The Universal Church

[lanman87]

Well, I’ve given at least seven reasons why I believe Christ was speaking figuratively/metaphorically.

1. Christ regularly spoke metaphorically. i.e. John 15:1 I am the true vine… Christ even tells them that He is speaking in “figures of speech” “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. John 16:25.

If Christ is speaking metaphorically in all these other places then why should I believe He is speaking literally in this one particular place?

1. The sacrifice of Christ happened on the cross and not in the upper room. His body was not yet physically broken until he was arrested.
2. The Bible in both the old and new Testaments uses ingestive language to describe a spiritual longing and truth. Tasting and eating are often used as a metaphor for longing after and seeking and believing in God. There is no reason to believe that Christ wasn’t using similar language when He said “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”, and “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” and so forth in John 6.
3. The Last Supper was the Passover Meal that was a celebration and memorial Jewish ritual of God “passing over” the doors that had the blood of the lambs that lead to the deliverance in the Exodus. It makes sense that Christ was setting up a greater celebration and memorial for our deliverance from sin and self due to His sacrifice on the cross.
4. While Jews ate the passover lamb in the passover meal they never drank the blood of the lamb and doing so was expressly forbidden in the Old Testament. I don’t think Christ would ever ask them to break the Mosaic law by drinking His literal blood.
5. Christ was in His human pre-ressurection body. There is no evidence that Christ chose to break the laws of nature and physically be two places at once.
6. Christ explicitly tells us why we are taking the Lord’s Supper. Do this in remembrance of me Luke 22:19.

 

[lanman87]

Ignatius also wrote

“Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Christ” (To the Trallians, VIII)

Is our faith really the flesh of the Lord and our love really the blood of Christ? I thought it was the Eucharistic elements???

He also said that by being consumed by wild beast (which was about to happen) that people would see him as the “pure bread of Christ” (To the Romans, IV).

Did Ignatius become bread when the beast ate him?

Ingatius’s letters are full of metaphors and illustrative speech. In His letter to the Smyrnæans he is speaking against those who didn’t believe Christ was fully human so it makes sense that he would carry on the same metaphorical language that Christ did.

Or as one former Catholic put it

In other words, his theme throughout the letter is the Gnostic error that denies that Jesus came and truly suffered, died and rose again in the flesh, and not in the spirit only. Thus, he constantly affirms that His passion and resurrection actually happened, and were “both corporeal and spiritual.” We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius applies the Eucharist as a metaphor against the Gnostic heresy, using it as a metaphor for his coming and suffering in the flesh :

We see other ECF’s saying that the Eucharistic elements are a figure of symbol of the body and blood of Christ. I could quote them but I’m sure you are aware of them but deny that they really meant it to be figurative or symbolic.

 

[lanman87]

Name one example of how we “ strayed “.

I’ll clear it up for ya.

Show me any teaching of Mariology before the 3rd Century. The earliest I can find is Irenaeus calling Mary the second Eve toward the end of the 2nd Century. Mariology seems to have evolved out Irenaeus’s statement and developed in the following centuries. The Bible never calls (and I don’t believe the apostle ever taught) that Mary sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was an every virgin. I believe those things to be innovations and non-apostolic teaching and are the traditions of men.

 

[steve-b]

Ignatius also wrote

“Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Christ” (To the Trallians, VIII)

Is our faith really the flesh of the Lord and our love really the blood of Christ? I thought it was the Eucharistic elements???

He also said that by being consumed by wild beast (which was about to happen) that people would see him as the “pure bread of Christ” (To the Romans, IV).

Did Ignatius become bread when the beast ate him?

Ingatius’s letters are full of metaphors and illustrative speech. In His letter to the Smyrnæans he is speaking against those who didn’t believe Christ was fully human so it makes sense that he would carry on the same metaphorical language that Christ did.

Or as one former Catholic put it

In other words, his theme throughout the letter is the Gnostic error that denies that Jesus came and truly suffered, died and rose again in the flesh, and not in the spirit only. Thus, he constantly affirms that His passion and resurrection actually happened, and were “both corporeal and spiritual.” We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius applies the Eucharist as a metaphor against the Gnostic heresy, using it as a metaphor for his coming and suffering in the flesh :

Context context context
ianman87:

We see other ECF’s saying that the Eucharistic elements are a figure of symbol of the body and blood of Christ. I could quote them but I’m sure you are aware of them but deny that they really meant it to be figurative or symbolic.

