Trogos to a Protestant

[Radical]

When peoplewrongly take Him literally, Jesus corrects them and explains:

…

and this argument is repeated often…so here is what i have said in response:

There are a number of things you seem to be missing:

a) John 6 doesn’t indicate that he explained either his meaning to the disciples or that he explained a means of eating his flesh w/o actually gnawing into his flesh. Try as you might to ignore the fact, Christ didn’t explain his meaning (whether he was talking about a symbolical or a transubstantial eating).

b) From John 2: 18-22 18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

It seems that Christ’s metaphor wasn’t explained to his disciples on that occasion either and that it wasn’t until later that they figured it out.

c) From Luke 18: 31-34 31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.” 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

It seems that things weren’t always explained

d) In John 16 Christ stated Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
It seems that Christ’s time to speak plainly might not have come along until some time after John 6.

e) The author of John 6 appears to try and explain Christ’s failure to try to win back those who left by pointing out that no one can come to Christ w/o the Father’s assistance…and that is in line with “culling” his herd of disciples

Furthermore, Jesus couldn’t be speaking figuratively, because that expression already had a specific figurative meaning. Verses which show “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” as a figure of speech are describing assault and persecution…

so the God of the universe who has come to introduce a new covenant is prohibited from introducing a new figure of speech by using wording that is somewhat similar to an existing figure of speech?

The point is that in the Bread of Life Discourse there was no misunderstanding. Jesus never let anyone leave because they did not understand what he was saying. He wouldn’t lose a follower because they didn’t get his meaning. They absolutely understood his meaning and they did not accept it!! This lesson was so crucial to the Salvation Plan that he was willing to lose them over it. To say that Jesus would let a follower go because they misunderstood him is to say that Jesus is callous, which he is not!! …

see my previous remarks WRT Jesus’s failure to try and explain his actual meaning to those who were leaving…

 

[Radical]

BTW, as you can likely tell from my last three posts I have discussed these matters before…If you would like to know how and why a Protestant would/could believe as I do, I will be happy to explain…however, I am not really interested in arguing about these things yet again…so I would appreciate it if you all could clarify if you are seeking understanding or an argument. Thanks.

 

[dharmasister]

a) John 6 doesn’t indicate that he explained either his meaning to the disciples or that he explained a means of eating his flesh w/o actually gnawing into his flesh. Try as you might to ignore the fact, ***Christ didn’t explain his meaning ***(whether he was talking about a symbolical or a transubstantial eating).

You missed my point. He didn’t explain his meaning Because He Didn’t Need Too!!! They understood him just fine!! And they left because they didn’t like what he was saying.

 

[Radical]

You missed my point. He didn’t explain his meaning Because He Didn’t Need Too!!! They understood him just fine!! …

I don’t think so…see my post #58

 

[Cristiano]

I think that you are wrong. The Trinity must be an invention too because the early Church that you mention also said that Christ was really present (his flesh and blood) in the Eucharist, and we can only assume that they reasoned it out of the scriptures. I mean they are the ones that put the scriptures together, and I can only assume that they tried to be consistent with what they did.

Bump!

 

[Radical]

Bump!

sorry…I missed that post of yours…I’ll explain my reasoning more fully, but now I have to get back to work. cheers.

 

[Nicea325]

When peoplewrongly take Him literally, Jesus corrects them and explains:

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodumus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3-5)

Other examples of Christ clarifying his meaning are:
(John 11:11-14)
(Matherw 19:24-26)
(John 8:21-23)
(John 8:31-36)

When people rightly take Him Literally, Jesus confirms and repeats:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was able to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him b; but Jesus his himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:56-59)

Furthermore, Jesus couldn’t be speaking figuratively, because that expression already had a specific figurative meaning. Verses which show “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” as a figure of speech are describing assault and persecution:

(Psalm 27:2)
(Isaish 9:18-20)
(Micah 3:3)
(2 Samuel 23:15-17)
(Revelation 17:6, 16)

If Jesus had been speaking figuratively about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then what He really means is “whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life.” This makes absolute nonsense of the passage!

The point is that in the Bread of Life Discourse there was no misunderstanding. Jesus never let anyone leave because they did not understand what he was saying. He wouldn’t lose a follower because they didn’t get his meaning. They absolutely understood his meaning and they did not accept it!! This lesson was so crucial to the Salvation Plan that he was willing to lose them over it. To say that Jesus would let a follower go because they misunderstood him is to say that Jesus is callous, which he is not!! I remember a translation of the verse (not sure which) where it says "Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does it shake your faith?” (John 6:61) I love that translation because it shows what true faith they had to have in him. In the context of the day, it was a hard saying, but his followers had faith in him to be able to bring them to a greater understanding of it.

Exactly! Likewise,if Jesus meant it to be figurative,then why would St. Paul state:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

Why on earth would St.Paul say one drinks judgment on himself for something merely being symbolic? Likewise, one will answer for the body and blood of the Lord, if eating and drinking the blood of the Lord unworthily.

Those are VERY strong words about a symbolic Eucharist.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

so I would appreciate it if you all could clarify if you are seeking understanding or an argument. Thanks.

