What do Protestants think the early Christian

[Adonia]

An important thing about faith is that it must be in something true. No matter how much faith Jehovah’s Witnesses have that Jesus is Michael the Arcangel doesn’t make it true.

So, basically what we now have here is YOUR interpretaion, or YOUR sect’s interpretation of Holy Scripture that this is now the TRUE interprtation of Scripture? Well, thank you very much, but I’ll go with the folks who have been interpreting Scripture for the last 2000 yrs. You know, why is it that Christians like yourself seek to find fault with what we believe and what the Roman Rite teaches? It’s always the Catholic Church that does this, does that, or dosent do this or do that. When we tell you what we believe, and why we believe in a certain way, why can’t you accept that? But no, we are wrong and you have the truth! I am happy that you are seeking God and His Kingdom, but no brother, what you really have is just another interpretation of the Scriptures, just like the JW you talked about.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Jesus presented His Body to be broken (beaten and then crucified) and His Blood to be shed it REAL. He did it to pay for our sins. IMO, He did not do so for us to literally eat it but for our soul to eat and drink of the reality of our overwhelming need for His broken Body and shed Blood and our overwhelming inability to pay the necessary price for our sins and sin nature.

I agree with your first part that Jesus’ body and blood are real and were really broken to pay for our sins (the only answer you could have given, since he has real body and blood). However, your second statement, that he did not do it to literally eat it is irrelevent to the subject you raised, which was whether Jesus’ was using literal or figurative language in the statement “this is my body.”

You see, when Jesus said “I am the door,” or “I am the vine,” we know he was using non-literal language (door, vine) because Jesus is obviously not a door or a vine. However, when Jesus stated “this is my body” he was using literal NOT figurative language, because his body is not figurative, it is literal! Therefore, we know that “this is my body” is not a figurative statement. It literally is his body/blood.

 

[Dokimas]

So, basically what we now have here is YOUR interpretaion, or YOUR sect’s interpretation of Holy Scripture that this is now the TRUE interprtation of Scripture? Well, thank you very much, but I’ll go with the folks who have been interpreting Scripture for the last 2000 yrs. You know, why is it that Christians like yourself seek to find fault with what we believe and what the Roman Rite teaches? It’s always the Catholic Church that does this, does that, or dosent do this or do that. When we tell you what we believe, and why we believe in a certain way, why can’t you accept that? But no, we are wrong and you have the truth! I am happy that you are seeking God and His Kingdom, but no brother, what you really have is just another interpretation of the Scriptures, just like the JW you talked about.

According to you and your church, Jesus is the Arcangel Michael??? The doctrine of Jesus that I’ve gleaned from the Bible is that He is God and Man.​

The Bible as is has not been around for 2000 yrs so how could your church be interpreting it for that long?​

Is there anything wrong with what I believe? If so, are you finding fault with what I think is true?​

I, in fact, accept you believe what you believe. However, this part of CAF is for Non-Catholics to post and I’m assuming it for us to share our beliefs, even those that differ from yours.​

 

[Dokimas]

I agree with your first part that Jesus’ body and blood are real and were really broken to pay for our sins (the only answer you could have given, since he has real body and blood). However, your second statement, that he did not do it to literally eat it is irrelevent to the subject you raised, which was whether Jesus’ was using literal or figurative language in the statement “this is my body.”

You see, when Jesus said “I am the door,” or “I am the vine,” we know he was using non-literal language (door, vine) because Jesus is obviously not a door or a vine. However, when Jesus stated “this is my body” he was using literal NOT figurative language, because his body is not figurative, it is literal! Therefore, we know that “this is my body” is not a figurative statement. It literally is his body/blood.

I don’t think He meant ‘this (literally) is My Body’. I believe it was figurative.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t think He meant ‘this (literally) is My Body’. I believe it was figurative.

Where is the figure of speech in the statement “this is my body,” Dokimas?

 

[Dokimas]

Where is the figure of speech in the statement “this is my body,” Dokimas?

