Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[chestertonrules]

Was Chesterton a Theologian?

No. Bishop Spong is though. Your point?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No. Bishop Spong is though. Your point?

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Shelby Spong (born June 16, 1931 in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States) is the retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Newark (based in Newark, New Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, Biblical scholar, religion commentator and author.
He promotes traditionally liberal causes, such as racial equality. He also calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief, away from what he defines as theism and from the afterlife as reward or punishment for human behavior.

 

[racer]

Are you implying that I interpret privately?

No. I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it as a fact. There is no way to avoid private interpretation. You've made a decisioin based upon what knowledge you possess as to what you believe. That decision is that the church to which you belong is THE church. That's private interpretation.

Well, I can tell you honestly that I don't.

I believe you may honestly believe that you don't. But, like I said there is no way to avoid it.

I ask my Spiritual Father if I am confused by a verse.

Only if you think your confused? What about the other times when you don't thing you are confused? How do you know that you understand the verse correctly?

And if you submit to what your church and spiritual father teach, how do you know that what they teach is right unless you have some concept of what you believe to be the truth upon which you base your acceptance of those teachings?

We will be judge according to the decisions we make during our earthly sojourn, not according to whether or not we attend the Church that possesses what we believe to be the truth.

But usually the footnotes explain if I don't get it.

I have study bible with footnotes, also. Clearly you and I believe differently, so the footnotes are a sure source either.

quote]So, I adhere to those who first interpreted the Bible, not my own interpretations because I know that I am not the Apostles or the successors who learned at their knees.[/quote]
How do you know anything if you do not exercise private interpretation? Like I said, you can not discern which church is teaching all "truth" if you do not privately interpret.

They certainly know better what everything means in the Bible better than I or anyone here.

What makes you think so? What is your evidence?

So, why not go with what has already been translated and interpreted as the truth from the beginning that depart from this and try to go it alone on your own belief of what verses mean?

How do you know that's what you are doing? Because somebody else told you so?

I am certainly in no position or the authority to do so.

Why do you believe this?

And you are right, I do not know more than you. Probably less.

It's not that "I" know more than anybody else. It's just that there is no one else who has any more asurity than the next person that they are properly discerning the truth and in doing so belong to the correct congregation of the church.

But neither of us know better than the Apostles and their successors who originally interpreted Scripture. So, better to go with their interpretations than my faulty own.

But the only way you and I know what the apostles taught is by having access to the Bible or access to those who teach what is contained in Scripture.

 

[racer]

Why would evangelical Christians go to a country which is in the majority Christian, and go to preach the Gospel to Orthodox Christians (say in Russia)? Why are they trying to teach Christians about Christ when they already know?

Well, I can not speak for what other Christians do. However, I would guess that they truly believe that the beliefs that they hold are the truth and that the Orthodox teaching is lacking something or perhaps teaches something contradictory to Scripture.

Personally, I haven't found an Orthodox belief that even appears to be anti-biblical or contra-biblical. I think that as is with all faiths, they have some teachings that are not necessarily defined or revealed in Scripture. But, like I said, people of all faiths can be accused of that.

 

[racer]

I don't think that is what it means at all.

In this thread, I have been trying to explain that some of the terminology in the ECF quotes is no longer understood in the same way.

Thekla, there are enough Protestant theologians who are well versed and understand the terminology of the ECFs. Yet, they still do not understand the teachings to be as elusive as do those who assert that Protestants are wrong. It is basically implied that not only are we to trust our own discernment of Scripture, but neither can we trust our understanding of what the church fathers taught. Well, exactly when and at what point do we trust our discernment of what we understand anybody to be teaching? How do we determine whether to believe the theologians who teach what Orthodoxy teaches or what theologians of protestant denominations teach? IOWs, how exactly do we determine who is teaching it right? If we can't trust our understanding of what is explicitly stated by an ECF or the Bible, how do we know who and when to trust?