I am seeking understanding, I’ve been seeking understanding from the beginning, hence my original question. My problem with your answer is that it’s just not following in logical progression. The rest of us are showing just how obvious a literal Eucharist, a Real Presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, truely is. We use both Scripture and history to further the evidence that this is what the Church has always taught, teaches today, and will teach forever.

"

 

[PRmerger]

this is the sort of thing that makes no sense to me…if carbohydrate molecules (which are present) are the subsatnce of bread, then how is the substance of flesh present?..from what you say it would seem that the substance of bread remains present throughout…and how come protein molecules aren’t the substance of flesh?

:whacky:

I feel as I do when I’m in a dialogue with Mormons regarding the Incarnation. They bring up DNA and XY chromosomes and all sorts of other concepts that make you go :banghead:

To wit: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4990796&postcount=35

I think that you might have strayed from official teaching here.

How so, Radical?

And I hope you do address this, because to me that is a very inflammatory accusation. Please back it up.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if you are trying to make fun but my mother’s whole side of the family speaks Greek

Are you talking about Biblical Greek?

As for my father’s side, my grandfather taught all 8 of his children to speak Aramaic and 5 of the 8 including my father can still speak it. Three of the 5 are Protestants.

Interesting. What is your grandfather’s heritage, if I may ask?

 

[PRmerger]

As far as Augustine goes, I’ll leave you with the challenge that has remained unanswered by quite a few on these threads…you quoted a little bit of Sermon 227…why not post all of that sermon on a new thread and then explain to me how it establishes that Augustine held to a real bodily presence (and how the scholars [ie Wills, Van der Meer and Kilmartin]somehow missed that sermon when arriving at their conclusion?

Will do.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7989532#post7989532

 

[Kristin234]

Are you talking about Biblical Greek?

Interesting. What is your grandfather’s heritage, if I may ask?

I’m not too sure about that one?

As for my father’s side, he is 100% Assyrian. Aramaic is still used in most of the Assyrian Orthodox churches but not many people can understand it nor can they speak it, but his father was determined to have all his kids learn it.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not too sure about that one?

Probably not Koine Greek, then.

The point being that there’s not too many Protestants who are conversant in the Scriptural Greek.

That your mother’s family speaks Greek is interesting, but not really relevant here. Unless they could read and speak the language that St. Paul wrote to the Romans, then they’re in the same boat as the majority of us.

As for my father’s side, he is 100% Assyrian. Aramaic is still used in most of the Assyrian Orthodox churches but not many people can understand it nor can they speak it, but his father was determined to have all his kids learn it.

Cool!

 

[Radical]

I am seeking understanding, I’ve been seeking understanding from the beginning, hence my original question. My problem with your answer is that it’s just not following in logical progression. The rest of us are showing just how obvious a literal Eucharist, a Real Presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, truely is.

if it is so obvious, why do the majority of Christians fail to take it literally?..why do so many scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) refuse to take it literaly?

We use both Scripture and history to further the evidence that this is what the Church has always taught, teaches today, and will teach forever.

"

I think that you mean that you use scripture (interpreted as you prefer) and history (interpreted as you prefer) to argue that what you believe is what the Church has always taught, teaches today, and will teach forever…the simple fact is that there are millions of learned, informed and intelligent people on both sides of this issue…if you can’t find any sound logic in the other side’s approach, then the probelm lies with your abilities

 

[Radical]

Will do.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7989532#post7989532

it looks like you posted a link to Augustine’s Tractates on the gospel of John…not sermon 227.

 

[PRmerger]

it looks like you posted a link to Augustine’s Tractates on the gospel of John…not sermon 227.

Yes, Radical. Augustine’s sermon 227 is about the Gospel of John, no?

 

[Radical]

How so, Radical?

And I hope you do address this, because to me that is a very inflammatory accusation. Please back it up.

Isn’t the official teaching that the substance of the bread is no longer present and that the substance of the body becomes present?..hence “transubstantiation” …am I right?

You said: “Well, it’s not protein molecules. It’s the substance of bread, which is carbohydrate molecules. But during transubstantiation the bread actually becomes the Body (flesh) of Jesus.”

Well, if the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules, then your official teaching would be subject to testing by scientific methods…we could see if carbohydrate molecules (and hence the substance of bread) are still present after the consecration…please, tell me I am wrong and that you are right. Tell me that the CC holds that the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules…I gladly resolve this issue by that test…there, I now consider my speculation as to your error backed up.

 

[Radical]

Yes, Radical. Augustine’s sermon 227 is about the Gospel of John, no?

no…it isn’t

 

[PRmerger]

if it is so obvious, why do the majority of Christians fail to take it literally?..why do so many scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) refuse to take it literaly?

Because it’s a hard saying.

Same with Jesus’ teaching on divorce and re-marriage. It’s really hard to tell your friend, “I’m sorry that I can’t celebrate with you your 2nd marriage.”

But Jesus said it. I believe it. It ain’t easy.

The Catholic Church is the only church that doesn’t dare edit His message to make it more palatable.

It has not succumbed to the words of the serpent, millenia ago, who whispered, “Did God really say…”

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
if it is so obvious, why do the majority of Christians fail to take it literally?..why do so many scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) refuse to take it literaly?

I see,if it is so obvious Jesus is God in the flesh,than why does the majority of humanity refuse to accept it?