I’m not real sure I’m getting you. I’m not an English major; but it’s worse than that even though English is my one and only language.​

Is there a difference between ‘figure of speech’ and speaking figuratively? I think so.​

Is there a ‘figure of speech’ here - When I get old I’m going to kick the bucket.’?​

I think, ‘Eats My Body’ or ‘This is My Body’ are figurative while there may not be a ‘figure of speech’ in there.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m not real sure I’m getting you. I’m not an English major; but it’s worse than that even though English is my one and only language.​

Is there a difference between ‘figure of speech’ and speaking figuratively? I think so.​

Is there a ‘figure of speech’ here - When I get old I’m going to kick the bucket.’?​

I think, ‘Eats My Body’ or ‘This is My Body’ are figurative while there may not be a ‘figure of speech’ in there.

If you prefer to phrase it that way, Dokimas. Then I will ask it this way, in the statement “this is my body,” what is the figurative?

 

[Adonia]

According to you and your church, Jesus is the Arcangel Michael??? The doctrine of Jesus that I’ve gleaned from the Bible is that He is God and Man.​

The Bible as is has not been around for 2000 yrs so how could your church be interpreting it for that long?​

Is there anything wrong with what I believe? If so, are you finding fault with what I think is true?​

I, in fact, accept you believe what you believe. However, this part of CAF is for Non-Catholics to post and I’m assuming it for us to share our beliefs, even those that differ from yours.​

Point 1. Sorry, as a lifelong RC I have never been taught that Jesus was the Archangel Michael, in fact this is the first I have ever heard of such a thing. Like you, I have been taught that He is God and Man. Your information regarding the former is wrong.

Point 2. I agree, the Bible has not been around for 2000 years. It was tradition that was observed before the Bible was put together. But it was the church fathers who compiled said Bible, and the RC church has been in the business of biblical interpretation since it was.

Point 3. I don’t see anything wrong in what you believe. You have the free will to believe what you wish, and as I said before you are seeking His Kingdom like I am. We probably agree on many things concerning Christian belief’s. The only thing I find fault with is that you say YOU have the TRUE interpretation of Scripture. It is that assertion that I question.

Point 4. Thank you for accepting what I believe. I agree this section is for non-catholics to post, but as a member of CAF I have as much a right to post here and engage you in conversation as anyone else, regardless of church affiliation.

 

[Dokimas]

If you prefer to phrase it that way, Dokimas. Then I will ask it this way, in the statement “this is my body,” what is the figurative?

**Eating **His Body is the figurative part.

 

[adstrinity]

I have not seen any evidence from the Bible that this is true.

What does this have to do with the original post (that I still haven’t seen any early Christian support for)? Start a new thread on this if you wish.

 

[Dokimas]

Point 1. Sorry, as a lifelong RC I have never been taught that Jesus was the Archangel Michael, in fact this is the first I have ever heard of such a thing. Like you, I have been taught that He is God and Man. Your information regarding the former is wrong.

Point 2. I agree, the Bible has not been around for 2000 years. It was tradition that was observed before the Bible was put together. But it was the church fathers who compiled said Bible, and the RC church has been in the business of biblical interpretation since it was.

Point 3. I don’t see anything wrong in what you believe. You have the free will to believe what you wish, and as I said before you are seeking His Kingdom like I am. We probably agree on many things concerning Christian belief’s. The only thing I find fault with is that you say YOU have the TRUE interpretation of Scripture. It is that assertion that I question.

Point 4. Thank you for accepting what I believe. I agree this section is for non-catholics to post, but as a member of CAF I have as much a right to post here and engage you in conversation as anyone else, regardless of church affiliation.

Point 1: What information? I was refering to the way the question I was resonding to was phrased. I didn’t think (I guess I was responding to) you believed Jesus was the Arcangel.​

Point 2: It was men directed by the Holy Spirit that put together the 27 books of the NT.​

Point 3: If I’ve ever given the impression that I say I have the True interpretation of Scripture I am sorry. I have always and only maintained that I have the correct understanding** if**, and only if, it is in agreement with the Holy Spirit’s interpretation.​

Point 4: You’re welcome. I don’t believe I questioned your right to post here. I believe I was questioning you questioning me for sharing things I have disagreement with the CC. You said, ‘When we tell you what we believe, and why we believe in a certain way, why can’t you accept that?’ It’s not that I don’t let you believe what you want, but on the non-catholic part of the board, you should expect to get some contrary ideas to your own. Maybe my response wasn’t clear, sorry.