As a parallel, I used the example of "humor" in Medieval vs. modern understanding. The modern use is much narrower, and does not refer to the balance of all four bodily humors resulting in many different temperaments one of which could be 'funny'.

St. Augustine explicitly uses the terms "metaphor" and "figure." How does this allow room for a "literal" understanding of the Real Presence?

As for personal interpretation, it is also a matter of what erroneous interpretations were embraced along the way; all 'major heresies' (Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.) were supported using scripture.

Absolutely, nobody denies that Scripture can be twiested or wrested to support virtually any belief system. Nor does anyone assert that Sola Scriptura protects against erroneous interpretations. Why is that so hard to understand? This argument is based on a presumption that the Church was given any guarantee against incorrect teachings or incorrect interpretations. There are only two groups that believe this--the Orthodox and the Catholics. And, they don't believe the same. Therefore, somewhere in one of these churches somebody or group of somebodies got something wrong.

So there is a "danger". Further, there is a matter of knowledge (how much of the Holy Scriptures one has read, how deeply they have been studied and for how long) and spiritual maturity.

Yes, it's dangerous, but at the end of the day, you answer for what you believe and practice based upon what you have decerned to be the truth. Even if you check you personal interpretation at the door of your church, we are judged individually, therefore we are drawn individually, thus guided by the Holy Spirit individually.

 

[racer]

No. Bishop Spong is though. Your point?

My point is clear.

 

[chestertonrules]

My point is clear.

I guess I'm just dense then.

 

[racer]

It is both; the spiritual is present in the physical and transforms or in some way affects the created.

If there was a Real Presence literally then of course it would be both, but we know that this is not what Augustine taught because he, also, said this:

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13

So, what is the confusion with terminology (old vs. modern) in this statement?

 

[racer]

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Shelby Spong (born June 16, 1931 in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States) is the retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Newark (based in Newark, New Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, Biblical scholar, religion commentator and author.
He promotes traditionally liberal causes, such as racial equality. He also calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief, away from what he defines as theism and from the afterlife as reward or punishment for human behavior.

LLOJ,

You remind me of that internet search engine (Google?) commercial. You know, the one where someone asks a person something and that person zeros in on one particular word and starts rattling off sights that may have popped up as a result of their search?

 

[chestertonrules]

If there was a Real Presence literally then of course it would be both, but we know that this is not what Augustine taught because he, also, said this:

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13

So, what is the confusion with terminology (old vs. modern) in this statement?

You are demonstrating a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

From Trento's post:

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)


"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)


"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)


"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)


"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)


"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)



"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)



"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)



"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)



"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)


St. Augustine gives us the fallowing evidence from his writings.


The bread having been sanctified "IS THE BODY OF CHRIST


The wine having been sanctified "IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST


When Christ said "THIS IS MY BODY" He carried "HIS OWN BODY" in "HIS OWN HANDS


Christ is "IMMOLATED" (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or "making present" before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice


Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him.


All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ's Sacrifice in Holy Communion


The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers -- the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died "in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ" so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins.


Christ gave us His own flesh "to be eaten unto salvation" and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation.​

 

[Thekla]

I'm not necessarily addressing the term "symbol."

I was not clear enough in pointing out that that was precisely what I was doing -- the quoted passage did indeed support the real presence. I realize it was an illustration to support the position that a particular understanding of Holy Scripture was clear and that the ECFs did not support 'real presence'. But the conceptual ground from which the quote arose is starkly dissimilar to the modern conceptual ground for the same terminology. So, the quote was used with an anachronistic view.

In order to correctly assess what the ECFs were saying, and use their words to support or deny a position, then it seemed that to understand the conceptual ground of their statements is important. In quoting the ECFs on the issue of 'real presence', one can easily misunderstand what is being said based on the interim shifts in understanding of the terminology.

The quote that was provided against the 'real presence' when read with the earlier conceptual range in fact supports real presence. In the additional quote I later provided, the idea of interpenetration (of created and spiritual elements ie symbolon) is clearly described.

Metaphor is also used in these passages (describing like attributes); the similarity of aspects of the nature and use of the created elements to the manner in which the spiritual works in us describes the 'parallels' (leaving aside, as is wont in metaphor, aspects that do not 'harmonize').

The discussion of metaphor is different but related to the symbolon.
The typical benefit of eating/consuming the created elements is subsumed by the spiritual, or is secondary to the parallel benefit of consuming the Eucharist, the symbolon, which confers parallel benefits but of a spiritual action/nature. [/quote]

Absolutely, nobody denies that Scripture can be twiested or wrested to support virtually any belief system. Nor does anyone assert that Sola Scriptura portects against erroneous interpretations. Why is that so hard to understand.

It isn't. I wasn't engaged in that part of the discussion. But on that matter, I don't think Arius or Nestorius, etc. were deliberately twisting scripture to support a pre-conceived position. In the EO, it is intellectualizing the scripture that is warned against, ie. not accepting it at face value and trying to "fit" the actions of God into what we find logically "plausible" or "comfortable". Thus, the Holy Scriptures cannot be understood unless they are lived.

This argument is based on a presumption that the Church was given any guarantee against incorrect teachings or incorrect interpretations. There are only two groups that believe this--the Orthodox and the Catholics. And, they don't believe the same. Therefore, somewhere in one of these churches somebody or group of somebodies got something wrong.

OK

Yes, it's dangerous, but at the end of the day, you answer for what you believe and practice based upon what you have decerned to be the truth. Even if you check you personal interpretation at the door of your church, we are judged individually, therefore we are drawn individually, thus guided by the Holy Spirit individually.

We are judged individually, we are saved as body.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla, there are enough Protestant theologians who are well versed and understand the terminology of the ECFs. Yet, they still do not understand the teachings to be as elusive as do those who assert that Protestants are wrong.

I don't find the ECFs "elusive", I think that some of their terminology is no longer understood in the same way. Perhaps you can find a discussion of the evolution of the understanding of "symbol" in the protestant theologians you reference. This topic (the changing meaning of symbol) can be found in academic works on Art and Anthropology etc.

If the protestant theologians on the ECFs you refer to are always correct, is that not merely replacing the "location of infallibility" ?

It is basically implied that not only are we to trust our own discernment of Scripture, but neither can we trust our understanding of what the church fathers taught.

Not my intention.

Well, exactly when and at what point do we trust our discernment of what we understand anybody to be teaching? How do we determine whether to believe the theologians who teach what Orthodoxy teaches or what theologians of protestant denominations teach? IOWs, how exactly do we determine who is teaching it right? If we can't trust our understanding of what is explicitly stated by an ECF or the Bible, how do we know who and when to trust?

As you have said before, that is ultimately up to you. As for myself, I understand that I don't know everything, and research and learn what I can. I am aware of the problems of inter-cultural understanding or - more often - misunderstanding. For the most part, I pray too.

St. Augustine explicitly uses the terms "metaphor" and "figure." How does this allow room for a "literal" understanding of the Real Presence?

Metaphor does not preclude the existence of symbol. As before, metaphor describes the similar elements or attributes of dissimilar things. It may be used to describe the 'elements' of the symbol, but does not mean that the symbol in itself is metaphor. In a sense, the metaphor is a 'side by side' comparison (describing one thing in terms of the other by the use of commonalities) whereas symbol is the face of an actual interpenetration where the face (a part) makes present the whole as a reality.

By figure, does he mean "typos" ? I'll need to go back and find the quote, so I can read more closely again. But in general, a figure or typos is a "shadow" or dimmer seeing of what actually "is" or "will be".

