Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
metmom are those crickets I hear?
Same place He always is.
He isn't any WHERE. He IS.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
I feel your pain. :) CS Lewis used an example of a chair. Anyone who thinks describing the reality of being a chair is easy, hasn't, as you say, thought about it. That does not however, prevent us from immediately recognizing it's 'chairness' and using it properly. For most humans, even a recklessly casual exposure to the object will produce the same result. If we see a chair, we may well sit it in, and rely upon it, though we are dumb as rocks as to what it really, actually 'is," and why it is holding us up.
Which is why I am grateful that God is the one communicating these truths through His word and His Spirit, and not through the wisdom of men. Though it should be obvious, He hides the truth from the wise and reveals it unto babes.
As for his word "making it so," we certainly agree in principle. He spoke, and the universe sprang into being from nothing. But it was an identifiable, discernable change. He turned the water into wine. But there is no record of him saying of the water, while it still looked and behaved like water, "this is wine." There was a discernable transition that occurred in real time.
In fact, I am not aware of any contradiction to this implied principle, that whenever he changed any material object or physical condition by His word, the result was always discernable to ordinary, even unspiritual human observers.
Yet Aquinas et al run against that pattern and would have us believe a transformative miracle has occurred upon a physical object, for which there is no discernable physical evidence, and for which, in language under ordinary rules of construction, there is no command given to effect such a transformation.
This is asking for more faith than Abraham had. Or perhaps less. A definite and promise was given, and Sarah did give birth, after all, to a physical son. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, true, but it can hardly be evidence that a command never given resulted in a change never detected. Abraham believed something would happen, and it did happen, and everyone knew it happened.
So in the view of Abrahamic faith, there is no need to make excuses for undetectable miracles issuing from undetected commands. God is perfectly capable both of expressing to us when he has commanded change, and of bringing it to pass in a way that unmistakeably manifests His glory and power. Under the ordinary rules of language, we know when he tells the lame man to pick up his bed and walk, or when he commands the sea to be calm. Like the Roman captain says, just say the word, and I know it will happen. And it did, in an open and discernable way.
And he is also perfectly capable of using the ordinary language of simple description, when he tells us that a farm field represents the world, the wheats represent believers, and the tares represent unbelievers. He created all these objects, and the language to describe them. That does not mean that at the moment of speaking about them he changed them. He is only speaking descriptively of things He already created in time past.
So, as I said, I am happy to agree with you on his power to create any reality he chooses. But if he chooses to use an expression which, per Occam's razor, is best understood, under the ordinary rules of language, not as a pop quiz on speculative metaphysics, or a cryptic signal of crypto-creation, but as a simple, garden variety descriptive analogy, then what can justify our venturing unbidden into deeper waters, and worse, to pronounce anathema's on those who are unwilling to join in the speculation, as Trent certainly did re transubstantiation?
While life is in the blood, death as well is in the blood...Jesus had to shed his blood...Why is that???
And true; blood gives our bodies life...And without blood, our flesh dies...Most (if not all) life ending illnesses are caused from 'bad' blood...
To get a little deeper than any Catholics dare to venture, our relationship with Jesus is purely spiritual...There is no need for blood in heaven...Nor flesh as we know it...Jesus came to Earth to get some corrupt flesh and blood so he could be like us...
1Co_15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
This verse should mean something to Catholics and all Christians...
The Kingdom of God which is where Christians are right now is 100% spiritual...The verse also says that corruption cannot inherit incorruption...And the context of that is one's glorified body (Jesus' included) will not accept the corrupt flesh and blood body we were born with as the vehicle we will use to get to and live in heaven...
Can anyone explain that heavenly, spiritual body??? Nope...
1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
But one thing we can be sure of is that the Kingdom of God and heaven where Jesus is has nothing to do with our corrupt, physical bodies...
Luk_17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
That would not be a valid conclusion, since Christ said, "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)
The NT uses "flesh" in a number of strikingly different ways, sometimes highly positive ("And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us"), ("Unless you eat My Flesh and drink my Blood, you shall not have life within you"), sometimes negative (Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another.)
