"This is My Body"

[BobRyan]

There is no metaphor there. Read John 6 without your rose colored glasses.

Jesus said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you hav no life in you."

Does that sound like a metaphor to you?

If so, take a remedial English class.

1. In Matt 16 "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" -- does that sound like a metaphor to you ? (I think everyone agrees He is not calling the Pharisees "leaven" in Matt 16).

They did err in Matt 16 - "taking him too literally" thinking he meant "don't buy bread from Pharisees".

2. John 6 - nobody bites Christ - not even the "faithful" disciples.

3. John 6 - The faithless disciples take him too literally and leave - offended.

4. John 6 - Jesus plainly says "literal flesh is worthless" - he says it is His WORD (teaching) that is giving life. Indicating his use of metaphor.

5. John 6 - Jesus did not say "Some day in the future I WILL become bread... you will then eat my flesh to get life". Rather "I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven" and "you must now eat my flesh" - not "you must in the future, someday at a time you do not now suspect - eat my flesh".

==================================================

These points appear to be irrefutable.

 

[Albion]

1. In Matt 16 "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" -- does that sound like a metaphor to you ? (I think everyone agrees He is not calling the Pharisees "leaven" in Matt 16).==================================================

These points appear to be irrefutable.

But to be clear, what you're refuting is Transubstantiation (or Consubstantiation), not Real Presence.

 

[BobRyan]

In the Bible - real presence is not tied to bread or food or eating. So far be it from me to argue against real presence as the Bible defines it.

Matt 18:20 " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Col 1: 27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

 

[Albion]

In the Bible - real presence is not tied to bread or food or eating.

Ouch. I think you missed the point or don't understand what I was referring to. I don't entirely oppose your thinking about "biting Jesus"--although I see nothing admirable in using such exaggerated and offensive language--but I do think it is important to understand that the bread and wine may be transformed from ordinary bread into something SPIRITUALLY different and meaningful, that's all.

 

[BobRyan]

literal drink involves actually drinking. Literal flesh food involves actual biting. If this idea is foreign to the proposal for John 6 -- then please explain it.

In John 6 those who are walking off refer to this "very detail" which you seem to now claim - should not be noticed.

How does that idea that certain details in John 6 are offensive or inconvenient or politically incorrect to mention -- help the case that is attempted from John 6??

If the argument being made in opposition to the one I have stated here -- is itself explicitly intolerant to certain details in John 6 being noticed - how then is that opposing view surviving the text? by not discussing those details in the text???

 

[BobRyan]

but I do think it is important to understand that the bread and wine may be transformed from ordinary bread into something SPIRITUALLY different and meaningful, that's all.

The Bible is a "spiritually different" object from the plain-paper and leather from which it is made prior to printing words on the paper. Almost every Christian would admit to this.

The bread and grape juice (grape beverage as the Bible calls it) - that is used in the communion service - once it is blessed is to be treated with a different respect - than prior to dedicating it to that purpose. Again - almost every Christian group admits to this.

But beyond that - we do not have the idea of "confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ" nor do we have the idea that Christ is "more present" than He already claims to be "when two or three are gathered" -- so then we still look forward to the second coming.

 

[Albion]

literal drink involves actually drinking. Literal flesh food involves actual biting.

I made a point about a presence that is real but spiritual AS OPPOSED TO the literal presence idea you have been ridiculing. So what do you do but return to attacking the latter and now address it to me, as though I'm a supporter of that POV. Why is that?

And by the way, it's actually considered disrespectful, and is discouraged, to bite the host in Catholic and some other churches. You might consider that if you are determined to keep on using this wording.

 

[Rick Otto]

The number of people who also hold your opinion is irrelevant. The entire scientific community held the opinion that the universe was an infinitely old, static state (unchanging), single galaxy until the installation of the Mt. Wilson telescope with which astronomers were able to resolve the "blobs of light" and see that they were other galaxies. Then the "red shift was discovered" by which it has been made possible to determine that the universe is only some 13.7 billion years old.

