Transubstantiation? - a case study in "plain and simple" hermeneutics

[Critias]

As I said, the cup of redemption.

 

[livingproofGM]

Good Day, Critias

Your apeal to the greek does little to help you as one must first understand what the "this" is with in the historical framework of the sader.

I could say my office is me, and be completly understood that " I" can not be an office.

I could say this paper is white, that does not make paper an astract color.

Your appeal to John 6 holds little value in this discussion from my point of view, because that would be to enjoin a crime as Augustine stated.



Once again, what was "this cup"??


Peace to u,

Bill

I hardly know anything about this, but I'd like to try, so bare with me. Wasn't the "this" the third cup? On the Cross, Christ participated in the 4th, the "fruit of the vine" He told His apostles He would not drink of until the kingdom of God comes. The "it" that was finished on the Cross was the passover meal, the completion of the sacrifice. The 4th cup was the sour wine on the hyssop branch, wasn't it? So wouldn't "this" be the third cup, the true blood of Christ?

 

[BBAS 64]

May I ask where symbolism is implied in John 6?

Good Day LivingproofGM

I have posted Augustine, on some of John 6. You belive you partake of the literal blood and body I assume, so why do you still hunger after partaking the bread of life?

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[livingproofGM]

You belive you partake of the literal blood and body I assume, so why do you still hunger after partaking the bread of life?

I do not hunger. After I consume the body of Christ, I am content, spiritually nourished. Just because I get hungry after Church doesn't mean that I didn't consume the body.

 

[BBAS 64]

As I said, the cup of redemption.

Good Day, Critias

I was posting the same time you did. So the cup that was to signify the redemption with in the sader was in fact his blood. By his blood his people are redeemed.

With out the blood that was poured out for many those many are redeemed, and that is the redemption of the covenant.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

I do not hunger. After I consume the body of Christ, I am content, spiritually nourished. Just because I get hungry after Church doesn't mean that I didn't consume the body.

Good Day, LivingproofGM

But, the text says:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Have you never hungered from the first time you partook?

When was the first time, when was the last time? I assume you plan to do it again God willing why?

You never hunger for spiritual thing or nurishment at any time?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

I hardly know anything about this, but I'd like to try, so bare with me. Wasn't the "this" the third cup? On the Cross, Christ participated in the 4th, the "fruit of the vine" He told His apostles He would not drink of until the kingdom of God comes. The "it" that was finished on the Cross was the passover meal, the completion of the sacrifice. The 4th cup was the sour wine on the hyssop branch, wasn't it? So wouldn't "this" be the third cup, the true blood of Christ?

Good day, Livingproof

I am stuck in a hotel room far from my Hagadda, so I will try to recall. The Cup was the 3rd cup. The fourth cup was for the prophet "if" he decided to vist the house hold. The fourth cup will be celerbrated at the wedding feast. Juses said that he will not partake of the fuit of the vine until that time in glory.

On the cross was the sader?? I am not sure what you mean here the last supper was a sader. The thrid cup was the blood of Christ in the Tradition of the sader as it was the cup of redemption, it was not what the cup contained but, the historical meaning of the "cup" and what it signified in the Tradional context of the sader.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[livingproofGM]

Good Day, LivingproofGM

But, the text says:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Have you never hungered from the first time you partook?

Physically, I have hungered, yes. But this does not prove that John 6 is symbolic. This passage is dealing with matters of faith, not the Eucharist. Have you ever thirsted after going to God, or believing in Him? I would think so. He is, in fact, the bread of life. The bread is His body. Our souls thirst and hunger for God. But that does not prove symbolism, and does not make, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," symbolic, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[BBAS 64]

Physically, I have hungered, yes. But this does not prove that John 6 is symbolic. This passage is dealing with matters of faith, not the Eucharist..

Good Day, Livingproof

I agree.

.

Have you ever thirsted after going to God, or believing in Him? I would think so. He is, in fact, the bread of life. The bread is His body. Our souls thirst and hunger for God. But that does not prove symbolism, and does not make, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," symbolic, in any way, shape, or form.

I think I misunderstood, John 6 is in fact a spritual truth and that is not symbolic in the hardest sense, may be figurative.

Yes the body of Christ sustains us in that fashsion it is bread, as it the perfect sacrifice in accordance with Hebrews 9 and 10.

Do you not think it is a sin / crime "Augustine" to drink blood according to the OT law?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[livingproofGM]

I think I misunderstood, John 6 is in fact a spritual truth and that is not symbolic in the hardest sense, may be figurative.

Sometimes, I have a hard time deciding if I am debating with people or agreeing with them. Do you believe in transubstantiation?

Do you not think it is a sin / crime "Augustine" to drink blood according to the OT law?

Peace to u,

Bill

I feel stupid not knowing what you mean by "Augustine," but maybe you could explain it to me We are no longer under the law of the OT. We are under the law of Christ, the New Covenant. In Leviticus, the eating of blood is banned because the life is in the blood. But Christ clearly tells us that ALL life comes from HIS blood, therefore, we must drink it. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you

 

[BBAS 64]

Sometimes, I have a hard time deciding if I am debating with people or agreeing with them. Do you believe in transubstantiation?



