Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word

[ViaCrucis]

I understand the view of the literal body and literal blood at the Lords Table.

However, I don't see the same evidence for this to be literal. Sorry.. I just don't.

Christ says, about the cup.. "this cup is the new testament in my blood:" So, the Cup, to be literal, is the New Testament in His blood... Not "His blood".

About the bread.. He states: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

He actually calls it "bread".

Jesus, as He often did, was speaking symbolically. To say He was speaking literally here does not fit with the word pictures He often used. After all, Jesus said He was the Bread of Life. And didn't He say that He was the Door?

Genesis is literal... There is no figurative way around it.. It is punctuated by specifics...

Not the last supper where He is giving us symbols to remember Him by..


So, sorry to the OP for going a bit off track.. But the challenge was put out there that I cannot expect people to take six days of creation, literally, if I don't take this literally as well..

And I don't see Genesis 1 as literal. I just don't see it. It is a poetic description of God's supremacy over creation, there is even a repeating refrain of poetry, "It was evening, it was morning, the Nth day". Here in this text the author both appropriates and also subverts the mythological motifs of the ancient near east. In this poetry about creation God is presented as the supreme Lord over all creation, the One who creates order from disorder, who fills the heavens and the earth with creatures to rule their proper places and divisions. In the heavens are the sun, the moon, and the stars; in the sky the beasts that fly, in the seas the beasts that swim, and on land the beasts that run and crawl. And, as the climax of of creation, He places a special creature, one to bear His image, humanity.

It appropriates the mythological language by speaking of the primordial, disordered world before creation--"The earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness was over the face of the abyss. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." And it is from this primordial disorder that God brings order, the word used to speak of God's act of creation is bara, "to form" or "to fatten" or "to give shape". God takes the primordial world and then by His command gives shape and form to it. From disorder to order. It is this that subverts the ordinary motiffs of the pagan stories. In the Enuma Elish there is the same primordial world and chaos, in the form of the ancient abyssal waters, Tiamat, the mother of the gods; from the primordial abyss rose the gods who then in their chaotic wars and acts of violence, by sheer accident, spring forth mountains, valleys, beasts, and men. But in Genesis this is subverted and rejected: Creation is not a divine accident, and the powers of the universe are not divine. There is only one God, and He alone has given form and shape to the universe, He alone invests the universe with order--the celestial bodies are not gods, but mere creatures without personality, created not on the first day as though they were supreme, but on the fourth day, subject to the previous days of creative work, created for the day and night.

And so Genesis 1 declares the truth of God, He is the Maker of All, He is the Supreme Lord and Sovereign. He alone is God, King of the Universe. Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu, Melekh haOlam. Blessed is the Lord our God, King of the Universe. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, even unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. Nobody is biting him at the time. If they had - he would never have made it to the cross.
2. He had not yet be crucified - so He could not have been offering his literal crucified "broken for you" body.
3. He had already made the same case in John 6 - where once again nobody bites him.

But none of that is the point on "this thread".. On this thread the point is that a statement in 1 Cor 11 cannot be deemed to demand that some text in Genesis be either literal or symbolic unless it is referring to the same thing.

(So that last statement was at the risk of getting this back on the topic).

BTW I have started a thread on the topic you are proposing. Yesterday at 5:45 PM #1

Of course no one was going to bite Him. The means by which we receive His flesh and His blood is in the Supper which He Himself gave us, for here in and with and under this bread and wine is that very flesh and blood that He tells us to eat and to drink. That is how He gives it to us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gary K]

Because it's not an answer to the challenge for a biblical reason as to not take Jesus' words about the Supper literally.

If I said that Jesus' resurrection wasn't literal because Jesus speaks figuratively, so when He says that the Son of Man must suffer, die, and be in the earth for three days, then rise from the dead that He's being figurative--would you consider "I am the True Vine" to be an adequate argument against Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead? I certainly wouldn't.

What makes Jesus' statement of "This is My body" anything other than that it is His body? Biblically.

The difference between His figurative words, such as that He is the Vine, that He is the Good Shepherd, that He is the Light, that He is the Door, etc is that He refers to Himself as these things figuratively. But at the Last Supper He doesn't say, "I am the true Bread" or "I am the true Wine", He takes literal bread and says, "This is My body" He takes wine and says "This is My blood". That which He holds He calls His flesh and blood. He does not compare Himself to bread and wine, like He does to a vine, or to a door--but He takes these material things, declares them to be His flesh and blood. That's a fundamentally different way of talking.

So, sure, had Jesus at the Supper declared "I am the true Bread" and "I am the true Wine" then we could say, ah, He is using the elements of the Passover Seder as illustrations of Himself symbolically. But that's not what happens, that's not what He did. And that's why everyone in Christianity readily and easily understood what Jesus was saying, it's the reason why when many of His followers abandoned Him He didn't seek to correct their misunderstanding, because there was no misunderstanding to correct. After they leave Him, He doesn't turn to the rest of His disciples and say, "Here is the true meaning of My words", He says, "Will you also leave Me?" But what do they say, "Lord, where would we go? You have the words of eternal life." He doesn't correct, He doesn't clarify, what He said remains as He said it.

Even those who abandoned Him understood what He meant, not to mention those who remained with Him, and as the Apostles preached Christ throughout the Roma world and beyond, what they proclaimed and confessed was that this Supper is the flesh and blood of Jesus. It's what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11.

This is why St. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been personally taught by the Apostles, and personally chosen by the Apostles to serve as the bishop of Antioch could say, in his letters,

"[The heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the Church in Smyrna, c. 107 AD

If it seems like Ignatius is speaking harshly when he says that some have incurred death in the midst of their disputes, consider that St. Paul speaks the same words in his first letter to the Church in Corinth,

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." - 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

-CryptoLutheran

When scripture isn't Biblical, well, things have gotten too irrational for me to deal with. I'll go my way and you can go yours. There's no possibility of further discussion between us.

 

[JacksBratt]

And I don't see Genesis 1 as literal. I just don't see it.

Why can it not be literal?

Simple question.

Many say "I don't take it literally" or "It's not literal, it's poetry"...

But my question is "why"?

It's stated pretty clearly.
It's not something that God could not do.
To many, it's not going to change salvation.


So, why is it so hard to believe that it is literal?

The poem "In Flanders Fields" is still truth.. and a poem. So, the whole idea of Genesis being poetry.. does not remove the simple truth that it is fact.

Poems do not denote fiction.

Also, it is not a parable.. Parables have specific characteristics.. like Limericks and Haiku...

Genesis is not a parable.

 

[JacksBratt]

Taking you literally, "totally" must mean that you disagree with everything in the quoted statement, including the part stating that the person it presents as its focus is living and is the very source of life, and that the Living Word of God is Jesus. Even the Bible maintains that.

There are points that you stated with have truth.. but I don't have time to go through the entire post and state which I agree or disagree with..

Maybe I should not have said "totally", However, you and I have very different views on many things..

Look me up in glory, when all this time is done.. We can sit by the river and laugh about all the things we had wrong in this life.

 

[The Liturgist]

remember, once again, our Lord said what He said, and that is undeniable. And He said "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you."

This is a good point. It is frustrating to see people demand a particular literal interpretation of some pericopes while rejecting a literal interpretation of others.

 

[K2K]

So, it was possible for Him to do it in the time indicated by the scriptures then?

He did, but the Scriptures say that they are not for your interpretation but by the Holy Spirit, so you need to listen to Him Jack

To set a pattern for humans and their lives on earth... a six to one ratio of work vs rest... not sleeping.

Did you not remember that Jesus said His Father and Him have been working to this day?

Again you understanding has failed you. You fail to realize that He has not even stopped working to rest so when is His seventh day? You missed the pattern because you don't listen to Him and you miss correctly understanding that Scriptures which you have been searching hoping in them you might have eternal life instead of coming to Him. He is still working and always has been so far. That rest was for men and that so that they might stop and seek Him, but are you doing that?

I never asked if anyone had a problem with God.

Jack you very specifically wrote, and I quote "If you think it was not within His power... you have a problem... not with man.. but with God." Maybe you just forgot.

Absolutely... But, I also think that the priest who put together the big bang theory.. was too close to the genesis account of all from nothing.. for science. Now, if I am correct, science is balking at the BBT.

A "priest" put together the Big Bang theory? It is a scientific theory. Yet it does seem to match the "Let There be light statement. Still, even that is a theory, so not something to be stubbornly attached to. I like it because it seems to work with both science and the Bible, if of course you are not too attached to your own understanding. As the Lord told me 'You should not argue about it because you were not around then to understand what all happened.'

Not sure of your point here.

Yeah - and that is the one point you need to get. Make it about seek our Lord Jesus Christ and listening to Him. If is done by faith - that belief that He is there like He said He was! If you do you will not be so concerned about whether it was 7 24 hour days or not. The point is not the time it took to get you to where you are today. The point is that today you need to be listening to Him and His instructions for you "Today" Have you not read, "Today, if you hear His voice", and 'encourage others as long as Today is still called Today.' If you seek Him you will find out the conversations with Him are not on those seven days but on "Today", because He is about having a personal relationship with you! I understand that you are not sure about that, but it truly is the one point that you need to get.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why can it not be literal?

Simple question.

Many say "I don't take it literally" or "It's not literal, it's poetry"...

But my question is "why"?

It's stated pretty clearly.
It's not something that God could not do.
To many, it's not going to change salvation.


So, why is it so hard to believe that it is literal?

The poem "In Flanders Fields" is still truth.. and a poem. So, the whole idea of Genesis being poetry.. does not remove the simple truth that it is fact.

Poems do not denote fiction.

Also, it is not a parable.. Parables have specific characteristics.. like Limericks and Haiku...

Genesis is not a parable.

Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus saying "this is My body" is literal? Why can't it be literal? Many say "I don't take it literally" or "It's not literal, it's figurative" My question is why? It's stated pretty clearly, it's not something that God could not do. So why is it so hard to believe that it is literal?


-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jipsah]

This is a good point. It is frustrating to see people demand a particular literal interpretation of some pericopes while rejecting a literal interpretation of others.

In a nutshell.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a good point. It is frustrating to see people demand a particular literal interpretation of some pericopes while rejecting a literal interpretation of others.

Pericope
An extract or selection from a book, especially a reading from a Scripture that forms part of a church service.

example:
1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Now back to the book of Genesis

 

[The Liturgist]

A "priest" put together the Big Bang theory?

There is no need to put the word priest in scare quotes. Priest and bishop are English derivations of the Greek words presbyteros and episkopos, used in the New Testament to mean elder and overseer respectively. Indeed, John Wesley translated the older English forms into “Elder” and “Superintendent”, and the United Methodist Church retains this usage in part even today, while the Anglicans keep it simple and continue to refer to their Elders as Priests. There is nothing in the term which should discountenance any Protestant.

Unfortunately most English Bibles muddy the waters a bit by using the word priest to translate “sacerdos” or “kohanim”, thus causing a certain confusion between the sacerdotal priesthood of Aaron, of Melchizedek, of our Lord, and of all believers and the sacramental priesthood clearly defined in the epistles of the New Testament.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus saying "this is My body" is literal? Why can't it be literal? Many say "I don't take it literally" or "It's not literal, it's figurative" My question is why? It's stated pretty clearly, it's not something that God could not do. So why is it so hard to believe that it is literal?


-CryptoLutheran

I myself am mystified why some people become outraged over a doctrine which is accepted by most Anglicans, most Methodists, and all Moravians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians. Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists collectively represent a majority of Protestants, interestingly enough, so it is not as though this is a fringe view.

Note that I am not expressing any upset that some people don’t accept the doctrine; rather what troubles me is the lack of tolerance for the extremely large number of Christians who do, and also some of the very unpleasant polemics such Christians are sometimes subjected to. For example, the claim, so offensive to Lutherans and Roman Catholics, that the Mass is somehow idolatrous or sacrilegious (which fortunately no one here has made, but I have encountered that elsewhere). I just can’t abide the lack of charity, tolerance and loving kindness that we see surrounding this issue.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I myself am mystified why some people become outraged over a doctrine which is accepted by most Anglicans, most Methodists, and all Moravians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians. Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists collectively represent a majority of Protestants, interestingly enough, so it is not as though this is a fringe view.