There are over a billion people who believe that Allah is God and has directed them to spread Islam by conquest and that Jesus is not the Son of God and did not die on the cross.

So, having a multitude of fellow believers who are similarly misinformed is not evidence that what you believe has any connection with reality.

Priceless. You dismantle the argument you tried to use against me in the first place.

 

[BobRyan]

I made a point about a presence that is real but spiritual AS OPPOSED TO the literal presence idea you have been ridiculing. So what do you do but return to attacking the latter and now address it to me, as though I'm a supporter of that POV. Why is that?

And by the way, it's actually considered disrespectful, and is discouraged, to bite the host in Catholic and some other churches. You might consider that if you are determined to keep on using this wording.

I point out details in John 6 that some find "inconvenient" -- that is not the same as ridiculing. The fact that someone does not like the details in John 6 is fine with me - but I get to notice those details and point them out to the readers without the accusations.

I don't attack anyone - I simply point to the obvious details in the text of John 6. If as you say some choose to find those details offensive - then they are free to make that choice.

My reference to "drinking" as "actual drinking" and my reference to "eating" in John 6 as actual "biting" into something -- remains an obvious point in the chapter itself. If one wishes to argue the case that in John 6 "eating would not include biting into food" -- I have yet to see anyone do it - in real life. If you are suggesting that as a solution of some sort then please let us know how that works - in the text itself.

My post to you is not about your being Catholic or viewing the bread the way a Catholic would view it (I have not made any of those claims about your position) - my post to you is specifically about your claim that the details in John 6 are considered to be offensive.

 

[Albion]

I point out details in John 6 that some find "inconvenient" -- that is not the same as ridiculing. The fact that someone does not like the details in John 6 is fine with me - but I get to notice those details and point them out to the readers without the accusations.

"Ridicule" or "pointing out," why direct all your rebuttals to me when making your observations about John 6? As you know, I'm not a Roman Catholic and don't share their view of the Lord's Supper (as I explained). That's what I was asking.

My post to you is not about your being Catholic or viewing the bread the way a Catholic would view it (I have not made any of those claims about your position) - my post to you is specifically about your claim that the details in John 6 are considered to be offensive.

I like specificity, it's true, so I will say with specificity now that I don't consider John 6 to be "offensive." If you're going to quibble over every description of your choice of words, it would be a good idea to take care when you are characterizing someone else's.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ouch. I think you missed the point or don't understand what I was referring to. I don't entirely oppose your thinking about "biting Jesus"--although I see nothing admirable in using such exaggerated and offensive language--but I do think it is important to understand that the bread and wine may be transformed from ordinary bread into something SPIRITUALLY different and meaningful, that's all.

That is sane, as long as we understand the transformation takes place in US, not the bread or wine.

 

[Albion]

That is sane, as long as we understand the transformation takes place in US, not the bread or wine.

Well, you and I obviously disagree on this point, but I think the point that I made above is correct.

It simply says that there CAN be a change that is spiritual and also real, all the transubstantiation stuff aside. My comment was directed at the commonly-made claim that if something (in the Lord's Supper) is "real," it must also be physically real. That's an untenable claim.

If every Christian seriously held to that proposition, half of the beliefs we all share and which originate in the Bible would have to be dismissed as untrue since the deal with spiritual realities.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, you and I obviously disagree on this point, but I think the point that I made above is correct.

It simply says that there CAN be a change that is spiritual and also real, all the transubstantiation stuff aside. My comment was directed at the commonly-made claim that if something (in the Lord's Supper) is "real," it must also be physically real. That's an untenable claim.

If every Christian seriously held to that proposition, half of the beliefs we all share and which originate in the Bible would have to be dismissed as untrue since the deal with spiritual realities.

I would push back that most Christians seem comfortably ambivalent, and so much so, that some get irate at a challenge.

