Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

but He didn’t. He was quite clear.

“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”


3 posted on 01/28/2015 1:32:58 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kidd; RnMomof7
If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.” but He didn’t. He was quite clear. “This is My body” and “This is My blood.

Sure...right. So, based on that, I assume that whenever you say anything -- ANYTHING that is symbolic, you ALWAYS say, "x represents y...."

Really?

So... is Time really Money? Or is it symbolic?

If The Lord's Supper were as the Roman Catholic Cult says it it, there would have been cannibalism in the Upper Room. But, there wasn't, was there?

Instead of having to invoke symbolism, maybe he said what he said with the knowledge that the apostles understood the symbolism in what he said.

Hoss

4 posted on 01/28/2015 1:44:23 PM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

If one applies that level of literal to the scriptures, then Peter is Satan. In the very same chapter that Catholics claim the establishment of Peter as the head of the Church (Mat 16), Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The scriptures are full of symbolism


5 posted on 01/28/2015 1:48:25 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd
“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”

/thread

6 posted on 01/28/2015 1:53:44 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd
If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”


Not true. What jesus said is the normal structure of direct metaphor, A is B.  It is used all the time and in less controversial settings no one is confused by its meaning.  If I point to a map of Texas, and say, "This is Texas," you don't think I really mean the paper is actually a state with real people living on it.  At least I hope you don't.  That's because our brains are wired to spot the comparison of two dissimilar domains for the purpose of getting information by analogy.  It is one of the most basic methods by which we learn, we take a known object, and compare it to a less well known object, so we can learn something about that less well known object.  It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt.  By this new meaning, as Christ gave it, we are to remember what He has done to deliver us from our own slavery to sin.

Peace,

SR
7 posted on 01/28/2015 1:54:49 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd
If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

but He didn’t. He was quite clear.

“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”

Joh_6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Well this proves you to be 100% wrong...Have any more words of wisdom to bless us with???

8 posted on 01/28/2015 1:58:44 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

**but He didn’t. He was quite clear.**

You sure about that?

John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” (Does He have splinters and hinges from the time of His birth?)

John 10:11: “I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (Did He really tend to literal sheep? Did He die for fluffy, white animals?)

John 15:1: “I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (Does He have roots and bunches of grapes dangling from His fingers?)


9 posted on 01/28/2015 2:07:33 PM PST by Gamecock (Joel Osteen is a preacher of the Gospel like Colonel Sanders is an Army officer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

He was quite clear in that same conversation to say “my words are spirit” and “the flesh profiteth nothing”. Why do Catholics stop before giving Christ the chance to explain?


14 posted on 01/28/2015 2:27:05 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

Jesus said He was the bread of life, the gate, and the true vine.

Does that mean He’s made of flour and water, wood, or leaves and stems?

Why didn’t He say that those things represent His body?

Why don’t Catholics take Him literally for those statements?


21 posted on 01/28/2015 3:03:01 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd
This is why communion is symbolic.

Because then it doesn't contradict the rest of Scripture, which claiming that Jesus commanded people to eat the blood would do.

Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood

Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.

Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

22 posted on 01/28/2015 3:04:27 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

Let’s take some other things literally.

Where are the streams of living water that are flowing out of your belly?


23 posted on 01/28/2015 3:05:34 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd

I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.


30 posted on 01/28/2015 3:28:38 PM PST by virgil (The evil that men do lives after them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd
If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

Did the apostles eat the REAL ACTUAL FLESH of Christ at the last Passover? Did Jesus also eat His real actual flesh ?

31 posted on 01/28/2015 3:30:44 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: kidd; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

The Lord also did not say "this is turned into my body and body," while using this hermeneutic then you much regard statement as "I am the door" as literal, as well as those by others such as David who plainly stated the water was the blood of men.

I am fighting a cold and am not posting much but will supply some of what i have written in the past on this. Which usually centers on Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,

speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, in which Nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. And as such it must exclude all who deny the physical interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.

For as in John and elsewhere, souls obtain spiritual and eternal life by believing on the Lord Jesus as the Divine Son of God, being born of the Spirit in conversion in believing the gospel message, not by consuming the Lord's Supper. Which is nowhere preached in Acts or elsewhere is the means of regeneration.

And then they live by Christ by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God as means of grace, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them., (Col. 3:16) Which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as again, Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

In contrast, nowhere is the Lord's supper described as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves.

Rather, the Lord's supper in its only manifest description in the life of the church with any detail, is that in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. As shown and explained more here. .

Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.

That is the problem of relying on CA, whose specious polemics have been refuted time and time again, while if these erroneous interpretation of Scripture are not official ones, then they could be contradicted by other Catholic teaching, as some are. And is contrary to the goal of apologetics, which is to try to convince evangelicals by Scripture to trust in the assured veracity of Rome for determination and assurance of Truth.

Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?

48 posted on 01/28/2015 4:42:19 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson