[Springfield Reformer]

Our Lord spoke Aramaic as His first language.

It was the Holy Spirit who directed the writing of the Greek New Testament, and He speaks all languages perfectly.

The phrase was uttered, we presume, in Aramaic, after which it would have been translated to Koine, then Latin, then English.

Again, you can't leave God out of this equation. God chose to have the Gospels record Jesus describing the bread as His body in a standard metaphor. And He did so in a language that almost anybody, with a little effort, can read.

“So you see the direct metaphor here is indisputable, at least linguistically.”

"No, I don’t"

If you can't, there's nothing I can do to help you.  I assure you, this is easily understood by those who have studied the Greek. I too have studied a number of languages "to one degree or another," and I can tell you that Koine Greek is just another Indo-European language, and even though no one speaks it natively today, it is well within the reach of ordinary people to read with understanding, up to an including nuances such as metaphor.

But I understand it serves the monopolistic purposes of Rome to make it seem inaccessible, such that only the ones with the Catholic "gnosis" have any chance of understanding it.

As for "the large number of accomplished scholars who disagree" with the obvious meaning of a simple metaphorical construct, these "witnesses" suffer from a number of deficiencies. First, they are undefined as to number.  How many Greek scholars past and present really see "estin" the way Aquinas saw it? Tell me the number.  You can't.  You don't know. Neither do I.  It's probably impossible to figure out, so it's a great claim for you to make, because it can't be verified.

Second, those witness who reject the plain metaphor in the text may be biased. If they are Catholic, they have a vested interest in NOT being able to see the obvious. The entire system of sacerdotal power rests on this fabrication that only the priest can summon up the presence of Christ in the host, and so all become totally dependent for their connection to God on this alleged miracle for which there is never a trace of evidence, even among favorable eyewitnesses. It is too convenient. And when a poor humble Bible believer comes along and says, hey, that priestly emperor has no clothes, and that adoration of a mere bloodless wafer sure looks like idolatry, well, I can understand why that might be hard to accept for those who have committed themselves to such a system.

“As for Jesus’ style of communication, it should be obvious to you I am discerning that from the text.”

I suspected that you *think* you are discerning it from the text…and I am amazed that you would think yourself capable of it. Gobsmacked.

Well, what can I say. I've read the Scriptures since I was a child.  Went to Sunday school, learned all the stories. How could any intelligent reader, even an atheist, not get some sense of Jesus' method of teaching, just by a straight reading of the text? It's not that hard to discern.  A child could do it.  Doesn't mean a person's going to believe it.  Miracles and spiritual truth are not received by everyone. But style is an objective fact.  You really think it takes a magic Catholic gnosis to figure out that Jesus is using brilliant metaphor when He says "I am the door?"

“There is no committee intervening between us and these words of Jesus.”

Nonsense. Your interpretations are the ones you like best of the myriad offered to you by those who went before.

Nonsense right back at ya. It is the truest saddest tragedy of this whole thing, which this conversation reflects, that the theory of Sola Roma has as probably its main effect to lock the Bible away from those for whom it was intended, not the wise, not those with the secret tradition that grants the super duper gnosis, but these:

Mat 11:25-26  At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.  (26)  Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

So it is not that I think anything of myself that I can read Scripture with understanding. It's that I credit God with being able to write His message in such large print that even someone as insignificant as me has a chance to hear and believe the wonderful message of love in Christ to fallen humanity.  Is this a miracle too hard for you to believe?

“They come to us directly from the inspired pens of the apostolic authors...They are worth listening to.”

This Protestant notion that just any old moron can understand the Bible without assistance is one of Satan’s best coups.

1Co 1:25-29  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.  (26)  For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:  (27)  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  (28)  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:  (29)  That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Peace,

SR

[dsc]

“It was the Holy Spirit who directed the writing of the Greek New Testament”

He is certainly not directing your misinterpretation thereof.

“Again, you can’t leave God out of this equation. God chose to have the Gospels record Jesus describing the bread as His body in a standard metaphor.”

Incorrect. Luckily we have an actual Greek scholar with us who is qualified to cast light on that matter.

“And He did so in a language that almost anybody, with a little effort, can read.”

And there is that “any moron’s opinion is as good as any genius’s” nonsense again. Satan would probably give up anything before he’d let go of that.

“If you can’t, there’s nothing I can do to help you.”

Sure there is. Figure out where you went wrong on that one, and straighten yourself out. I’d consider it a favor.

“I assure you, this is easily understood by those who have studied the Greek.”

How do you have the brass to assert that when so many actual Greek scholars say you are dead wrong?

“and even though no one speaks it natively today, it is well within the reach of ordinary people to read with understanding, up to an including nuances such as metaphor.”

Utter nonsense. Self-congratulatory nonsense, at that.

