Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was trying to differentiate between what pew potatoes and what knowledgeable protestants believe;
Heh. Love that term “pew potato”. 😃
I have read the Catholic apologetic "play book " also… it seems EVERY post eventually brings up the number of Protestant denominations or the CC gave you the Bible.
It’s brought up because it’s quite indefensible. It makes our point rather vociferously. You can argue whether it’s actually 20,000, 40,000 or millions of Protestant denominations, but the obscenity of the number just leaves you all vulnerable. 🤷

And, really, please dispense of the hyperbole. EVERY post? Maybe you meant every thread?
the Robert Sungenis quote I used in post #45 was the most refreshingly honest statement I have seen in a long time…
Ok.
 
It seem that you are saying when believers gather in the name of Christ : He is with them “like a fond memory”
Not quite.

I can really feel my family’s presence with me when I am away. Not just as a fond memory.

Many really feel the presence of God when they see a beautiful sunset of go hiking in the mountains. I don’t deny them this Spiritual Presence. I am certain God is there in nature.

However, one cannot argue that there isn’t quite a difference between being spiritually present to someone, and being PHYSICALLY present.

If you’re going to argue that being spiritually present is just as good as being physically present, I’m going to ask you married Protestant folks to tell you spouse, “Honey, even though I’m going out with my buddies, I’m going to be spiritually present with you this evening” and see what response you get. 😛

And, then when you come home and want to, perhaps, enjoy the marital embrace, your spouse can tell you, “Hey, I’m spiritually going to embrace you–that’s just as good as the actual physical embrace, no?”
 
you point in post #29 is in error when you state that

Jesus is with us "spiritually*, in the same way*** that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.
Or** in the same way** when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit. :"

I was trying to differentiate between what pew potatoes and what knowledgeable protestants believe;
In the same way you would differentiate a what Catholics believe from what the Church teaches (I’m sure you have seen the recent infamous poll)…

I have read the Catholic apologetic "play book " also… it seems EVERY post eventually brings up the number of Protestant denominations or the CC gave you the Bible.

the Robert Sungenis quote I used in post #45 was the most refreshingly honest statement I have seen in a long time…
I get a kick out of this statement “what pew potatoes and knowledgable protestants believe” .

Thats ten minutes of life lost forever. 🤷
 
at least pew potatoes show up more than Chrieasters:

“How’s your sit with Christ?”
 
The passover is purely symbolic?

Did the firstborn sons (of those who did not eat the sacrificial lamb) only symbolically die? :confused:
The Passover happened once in Egypt. It was a physical event that was a type and a shadow of the spiritual passover that Jesus made possible through the atonement. The ordinance of the passover was instituted in rememberance of that event.
The Passover does not literally re-occur every year, but through the symbols that represent the different aspects of the Passover event, it is brought to the forefront of the participants minds, and in a symbolic way, the event can be experienced but not literally.

Someone who participates in the passover today, cannot honestly state that he was there when the destroying angel passed over the Israelites and slew the first born of the Egyptians. If he was not there, he did not literally experience it. It is as simple as that. One can only symbolically experience it without actually being there. It may be a “re-enactment”, but even a re-enactment is not the literal event.
 
It is what the bread represents. We eat the bread in rememberance of the body of Christ, which he gave for us. We drink the wine/water in rememberance of the blood of Christ which was shed for us.
It brings to mind the great sacrifice that was made.

The words “this is my body” as He hands them the bread, is the symbolic representation being assigned to the bread. The same way “I am the bread of life” is symbolic. He is not really saying He is a loaf of bread. Bread is food and food sustains life. Physical bread will sustain physical life. He is spiritual bread, which sustains spiritual life.
The physical is symbolic or representational of the spiritual. The physical is not the spiritual.
Again, this is why Jesus stated the it is by spiritual means His words are understood, not by the “flesh”. If He meant a literal meaning of His words, then you would not need the spirit to understand.

