Replies

The danger of reading Greek dictionary entries is that we can find things that support our interpretation which have absolutely nothing to do with the context.

Thank you. Like, for example, classical uses of certain words meaning "little rock" and "rock"?

SD

Good morning, everyone. I wish JimRob hadn't taken away the option to send a message to "ALL" or "everyone." So, IMRight ... since this next sentence concerns you, I'll just address it to you. How 'bout them Cowboys?! < /sarcasm >. Well ... someone had to win.

Tuesday, October 16, 2001
Saint Hedwig, religious - Optional Memorial

First Reading:
Responsorial Psalm:
Gospel:

Romans 1:16-25
Psalms 19:2-5
Luke 11:37-41

You must ask God to give you power to fight against the sin of pride which is your greatest enemy - the root of all that is evil, and the failure of all that is good. For God resists the proud.

-- St. Vincent de Paul

--------------------

From wau.org ...
On one level, this Pharisee seems to have been a decent person. By inviting Jesus to lunch, he showed that he was interested in getting to know the latest "popular" rabbinical teacher. By ceremonially cleansing his hands before eating, he also showed that he was careful about fulfilling his religious obligations. Finally, by refraining from criticizing his guest, he showed some sense of good manners. Yet Jesus gave this man a very sharp rebuke, calling him greedy and a fool. Why? It couldn't be that Jesus didn't love him. He looked upon everyone with kindness and compassion. What was Jesus doing?

The man had a problem that he either did not see or did not want to see. Despite his religious behavior, his heart was filled with very non-religious motivations. He was basically a selfish person, intent on getting more for himself rather than on giving to others. His religious behavior was a screen that prevented him from seeing his need for a change of heart. The kindest thing that Jesus could do for him was to remove the screen and show him what lay behind it.

What about us? How often do we avoid facing up to the selfishness in our hearts? We may think that changing would be hard, or even impossible. But Jesus wants to wake us up to our need for repentance because he wants to heal us. He wants to cleanse our hearts--and not just in a general way: He wants to heal my selfish thoughts, my lusts, my envy. Are we willing to let Jesus probe us and put his finger on those thoughts and patterns of behavior in us that need to be changed? We have no cause to be afraid. He already knows our sins, and loves us anyway.

Jesus didn't just criticize the Pharisee. He showed him the way out of his bondage: "Give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41). Jesus promises that as we step outside our self-concern and begin to demonstrate concrete, practical care for other people, we will experience his grace at work in us, changing our hearts.

"Lord Jesus, you're right. I need a change of heart, but I can't do it myself. Heal me, so that I may love as you love."

--------------------

Have a great day, everyone.

Hi ya' Dave!

Hi yourself. :-)

OK, back to the metaphors. I had written: If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, other OBVIOUS metaphors could also be taken literally, such as "I am the Vine; you are the branches."

You replied: This amended statement of yours hinges on the word "obvious." To you, Jesus at the Last Supper is obviously speaking metaphorically. Not so to me.

Oh, but it IS obviously a figure of speech! For one thing, interpreting His words ("This is My body") as being figurative is the logical way to interpret it.

To you. If we look at the simple semantics of the statement "this is x," I guess it all depends on what "is" means. Seriously. One would normally read this type of sentence to equate "this" and "x."

This becomes as "obvious" metaphor to you when we let "this" equal a hunk of bread and "x" equal "Jesus' body." This is not dictated by the language itself, but only by the seeming impossibility of the statement to be true.

So, conceiving no manner of making the statement literally true, you read it as an "obvious" metaphor. I know how the statement is true and take it that way.

Besides, there is NO precedence anywhere in Scripture for equating an inanimate object, such as bread, with a living being.

John 6 is a precedent. And even if it weren't, are we bound to only believe things that occur in the Bible twice? Jesus only rose from the dead once, there is no precedent for that, yet you take it literally.

Do this "in remembrance" of Me. (Even if the bread and wine COULD become His actual flesh and His actual blood, the partaking of it would be redundant, because His sacrificial and propitiatory work on the cross is a FINISHED work!!)

The Greek word used for "in remembrance" has some ramifications. It speaks to making present the effects of a past event. Doesn't sound like strictly a "remembrance"s ervice to me.

SD

Thank you. Like, for example, classical uses of certain words meaning "little rock" and "rock"?

Good misdirection. I have now made two extensive posts on the use of trogo in John 6 but no one has bothered to try to refute them. Further, no one has ceased using trogo as a piece of the puzzle of transubstantiation. When faced with the evidence, ignore. Or point back to an issue that is tangential to the method I used in making my point.

Thank you. Like, for example, classical uses of certain words meaning "little rock" and "rock"?

Or as that dummy St. Augustine says; "rocky".