Posted on 11/20/2017 4:45:50 PM PST by ebb tide
That’s a proof-by-examples logical fallacy, as well as a strawman fallacy.
I’m saying that Jesus spoke literally when he said ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood.’
I’ve given you the reasons why I believe that he spoke literally, because it doesn’t make sense for him to call such special attention to physical bread and wine if it was nothing but a metaphor.
I’m interested in finding in Scripture this benefit; as well as grace being dispensed.
***
Sure.
But I suspect that you’ll dispute them as being metaphorical (since I believe that you have before with other people, if memory serves), or referring to different things.
Thus bringing everything back around to the original dispute of literal v. metaphor. Because if you believe in literal ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’ then the verses say one thing, but if you believe otherwise, they say another.
1 Corinthians 10: 15-17.
Luke 22: 19-20 (specifically the ‘for you’ bit.)
John 6: 53-58
1 Corinthians 11: 24
Matthew 26:28
EVERYTHING in the Passover meal represents something.
Ask ANY Jew!
3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the Lord brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.
4 This day came ye out in the month Abib.
5 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.
6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord.
7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.
8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt.
10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.
11 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,
12 That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord's.
13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.
14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:
15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.
17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
18 But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.
19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.
20 And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness.
21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.
So?
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1 Peter 3:15
Matthew 26:28 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Luke 22:19-20 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
John 6:53-58 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1 Corinthians 11:24 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
“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.”
Literal? Metaphor???
Did He not call special attention to the Pharisees mentioned above?
Then they MUST really be REPTILES.
For example:
So it seems that you agree with me that it comes down to literal v. metaphorical interpreting?
But because Scripture sometimes speaks in metaphor, Scripture always speaks in metaphor?
I don’t see your proof that Christ was speaking metaphorically in this particular case.
Then why not make special emphasis on OTHER parts of the Passover meal?
Why this specifically?
Why use the language ‘this is’?
Because a token of eating in haste does not really an effective symbol of death and resurrection make, far as I can tell.
Yup
Likewise...
I don’t see your proof that Christ was NOT speaking metaphorically in this particular case.
So my arguments don’t convince you, and your arguments don’t convince me.
Shall we just let this lie until the resurrection or the next thread then? Even with this argument, we both have eternal life in Christ, yes? We have a literal eternity to talk about this, but it seems there is no progress to be made today.
Why not?
Why the blood over the doorposts?
Why the eating of Lamb?
Why UNleavened bread?
Why 'beware the yeast of the Pharisees'?
Why did the 'noble' Bereans get praise for searching the Scriptures to see if what they were being told was true?
Yup
... Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
——Well, it cannot be the literal body and blood of Jesus, which was manifestly physical, and John condemn those who make Him the “Christ come in the flesh” into one without a manifest physicality. -—
I don’t understand entirely what you mean by that statement.
Well, it means that when Scripture speaks of “Christ come in the flesh” it is not speaking of Him merely appearing to be something He is not, whether simply appearing to be (incarnated as) human but which was body was like a phantom (like as docetist Christ or within gnosticism), or simply appearing to be a bit of bread/wine but which He is not, and which bread/wine really does not exist, as in Catholicism.
It was evidently in response to belief that Christ was not physically what He appeared to be that John condemns that and emphasizes His manifest physicality, as shown.
The Lord made all of creation by speaking; it can’t be that difficult to put body and blood into bread and wine, just like it can’t be that difficult to form a Y-chromosome for a virgin birth.
Which reasoning is a fallacious basis for doctrine: That God could do somethings cannot be the basis for saying His did it.
As I said in an earlier post, why would Jesus use such language and call such specific attention to relatively insignificant bread and wine if he didn’t mean something very important by actual bread and wine instead of a more generic comparison?
To anyone familiar with the use of metaphorical language in Scripture and in John this should not be hard to answer. David plainly and specifically called potable water the blood of the men who risked their blood to obtain it, and thus refused to drink it - treating it as sacred and forbidden to consume - but poured it out unto the Lord, as with a sacrifice.
Why would David use such language and call such specific attention to relatively insignificant water if he didn’t mean something very important but not speak as water literally being blood? The answer is that when something is used as signifying something holy and important then that object itself is sanctified insofar as it signifies something holy, but is not the same thing as making the object to be what it signifies.
If I could save the water I was baptized in I would do so, and not treat it as common, not because i think the water or baptism regenerated me, but because of what it signified.
The calling "such specific attention to relatively insignificant bread and wine" is entirely consistent with this focus on the symbolic due to what it represents. Jeremiah called specific attention to relatively insignificant pottery as well as a sanctified girdle, due to what it represented. (Jeremiah 13; cf Acts 21:11)
Yet none of these were subjected to gastric juices and end up in the latrine (the disappearing act of the Catholic Real Presence once decay begins is also read into the text, necessitated by reading the Real Presence into it).
I repeat, we’re NOT saying that Holy Communion is required for salvation,
Contrary to what many RCs are doing when quoting John 6:53 but then are silent when confronted with Lumen Gentium 16.
I know that Jesus died for ME because I was baptized into his death. So when the devil accuses me of unbelief or being insincere in my beliefs, I can point to the work of God that was worked within me instead of my own thoughts. Instead of turning my belief into a good work that I do for salvation, this places the focus on what the Lord has done for me instead.
That is a false basis for countering charges of unbelief or being insincere, since what God did for us in regeneration does not mean we are presently walking in faith or in sincerity. If our positional status appropriated by faith was all that mattered, and gave assurance of final salvation, then we would not see the numerous exhortations to perseverance in faith in the Lord Jesus, "whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," (Hebrews 3:6) and warnings against departing from the living God, falling from grace etc. /p>
Thus in writing so that we may know we presently have eternal life, (1John 5:13) then John never mentions baptism or the Lord's supper as the basis for assurance, but over the course of over 4 chapters he describes what characterizes a real believer.
The believer thus has assurance as a current believer, all of which is by God's grace, with Him both enabling and motivating man to believe and to work.live that out, thus man can take no proper credit. But this does not mean we cannot sin, even to drawing back to perdition, which is what man can and must take credit for.
Thus God works to chastens us unto repentance to that we will "not be condemned with the rest of the world." (1 Co., 11:32) If conversion was enough then this would not be necessary.
See this recent post by me on this OSAS issue.
(Not to say that baptism too is required for salvation—otherwise, that’d make it a work—but it too is a gift from God to give us assurance of that salvation.)
It is not the act of baptism that effects the washing of regeneration, but the faith which it is to both require and express. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
And as such baptism is used as a reference point for conversion: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)
But which is not invoked as assurance that one is saved regardless of whether they continue in that faith or not.
I... am not entirely satisfied with this explanation, mostly because I’m having to re-work the usual jargon because of the way FRomans use the same words to mean something radically different.
According to a RC blogger, even "Real Presence" was apparently originally n Anglican term, used in distinction to Catholicism.
Most of what you posted in the last one is actually what I do believe.
There are some differences, but I’ll need to save those for later. Caught a bug while I was visiting family and this medication seriously has me halfway comatose right now. Hurrrgh.
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.