Catholic's, at what point does it become the body?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I look forward to our reunification dear brother.

God bless.

God help my impudence and discourtesy.

Forgive me...

 

[winsome]

Semantics. The concept of Trinity is throughout the OT, and straight from Jesus' mouth as well.

Here is some more straight out of Jesus’ mouth

Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Mt 26:26)

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” (Mk 14:22)

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, (Lk 22:19)

 

[Jig]

You hold views based on your personal rational convictions rather than on what scripture says?

You don't have personal rational convictions? It must be nice to have your church tell you what to believe. Thinking hurts my brain.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm personaly rationaly convicted by scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

Here is some more straight out of Jesus’ mouth

Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Mt 26:26)

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” (Mk 14:22)

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, (Lk 22:19)

Notice He took bread. He did not say this turns into my body after being blessed.. He also said I am the door.

 

[Erose]

Notice He took bread. He did not say this turns into my body after being blessed.. He also said I am the door.

No He said it is His body and it is His blood. No where in this passage or any other passage in the Bible does it say this symbolized my body or it symbolizes my blood. In fact it show in 1st Cor chapter 11 that people bring judgement on themselves because the "failed" to discern the body of Christ

[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No He said it is His body and it is His blood. No where in this passage or any other passage in the Bible does it say this symbolized my body or it symbolizes my blood. In fact it show in 1st Cor chapter 11 that people bring judgement on themselves because the "failed" to discern the body of Christ

[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

So the love of Christ surpasses all knowledge, yet the person who eats and drinks the bread and wine without understanding it to be transubstantiated or transmutated or whatever, is condemned for their 'unworthiness'?

Paul was writing about how people weren't waiting for the poorer folk to dine, and one was getting drunken, and another was left hungry. Discerning the body means caring for the members of the body of Christ, which is his flock. We have to look out for each other and Paul was receiving reports that the folk at Corinth were not doing a very good job of that.

 

[winsome]

You don't have personal rational convictions? It must be nice to have your church tell you what to believe. Thinking hurts my brain.

Jesus teaches me what to believe about faith and morals - through the Church that he left for that purpose and which he personally promised would teach the truth. Therefore I listen to the Church on these matters.

He made no promises that anything I come up with woul be the truth. I don't think I'm infallible.

 

[winsome]

Notice He took bread. He did not say this turns into my body after being blessed.. He also said I am the door.

He said this is my body. I believe Jesus.

You have to understand the difference between speaking literally and speaking in metaphors.

 

[winsome]

So the love of Christ surpasses all knowledge, yet the person who eats and drinks the bread and wine without understanding it to be transubstantiated or transmutated or whatever, is condemned for their 'unworthiness'?

You don't understand the theology of transubstantiation. You have to believe that it is Christ's body and blood.

 

[Markea]

So now we need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and believe that we're eating Him and drinking His blood ?

How about if I'm a vegetarian ?

 

[Jig]

He said this is my body.

"IS" is an English word. Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic these sentences would have been spoken without a linking verb (“is&#8221, as simply, this, my body and this, my blood.

I guess you didn't know that.

I believe Jesus.

You have to understand the difference between speaking literally and speaking in metaphors.

Seriously? Are you suggesting I don't believe Jesus? Just because I interpret what he is saying metaphorically does not mean I think he is wrong. I take the meaning of what he said literally.

If I told you I was a piece of bread, would you assume I was speaking literally or metaphorically? It seems it is you who cannot "understand the difference between speaking literally and speaking in metaphors".

Let's see if you can spot the metaphor:

"I am the true vine..." - Jesus is a literal plant?
"I am the Alpha and the Omega..." - Jesus is a literal letter?
"I am the door..." - Jesus is a literal door?"
"I am the bread of life..." - Jesus is a literal piece of bread?

 

[winsome]

"IS" is an English word. Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic these sentences would have been spoken without a linking verb (“is”), as simply, this, my body and this, my blood.

I guess you didn't know that.

And you think that makes a difference?

Seriously? Are you suggesting I don't believe Jesus? Just because I interpret what he is saying metaphorically does not mean I think he is wrong. I take the meaning of what he said literally.

