Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

[NotWorthy]

I’m not sure it can be shown that the Holy Spirit guided this interpretation. On the other hand, I can’t disprove it.

I will say that Calvinists do believe in “real presence.” We don’t take the passage as completely figurative. We believe Jesus is spiritually present in the elements. I can’t speak for other protestant demonintions, however.

Yeah, that’s why Jesus said, "My flesh is Spiritual Flesh indeed", eh?

Oh wait, that’s not what He said!!! Now I’m confused!

 

[Stewart42]

He also said that he was the “true vine.” Do you believe that he is made of wood?

 

[NotWorthy]

He also said that he was the “true vine.” Do you believe that he is made of wood?

Ah, but He never said “This is my body, now water it.”

He did however give them His Body, and then claimed that “They should Abide in Him, just as He Abides in Them”. The last time he used that phrase was in John 6 when He was talking about His Flesh being food.

Beside, the Vine is true imagery, rather beautiful imagery I might add. Just as the Sheepgate is, for we can all see where Jesus is leading with these images. But the eating (actually, gnawing and grinding on Jesus’ bones) does not evoke an imagery that is very Inspiring. The symoblic means for this word (“Trago”) actually invokes the opposite of what Jesus is trying to say. It would translate as, “He who hates and reviles me wil have Everlasting Life”. “Uh, Jesus, would you come again with that? I didn’t quite pick up what you were putting down”.

Let me ask you something, you understand Typology, I assume. When does something point to something that is a symbol? For instance, Adam is a type of Jesus. Noah and the flood were a type of Baptism. Do any types point toward a symbol? Just curious, as I’ve never asked this question before.

 

[Stewart42]

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”

Exodus 17:6 “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

The same meal the Israelites ate in the wilderness is the same one we eat today. Paul says it was Christ and Moses said it was water. So which is it?

 

[NotWorthy]

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”

Exodus 17:6 “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

The same meal the Israelites ate in the wilderness is the same one we eat today. Paul says it was Christ and Moses said it was water. So which is it?

Stewart, what is your point? Are you saying Christ was giving them Spiritual Food and Drink, just like now? What’s the use of the New Covenant?

The Spiriual Food and Drink that Moses gave them is “Real Food and Drink Indeed”, today!!!

 

[Stewart42]

Stewart, what is your point? Are you saying Christ was giving them Spiritual Food and Drink, just like now? What’s the use of the New Covenant?

No, I’m saying the “Spiritual Food and Drink” was Christ, just like the text says. It was physically water but spiritually Christ. This was a “type” of Eucharists. And Paul says the same stuff they ate is what we eat. So, were the Israelites drinking water or blood? Exodus says it was water, but Paul says it was Christ. How do you explain this?

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I’m saying the “Spiritual Food and Drink” was Christ, just like the text says. It was physically water but spiritually Christ. This was a “type” of Eucharists. And Paul says the same stuff they ate is what we eat. So, were the Israelites drinking water or blood? Exodus says it was water, but Paul says it was Christ. How do you explain this?

I understand that the Spiritual Rock was Christ. What does Christ say in John?

It could only be an incomplete Typology of the Bread and the Eucharist. Stewart, you should know that all Typology of the OT is just a shadow of the things to come, I’m surprised at you. Christ even says so himself. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died (This is what you and St. Paul are referring to as “spiritual food”); But Jesus shows what His Flesh is: this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

I will say that Calvinists do believe in “real presence.” .

Hello Steward!

 Peace and all good to you my brother in  Christ! I'm glad to hear from you once again!

I’m not sure it can be shown that the Holy Spirit guided this interpretation. On the other hand, I can’t disprove it.

We have discussed already (and I thing we both agree on this point) although scripture is the word of God, there needs to be body (either person or persons) that interprets, inspired by the Holy Spirit, what the true meaning is. The question you imply with this statement is an important one: How do I know that this body interpreting scripture is in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Well for one thing Jesus promised to his apostles that “The advocate; the Holy Spirit…He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” Therefore we can be sure that the 11 apostles had this spirit, and also we know that the same Spirit was given to Matias, which was elected after Judas dead, and also it was given to Paul which was not one of the twelve. And we see how the same spirit was passed on to others by the imposition of hands. So as we can see it was not a once in history event, the Holy Spirit was passed from one person to the next.

There is historical record showing that John 6 was interpreted by the first Christians as literal and not symbolically. So the question is did this Spirit, which allowed for this interpretation, and who was the interpretation of Jesus words for the first 1500 years the Christian era, remained silent after the death of the aposples only to reapear during the Reformation? If we use the litmus test imposed by the "Sola Scripturalists" and look to scripture, we see that in fact the spirit of God does not behaves in this way. From the events of Exodus, God has never abandoned his people, yes they where times that it looked that God had forsaken them, but you and I know that he was always there by means of his prophets and his message never changed.  

 So it seems to me that the evidence leans towards the fact that the  interpretation of these passages for the first 1500 years of the church was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I would be interested in seen how giving examples from scripture we can see that this sort of behavior from the Holy Spirit can be justified.

I will say that Calvinists do believe in “real presence.” .

In this thread I’m only concerned about scripture interpretation, and its historical context. I will be more than willing to discussed the dogma of the Real Presence with you but perhaps we should start a new thread.

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hello G!

Blessing to you my brother in Christ.

Maybe custom is responsible, & not the Holy Spirit. Why should simple inertia not be involved ? I don’t see how it can be excluded a priori.​

Actually, that would be justifiable if Jesus would have said “You guys are on your own” but he promised the Paraclete to those that believed in him. See my answer to Steward for a more detailed rational.

Has that chapter - that verse, even - always been regarded as referring to the Eucharist ? I don’t know. As for changes in interpretation - Proverbs 8.22 is just one passage to be interpreted differently by different Fathers. They are not unanimous in their exegesis of all the passages they all interpret, nor do they need to be.​

Precisely! If you study the development of dogma you will see that many interpretations are given for specific passages. It is only when the magisterium of the church makes a solemn proclamation that the question is settled in the mean time theological investigation continues. Which means that just because a father of the church talks about it does not means is correct.

I don’t trust statements of the “The Church has always taught X” kind - simply because X has often not been taught always. There is far too much confusion of unity in faith with uniformity understood as total absence of variety, too little attention to the detail of the past, too much defensiveness.

Agreed! (at least the second part)

There is nothing “literal” in the Eucharist Presence - if people are going to talk about the details of Eucharistic theology & metaphysics, they need to master the appropriate terminology: theology is discussed with an imprecision & lack of care that would never be tolerated in discussing less important things such as mathematics or medicine. But everyone is an instant expert in theology, even if they know nothing about it That’s one of the great evils of the WWW.

I’m confused and a little taken a back by this statement. I never talked about the True Presence, I have always referred to the interpretation of a scriptural passage. My interest was hermeneutical not theological. I really doubt that my 4 years of theology make me an expert in some of the more esoteric areas of this science. I apologize if I ever gave that impression.

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon