs that denied a real conversion in the elements (I have already typed too much so I’ll let you look at that yourself…it starts about page 35).
May God bless you, Lyrikal…my apologies if the assertion of my view and the criticism of your view ever diverged from gentleness and respect…tis hard to pull one’s punches at times.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Fulfillment does not equate into eradication. If that is the case,then why would the church even bother adding the OT to the Bible?
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Lyrical, Radical has baited you into a discussion about “Real Bodily Presence” when that is not what the Church teaches about the sacrament. He has built a strawman argument and you have unknowingly fallen for it.
The Church teaches that Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist is Real and Substantial. Substantial does not equate to “Bodily Presence” as you would like to understand it. Nor is His Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstatiation mutually exclusive. His Presence is substantial, it is not, nor has the Church ever taught, that the accidents are parts of Jesus’ body.
The bread and the wine are His glorified body and blood that He makes present through a miracle through the instrument of the priest and the words of consecration.
Secondly, Radical, you, like most protestants, ignore the second part of John 6. Yes, to believe is to eat. But as Jesus demonstrated, to eat is to believe. We must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we do not have life in us. And His flesh and blood are given by Him to us under the appearances of bread and wine. Or as I said earlier in my post, you must believe that Jesus, in His last hours, was given over to deceptive language and useless metaphors. Therefore any idolatry that come from His words in John 6 & the Last Supper discourses, the blame must be laid at His feet. There is nothing in the context of either that would indicate that Jesus meant anything other than what He said. And there nothing in the context that shows that if what He said was to be taken as metaphorical, He gave no underlying meaning. IOW, “is” as used by Jesus must be inferred as being in the natural, literal sense; “This (bread) IS my body, given up for you”…“this IS the cup of my blood…”
The sacrament IS a sign-a figure-but is is also THAT which it signifies. The Eucharist is the sign that commemorates Jesus’ death and resurrection, his separated body and blood pointing to that death.
And it IS Jesus, substantially present, whole and entire, under both elements.
The figure and the reality which it signifies are one and the same. You, like most protestants, in your effort to undo the necessity of the Church you attack the sacraments. You attack the sacraments by creating false dichotomies and/or insist that corresponding teachings-like “faith-works” or “believing-eating”-are mutually exclusive. “Either-ors” instead of “both-ands”.
You’ll find that Augustine understood and taught the Real Presence in all of his writings, and that the accidents underwent a change in substance at the consecration; just as his teacher Ambrose taught him. That his use of the words “signs” or “figures” did not reduce them to mere symbols. That the bread and wine after the words of consecration really was Christ, whole and entire.
Your difficiency is that you don’t understand what a sacrament is. You don’t know how the Church defines a sacrament. So instead you have built a strawman and are beating “lyrical” over the head with it.
Augustine didn’t believe nor taught a RBP in the Eucharist, neither does the Church. What you, and so many other protestants have done, in an inane attempt to “claim” Augustine as the “proto-portestant” is rip his words out of context.
You’re just another protestant using confusing terminology to ridicule, to puff yourself up by shaming Catholics. You think that by shaming them in ignorance you can in turn tell them what the Bible “really says”. It’s intellectually dishonest and disengenuous.
The Church teaches that Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist is Real and Substantial. Substantial does not equate to “Bodily Presence” as you would like to understand it. Nor is His Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstatiation mutually exclusive. His Presence is substantial, it is not, nor has the Church ever taught, that the accidents are parts of Jesus’ body.
The bread and the wine are His glorified body and blood that He makes present through a miracle through the instrument of the priest and the words of consecration.
Secondly, Radical, you, like most protestants, ignore the second part of John 6. Yes, to believe is to eat. But as Jesus demonstrated, to eat is to believe. We must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we do not have life in us. And His flesh and blood are given by Him to us under the appearances of bread and wine. Or as I said earlier in my post, you must believe that Jesus, in His last hours, was given over to deceptive language and useless metaphors. Therefore any idolatry that come from His words in John 6 & the Last Supper discourses, the blame must be laid at His feet. There is nothing in the context of either that would indicate that Jesus meant anything other than what He said. And there nothing in the context that shows that if what He said was to be taken as metaphorical, He gave no underlying meaning. IOW, “is” as used by Jesus must be inferred as being in the natural, literal sense; “This (bread) IS my body, given up for you”…“this IS the cup of my blood…”
The sacrament IS a sign-a figure-but is is also THAT which it signifies. The Eucharist is the sign that commemorates Jesus’ death and resurrection, his separated body and blood pointing to that death.
And it IS Jesus, substantially present, whole and entire, under both elements.