And what do you think the meaning is other than This is my body?

If I told you I was a piece of bread, would you assume I was speaking literally or metaphorically?

You do not "have the words of eternal life". I have not "come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God"

It seems it is you who cannot "understand the difference between speaking literally and speaking in metaphors".

Let's see if you can spot the metaphor:

"I am the true vine..." - Jesus is a literal plant?
"I am the Alpha and the Omega..." - Jesus is a literal letter?
"I am the door..." - Jesus is a literal door?"
"I am the bread of life..." - Jesus is a literal piece of bread?

We can distinguish between metaphor and literal by the context. There is no context to suggest this is a metaphor.

There are other indications in scripture to suggest this was literal, most notably John 6:22 onwards and 1 Cor 11:23-30.

The early fathers who received their teaching as passed on by the apostles understood this to be literal.


Incidentally Alpha and Omega are Greek words and did you know that (according to some) Jesus spoke Aramaic?

 

[Jig]

And you think that makes a difference?

You highlighted the word "is" as if it was significant. Do you still think it is significant?

And what do you think the meaning is other than This is my body?

Keeping in context with the Passover meal, it appears Jesus is attaching new symbolic significance to the bread and wine. Jesus identifies the bread with his body, the former a symbol of the latter. As the various aspects of the Passover meal itself involved deep symbolism, so Jesus develops a new symbolism for the disciples’ meal. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus, which is about to be given over to death on their behalf.

If the eating of the Passover meal served to identify the Israelite with the redemption from Egypt, so does this ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ convey the benefits of Jesus’ paschal sacrifice to those who share his table.

In this aspect the bread truly is his body.

We can distinguish between metaphor and literal by the context. There is no context to suggest this is a metaphor.

The context is a Passover meal. It is highly symbolic. Metaphorical context is clearly present everywhere. Plus, when someone calls themselves "bread", it is pretty obvious they are not being literal.

There are other indications in scripture to suggest this was literal, most notably John

6:22 onwards and 1 Cor 11:23-30.

Have you noticed that in John 6 there is no actual bread or wine present. Hmmm....some communion service.

The early fathers who received their teaching as passed on by the apostles understood this to be literal.

I'll trust the Gospel writers over them any day. The early church was known to misinterpret the teachings of the apostles. Just look at all the trouble Paul had with his own churches.

 

[Erose]

So the love of Christ surpasses all knowledge, yet the person who eats and drinks the bread and wine without understanding it to be transubstantiated or transmutated or whatever, is condemned for their 'unworthiness'?

Paul was writing about how people weren't waiting for the poorer folk to dine, and one was getting drunken, and another was left hungry. Discerning the body means caring for the members of the body of Christ, which is his flock. We have to look out for each other and Paul was receiving reports that the folk at Corinth were not doing a very good job of that.

Thank you for showing me why Sacred Tradition is so important and why personal interpretation of Scripture leads to error. For you to get this interpretation requires effort I give you that. But hey whatever. I prefer to read the Bible and let it teach me instead or reinterpreting the Bible to say what I want it to say. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Erose]

You highlighted the word "is" as if it was significant. Do you still think it is significant?

Keeping in context with the Passover meal, it appears Jesus is attaching new symbolic significance to the bread and wine. Jesus identifies the bread with his body, the former a symbol of the latter. As the various aspects of the Passover meal itself involved deep symbolism, so Jesus develops a new symbolism for the disciples’ meal. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus, which is about to be given over to death on their behalf.

If the eating of the Passover meal served to identify the Israelite with the redemption from Egypt, so does this ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ convey the benefits of Jesus’ paschal sacrifice to those who share his table.

In this aspect the bread truly is his body.



The context is a Passover meal. It is highly symbolic. Metaphorical context is clearly present everywhere. Plus, when someone calls themselves "bread", it is pretty obvious they are not being literal.



Have you noticed that in John 6 there is no actual bread or wine present. Hmmm....some communion service.

I'll trust the Gospel writers over them any day. The early church was known to misinterpret the teachings of the apostles. Just look at all the trouble Paul had with his own churches.