I feel stupid not knowing what you mean by "Augustine," but maybe you could explain it to me We are no longer under the law of the OT. We are under the law of Christ, the New Covenant. In Leviticus, the eating of blood is banned because the life is in the blood. But Christ clearly tells us that ALL life comes from HIS blood, therefore, we must drink it. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you

Good Day, Livingproof

Augustine on John6:

"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. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24

I will agree that under the leviticus, the drinking of blood was forbidden, and still is.

In acts they are all Jews taking abiut the issue of the things written to gentiles and using it in the context of the law.

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.


We should continue to abstain from blood, what does this mean in the context ,from where is this drawn?

I think you have misuderstood the text as it relates to "this is my blood" given the context of the sader.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[livingproofGM]

Good Day, Livingproof

Augustine on John6:

"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. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24

This guy makes a good point. How can Jesus tell us to do something that is a crime? It is not a crime, since we are no longer under the OT law. In the OT, you had to sacrifice animals in order to obtain atonment for your sins. Now we have Christ, our pure, unblemished sacrifice. In the OT, Moses said it was OK to remarry, but Christ forbids it in the NT, saying that it is adultery. In the OT, a man wasn't able to merely sit where a woman who was menstruating had. They had to wash in water and were unclean until evening. Furthermore, since the accidents of the wine, that is, smell, texture, taste, stay the same, it is not a crime to begin with.

 

[BBAS 64]

This guy makes a good point. How can Jesus tell us to do something that is a crime? It is not a crime, since we are no longer under the OT law. In the OT, you had to sacrifice animals in order to obtain atonment for your sins. Now we have Christ, our pure, unblemished sacrifice. In the OT, Moses said it was OK to remarry, but Christ forbids it in the NT, saying that it is adultery. In the OT, a man wasn't able to merely sit where a woman who was menstruating had. They had to wash in water and were unclean until evening. Furthermore, since the accidents of the wine, that is, smell, texture, taste, stay the same, it is not a crime to begin with.

Good Day, Living proof

So, now we can discuss the figuritive nature of the "this is my body, seeing a literal intrurpration would enjoin a crime.

I am also intrested on you views as to the passage in Acts to abstain from blood and what that means in the context of the OT law?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[livingproofGM]

Good Day, Living proof

So, now we can discuss the figuritive nature of the "this is my body, seeing a literal intrurpration would enjoin a crime.

Speaking figuratively would still enjoin a crime. He could not have command us to even symbolically eat and drink His body and blood. Even symbolically performing an immoral act is of its very nature immoral. He makes it very clear that we are to eat His flesh. The figurative meaning for eating flesh and drinking blood means to assault and persecute someone. See these passages: Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6,16. In each case, we find "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" used as metaphors to mean "to persecute," "to do violence to," "to assault," or "to murder." In a figurative sense, here is what Christ would have been saying: "Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you."

 

[shernren]

I am also intrested on you views as to the passage in Acts to abstain from blood and what that means in the context of the OT law?

When I read the account of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) I don't find (to me at least) that Peter and the Council forbids the Gentiles from eating blood because it is contrary to God's law...but rather for the sake of not overly offending the Jews. It is a small burden that the Gentiles can bear to ease their relations with the Jewish believers, rather than the big burden of circumcision that even the Jewish themselves could not bear.

So to conclude it was more a command to make allowances to keep the unity of the church, rather than a command to not disobey a certain Torah edict. The upshot of this is that for me personally, as long as I do not lead anyone astray or offend them, I wouldn't mind eating blood. But my eating blood would ordinarily do just that among the context of my church's beliefs so I don't really eat blood. I'm not sure whether it tastes nice enough to be worth eating, anyway.

 

[shernren]

So isn't transubstantiation the plain and simple way to read John? So why aren't more YECs transubstantiationists? (Wow. What a long word. .)

 

[BBAS 64]

When I read the account of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) I don't find (to me at least) that Peter and the Council forbids the Gentiles from eating blood because it is contrary to God's law...but rather for the sake of not overly offending the Jews. It is a small burden that the Gentiles can bear to ease their relations with the Jewish believers, rather than the big burden of circumcision that even the Jewish themselves could not bear.

So to conclude it was more a command to make allowances to keep the unity of the church, rather than a command to not disobey a certain Torah edict. The upshot of this is that for me personally, as long as I do not lead anyone astray or offend them, I wouldn't mind eating blood. But my eating blood would ordinarily do just that among the context of my church's beliefs so I don't really eat blood. I'm not sure whether it tastes nice enough to be worth eating, anyway.

Good Day, Shernern

Here is passage,

James says,

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

The letter says:

Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

In verse one the circumcision issue is put to rest, as a result of the disscusions the only requirement of the gentiles was these listed in verse 29. so what does "abstain from blood" mean in the context of the "keeping the law of Moses".

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

And here in verse 5,

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[shernren]

So were they told to not eat blood because it was against the Torah, or because it would offend their Jewish brethren? I think it was more the latter.

 

[BBAS 64]

So were they told to not eat blood because it was against the Torah, or because it would offend their Jewish brethren? I think it was more the latter.

Good Day, Shernren

What ever the reason or the purpose is of little concern IMHO. The fact of the matter is that if one uphold the "eating" of blood in any form then it violates the requirment laid upon the gentile believers, by the Holy Spirit and the apostles as seen:

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.


Peace to u,

Bill