The figure and the reality which it signifies are one and the same. You, like most protestants, in your effort to undo the necessity of the Church you attack the sacraments. You attack the sacraments by creating false dichotomies and/or insist that corresponding teachings-like “faith-works” or “believing-eating”-are mutually exclusive. “Either-ors” instead of “both-ands”.
You’ll find that Augustine understood and taught the Real Presence in all of his writings, and that the accidents underwent a change in substance at the consecration; just as his teacher Ambrose taught him. That his use of the words “signs” or “figures” did not reduce them to mere symbols. That the bread and wine after the words of consecration really was Christ, whole and entire.
Your difficiency is that you don’t understand what a sacrament is. You don’t know how the Church defines a sacrament. So instead you have built a strawman and are beating “lyrical” over the head with it.
Augustine didn’t believe nor taught a RBP in the Eucharist, neither does the Church. What you, and so many other protestants have done, in an inane attempt to “claim” Augustine as the “proto-portestant” is rip his words out of context.
You’re just another protestant using confusing terminology to ridicule, to puff yourself up by shaming Catholics. You think that by shaming them in ignorance you can in turn tell them what the Bible “really says”. It’s intellectually dishonest and disengenuous.
L
lyrikal
Guest
I apologize if you have misunderstood my stance on the Eucharist. I am a Catholic and believe that the Eucharist is Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) and am a believer in Transubstantiation. When I use terms such as RBP, my understanding is that is no longer bread or wine but it IS Jesus. I don’t understand how that contradicts Church teachings.
Also, the part that I bolded is EXACTLY what I am trying to make Radical understand. I agree with everything you have said. I believe you have misunderstood my arguments if you believe that I contradict the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist. My beliefs are exactly what you have stated in your post. I just can’t seem to make Radical understand this.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Sorry, I must not have been clear. What you and I understand about the Real Presence and Transubstantiation is not what Radical is saying we mean by it. When he uses RBP he’s insisting that we mean a carnal body. You both are using the same term but with different meanings. And he’s arguing from his definition and insisting that is what we believe.I apologize if you have misunderstood my stance on the Eucharist. I am a Catholic and believe that the Eucharist is Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) and am a believer in Transubstantiation. When I use terms such as RBP, my understanding is that is no longer bread or wine but it IS Jesus. I don’t understand how that contradicts Church teachings.
L
lyrikal
Guest
No worries at all.
In an earlier post, I told Radical that the Church does not believe that we are literally eating the body parts of Jesus. We don’t believe that one church has Jesus’ ribs while another Church has His legs. It is all sacramental, not literally flesh eating as if I were to chop off a piece of Christ and eat Him like a cannibal. I had hoped that would have cleared up my stance on the matter before arguing what Augustine believed. This is the issue at hand, I think. When Augustine (when speaking about John 6) tells us that we are not to literally eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood, He is not denying a RP in the Eucharist. He is telling us that we are not to understand this in a literal way where we are to go eat the body parts of Christ in a cannibalistic way.
I guess Radical needs to understand the Church’s stance on the Eucharist before arguing against it or arguing that Augustine didn’t believe in a RP (the way the Church understands it). Perhaps the issue is terminology and understanding eachother’s doctrines.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I honestly do not know why you would waste time discussing the RP with someone like Radical? People who reject the RP are no different than people who advocate Faith Alone and the Bible-Only novelties. They will turn blue in the face and never grasp or even consider anything you tell them.No worries at all.
In an earlier post, I told Radical that the Church does not believe that we are literally eating the body parts of Jesus. We don’t believe that one church has Jesus’ ribs while another Church has His legs. It is all sacramental, not literally flesh eating as if I were to chop off a piece of Christ and eat Him like a cannibal. I had hoped that would have cleared up my stance on the matter before arguing what Augustine believed. This is the issue at hand, I think. When Augustine (when speaking about John 6) tells us that we are not to literally eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood, He is not denying a RP in the Eucharist. He is telling us that we are not to understand this in a literal way where we are to go eat the body parts of Christ in a cannibalistic way.
I guess Radical needs to understand the Church’s stance on the Eucharist before arguing against it or arguing that Augustine didn’t believe in a RP (the way the Church understands it). Perhaps the issue is terminology and understanding eachother’s doctrines.