I guess it just falls down to the fact that you Protestants just do not believe that Jesus had the power to transform the bread and wine into His body and blood without changing the properties. Ok I get that the Protestant God is not omnipotent.

 

[Jig]

I guess it just falls down to the fact that you Protestants just do not believe that Jesus had the power to transform the bread and wine into His body and blood without changing the properties. Ok I get that the Protestant God is not omnipotent.

This is not a debate on whether God can do something or not, it is a debate on whether or not he did.

 

[Kepha]

You highlighted the word "is" as if it was significant. Do you still think it is significant?

"THIS my body". Same thing.

If the eating of the Passover meal served to identify the Israelite with the redemption from Egypt, so does this ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ convey the benefits of Jesus’ paschal sacrifice to those who share his table.

If this phrase were metaphorical, you've got a problem when connecting it to 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, just like if one is really guilty of another’s body and blood in pretty much any type of culture, even to this day and age. So how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? He can't, except Paul says he is.

Plus, when someone calls themselves "bread", it is pretty obvious they are not being literal.

Yes and it 'should' have been likewise pretty obvious to them if He meant it symbolically but they, unlike yourself, who actually understood the language and the context in which it was spoken, didn't. This is why the Jews ONLY murmured because He said that He had come down from heaven and not because He said He was bread. John 6:42

However, starting in the next verse, Jesus answers these objections then once He finished, He speaks of a bread that He is yet to give. The Jews’ understood that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and object accordingly. "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

Simply put, they first objected because of what they knew was symbolic, and now they object to what His second statement means because they KNEW He was speaking literal of Himself. The point being that if Christ had been speaking in a metaphorical sense at this precise moment, this would have been the 'perfect' time to clarify His intentions. But He only reiterated what He had first said and what they had first believed they meant with these words:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you..."

"For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed."

The entire passage is completely clear of His intentions and the message it's conveying, even when observing the Jews understanding of the laguage it was spoken in, regarding when He's speaking literal or symbolically. Only those who begin with a mindset of "It's metaphorical" will force it to mean just that.

Have you noticed that in John 6 there is no actual bread or wine present. Hmmm....some communion service.

Why would there be. 'Actual' Communion was initiated at the 'Last Supper'. Your point proves nothing.

I'll trust the Gospel writers over them any day.

Except you interpret what they say, which makes a world of difference. So you may not be actually 'trusting' the message but missing it, as you are in John 6.

 

[Kepha]

You don't have personal rational convictions? It must be nice to have your church tell you what to believe. Thinking hurts my brain.

"It must be nice to have your Bible tell you what to believe. Thinking hurts my brain."

See how easy that was.

 

[Jig]

"THIS my body". Same thing.

this = is?

If this phrase were metaphorical, you've got a problem when connecting it to 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, just like if one is really guilty of another’s body and blood in pretty much any type of culture, even to this day and age. So how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? He can't, except Paul says he is.

Guilty of murder? Nice eisegesis.

Yes and it 'should' have been likewise pretty obvious to them if He meant it symbolically but they, unlike yourself, who actually understood the language and the context in which it was spoken, didn't. This is why the Jews ONLY murmured because He said that He had come down from heaven and not because He said He was bread. John 6:42

It's clear that they grumbled over His claim of heavenly origin here.

(6:62)They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

However, starting in the next verse, Jesus answers these objections then once He finished, He speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understood that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and object accordingly. "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

Blinded by the ignorance of their own unbelief, they were unable to understand the spiritual significance of which Jesus spoke.

If ‘the Jews’ continued to take his words literally they would be disgusted and appalled. The drinking of any blood was forbidden (Lev. 17:10–14). He told them that unless they did this repulsive thing they would have no life in them—they would not experience eternal life that comes from a relationship with the Father. Having stated things negatively, Jesus then stated them positively: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. To understand properly what Jesus was saying in highly metaphorical language, readers must remember that he said the same thing in more straightforward terms in 6:40: ‘everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’. Placing these two verses side by side, it is clear that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for believing in him.

Why would there be. 'Actual' Communion was initiated at the 'Last Supper'. Your point proves nothing.

It proves this passage is not talking about "actual" communion. So, why is it being brought up to support it?