 

[Thekla]

Please tell us how something can be more clearly stated than this:

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

We possess him by faith WITHOUT SEEING HIM. Rules out physical/literal/corporeal REAL presence. If you guys want to talk symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual, we can go there. But, He is not here in the flesh.

Is this from a discussion on the Eucharist, or something else -- do you have the context ? I'll search for it as I can...

Of course, in the Eucharist we "see" bread and wine, but the 'content' of the Eucharist is not defined by what we physically see.

To add: everyone who "saw" Christ did not visually have affirmation that who they were seeing was God - except at the Transfiguration.

 

[Thekla]

Among Christian writings that came to be viewed as "orthodox", it is the case for "is" meaning "is". The Eucharist is simultaneously attested to be spiritual food. Remember, the then current understanding of "symbol" denoted an interpenetration where the part made present the wholeness. When the term 'symbolon' is used, it is not meant in its modern sense (which is closer to metaphor, "to carry together" as opposed to an interpenetration).

I have slowly (sorry !!) been working on the "metaphor project" I told you I would do to help on the matter. I did take a break for the holidays (too busy ).

I have used both of the Greek verbs for "eat" (esthiw, trwgw) in order to be complete. There are hundreds plus verses where these words are used in the LXX OT, hence the time spent slogging ...

To follow, for each verse I read that utilizes either of these words, I weed out those that are not metaphorical (where actual eating is described). The following is a list from verses where the usage is possibly metaphorical:

Genesis (total occurrences, 44) potentially metaphoric uses:
39:6, 40: 17 & 19, 45:18, 47:22, 49:27

Exodus (total occurrence 32) potential metaphoric uses:
none

Leviticus (total occurrence 65): potentially metaphoric uses:
7:19-21, 25:9, 26:10, 26:16, 26:9

Numbers (total occurrences 18) potentially metaphoric uses:
23:24, 24:8

The several verses I mentioned previously where "eat flesh" is used metaphorically for "attack" are in the thread in the subforum where the discussion started.

I will continue, though it is slow going.
Thanks for your patience

Hi, Racer --

thought this may have been missed in the forward march (or run) of this thread. Perhaps you have had some time to investigate the Biblical use of "eat flesh" too ? As I said, I've been slow !

Also, a caution -- as the verses here are from the LXX, you may have to correlate with an online LXX.

 

[racer]

I was not clear enough in pointing out that that was precisely what I was doing -- the quoted passage did indeed support the real presence.

Which passage? And instead of using another term as an example, show me how he usage of the words "metaphor" and "figure" support the Real Presence.
I realize it was an illustration to support the position that a particular understanding of Holy Scripture was clear and that the ECFs did not support 'real presence'. But the conceptual ground from which the quote arose is starkly dissimilar to the modern conceptual ground for the same terminology. So, the quote was used with an anachronistic view.[/quote]
Can you show us how the passage cited is dissimilar to the rest of the "conceptual ground?"

In order to correctly assess what the ECFs were saying, and use their words to support or deny a position, then it seemed that to understand the conceptual ground of their statements is important. In quoting the ECFs on the issue of 'real presence', one can easily misunderstand what is being said based on the interim shifts in understanding of the terminology.

Like I said, just the fact I only cite a portion of the text does not negate the fact that I haven't read the rest of the text. I'm aware of what the conceptual ground teaches. That's why sources are cited, so that others can check my source and if they find a different meaning in context, they can explain how. Numerous people offer denials that the ECFs mean what the citations imply that they mean but give no explanation why. Numerous people post seemingly contradictory citations but don't explain why their citations trump the ones I provide or even explain how to reconcile all citations so that it does not appear that the ECFs were confused and continually contradicted themselves.

The quote that was provided against the 'real presence' when read with the earlier conceptual range in fact supports real presence.

This is what you keep saying, but if so, HOW so?

In the additional quote I later provided, the idea of interpenetration (of created and spiritual elements ie symbolon) is clearly described.

I didn't see that at all.