Ahhhh go ahead, quote them, properly referenced of course. Let’s see who you’re talking about and how they really said it.

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

It’s a simple take down on your seven points:

1: Saint John 16:25 is Jesus saying He will no longer talk in figures of speech about the Father. Not Himself.

2: The Words of the Institution were spoken by Jesus. He cannot, nor will He EVER; lie or be mistaken. He spoke literally when He spoke clearly: This is My Body/This is My Blood.

3: All of the Jesus quotes you stated there were declarative statements. Reference #2 Plus, and this goes with #’s 4 and 5; Jesus said This is the New Covenant.

4 and 5: The Passover Seder was memorial of the Passover lamb’s Sacrifice and the placing of it’s blood on the lintels and doorposts of the Hebrews. Jesus chose the Passover Seder because He is the Lamb of God to be sacrificed. Again: This is the New Covenant. Are you saying Jesus, as the Word of God Who can only do the Will of the Father; cannot institute a New Covenant in place of the Old?

6: Your interpretation puts human limits on Christ. Again, as per # 2; Jesus cannot and will NEVER lie. When He spoke plainly and declaratively; He spoke literally.

7: We are eating and drinking Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We do this in remembrance of Him as we are commanded to.

 

[George720]

It’s fascinating seeing these guys in action.

They take Scripture and pore intricately over exact wording, ignoring what’s happening in the text and create new doctrines that aren’t there; ignore Tradition and then build up a new tradition, cherry picking passages from the ECFs that they can use to support their ideas and then read their innovations in Church history; claiming that everything they’re doing isn’t new but affirming the ancient faith of the Apostles.

Frankly, it’s breathtaking what they’ve done and how they try to defend it.

Well, we have an old Orthodox adage, Michael, which reminds us of a single fact about fruit grown in trees -
eg
The fruit does NOT fall FAR from the tree…

Jes’ Sayin’!!!

geo

 

[mcq72]

They can take the clearest, most straightforward declarative statements in Scripture and say: “ What white cow? It’s obviously black. “

No your interpretation is calling a black cow white.

Your interpretaion is saying wine is
literal blood and bread is literal human flesh, and then dogmatically say it is “the clearest, most straightforward declarative statements”.

 

[George720]

I’ve given at least seven reasons why I believe Christ was speaking figuratively/metaphorically.

My dear Brother…

Christ was speaking neither figure nor metaphor…

He was speaking descriptively…

It is only behemothic skull-duggers like me who speak figuratively and metaphorically…

We are not seeing what is real and describing it, as Christ was…

We read the words of others without seeing the reality…

And we speak imaginatively through metaphor and figure…

Christian Dogma is both Empirical and Practical…

May God Bless your footsteps…

geo

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Did you even read the post in which I took down all of Ianman87’s seven points?

Read Saint John 16:25; read the rest the bread of life verses Jesus said.

Jesus cannot and will not EVER lie or be mistaken. When He speaks declaratively and not in figures; He’s being literal.

 

[Michael16]

@Ianman87

You’re talking about my Mother.

I just got home from work and I have to be Dad for a while.

Once that’s done, I’ll break out my Mariology textbook and I’ll school you.

 

[lanman87]

1: Saint John 16:25 is Jesus saying He will no longer talk in figures of speech about the Father. Not Himself.

Exactly, He was talking in figures of speech about himself when He said “This is my Body”.

2: The Words of the Institution were spoken by Jesus. He cannot, nor will He EVER; lie or be mistaken. He spoke literally when He spoke clearly: This is My Body/This is My Blood.

But His body wasn’t yet broken, so He was speaking metaphorically

3: All of the Jesus quotes you stated there were declarative statements.

It is also a declarative statement when He said “I am the true vine” (and many other places where He says I am…) Do you think Christ turned Himself into to a vine? or door? You haven’t answered my question…

If Christ is speaking metaphorically in all these other places then why should I believe He is speaking literally in this one particular place?

Jesus chose the Passover Seder because He is the Lamb of God to be sacrificed. Again: This is the New Covenant. Are you saying Jesus, as the Word of God Who can only do the Will of the Father; cannot institute a New Covenant in place of the Old?

Yes He can, but drinking literal blood wasn’t part of the new covenant. The wine represented the blood He would shed over the next 24 hours. One of the things the Last Supper did was give a physical representation of the broken body and blood of Christ.

 

[lanman87]

Once that’s done, I’ll break out my Mariology textbook and I’ll school you.

I look forward to it

 

[lanman87]

Once that’s done, I’ll break out my Mariology textbook and I’ll school you.

BTW- I’m not saying that Mary doesn’t deserve to be honored for her faithfulness and role in the incarnation of Christ. I’m simply saying that the church, in its zeal, went beyond the teachings of the Apostles and created doctrines based on theological speculation from folks like Irenaeus and from legends that sprang up about Mary. (Such as the Protoevangelium of James, which was nothing more than 2nd Century fan fiction that was written from legends that sprouted up about the incarnation.)

 

[steve-b]

Michael16:

They can take the clearest, most straightforward declarative statements in Scripture and say: “ What white cow? It’s obviously black. “

No your interpretation is calling a black cow white.

Your interpretation is saying wine is
literal blood and bread is literal human flesh, and then dogmatically say it is “the clearest, most straightforward declarative statements”.

Re: interpretation,

Using today’s terms, Taking a literal DNA sample of Jesus THEN, it will show He is 100% Human. Correct? Would it show He is God? Or is that something one has to interpret ?

 

[steve-b]

Michael16:

Name one example of how we “ strayed “.

I’ll clear it up for ya.

Show me any teaching of Mariology before the 3rd Century. The earliest I can find is Irenaeus calling Mary the second Eve toward the end of the 2nd Century. Mariology seems to have evolved out Irenaeus’s statement and developed in the following centuries. The Bible never calls (and I don’t believe the apostle ever taught) that Mary sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was an every virgin. I believe those things to be innovations and non-apostolic teaching and are the traditions of men.

1 Example out of many available

Bp and saint Irenaeus, ~180 a.d., “Against Heresies” Bk 3, ch 22, para 4

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race…

 

[steve-b]

Michael16:

Name one example of how we “ strayed “.

I’ll clear it up for ya.

Show me any teaching of Mariology before the 3rd Century. The earliest I can find is Irenaeus calling Mary the second Eve toward the end of the 2nd Century. Mariology seems to have evolved out Irenaeus’s statement and developed in the following centuries. The Bible never calls (and I don’t believe the apostle ever taught) that Mary sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was an every virgin. I believe those things to be innovations and non-apostolic teaching and are the traditions of men.

Another example

from: Justin Martyr

In reference to the virginal conception, he cites the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14: “And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin;

‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, “God with us.”’ (…) This, then, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive,’ signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive” I Apol. ch 33

 

[lanman87]

Thank you for posting the Irenaeus statement I was talking about. BTW- There is nothing in that statement that says Ever Virgin, Sinless, immaculately conceived and so forth. All of that stuff came later.

I find it weird that Irenaeus didn’t think Adam and Eve were created as adults or where having marital relations when they were “Naked and Not ashamed”.

However, the fact that Mary was a betrothed virgin and was obedient I can agree with. The “cause of our salvation” is problematic.

 

[lanman87]

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, “God with us.”’ (…) This, then, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive,’ signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive” I Apol. ch 33

Again, that is in line with the Biblical text and I don’t have a problem with it. It is however, not the Mariology that developed in later centuries.

 

[steve-b]

Thank you for posting the Irenaeus statement I was talking about. BTW- There is nothing in that statement that says Ever Virgin, Sinless, immaculately conceived and so forth. All of that stuff came later.

I find it weird that Irenaeus didn’t think Adam and Eve were created as adults or where having marital relations when they were “Naked and Not ashamed”.

However, the fact that Mary was a betrothed virgin and was obedient I can agree with. The “cause of our salvation” is problematic.

You didn’t ask for all that.

As for ever virgin see my 2nd example

 

[lanman87]

You didn’t ask for all that.

Actually I did
From my post:
The Bible never calls (and I don’t believe the apostle ever taught) that Mary sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was an every virgin. I believe those things to be innovations and non-apostolic teaching and are the traditions of men.