I have always agreed that spirit is real. That is why I believe He is wherever two or more are gathered in spirit and truth.So the word "real" in Real Presence seems a redundancy to cover an insecurity some kind.
But I realise that is just my opinion.

 

[Albion]

I would push back that most Christians seem comfortably ambivalent, and so much so, that some get irate at a challenge.

I have always agreed that spirit is real. That is why I believe He is wherever two or more are gathered in spirit and truth.So the word "real" in Real Presence seems a redundancy to cover an insecurity some kind.
But I realise that is just my opinion.

Yes, but there you're speaking of some reality not related to the Lord's Supper in particular. You acknowledge the point about spiritual things being real, if incorporeal, but what of the Lord's Supper specifically?

The term, Real Presence, is just an expression that means there IS a presence of Christ there, and it's used to distinguish this view from the one that believes the Lord's Supper to be purely representational.

 

[BobRyan]

I would push back that most Christians seem comfortably ambivalent, and so much so, that some get irate at a challenge.
I have always agreed that spirit is real. That is why I believe He is wherever two or more are gathered in spirit and truth.So the word "real" in Real Presence seems a redundancy to cover an insecurity some kind.
But I realise that is just my opinion.

And the Bible -

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68453534, member: 235244"]In the Bible - real presence is not tied to bread or food or eating. So far be it from me to argue against real presence as the Bible defines it.

Matt 18:20 " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Col 1: 27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, but there you're speaking of some reality not related to the Lord's Supper in particular. You acknowledge the point about spiritual things being real, if incorporeal, but what of the Lord's Supper specifically?

The term, Real Presence, is just an expression that means there IS a presence of Christ there, and it's used to distinguish this view from the one that believes the Lord's Supper to be purely representational.

And yet the bible makes this point -

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68453534, member: 235244"]In the Bible - real presence is not tied to bread or food or eating. So far be it from me to argue against real presence as the Bible defines it.

Matt 18:20 " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Col 1: 27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"[/QUOTE]

 

[Albion]

In the Bible - real presence is not tied to bread or food or eating. So far be it from me to argue against real presence as the Bible defines it.

Matt 18:20 " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Col 1: 27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

You're making up your own definition of Real Presence there. Check back with my previous post for the explanation of the term.

 

[BobRyan]

I think I will stick with the actual text on this one - but I did enjoy reading your suggestion.

 

[Albion]

I think I will stick with the actual text on this one - but I did enjoy reading your suggestion.

The text isn't describing "Real Presence," though, Bob. You've just assigned this term to a different concept that's referred to in Scripture.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, but there you're speaking of some reality not related to the Lord's Supper in particular. You acknowledge the point about spiritual things being real, if incorporeal, but what of the Lord's Supper specifically?

The term, Real Presence, is just an expression that means there IS a presence of Christ there, and it's used to distinguish this view from the one that believes the Lord's Supper to be purely representational.

Well,.. If by "The Lord's Supper" you are referring to the Eucharist, I don't consider either the physics or metaphysics of reality to be altered by context.
So about it specifically, there is nothing special about the event except it's meaning, which is either apprehended or not.

I would assert that to focus on the event for meaning, as if it has a different reality than any other, is exactly opposite of Jesus' own instructions.
The meaning is what our focus should be, otherwise what gains significance are the subordinate details including our emotions while experiencing it... emotions that are accessible regardless of apprehended meanings. The meaning of it is the reason for it, not some intangible yet emotionally thrilling experience. Group bonding is important, but not as important as truth.
To believe something spiritual happens in or upon the bread and wine beyond respect of their intended purpose is simply superstition, in my opinion. Saying "in my opinion" seems to soothe the beast that rages when I appear to try and take the miracle away.

To place the presence of Christ in the wine and bread in some mysterious way, seems to me to an anti-intellectual. It seems to me to embrace an emotional loyalty to a religious denial of reality. The point of which could only be to surrender the individual responsibility of sorting out truth from anything less.