Metaphor is also used in these passages (describing like attributes); the similarity of aspects of the nature and use of the created elements to the manner in which the spiritual works in us describes the 'parallels' (leaving aside, as is wont in metaphor, aspects that do not 'harmonize').

So, when Augustine uses the words "literal" and "corporeal" we know that that's exactly what he means. But when he uses words like figure and metaphor, he doesn't mean that, he still means literal?

Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man's pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man's duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.x.html?highlight=crime,vice,figure,literal#highlight

In this passage, Augustine clearly distinguishes between "figurative" and "literal."

The discussion of metaphor is different but related to the symbolon.
The typical benefit of eating/consuming the created elements is subsumed by the spiritual, or is secondary to the parallel benefit of consuming the Eucharist, the symbolon, which confers parallel benefits but of a spiritual action/nature.

I'm not seeing how you tie this into the teachings of Augustine.

 

[racer]

Hi, Racer --

thought this may have been missed in the forward march (or run) of this thread. Perhaps you have had some time to investigate the Biblical use of "eat flesh" too ? As I said, I've been slow !

Also, a caution -- as the verses here are from the LXX, you may have to correlate with an online LXX.

I have absolutely no time for another thread right now. However, I have explored all the different arguments presented regarding the Eucharist. I see nowhere in Scripture where this teaching is grounded or implied. I see many of the earliest fathers that get explicit on it teach contrary to it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Thekla I was not clear enough in pointing out that that was precisely what I was doing -- the quoted passage did indeed support the real presence.

Largest thread showing on Sacramental board for "real presence"

http://www.christianforums.com/t6467459-100/#post40959862
Why I deny the "real presence."

Most interesting thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7391381/
Believing in a literal presence in the eucharist would make Jesus a sinner.

 

[racer]

Is this from a discussion on the Eucharist, or something else -- do you have the context ? I'll search for it as I can...

How can it matter which it is discussing? If it is his belief that Christ is no long present in the flesh but only in the Spirit, he can not be said to believe in the Real Presence as it is taught by certain churches.

Of course, in the Eucharist we "see" bread and wine, but the 'content' of the Eucharist is not defined by what we physically see.

I know what the EOC and the RCC now teaches regarding the Real Presnce. I disagree that it is correct. I think that Scripture makes this clear eanough. But, there are ECFs who confirmed it as well as other theologians who teach on the subject.

To add: everyone who "saw" Christ did not visually have affirmation that who they were seeing was God - except at the Transfiguration.

The point is we possess Him now by "faith." That's all that is required of us.

 

[racer]

Is this from a discussion on the Eucharist, or something else -- do you have the context ? I'll search for it as I can...

Of course, in the Eucharist we "see" bread and wine, but the 'content' of the Eucharist is not defined by what we physically see.

To add: everyone who "saw" Christ did not visually have affirmation that who they were seeing was God - except at the Transfiguration.

It is the Homilies on the Book of John. Some argue that this is not referencing the Real Presence.

 

[Thekla]

I have absolutely no time for another thread right now. However, I have explored all the different arguments presented regarding the Eucharist. I see nowhere in Scripture where this teaching is grounded or implied. I see many of the earliest fathers that get explicit on it teach contrary to it.

I don't know if you recall, but his originates in the sacraments (?) forum, where it was said that Christ's use of "eat my flesh" was metaphoric. I pointed out at the time that "eat flesh" is consistently used in the OT (I cited aprox. 4 or 5 verses) to mean "attack/oppress", so that "eat flesh" applied to the Gospel passages would mean:

"Unless you attack/oppress me, you have no life in you."

Which doesn't make sense to me.

You asked (per memory) about the non-literal use in general (more examples, different vernacular meanings) of "eat flesh", so I started my research.

Above are my findings thus far.

This approach to examining the words of Christ on the matter is entirely scriptural, investigating the cultural use of the phrase for a non-literal meaning.