Note that I am not expressing any upset that some people don’t accept the doctrine; rather what troubles me is the lack of tolerance for the extremely large number of Christians who do, and also some of the very unpleasant polemics such Christians are sometimes subjected to. For example, the claim, so offensive to Lutherans and Roman Catholics, that the Mass is somehow idolatrous or sacrilegious (which fortunately no one here has made, but I have encountered that elsewhere). I just can’t abide the lack of charity, tolerance and loving kindness that we see surrounding this issue.

Well, I think the answer to this is actually very simple.

In a number of Protestant circles there has been a history of anti-Catholicism, and this has perhaps been strongest in the United States historically. And so there has been a history of despising anything with the appearance of "Popishness".

This stuff is kind of in the DNA of American Protestantism. Obviously it's not exclusively American, but it definitely is strongly American. It's the DNA of the Puritans who came to Plymouth who outlawed Christmas. It's the DNA of 18th and 19th century Protestants who continued to move further away from traditional Christian expressions of religion because of the perceived "Popishness" of it. And just about anything can be viewed as "Popish" if one tries hard enough. I mean, that's why the Jehovah's Witnesses reject the Trinity. It's why groups rejected baptising infants. It's why some groups reject worshiping on Sunday. Identify something as "Popish" and then reject it.

Now, I don't think that's the reason why most modern Protestants do this. This is just the history, this is why these things started to go this way; and then generation after generation, and the Bible is scoured for possible proof-texts, some ad hoc arguments and justifications here and there, and so now these things are seen as "Normal Biblical Christianity" and traditional, mainstream Christian teaching is the weird thing.

And since "that's not what I do" or "that's not what my church believes" it must therefore be wrong. Even though it's what all Christians believed historically until very, very recently.

Do I think that this is also an extreme oversimplification? Absolutely. But this has largely been my working hypothesis based on the history I am familiar with.

It's a process that I think can best be described as Argumentum Contra Romanum, "Argument against Rome"; the baseline assumption is that Rome is wrong, and thus we need to do things differently than Rome. And, strangely, this seems to be then retroactively forced upon the Reformation, as though this was how the Reformers themselves operated, when it absolutely wasn't. Or well, at least not the Evangelical Reformers. It seems obvious to me that some of the Radicals did operate this way too.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AmigodeJesus]

And I don't see Genesis 1 as literal. I just don't see it. It is a poetic description of God's supremacy over creation, there is even a repeating refrain of poetry, "It was evening, it was morning, the Nth day".

As a Lutheran, I would have thought you would be intelligent upon the theology of Luther himself, especially in regards what he taught and believed about Genesis-Deuteronomy, and Creation itself. Even the "table talk" of Luther is quite clear that Luther never held such a theology as you expound, and he himself was the preeminent 'Lutheran'.

In "table talk" see section cxix, among so many other references therein which refer to specific "history", not as you say "poetry".

In Luther's Werke, in several places, there exists his own calculation from the first day of Creation to his own time, none of which he ever considered "poetry", but always true and literal "history".

One can also read The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, section V. for similar material.

There is also a manuscript written in the hand of Luther's right-hand man, Philip Melanchthon in Luther's own copy of the German Bible which gives specific dates from Creation until that time.

Like Luther, the Reformation taught the same, of which records still exist of their stated position.

 

[Monna]

However, you and I have very different views on many things..

Probably a lot more in common than either of us realise! See you there, if not before!

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I think the answer to this is actually very simple.

In a number of Protestant circles there has been a history of anti-Catholicism, and this has perhaps been strongest in the United States historically.

Is it "anticatholic" to have this thread where people vote on their specific POV regarding Genesis?

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the same of people who deny the real presence of our Lord in the Communion. They don't believe what He explicitly said because it was a "hard saying". I wonder that they believe anything else He said.

Well... good thing we now have a thread for that topic ... Tuesday at 5:45 PM #1

This way we don't need to "make every thread" - that same topic

 

[BobRyan]

How Long Is One Day on Other Planets?