 

[Dokimas]

What does this have to do with the original post (that I still haven’t seen any early Christian support for)? Start a new thread on this if you wish.

It was my response to the post I was responding to. If you start a new thread, I may comment on the subject there.

 

[wmscott]

Is Jesus a real Door or a figurative Door?

Is Jesus a real Lion or a figurative Lion?

Is Jesus a real Lamb or a figurative Lamb?

Is Jesus real Bread or figurative Bread?

Is Jesus real Light or figurative Light (light that is made up of the rainbow colors)?

Is Jesus a real Vine or a figurative Vine?

Is Jesus a real Star (morninig star) or a figurative Star?

Is Jesus a real Gate or a figurative Gate?

Dokimas, what does this have to do with John 6 Christ said “Amen, Amen I say to you” He is prefacing His statement with clear concise meaning.

The definition of Amen:
Amen \Amen"\ (?; 277), interj., adv., & n. [L. amen, Gr. 'amhn, Heb. [=a]m=e]n certainly, truly.]

An expression used at the end of prayers, and meaning, So be
it. At the end of a creed, it is a solemn asseveration of
belief. When it introduces a declaration, it is equivalent to
truly, verily.

Amen
This Hebrew word means firm, and hence also faithful (Rev.
3:14). In Isa. 65:16, the Authorized Version has “the God of
truth,” which in Hebrew is “the God of Amen.” It is frequently
used by our Saviour to give emphasis to his words, where it is
translated “verily.” Sometimes, only, however, in John’s Gospel,
it is repeated, “Verily, verily.” It is used as an epithet of
the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 3:14).

 It is found singly and sometimes doubly at the end of prayers

(Ps. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52), to confirm the words and invoke the
fulfilment of them. It is used in token of being bound by an
oath (Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; 1 Chr. 16:36).
In the primitive churches it was common for the general audience
to say “Amen” at the close of the prayer (1 Cor. 14:16).

 The promises of God are Amen; i.e., they are all true and sure

(2 Cor. 1:20).

Source: Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, what does this have to do with John 6 Christ said “Amen, Amen I say to you” He is prefacing His statement with clear concise meaning.

It’s about Jesus speaks figuratively as He did in John 6 about EATING His Body and DRINKING His Blood. Not literally, IMO.

 

[Loboto-Me]

The problem being that opinion is such a moveable expression. Your opinion may change one day.

My opinion may be that the earth is flat, yet it is proven that it’s not. I can be stubborn and keep my opinion but is it the truth?

 

[YADA]

Clearly the Eucharistic Passage in John 6 was not ‘fugurative’ nor ‘symbolic’ and not one of those who heard Jesus speak that day understood the Great Teacher of Parables to be speaking in such a manner … not those who walked away nor the apostles who stayed with Him …

This is eveidenced by the passage itselk … where Jesus repeats the phrase and the literal language used …

"unless you eat … " “unless you chew [or knaw] … " Truly, truly [which more literally translated would be *It is truth] My Body is Real Food and My Blood is Real Drink” … the contrasting with the Manna … also real food that was consumed …

The people asking how can this man ‘give us his body to eat?’ … their leaving because cannabilism would be against the Law … Blood was never consumed not even animal blood …

The response of Peter … 'Where can we go, to whom can we turn, You have hte Wods of enternal life … ’

All of this transltes to a literal understanding … no where does Jesus moderate His Words … He does not refer to parables, He does not correct the misunderstanding … never not once …

Paul clearly understood the Real Presence … as clearly a Christian consuming a mere symbolic representation of a past dinner [the last supper] could not make anyone sick or kill them … something that is merely symbolic cannot be decerned as the Body and Blood of the Lord [you would have it be a symbolic representation of a figurative turn of phrase … [what you are saying is something like having a picture of a door represent the fugure of speech “I am the Door” that represented Jesus]…

Nor can participating in a mere symbolic meal be a ‘participation’ in past event … no that would be like eating a cracker to symbolize what Jesus did at the ast supper to correspond to his words in John 6 that means that our faith is Jesus is the food that will save us … and nothing in the scriptures leads one to that belief!

