Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
Thankfully Paul and the other apostles didn't share your view.
1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
What do you think Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 11:23-27? If the Eucharist is a mere symbol why the danger of being guilty of “the body and blood of the Lord"?
Also, how many followers left because they couldn’t reconcile the fact that Christ used the imagery of a door or a vine? They understood the use of imagery, which is why they were scandalized by Christ’s statements in John: 6
I would have thought that would be readily apparent and I'm quite confused that you are asking this question. I wouldn't be looking up my answer on an Orthodox site but via Meriam-Webster.
I am always amazed at Roman Catholic attempts to reduce John 6 to a literalistic wooden statement."Also, how many followers left because they couldn’t reconcile the fact that Christ used the imagery of a door or a vine? They understood the use of imagery, which is why they were scandalized by Christ’s statements in John: 6"Thankfully Paul and the other apostles didn't share your view.
1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
What do you think Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 12:27 and Eph 4:12? If the "body of Christ" is always supposed to mean the material/physical body that Jesus has, we are guilty of being Pantheists.
Your application here is a logical fallacy. Just because some may truly understand the parabolic imagery does not negate the fact that some (the Roman Catholic Church?) will fail to understand it.
Perhaps that is because God intended for them to misunderstand:
Mark 4
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Jean
Jesus said "Take, eat; this is my body..."
"I am the door." (John 10:9)
Does He say "This door is me?" or "This vine is me?" No, He does not! There is a clear difference between when a metaphor is being used and when something else is intended.
We believe that Jesus spoke the truth, even if it confuses those skilled in the rhetorical techniques of the modern day. Clearly, He is imparting something beyond our understanding to this bread and that it is important for us to consume it. That is why the Eucharist was a key component in the worship of early Christians and that is why it remains so to this day.
So it is your contention that Jesus was speaking to the unconverted at that point? It is the only way your argument makes any sense.
Explain how this is true. I believe you've misused the term.
Does he say, "This bread is me"? or "This wine is me?" No, He does not! He actually says, "this is my body" and "this is my blood".
The Roman Catholic error in their understanding is nearly identical to the error of the Apostles in John 6:34
John 6
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
The Disciples thought Jesus was talking about physical/material bread in vs. 31-33.
Jesus corrected them in vs. 35:
John 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.
Jesus no more meant an end to physical/bodily hunger than he meant that he was physical/bodily bread.
We believe that Jesus spoke the truth,..."
John 1 (NIV)
7 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.
John 10 (NASB)
7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am (1) the door of the sheep.
John 10 (ESV)
7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10 (NKJV)
7 Then Jesus said to them again, "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Care to try another reason?
"That is why the Eucharist was a key component in the worship of early Christians and that is why it remains so to this day."
The importance of the Lord's Supper is not tied with any belief that the bread and wine physically transforms into Jesus real/physical body. The churches of the Reformation strenuously objected to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, yet the Lord's Supper remains a key component in faithful Reformation churches to this day.
Jean
No, Jesus is speaking to many today through those same words inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was speaking figuratively to the disciples and they understood such (they made the mistake of thinking literally/physically in John 6:32 as I have already pointed out.).
Yet, when those words are read by others today and in the past, some can easily misunderstand those words to denote a physical/material meaning as the Roman Catholic Church has so done.
Jean
You could, but you’d be wrong.
I am always amazed at Roman Catholic attempts to reduce John 6 to a literalistic wooden statement.
Wooden? How so? You think our Lord’s words are “wooden” In what world are the words “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” “wooden”
Thankfully Paul and the other apostles didn't share your view.
1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
What do you think Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 12:27 and Eph 4:12? If the "body of Christ" is always supposed to mean the material/physical body that Jesus has, we are guilty of being Pantheists.
Are you attempting to persuade me into believing that you can’t discern the difference between references to the Church and references to the Eucharist?
"Also, how many followers left because they couldn’t reconcile the fact that Christ used the imagery of a door or a vine? They understood the use of imagery, which is why they were scandalized by Christ’s statements in John: 6"
Your application here is a logical fallacy. Just because some may truly understand the parabolic imagery does not negate the fact that some (the Roman Catholic Church?) will fail to understand it.
Logical fallacy? Is your use of this phrase a Straw Man? Are you so enslaved to logic that the meaning of John 6:61-63 “61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. “ slips by you?
Do you really think that John 6, when viewed in concert with Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; and Luke 22:19-20 can be construed as a parable or as an analogy? It can not and for 1500 years, it was not. The disciples did not leave because Christ was teaching a parable about eating His flesh, they left because they knew He meant it.
Remember that " With many such parables he spoke the word to them as they were able to understand it. Without parables he did not speak to them, but to his own disciples he explained everything in private." (Mark 4:33-34) They understood, they just lacked faith.