The Short Answer:

Planet


Day Length


Mercury 1,408 hours

Venus 5,832 hours

Earth 24 hours

Mars 25 hours

Jupiter 10 hours

Saturn 11 hours

Uranus 17 hours

Neptune 16 hours


How Long Is One Day on Other Planets? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Yep - each day determined by the rotation of the planet it pertains to.

And each reference to day with ordinals like first, second, third... in the Bible refers to that same standard for the time it takes for one day... "evening and morning" -- one rotation of the planet.

 

[JacksBratt]

He did, but the Scriptures say that they are not for your interpretation but by the Holy Spirit, so you need to listen to Him Jack

This is not something answered with "He did.. but".

My question was "So, it was possible for Him to do it in the time indicated by the scriptures then?"

And, I am listening to Him... Are you saying that I'm not?

Did you not remember that Jesus said His Father and Him have been working to this day?

I know that.. However, They are all powerful and live in a dimension without time.

We, humans, cannot work everyday all day. That is why He set the pattern that works best for us, created beings, living in a dimension of time, with mortal bodies that need rest, recovery and sleep.

Are you trying to say that we should work everyday now?

Again you understanding has failed you. You fail to realize that He has not even stopped working to rest so when is His seventh day? You missed the pattern because you don't listen to Him and you miss correctly understanding that Scriptures which you have been searching hoping in them you might have eternal life instead of coming to Him. He is still working and always has been so far. That rest was for men and that so that they might stop and seek Him, but are you doing that?

Again, are you saying that God wants us to work 7 days a week?

Jack you very specifically wrote, and I quote "If you think it was not within His power... you have a problem... not with man.. but with God." Maybe you just forgot.

I stand corrected.. Yes, I do believe that if you think that creating the universe in six literal days, is beyond the ability of our Creator.. you DO have a problem with God as He has told us that "nothing is impossible for Him"

A "priest" put together the Big Bang theory?

Ah..... Yep..

The origins of the universe, explained


A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s, when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom.

Yeah - and that is the one point you need to get. Make it about seek our Lord Jesus Christ and listening to Him. If is done by faith - that belief that He is there like He said He was! If you do you will not be so concerned about whether it was 7 24 hour days or not. The point is not the time it took to get you to where you are today. The point is that today you need to be listening to Him and His instructions for you "Today" Have you not read, "Today, if you hear His voice", and 'encourage others as long as Today is still called Today.' If you seek Him you will find out the conversations with Him are not on those seven days but on "Today", because He is about having a personal relationship with you! I understand that you are not sure about that, but it truly is the one point that you need to get.

In the overall message of the bible.. yes..

However, people taking the word of God and discarding it because of what men say.. atheistic, Darwinian evolutionist men... That... I have an issue with and rightfully so.

Otherwise you could discard anything that is hard for people to accept... When the canon is full of supernatural events that are paramount to understanding our God.

 

[JacksBratt]

Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus saying "this is My body" is literal? Why can't it be literal? Many say "I don't take it literally" or "It's not literal, it's figurative" My question is why? It's stated pretty clearly, it's not something that God could not do. So why is it so hard to believe that it is literal?


-CryptoLutheran

There is a difference between these two concepts due to the simple fact that there is no atheistic Darwinian evolutionary crowed trying to push God out of the way, as they do with creation.

Taking the literal six days of creation solidly places a need for a creator, designer and God, into the picture.

Then, God uses this literal six days to give His people, and all humans, a pattern of work/rest that is best for the body in which we live our lives.

You can believe that the cup is His literal body... or not.. and it doesn't change the command that Christ gave "do this in remembrance of me".

Christ is in my heart so I don't need to consume Him in bread or wine.. There is nothing to be gained. No increase in the value or importance of the "Lords Table" if the emblems are representations or actual physical blood and body.

However, take away the literal six days and you are diminishing the work of our creator and opening the door to all other theories of what took place in the gaps or allowing for the satanic view of evolution.

Confine it to six days and the atheistic, Darwinian evolutionists cannot spew their anti bible, anti God, anti Christ.... scenario.