Not only that, but the spirit that denies that Jesus came in the flesh, is identified as the spirit of the Antichrist. And again Paul says "the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh." (2 Corinthians 4:11)
So one must be careful not to deny the true Incarnation of Jesus as the Word made Flesh, or His true Resurrection, not as a "ghost," but as a man whose very physical being is reconstituted and transformed in a miraculous way, so he can say that even bodily, "It is I Myself."
When Paul says "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God," he's not talking about Christ's flesh and blood! He's talking about carnal-minded, thud-headed man, a slave to lust, unaided by grace, untransformed.
"By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." 1 John 4:2
Right here....
Matthew 26:27-29 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
A couple things to consider.
One is that Jesus had to participate in the Passover as any observant Jew would have to remain without sin.
That would include not eating of blood, which would have broken God's clear commandments and thereby sinning, which would have rendered Him incapable of being the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
The only reason His death was able to conquer sin and death is because He was sinless.
1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
So, as I said, I am happy to agree with you on his power to create any reality he chooses. But if he chooses to use an expression which, per Occam's razor, is best understood, under the ordinary rules of language, not as a pop quiz on speculative metaphysics, or a cryptic signal of crypto-creation, but as a simple, garden variety descriptive analogy, then what can justify our venturing unbidden into deeper waters, and worse, to pronounce anathema's on those who are unwilling to join in the speculation, as Trent certainly did re transubstantiation?
So true... However that does lead us back to the idea of authority...Our authority is what God says in the scriptures...Their authority is their ongoing 'tradition'...They have lured countless numbers of people into believing that their religion's authority is higher that God's written words...
A spirit does not have flesh and BONES. No mention of blood or using it as proof of Hi being Himself.
This body of flesh, this shell we inhabit must DIE for us to get a new one. It is not the same substance even thought it looks the same. Appearances are appearances.
Just because the appearance is the same, does not mean the inherent substance is the same. Any body would have to be inherently changed in order to be taken up into the sky or heavens. These bodies we have could not survive that.
“I didn’t see in Scripture where Jesus received or consumed the consecrated elements at the Last Supper, Himself. It says supper was finished; it says He blessed the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples;”
After He blessed and broke the bread, and offered it to His disciples, Paul writes “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped,” (1 Co 11:25). Thus, they, all of them, had eaten of the bread that was just offered, and “when he had supped,” offers up the cup which he blessed saying “this is my blood.” With the same cup in hand, which had already been allegedly transformed into His real blood, He says “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom” (Matt 26:29). Thus, “this” fruit of the vine, He held in His hand, He would not “henceforth” drink, obviously indicating that this would be the last drink of wine He would have till the culmination of the Kingdom of God and all the Apostles are reunited with Him in the next world.
Thus, your argument that He did not drink and eat, or that He drank and eat before He blessed anything, is pure fantasy.
This says He gave the cup of His blood to those who were with Him at table; it does not say He drank it Himself. The fact that He said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again, means He had drunk of the fruit of the vine earlier in the Passover meal. It does not mean He had drunk of the cup of His Blood which He gave to the disciples.
What happens to the old one?
"It is not the same substance even thought it looks the same. Appearances are appearances."
Are you saying you do not believe in the resurrection of the body, but just something that looks like it?
From this you can see that "after He had supped" means "after supper," or "when supper was ended."
It does not mean that He blessed this wine, said "This is My blood," then drank it Himself, and gave it to the others at table. After He said those words, He didn't drink it Himself; rather, in the same manner as before, He gave it to the others.
In the same manner as before, means He blessed it and distributed it, just as He had blessed and distributed that which He said was His Body. He didn't consume it Himself at that point.
That seems pretty clear. He's the Bread of Life. He's not eating Himself.
He isn't any WHERE. He IS.
and
I give up where is he?
Okay so neither of you really has a clue. Thanks for playing.