As for Jesus standing before the disciples holding the bread [and therefore unable to be resent in the Bread] or that the Last Supper occurred before His ody was Broken … you make God too mall … Jesus - the Word Made Flesh entered into time … but He exists throughout all time … He is the Word present at the beginning of the world, the Alpha and the Omega … Jesus entered into time and yet stands outside time … the Creator of the World can make Bread into His Body to feed His people …

The Why’s and How’s are called mysteries … did it have to be this way? No, God can do anything in any way … This was just how He decided for it to be … You can deny it all you want … Scriptures clearly reflect the True Presence even if tat is not explicitly written in the manner in which you would have it … The first Christians also believed that Truth …

The Eucharsist [Communion] as merely symbolic is an innovation of man … fueled by the period of the enlightenment … it is not rpesent in the early church nor found in their writings except to be denounced …

 

[Dokimas]

The problem being that opinion is such a moveable expression. Your opinion may change one day.

My opinion may be that the earth is flat, yet it is proven that it’s not. I can be stubborn and keep my opinion but is it the truth?

What we have is the hope that our opinion matches the Truth and that we don’t move from the Truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t think Christ would allow arbitrary language when beginning His church…His wording is not arbitrary, not symbolic, but actual…no relativism…

It appears the only time the Western Hemisphere Fundamentalists refuse to take the Bible literally is when Christ spoke during the final hours of His life hours before His arrest.

You can pretty much trust the words of a dying Man…

 

[Adonia]

Point 1: What information? I was refering to the way the question I was resonding to was phrased. I didn’t think (I guess I was responding to) you believed Jesus was the Arcangel.​

Point 2: It was men directed by the Holy Spirit that put together the 27 books of the NT.​

Point 3: If I’ve ever given the impression that I say I have the True interpretation of Scripture I am sorry. I have always and only maintained that I have the correct understanding** if**, and only if, it is in agreement with the Holy Spirit’s interpretation.​

Point 4: You’re welcome. I don’t believe I questioned your right to post here. I believe I was questioning you questioning me for sharing things I have disagreement with the CC. You said, ‘When we tell you what we believe, and why we believe in a certain way, why can’t you accept that?’ It’s not that I don’t let you believe what you want, but on the non-catholic part of the board, you should expect to get some contrary ideas to your own. Maybe my response wasn’t clear, sorry.

Oh, my brother, I truly expect to get views contrary to my own here. We each believe that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in the creation of the Scripture and I believe that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Roman Rite of Christianity. Some misunderstandings on my part, and I thank you for the good conversation this day. Got to go now. May God bless you and yours!

 

[wmscott]

It’s about Jesus speaks figuratively as He did in John 6 about EATING His Body and DRINKING His Blood. Not literally, IMO.

Regardless of what you believe, Christ was not speaking figuratively in John 6, plain and simple. The view that Christ speaking figuratively is relatively new, just a few hundred years or so. This erroneous belief came about because some Protestant denominations had to discredit the Catholic Church in every way and practice. In the end what they have done is also try to discredit Christ, His words, and most importantly His Church. All of this so that they can justify their own personal fallible brand of theology. It is based in prejudice and pride of their own belief that God after 1500 plus years later come and deposited the fullness of truth onto them. this is a direct result of the fracture in Christs Church. With so many denominations and individuals out there setting themselves up in authority, the end result is that we have just as many flawed interpretations.

I would suggest that you read and study Church history and what the faith taught and faithfully guarded. I think you will find that the ECFs and Doctors of the Church have written and professed much about the Most Holy Eucharist. But some how I do not think you would care too, I guess you are going to believe what ever you want regardless. That is your right.