"This is My Body"

[Albion]

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.

I can't quite square that with Christ's own words about the Supper, though; and that may be why I can't just adopt the rationalist, de-mythologizing, symbolic approach to everything in our faith that relates to God. That would wind up being Unitarianism which, for me, doesn't work.

 

[Rick Otto]

I can't quite square that with Christ's own words about the Supper, though; and that may be why I can't just adopt the rationalist, de-mythologizing, symbolic approach to everything in our faith that relates to God. That would wind up being Unitarianism which, for me, doesn't work.

Good.
I wouldn't adopt the rationalist, de-mythologizing, symbolic approach to everything in our faith that relates to God either.
But getting back to the specific article of that faith, I've squared His words with His creation, as far as I can honestly imagine.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The OP remains. Why do RCs and Lutherans take all of Christ's "I am" statements as metaphor but only one as literal? "Context" is not a satisfactory answer because all of these statements by Christ are made within a similar context.

The cults of the world read holy texts literalistically. We should not follow in their footsteps. While I assert that we certainly need to take the Bible literally, we also need to understand genre, sarcasm, figures of speech and metaphor or we misunderstand Christ's teaching, and worse, misrepresent it to the world.

Christians are not cannibals. We are not saved by magic (eating the flesh of our deity). We are saved by the life, death and resurrection of Christ, by grace, through faith. In fact, that's exactly what John 6 is all about!

 

[Albion]

The OP remains. Why do RCs and Lutherans take all of Christ's "I am" statements as metaphor but only one as literal? "Context" is not a satisfactory answer because all of these statements by Christ are made within a similar context.

But neither does anyone take all of his statements in a "non-literal" way, so I don't see your point here. We all know that each situation or statement has to be understood on its own. The most we can say is that there are both figurative and literal statements to be found in Scripture.

The cults of the world read holy texts literalistically.

Not all of them and not all the time.

 

[FireDragon76]

The OP remains. Why do RCs and Lutherans take all of Christ's "I am" statements as metaphor but only one as literal? "

Who says they take his other statements as "metaphor"? It seems to me, you do not really appreciate Catholic or Lutheran theology enough to be making this type of analysis.

Christians are not cannibals. We are not saved by magic (eating the flesh of our deity). We are saved by the life, death and resurrection of Christ, by grace, through faith. In fact, that's exactly what John 6 is all about!

How does a Christian appropriate the benefits of Christ's "life, death, and resurrection"? That is the issue. Your churches have their own "sacraments", they are just the sinners prayer, the altar call and the mourner's bench... none of which are biblical.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

But neither does anyone take all of his statements in a "non-literal" way

I do. I don't think that Jesus is literally bead, light, a shepherd. . .

I take every word as literally true, understanding that there are such things as sarcasm, colloquialisms, metaphors etc.

 

[Albion]

I do. I don't think that Jesus is literally bead, light, a shepherd. . .

I take every word as literally true, understanding that there are such things as sarcasm, colloquialisms, metaphors etc.

Which of those is it to be then?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Which of those is it to be then?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Albion]

I don't understand your question.

If it's literal, it can't be a metaphor or vice-versa. What you appear to be saying is that you take every word as accurate and correctly translated..

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If it's literal, it can't be a metaphor or vice-versa. What you appear to be saying is that you take every word as accurate and correctly translated..

I don't read the Bible as if it were myth or all figurative speech. I take it all as literally true, but some of the language is figurative, and where it is figurative is LITERALLY very easy to see. Jesus is not bread.

 

[Albion]

I don't read the Bible as if it were myth or all figurative speech. I take it all as literally true, but some of the language is figurative

...then it's not literal.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

...then it's not literal.

Is Jesus bread?

 

[Albion]

Is Jesus bread?

Did Jesus say it was? No.

Did Jesus say that that which he was holding was his body? Yes.

Since he was holding what appeared to be bread, what do we conclude? That he had changed it in some way? possibly. Or did he mean that it represented his body? That's also a possibility. However, he didn't say anything about it being a representation of his body or a symbol of his body.

To conclude, therefore--and on the basis of his words here--that this last one must be the answer seems questionable to me.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Scripture interprets scripture. The two options are NOT equal. Option one: Jesus is telling people to become cannibals which is strictly forbidden by scripture. Option two: He was speaking metaphorically.

 

[Albion]

Scripture interprets scripture. The two options are NOT equal. Option one: Jesus is telling people to become cannibals

No, he wasn't. But if you seriously think that a bloodless consuming of a supernatural entity that doesn't even look like a human body part...is "cannibalism," you have dispatched only the Roman Catholic teaching on the subject and are left to deal with every other non-Baptist interpretation of the Lord's Supper (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, etc.).

He was speaking metaphorically.

That's what you want to think. The passage itself does not give us any information that would support this view.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Albion, even a child would/does understand this. Tradition clouds thinking. You have said multiple times that you cannot accept that the LS is simply in remembrance of Christ's work. That's your presupposition, not scripture talking.

 

[Albion]

Albion, even a child would/does understand this.

Brian, if that were so, there would not be many more Christians believing in the Real Presence than the number who agree with you. And please do not play the "Tradition" card on me, after I have asked you to address the issue on the basis of Scripture, never once recommending Tradition instead.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Brian, if that were so, there would not be many more Christians believing in the Real Presence than the number who agree with you. And please do not play the "Tradition" card on me, after I have asked you to address the issue on the basis of Scripture, never once recommending Tradition instead.

Firstly, I'm arguing against transubstantiation not against real presence. I do not know much about the position of Anglicans on this subject, but while I was making a case against transubstantiation you took the opposing side. Why?

Secondly, what I meant by tradition was that I've seen you say multiple times that Jesus couldn't have been instituting something that was just symbolic. Well. . . He could have. If we start with a blank slate, He could have. On what basis do you eliminate this as a possibility? I'm suggesting that your tradition is likely the basis.

 

[Albion]

Firstly, I'm arguing against transubstantiation not against real presence.

OK. I thought you were arguing for memorialism and against all the other views of the subject, although I do recognize that asking "Is Jesus bread?" and your talk about "cannibalism" seem to be aimed specifically at Trans.

I, of course, do not believe in transubstantiation myself.

On the other hand, I think we backed into this discussion because of the question of whether to take the words of institution literally or not. And I also was engaged in another discussion quite like this one on another thread, so I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't let some of that one leak into this one.

Secondly, what I meant by tradition was that I've seen you say multiple times that Jesus couldn't have been instituting something that was just symbolic.

I don't believe that I have said that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Healthy debate can serve a purpose. Fighting doesn't, so thank you for forcing me to look closer at the topic. I have moved further toward a fully symbolic understanding of the bread and cup. I don't tow the Reformed line on this one, after careful examination.

Jesus tells us in His own words what communion is. It is a visual of the gospel.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Nothing of real presence here.