“From this you can see that “after He had supped” means “after supper,” or “when supper was ended.””
Stop and think for a moment instead of spamming me with these silly things. Paul begins by describing the blessing and the breaking of the bread. Then he says “when he had supped,” or ‘after he had supped,” if you prefer, obviously indicating that the breaking and the blessing of the bread was what they had just supped.
If what you said is true, then it should have said “after they had supped, Jesus blessed and broke the bread.” No matter how you translate it, you have Jesus Christ supping after the breaking of the bed.
“It does not mean that He blessed this wine, said “This is My blood,” then drank it Himself, and gave it to the others at table. After He said those words, He didn’t drink it Himself; rather, in the same manner as before,”
He can’t have drank “again,” or won’t drink “henceforth,” if the fruit of the vine, which He held in His hand, had not been actually drunk by Him. It should have said “I shall NOT drink of this fruit of the vine.” But luckily the Bible wasn’t written by Papists, but by Apostles.
See how Catholics proclaim we are saved:
By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)
By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)
By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)
By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)
By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)
By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)
By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)
By our words (Matt 12:37)
By enduring to the end (Matt.24:13)
And that's such a nice touch.
I thought so too!
Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself—He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”
But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”
However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”
You either believe Christ or you think he is a liar.
Your choice.
The Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Truly Present; Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, because Jesus SAID SO, in the Bible.
I don’t think the changing of “substance “ is so wonderful or rare. An ornament becomes a wedding ring, with no measurable change. And old radiator becomes a mooring anchor, and a plastic lid a frisbee. Heck, I have some computers that are now doorstops. (Okay, I’m kidding there.)
It’s the substance it becomes that is the miracle, to me.
Just as an observation, the adjective καινης needs to be put in there someplace. But laying aside all the fancy mode of address, one's choices are limited. the verb "to be" is in the present active indicative third person singular. The "is" means time is involved, and "present tense" means that the sense is that of an action in progress, something continually being. It has no other sense.
Thus, keeping faithfully to a literal interpretation, the language is simply either literal, or it is figurative-literal. There are no other choices. Literally, Jesus is saying that either (a) the bread loaf is of the same substance, character, and use as the flesh of His body, or that (b) its nature, preparation, and use are to be taken figuratively to represent the literality of His Body as a sacrifice. Jesus is also saying (verb tense) that the item of bread in His hand may be habitually regarded spiritually in its ritual ingestion as a reminder of His Body given for them/us. With these choices in mind, no sane onlooker could or would understand that (a) above is true, as being a literally transmitted fact.
Therefore, only (b) can be a rationally acceptable statement that the bread loaf in its current state can be viewed figuratively as illustrative of His Body (not his flesh) as a burnt offering. Note that he is communicating the abstract concept "Compare this bread loaf to my Body in a spiritual sense, not a literal, carnal sense."
The same hermeneutic process applies in the same way, to His announcement of the paradigm of ritually partaking of unfermented juice of the grape being (Gk present tense) a reminder of His Blood, that was to be shed for them as a sin offering.
No other interpretation is possible without introducing doctrinal schism in its explanation or application. The normal interpretation of this passage is a plainly obvious one attributing Jesus as using figurative expression, as He did at the time reported in John 6:35 and onward in that lesson, and which from Him the twelve learned of spiritual application of a literal object or process. Other disciples, interpreted what he said as speaking literally/carnally and not figuratively/spiritually, and walked away, not to return again (see Jm. 6:61-66 and be advised, especially 6:65).
Problems arise when something is read into a passage (eisegesis) that is not there, when a literal hermeneutic (exegesis) is abandoned for an allegorical one. The abnormal transubstantiation implementation is just such a one.
We say, "How ARE you?" but Spanish asks "Como estas?" where estas is a 'stand' (or "state" verb. And unless we have to, that's why I don't want to go running into that maze.
What you are introducing here in Koine would be the perfect tense, an action completed in the past with a continuing effect or consequence. This has no relevance to the verb tense you are discussing, if I may point out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.