The belief Augustine believed in a symbolic Eucharist is just plain absurd and a nothing but a Protestant injection into a ECF wishing to make him appear “Protestant” in his beliefs. Some Protestants will say anything and write scores of books simply in a desparate hope that people will believe them. As I have asked Radical numerous times:
If Augustine believed in the RP and it was false or heretical,why didn’t many other ECF’s such as Ambrose or Jerome attack him or correct his misunderstanding? That is where Radical’s position falls to pieces and is weak in evidence. Come on…they attack other hersies the RP is ignored if it were truly false?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
.Ok .My point was that first you have the world around us ,even it’s activities (eating ,planting,running,etc) that are used figuratively ,metaphorically ,symbolically to show something in the spirit realm.
Understand ,just that for bread to be now it must be figurative,hence the debate that the eating is figurative.
Understand.We believe justification is a one time event ,like you are born .The walking it out ,born for what ,we call sanctification .We do not walk thinking we may be unborn depending on our action or lack of it ,The only thing that makes you unborn is if you give your new life back ,so to speak .So we walk by faith knowing we are justified.We do works because we are justified.That is the primary difference between us this definition of justification , the when and how of it. From your point of view , I would see why you need the church ,the sacraments, the priests, a magisterium, not for your equipping, as we do ,but for your very spiritual life. If we have negative motive for protestantism (rebelliousness,pride etc ) ,yours would be lording over ,control. Another words doctrine may show a conflict of interest (eg. -early Christians confessed to one another being the church -Catholicism says you need the church , a priest , because of their dogma that developed over time -not necessarily strengthening the believer ,cause he always had a way to confess, but stengthening the need for the church ,the Roman Church. The only good thing ,it separated us from true heretics at the time .The bad is protestantism had to evolve, and we are still separated today , but still unified in Christ .It was an artificial way towards unity that was finally shed. … .When we try to save someone , it is by the Word, as an early CF recommended .When you try to save someone, it is to a church /sacraments etc .Yours is more about a way to the Savior .Ours is more the Savior himself .Having said that ,we both struggle to keep it that simple.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
O.K. ,I think we have been trying to interpret primarily by what he wrote fully, even as you suggested ,Other things are improtant yes .He was not Zwinglian ,but he was not not a 20Th century Catholic either .Trebor135;8296426 [QUOTE said:
I thought you were tyring to imply that when someone says the eating is a spiritual thing (symbolic) that perhaps it is spiritual , not symbolic, cause it is to be done not in the flesh, that is, unworthily .So to eat worthily one must be in the spirit .I said yes to the worthily ,being in the spirit(secondarily), but the primary eating is not "in the spirit, but “by the spirit”. That is our spiritual entity eats,not our teeth and belly.
Yes ,some have argued that .But others have argued against it .I thought Christians were to have what we call a Judeo -Christian view ,not a worldly view(Greek). Was it a “Mars Hill” tactic ,where you become all things to all men, so that some might be saved (where you don’t compromise) ? Maybe .I thought his Mars Hill tactic did not work .Or was it like Peter, that tried that but backfired because of his compromise with the Gentile /Jew struggle , that Paul had to correct ?
Still does not mean it was not figurative.It is a complicated simplicity just figuratively speaking .But literally eating Him poses even more hurdles .It is like when Scripture says call/cry out to the Lord for salvation .Does that mean you have to shed tears , or verbally shout out etc. ? See how we can complicate things ? The only time Jesus complicated things , it was on purpose , to separate the sheep from the goats. .Again, the sheep gave no indication that they had to eat anything, but the Words of Jesus(Peter said ,“You have the words of eternal life” ) (Augustine ,Clement). It was the goats that thought they had to literally eat, in the John 6 discourse…AS far as Salvation ,Jeus said Many things to that end literally and figuratively,NOT just eating Him .All arguments against RP usually are best based on other scripture.
NO. I said spirit is spirit and he uses things and even daily activity to show spiritual truths (therefore, earthly things are metaphorical ,figurative ,symbolic ).
D
david_ruiz
Guest
I must beg to differ.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
If you do away with the old testament in cannon ,then how else would you know it has been fulfilled ? Do you still offer blood animals and meet on the Sabbath ? If you don’t do them any more ,it is" eradicate" ,irrelevant of what you do now in it’s place. Paul was not afraid to use BOTH terms ,fulfill and do away with -eradicate. We move on to the next thing ,in apprehending Him.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
You are right .wasn’t totally comfortable with out reading the stuff directly from archival church fathers .However ,it is Clement of Alexandria as you have the same quote I do ,perhaps with a different translation and not all my quotes have book “markings” .I trust the site that all were from this Clement , but wish they had better documentation, for your collaboration ,which is only proper . Also , I believe your quote is not the only one on Eucharist from Clement. I’m sure you would agree , we need them all. Wish I could make it easier to find them. I believe your quote is “close” to the other ones I included. Sorry.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
- Status