Does not follow that the entirety of the creation account is, as you say, literal.JJMt said:
... a literal Adam and original sin.
John 6 and The Doctrine of Transubstantiation
8,381 Views |
126 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Win At Life
I appreciate the response, see 747's response as to why it fails to clearly show that Jesus took the entirety of these chapters literally.
It's a mystery. We leave it to the fathers, men who have been shown by their lives and writings to have been blessed by God to teach on things that most of us will may not experience in full, or be able to explain without introducing an error. I think this whole discussion is laboring over an overdefinition. The sad thing is, this overdefinition has pushed people away, because they say: this is wine, not blood; this is bread, not human flesh.
But, it does matter because it is part of the mystalogical life of the church. The Eucharist is salvific and contributes to our union with God. Why? Because through it we partake of the divine, we literally eat and drink grace. In the Eucharistic celebration is a microcosm of the entirety of our teaching. Every Sunday is passover; every Liturgy is a bloodless reoffering of His Own back to Him. Every consumption of the Lamb is a repeal of the fall by consumption of the apple. Moses told the Israelites that the word (logos) of the Law was their life. This word is our life, physically and spiritually.
But, it does matter because it is part of the mystalogical life of the church. The Eucharist is salvific and contributes to our union with God. Why? Because through it we partake of the divine, we literally eat and drink grace. In the Eucharistic celebration is a microcosm of the entirety of our teaching. Every Sunday is passover; every Liturgy is a bloodless reoffering of His Own back to Him. Every consumption of the Lamb is a repeal of the fall by consumption of the apple. Moses told the Israelites that the word (logos) of the Law was their life. This word is our life, physically and spiritually.
In John 6:30-69, Yeshua said "I am the bread of life" (6:35) and "I am the living bread" (6:51). But also in the Gospel of John, alone, Yeshua similarly said:
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world."
John 9:5 "I am the light of the world."
John 10:7 "I am the door of the sheep."
John 10:9 "I am the door"
John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd"
John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd"
John 15:1 "I am the true vine"
John 15:5 "I am the vine"
So if we're to believe Yeshau is actually literal bread, then we might also believe he's literal visible light, a literal door, a literal shepherd and a literal vine. We don't go around worshiping doors and vines. This seems silly, because these are all symbols or metaphors. It was a common figure of speech then, as it is now, to say something "IS" something else, which is merely a stronger way of saying something "IS LIKE" something else metaphorically speaking. Yeshau uses both these forms of speech, just as we do today, and there's no reason to interpret them as anything other than metaphors at their face value before looking for deeper meanings.
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world."
John 9:5 "I am the light of the world."
John 10:7 "I am the door of the sheep."
John 10:9 "I am the door"
John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd"
John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd"
John 15:1 "I am the true vine"
John 15:5 "I am the vine"
So if we're to believe Yeshau is actually literal bread, then we might also believe he's literal visible light, a literal door, a literal shepherd and a literal vine. We don't go around worshiping doors and vines. This seems silly, because these are all symbols or metaphors. It was a common figure of speech then, as it is now, to say something "IS" something else, which is merely a stronger way of saying something "IS LIKE" something else metaphorically speaking. Yeshau uses both these forms of speech, just as we do today, and there's no reason to interpret them as anything other than metaphors at their face value before looking for deeper meanings.
Find where He said "indeed my body is TRULY a door".
The closest is John 15:1, but the word for true is alethinos. -inos means from or of, like we would say this is made of glass (hyalos) would be hual-inos, glassy. Christ says He is the true vine, atethinos, the vine of truth. Not as opposed to falsehood, but as opposed to something less than true in an ontological way. This is the way it is used in Hebrews of the real (alethine) tabernacle. Not opposed to a false, but the real deal as opposed to something less than actual.
This is not the same statement as in John 6, where He said alethes, which is more like what we would say as true as the opposite of false. This is a verifiable truth, a testable truth. He said, my flesh is truly food, meaning, if my flesh isn't actual food this statement is false.
The closest is John 15:1, but the word for true is alethinos. -inos means from or of, like we would say this is made of glass (hyalos) would be hual-inos, glassy. Christ says He is the true vine, atethinos, the vine of truth. Not as opposed to falsehood, but as opposed to something less than true in an ontological way. This is the way it is used in Hebrews of the real (alethine) tabernacle. Not opposed to a false, but the real deal as opposed to something less than actual.
This is not the same statement as in John 6, where He said alethes, which is more like what we would say as true as the opposite of false. This is a verifiable truth, a testable truth. He said, my flesh is truly food, meaning, if my flesh isn't actual food this statement is false.
JJMt said:
Agreed that Jesus never said "I believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literally true." However, that belief certainly is assumed in and forms the basis for his statements, and any contrary belief makes his statements head scratchers.