A literal interpretation just does not make sense
 
Fly, as I understand it from a Jewish perspective, the passover was (still is for them) - an ongoing perpetual experience of the Exodus itself. Sound familiar? According to Jewish authority, the Exodus did not (still doesn’t) - present itself as merely ancient history or a one-time event, when celebrated on passover, year after year, a view the CC shares regarding Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. Since the key way to remember the Exodus for the Israelites, was reenactment, for them, the passover feast offered itself as an ongoing perpetual experience of that one time Exodus event that took place so long ago. As the Israelites relived the Exodus year after year, as commanded by God, it turned memory into a moral dynamic, alive and present, year after year. As the Israelites would partake of the lamb, they would remember the horrible acts that took place just prior to the Exodus of their forefathers etc… They would recall Gods incredible act of love. The same thing happens at the Mass. We recall and enter into that horrible event that took place so long ago on Calvary, and recall Jesus’ infinite act of love. It’s an an ongoing perpetual experience of Calvary itself, made present in a much more way for the simple fact that we are consuming the blood of the Lamb of God, the actual medicine for the soul, which also turns memory into a moral dynamic.This past event, called the Exodus, for them, became a real and active part of the lives of the people celebrating the passover, year after year. The Exodus was not some past ancient event to the Israelites. Still isn’t today. It was much more than that. It was their ever-recurring redemption, which is exactly how the CC views Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. It was, to the ancient Israelites, (as they would celebrate the passover, year after year) - the Exodus event. The exodus event, for the Israelites, was made present each and every time they celebrated the passover year after year. The passover of the Old Covenant and the passover of the New Covenant, from a catholic perspective, are strikingly similar in the manner in which each is celebrated/commemorated - don’t you think? They never would have view the passover in a simple symbolic way, nor do they today. It was and still is, much more than that.

Fly, do a little research, from a Jewish perspective; it’s really interesting.
I have gone to some Jewish sites looking for their perspective on the passover. Here is one: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html

Every site I visit goes into detail about the symbolism of each item. Part of the Passover is the Maggid, or The Story, which is a **re-telling **(not a literal experience of) of the Exodus and the first passover.

It seems like it is a bit like Christians and Christmas. Though we celebrate Christmas every year, we can participate in the re-enactment of it, and feel the spirit of Christmas, but no matter what we do, we cannot experience the literal “first Christmas”.
I think it is not important to literally experience the first Christmas, as long as we can experience the spirit of Christmas…which is the true meaning of Christmas.
 
It’s brought up because it’s quite indefensible. It makes our point rather vociferously. You can argue whether it’s actually 20,000, 40,000 or millions of Protestant denominations, but the obscenity of the number just leaves you all vulnerable. 🤷
I agree. A Catholic apologist saying something to the contrary may seem “honest”, but it seems to represent a lack of understanding on his part of the principle differences in these different belief systems. I have argued in the following essay that the disagreements between Catholics and those between Protestants not only differ in scope, but more importantly they differ in principle:

Is it really true that differences among Catholics are No Different Than Protestantism?
 
Yes, I suppose you are right, joe, and that is one thing in which Protestants agree: the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly.

I amend my statement to say that one cannot say “Protestants believe ____” regarding doctrines, as it pertains to Christ, salvation, the church, Scripture. Perhaps they do indeed agree on “Here’s where the CC is wrong…” 🙂
If I were to tell you that Lutherans agree with Catholics regarding the 7 early councils, the creeds, the Real Presence, Baptism, does that leave us out of your conjecture here?
BTW, not all Protestants would use the term “born again”. Which goes back to my original statement that it’s quite untenable to try to proclaim “Protestants believe ____”
Of course it is untenable, since the various different communions loosely referred to as “Protestant” have never been a single entity.
Heck, not even all Protestants claim that they’re protesting the Catholic church.
Even those who did the original “protesting” were not protesting the Catholic Church, at least not directing. They were protesting a government ruling, at the Second Diet at Speyer.

Jon
 
I have gone to some Jewish sites looking for their perspective on the passover. Here is one: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html

Every site I visit goes into detail about the symbolism of each item. Part of the Passover is the Maggid, or The Story, which is a **re-telling **(not a literal experience of) of the Exodus and the first passover.

It seems like it is a bit like Christians and Christmas. Though we celebrate Christmas every year, we can participate in the re-enactment of it, and feel the spirit of Christmas, but no matter what we do, we cannot experience the literal “first Christmas”.
I think it is not important to literally experience the first Christmas, as long as we can experience the spirit of Christmas…which is the true meaning of Christmas.
Of course the Jewish people cannot literally re-live the Exodus just as Christians cannot literally re-live Calvary, and both employ symbolism when it comes to material things such as candles etc. What makes no sense to me is how mere bread is a symbol of Jesus’ body. I get the door metaphor but I don’t get the bread metaphor. I wish someone would explain it to me. I also, still don’t understand why anyone would believe that the grumblers walked away for the simple fact that they believed that Jesus was employing a harmless metaphor? No one has ever attempted to help me understand that position, or maybe I am just that obtuse. LOL…

I get the symbolism here, from the link:
Probably the most significant observance related to Passover involves the removal of chametz (leaven; sounds like “hum it’s” with that Scottish ch) from our homes. This commemorates the fact that the Jews leaving Egypt were in a hurry, and did not have time to let their bread rise. It is also a symbolic way of removing the “puffiness” (arrogance, pride) from our souls.
 
The Passover happened once in Egypt.
Yes.
It was a physical event that was a type and a shadow of the spiritual passover that Jesus made possible through the atonement. The ordinance of the passover was instituted in rememberance of that event.
Yes!
The Passover does not literally re-occur every year, but through the symbols that represent the different aspects of the Passover event, it is brought to the forefront of the participants minds, and in a symbolic way, the event can be experienced but not literally.
Indeed.
Someone who participates in the passover today, cannot honestly state that he was there when the destroying angel passed over the Israelites and slew the first born of the Egyptians. If he was not there, he did not literally experience it. It is as simple as that. One can only symbolically experience it without actually being there. It may be a “re-enactment”, but even a re-enactment is not the literal event.
Ok.

But, of course, the Eucharist is not a symbolic re-creation of the Passover. It is a participation in the One and For All Sacrifice of Christ’s atoning death on the cross, made present to us through the Eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ.
 
joe370;7165622:
It is what the bread represents.
Yet, Jesus did not use the word represents, eh?
We eat the bread in rememberance of the body of Christ, which he gave for us. We drink the wine/water in rememberance of the blood of Christ which was shed for us.
It brings to mind the great sacrifice that was made.
Yes, it is an anamnesis.
The words “this is my body” as He hands them the bread, is the symbolic representation being assigned to the bread. The same way “I am the bread of life” is symbolic.
He did not use the word symbolically.
He is not really saying He is a loaf of bread.
Indeed.
Bread is food and food sustains life. Physical bread will sustain physical life. He is spiritual bread, which sustains spiritual life.
The physical is symbolic or representational of the spiritual. The physical is not the spiritual.
Again, this is why Jesus stated the it is by spiritual means His words are understood, not by the “flesh”. If He meant a literal meaning of His words, then you would not need the spirit to understand.
If he meant a symbolic meaning of His words then his disciples would not have left. Who leaves after a “hard saying” that means his flesh is a symbol of nourishment? :whacky:
 
If I were to tell you that Lutherans agree with Catholics regarding the 7 early councils, the creeds, the Real Presence, Baptism, does that leave us out of your conjecture here?
I thought my point was that all Protestants agree on at least one thing: the CC does not teach infallibly.

Do you agree with the above, Jon?
 
joe370;7165622:
It is what the bread represents. We eat the bread in rememberance of the body of Christ, which he gave for us. We drink the wine/water in rememberance of the blood of Christ which was shed for us.
It brings to mind the great sacrifice that was made.
It makes more since than what you are proposing. If what you are saying is true then when Jesus says this is my Body and this is my Blood, he is really implying that this bread represents my body and this wine represents my Blood. Well why didn’t He say that? Jesus is God. Jesus cannot lie so if Jesus says that this bread once consecrated is my Body and that this wine once consecrated is my Blood then we must take him by His word. No where in the Bible does it say that the Eucharist is symbolically the body and blood of Jesus. To be honest it wouldn’t make since because then you have to start asking yourself why Jesus instituted this in the first place. If it is nothing but bread and wine it is truly useless to our salvation and is a waste of time. Eating bread and wine as just a memorial doesn’t make any since. The Bible and teaching/preaching about Jesus is a memorial as well.

Also you need to go back to the Old Testament and study the sacrificial laws of the Jews. There are two things that stand out. One for the sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the sacrifice. So for Christ’s sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the sacrifice, or partake in the body and blood of Jesus. Two the blood was not allowed to be consumed because the blood is the life of the animal. When Jesus institutes the Eucharist, he keeps the consuming of the meat of the sacrifice but He also adds the drinking of the Blood, which is His divine Life.

In your faith, you are correct about one thing. The Lord’s Supper is just a symbolism of the body and blood of Jesus since there is no one in your faith that possesses the power to consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus gave this power only to His Apostles and those that suceed them at Bishops and Priests.
 
flyonthewall;7166460:
joe370;7165622:
Yet, Jesus did not use the word represents
, eh?Niether did He use it when He said “I am the true vine”, but I don’t see or know of anyone making similar claims about vines.
Yes, it is an anamnesis.
He did not use the word symbolically.
See above
If he meant a symbolic meaning of His words then his disciples would not have left. Who leaves after a “hard saying” that means his flesh is a symbol of nourishment? :whacky:
Those that were there for the food(and not the spiritual food). They came expecting the physical food as before, but instead they were offered spiritual food.
They too were assigning a literal meaning to His words, or in other words relying on the flesh, rather than the spirit to understand.
 
flyonthewall;7166460:
joe370;7165622:
It makes more since than what you are proposing. If what you are saying is true then when Jesus says this is my Body and this is my Blood, he is really implying that this bread represents my body and this wine represents my Blood. Well why didn’t He say that? Jesus is God. Jesus cannot lie so if Jesus says that this bread once consecrated is my Body and that this wine once consecrated is my Blood then we must take him by His word.
I don’t mean to split hairs but He never said “once conscrated…”.
No where in the Bible does it say that the Eucharist is symbolically the body and blood of Jesus. To be honest it wouldn’t make since because then you have to start asking yourself why Jesus instituted this in the first place. If it is nothing but bread and wine it is truly useless to our salvation and is a waste of time. Eating bread and wine as just a memorial doesn’t make any since. The Bible and teaching/preaching about Jesus is a memorial as well.
Twice in the scriptures it is recorded as to be done in rememberance. In Corinthians it states quite clearly, 3 separate times " For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come". It does not say eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.
To eat and drink the Eucharist/Sacrament unworthily is to not believe in the effecacy of the atonment and basically be like those that turned away and only be there for the food.
Also you need to go back to the Old Testament and study the sacrificial laws of the Jews. There are two things that stand out. One for the sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the sacrifice. So for Christ’s sacrifice to be edifying one must consume the sacrifice, or partake in the body and blood of Jesus. Two the blood was not allowed to be consumed because the blood is the life of the animal. When Jesus institutes the Eucharist, he keeps the consuming of the meat of the sacrifice but He also adds the drinking of the Blood, which is His divine Life.
And what, or should I say who was the animal sacrificed symbolic of? The whole sacrifice thing was representative(symbolic) of the Sacrifice of Christ. Once His sacrifice was made, there was no more physical sacrifices to be made…only spiritual sacrifices.
Since you brought up the blood part, do you believe that you will literally bathe in the blood of Christ?
In your faith, you are correct about one thing. The Lord’s Supper is just a symbolism of the body and blood of Jesus since there is no one in your faith that possesses the power to consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus gave this power only to His Apostles and those that suceed them at Bishops and Priests.
In my faith, we do bless and sanctify the bread -
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
And in my belief, it goes without saying, about the power and authority to administer the ordinances of God.
 
Fly, you responded to post 77 and 78. Those were not my posts that you were responding to, by the way. 🙂
 
Fly, you responded to post 77 and 78. Those were not my posts that you were responding to, by the way. 🙂
Sorry Joe, I try to respond to all the posts directed my way, but I may miss one here and there…not intentionally though.
Which post did I miss? I would be happy to respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top