“But I understand it serves the monopolistic purposes of Rome to make it seem inaccessible”

When one’s own heart is full of serpentine malice, when that space in one’s chest could accurately be characterized as a nest of vipers, then of course one attributes to others the same poison one finds in one’s self.

It is neither inaccessible nor as easily accessible as some of you Protestants think it is. Were it so accessible, there would not be a single protestant sect, much less the thousands that there are.

“these “witnesses” suffer from a number of deficiencies. First, they are undefined as to number.”

Dude, that is not a “deficiency” from which witnesses suffer. Is English your first language?

“How many Greek scholars past and present really see “estin” the way Aquinas saw it? Tell me the number. You can’t. You don’t know. Neither do I. It’s probably impossible to figure out, so it’s a great claim for you to make, because it can’t be verified.”

Pathetic, sickening sophistry. It is easy to establish that there are many, and that’s all that is required.

“Second, those witness who reject the plain metaphor in the text may be biased.”

Considering the history of that misinterpretation, it is safe to say that those who insist on the metaphor are biased.

“If they are Catholic, they have a vested interest in NOT being able to see the obvious.”

Is that the way you walk through the world? Reminds me of Lenin: “Accuse others of what you do.” Because the Catholics I know have a vested interest in the truth, whatever it may be.

“The entire system of sacerdotal power”

Tell me, what century do you think it is?

“rests on this fabrication that only the priest can summon up the presence of Christ in the host”

Don’t you know even one true thing about Catholicism? Only a priest can confect the sacrament, but there are many other ways to experience the presence of Christ.

“and so all become totally dependent for their connection to God on this alleged miracle for which there is never a trace of evidence, even among favorable eyewitnesses.”

I feel constrained to caution you: going about repeating that sort of lie could be hazardous to your soul. Of course there is evidence.

“And when a poor humble Bible believer comes along and says, hey, that priestly emperor has no clothes, and that adoration of a mere bloodless wafer sure looks like idolatry”

It is certain that the intelligent, the wise, and the holy are not going to put much credence in that sort of malicious bile.

“Well, what can I say.”

Say, “I’m sorry. I will take a sincere look at the nonsense that props up my prejudices.”

“I’ve read the Scriptures since I was a child.”

Oh, since you were a child! Well, why didn’t you say so? It’s obvious that a child would instinctively grasp difficult and subtle matters treated of in the Scriptures. That’s why “a child’s understanding” is the highest praise in every theology department in the world.

“Went to Sunday school, learned all the stories.”

Talk about the blind leading the blind. I went to Sunday school as well, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal Holiness, Assembly of God...I’ve heard the raving about “idolatry” and “sacerdotal power” and all the rest of it. It’s just so much blind hatred.

“How could any intelligent reader”

Whoops, back up there. Are you saying that intelligent people understand the Bible better than the stupid?

Careful now, because you just lost the argument. See you at RCIA.

“even an atheist, not get some sense of Jesus’ method of teaching, just by a straight reading of the text?”

Because there are too many filters erected between Emmanuel and you. Catholics have to deal with far fewer, because the Church has spent the last 2000 years dealing with that problem.

“It’s not that hard to discern. A child could do it.”

Really? Well, then, I guess we should just shut down all the universities and seminaries, because it’s so easy a child could do it.

“But style is an objective fact.”

Yes, just like taste in music.

“You really think it takes a magic Catholic gnosis”

Magic, huh. That’s an example of what I was talking about earlier, where the rules allow personal insults if they are cleverly phrased.

“It is the truest saddest tragedy of this whole thing, which this conversation reflects, that the theory of Sola Roma has as probably its main effect to lock the Bible away from those for whom it was intended”

If a person not a poster on FR were to say something like that, I would have to make inquiries as to that person’s sanity.

“Sola Roma?” Every now and again some Protestant opens another door to a new area of Hell, a horror previously unknown to me where I see souls writhing in torment because they were duped into believing crap like that.

I don’t know what protestant invented the evil lie you call “Sola Roma,” but I’m betting he was Satan’s catamite.

“not the wise”

Right. The stupid.

“not those with the secret tradition”

Oh, now there are secret traditions. Splendid.

“and hast revealed them unto babes.”

Clearly that is a metaphor.

“So it is not that I think anything of myself that I can read Scripture with understanding.”

Yes, it is.

“It’s that I credit God with being able to write His message in such large print that even someone as insignificant as me has a chance to hear and believe the wonderful message of love in Christ to fallen humanity.”

Of course He is able to. However, that would obviate our free will, so He didn’t. The scripture doesn’t say, stand around and scratch your butt and it shall be opened; it says “Knock and it shall be opened.”

Well, what could that metaphor mean? Is there a real door you are supposed to knock on, or does one knock by seeking to learn from the wise and the holy?

“1Co 1:25-29”

If you’re going to quote scripture, you might try quoting something that supports your argument.