And I don't know many folks who don't take the first chapters literally, but nevertheless believe in a literal Adam, original sin, and the fall and its consequences (forgot to put that in my earlier post). An ancient earth necessitates death before the fall.
One has to do mental and theological gymnastics to try to believe the Bible but not take the first 11 chapters literally. I didn't take them literally for the first 45 years of my life, and thus couldn't find a way to take any other part of the Bible literally and retain my intellectual honesty.
But then, unlike Catholics, you believe what Jesus said.
You are working very hard to make a non-obvious distinction that forces Yeshua out to be a sinner and Torah breaker. I believe Yeshau was the only one to ever keep the Law perfectly and not sin. If there is a plausible interpretation of what Yeshua said that is in keeping with His Torah keeping, then why would you choose a strained interpretation that also makes our LORD our to be a sinner and violator of His own Words? Odd.
It's not a strained interpretation, the word has a meaning. The fact that you don't understand the words, which by themselves are perfectly clear, doesn't mean that it's a strained interpretation. Go read the Strong's entries for those words. Here, I'll link them for you.Win At Life said:
You are working very hard to make a non-obvious distinction that forces Yeshua out to be a sinner and Torah breaker. I believe Yeshau was the only one to ever keep the Law perfectly and not sin. If there is a plausible interpretation of what Yeshua said that is in keeping with His Torah keeping, then why would you choose a strained interpretation that also makes our LORD our to be a sinner and violator of His own Words? Odd.
Alethes
Alethinos
Win At Life said:
You are working very hard to make a non-obvious distinction that forces Yeshua out to be a sinner and Torah breaker. I believe Yeshau was the only one to ever keep the Law perfectly and not sin. If there is a plausible interpretation of what Yeshua said that is in keeping with His Torah keeping, then why would you choose a strained interpretation that also makes our LORD our to be a sinner and violator of His own Words? Odd.
What is the sin?
It really is his blood. It really is His body.
You're getting stuck on the concept that spiritual and physical reality are somehow unequal or perhaps opposed.
When you got baptized, were you a new creation? If a scientist measured you, was there any difference in your molecular makeup before and after? No. But are you willing to say that the scriptures are false? They say we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). Are we not a new creation? Of course we are, we were fresh-born of the Spirit. We really are a new creation when we are baptized.
In the same way, there is a real change - pick any term you like from the list I posted to describe it - that happens at the Eucharist.
You're getting stuck on the concept that spiritual and physical reality are somehow unequal or perhaps opposed.
When you got baptized, were you a new creation? If a scientist measured you, was there any difference in your molecular makeup before and after? No. But are you willing to say that the scriptures are false? They say we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). Are we not a new creation? Of course we are, we were fresh-born of the Spirit. We really are a new creation when we are baptized.
In the same way, there is a real change - pick any term you like from the list I posted to describe it - that happens at the Eucharist.
It's not subjective, it is what the word means. Alethos is the adverb for alethes. True : Truly.
The point of the OP was, I believe, that it is a spiritual symbol.
That is not what I believe, that is not what the Church teaches, that is not what Christ said. It really is His Body and it really is His Blood. As I've said, anything beyond that is, in my opinion, unpious speculation.
That is not what I believe, that is not what the Church teaches, that is not what Christ said. It really is His Body and it really is His Blood. As I've said, anything beyond that is, in my opinion, unpious speculation.
If it his body is truly, literally, really, authentically, actually... (etc) IS food and drink, then why does it still look, taste, smell, feel, etc like bread and wine?
You would think with that word for "truth" he would be referring to both spiritual and physical matters, but you deny the physical and state that it is spiritually.
You would think with that word for "truth" he would be referring to both spiritual and physical matters, but you deny the physical and state that it is spiritually.
You're gonna hang your hat on the difference between:
My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink
And
My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink?
My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink
And
My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink?
Before the incarnation of Christ, God had no physical form. Was He not real?
Christ, who is 100% God and 100% Man, can't create a substance that is 100% body and 100% bread?
if anything, its an illustration of how beautifully consistent God is in His divine wisdom.
if anything, its an illustration of how beautifully consistent God is in His divine wisdom.
I believe he is referring to telling people to truly eat him and drink his blood. I know that consumption of blood is against Torah, I don't believe that cannibalism is specifically forbidden but I know that it is not regarded as positive, considering cannibalism is referenced among the curses for disobedience.
I'm not limiting God.swimmerbabe11 said:
Christ, who is 100% God and 100% Man, can't create a substance that is 100% body and 100% bread?
Wisdom? If that wine is somehow, literally/truly blood, he is telling people to violate his own original covenant. I would list references, but I'm sure you can google "I will not violate my covenant".Quote:
if anything, its an illustration of how beautifully consistent God is in His divine wisdom.
Interesting point. Why did God forbid them from drinking blood? Because the blood is the life.
I think this is where we may start bordering on unpious speculations..but If I must, the retention of the physical aspect of bread and wine...rather than transforming it like the river of Egypt maintains the covenant. Rather, it is as He was, ineffable and of two natures.
So, he won't alter his covenant but he'll find loopholes through it?
And what is problematic with the two nature perspective in this instance (communion), is that on the one hand you are claiming that he is speaking to one nature, yet now you claim it is the other nature. The first, the physical body is food and drink, now it is the bread and wine that is now spiritually his body.
You guys are doing some theological gymnastics to get to that point.
And what is problematic with the two nature perspective in this instance (communion), is that on the one hand you are claiming that he is speaking to one nature, yet now you claim it is the other nature. The first, the physical body is food and drink, now it is the bread and wine that is now spiritually his body.
You guys are doing some theological gymnastics to get to that point.
I think this is way less difficult a teaching than Christ as fully God and fully man. Weird how both are received by consensus tradition from the Church, but on is rejected because it's "gymnastics".
No one argued against this tradition of the Church until Zwingli, excepting the gnostics who denied the physical aspect of Christ as well, as we've discussed.
I am glad that the connotation between the commingling of physical and spiritual was noticed and related to the Incarnation, because as the tie-in with gnostic heresies show, there is probably some theological significance for us to learn.
No one argued against this tradition of the Church until Zwingli, excepting the gnostics who denied the physical aspect of Christ as well, as we've discussed.
I am glad that the connotation between the commingling of physical and spiritual was noticed and related to the Incarnation, because as the tie-in with gnostic heresies show, there is probably some theological significance for us to learn.
The word that you're looking for his "evidence". We accept the gospels as evidence that he is both God and Man, God because of what he did (signs and wonders) and taught, but also Man because he also ate, slept, grew weary, bled, and died.Quote:
I think this is way less difficult a teaching than Christ as fully God and fully man. Weird how both are received by consensus tradition from the Church, but on is rejected because it's "gymnastics".
Meanwhile, there is no "evidence" that bread and wine somehow become's more than bread and wine.
You sure about that? You do realise that Luther and the reformation was the first group to question tradition and dogma and survive, whereas other people before them were simply excommunicated, killed, or otherwise silenced, right?Quote:
No one argued against this tradition of the Church until Zwingli, excepting the gnostics who denied the physical aspect of Christ as well, as we've discussed.
So the dozens upon dozens of writings aren't evidence? St Ignatius clear an explicit teaching in ~108 AD is, what, exactly?
We have as much evidence for the Trinity as we have for the Eucharist. In some ways, the Eucharist has more evidence because there is no words of Christ saying "I am ACTUAL God and the spirit is ACTUAL God" yet we do have Him saying "my flesh is ACTUAL food and my blood is ACTUAL drink".
As for the Reformation vs other earlier heretics. You're on unsteady ground here, because you're back to supposing that actual Christianity was lost or defeated by evil heretical teaching. That's a real shame, because that means Christ was wrong, the gates of Hell prevailed, and basically everything -- including the scriptures themselves -- are unreliable.
There were heresies that denied Christ being both God and man, heresies that denied he was God at all, heresies that said the Spirit wasn't God...TONS of them. You just never thought to question that because it's been an explicit orthodox teaching for so long.Quote:
They [gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
We have as much evidence for the Trinity as we have for the Eucharist. In some ways, the Eucharist has more evidence because there is no words of Christ saying "I am ACTUAL God and the spirit is ACTUAL God" yet we do have Him saying "my flesh is ACTUAL food and my blood is ACTUAL drink".
As for the Reformation vs other earlier heretics. You're on unsteady ground here, because you're back to supposing that actual Christianity was lost or defeated by evil heretical teaching. That's a real shame, because that means Christ was wrong, the gates of Hell prevailed, and basically everything -- including the scriptures themselves -- are unreliable.
Quote:
yet we do have Him saying "my flesh is ACTUAL food and my blood is ACTUAL drink
But you and yours maintain that the bread and wine miraculously becomes his body. Otherwise you're left in the quandry that he took them with him in the ascension.
I'm on a hunt for original Christianity. As I've stated before, I earnestly believe that any biblical figure would be just as lost in an Orthodox service as they would in Creflo Dollars church. What we do today seems to have very little in common with what they practiced in the bible. I find myself more drawn towards what Ramblin and others do.Quote:
As for the Reformation vs other earlier heretics. You're on unsteady ground here, because you're back to supposing that actual Christianity was lost or defeated by evil heretical teaching. That's a real shame, because that means Christ was wrong, the gates of Hell prevailed, and basically everything -- including the scriptures themselves -- are unreliable.
It does and He did. There's no quandary.
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
8
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
Bruce Almighty
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6
country
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4