Perhaps that is because God intended for them to misunderstand:
Mark 4 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
This passage is referring to the use of parables and the non-believer. As I stated, John 6 is not a parable.
So how do you reconcile 1 Cor 11:23-27 Particularly since Paul is obviously not making a symbolic reference?
As you may have noted, the Orthodox Church does not believe in a physical transformation but in a real and mystical presence in the Eucharist.
The churches of the Reformation strenuously objected to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation...
Often referred to as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
...yet the Lord's Supper remains a key component in faithful Reformation churches to this day.
"The Lord's Supper!" Yes, absent the real presence in the Eucharist, it is just like any other commemorative meal, isn't it?
None needed as I still believe He spoke the truth in the first example. Sorry that your search for metaphor has made the obvious truth so difficult to perceive.
I might be mistaken on the name, but the technical name for the fallacy I believe you are guilty of is the "package deal" logical fallacy
Another way to put it is this.
The Bible makes clear that Jesus spoke in parables such that he intended for SOME not to understand.
It is your contention that it is impossible for ALL to fail to understand a simple thing like "I am the door" or "I am the vine"...
Therefore, you conclude, that since it is impossible for ALL to misunderstand those simple concepts, then "simple concepts" are not Parables.
You, therefore, are concluding that "this is my body" and "this is my bread" are a simple concept and not a parable intended to confuse.
The problem is that it is not true that Parables confuse ALL persons who are lost. It is true that Parables confuse SOME persons who are lost. Therefore, for you to find a group of people who are not confused by a parable and then to declare that the parable is not a parable is logically fallacious because there might just be some other persons who are indeed confused by the parable.
But I will give a different counter argument if you wish. In your original statement, you made the claim:
"Also, how many followers left because they couldn’t reconcile the fact that Christ used the imagery of a door or a vine? They understood the use of imagery, which is why they were scandalized by Christ’s statements in John: 6"
Actually, they did not "understand" Jesus. For we read in John 6:52
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Re-read that passage and you will see that Jesus never attempts to clarify his words. In fact, Jesus even more bluntly alludes to a cannibalistic idea:
53 Then 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.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
We read the result in vs 60,66:
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
This is precisely the scenario we read in Matthew 13 and Mark 4.
Jean
I don't think most Catholics would use the words physical change. I'd prefer to stick with "substance changes, accidents stay the same".
Physical, as I understand it, means matter. The matter of the sacrament is bread and wine. To say physical change or material change implies a change in accidents and substance. I think I'd prefer "substantial change" or "metaphysical change".
"Physical change" is not in Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas or the Catechism.
It does have its partisans though:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/2002/feb02/regisscanlon.html
Understanding Fr. Scanlon's thrust, still I spot several errors in there. Foremost is this: "Thus, the physical bread is changed into Jesus Christ, including His physical Body" which implies a breach of the created-uncreated barrier. Also: "And this Physical Reality or Physical Thing outside the human mind which priest and people handle, break, eat, and drink is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Christ is not broken in the Sacrament, but remains whole in each part.
I don't think I would use this expression either, which is very Cartesian: "these 'outward appearances of sensible things' could only be emanating from the human mind."
Note how strikingly different that is from what is noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia article Eucharist:
Since Descartes (d. 1650) places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory, that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be converted and thereby made to disappear. If the eye nevertheless seems to behold bread and wine, this is to be attributed to an optical illusion alone. But it is clear at first blush, that no doubt can be entertained as to the physical reality, or in fact, as to the identity of the accidents before and after Transubstantiation, This physical, and not merely optical, continuance of the Eucharistic accidents was repeatedly insisted upon by the Fathers, and with such excessive rigor that the notion of Transubstantiation seemed to be in danger. Especially against the Monophysites, who based on the Eucharistic conversion an a pari argument in behalf of the supposed conversion of the Humanity of Christ into His Divinity, did the Fathers retort by concluding from the continuance of the unconverted Eucharistic accidents to the unconverted Human Nature of Christ. Both philosophical and theological arguments were also advanced against the Cartesians, as, for instance, the infallible testimony of the senses, the necessity of the commune tertium to complete the idea of Transubstantiation [see above, (3)], the idea of the Sacrament of the Altar as the visible sign of Christ's invisible Body, the physical signification of Communion as a real partaking of food and drink the striking expression "breaking of bread" (fractio panis), which supposes the divisible reality of the accidents, etc. For all these reasons, theologians consider the physical reality of the accidents as an incontrovertible truth, which cannot without temerity be called in question.
No, that is not my contention at all. I believe you are debating what you believe me to be saying, not what I am actually saying.
Of course, I realized that when you went into the "I am the door, I am the vine" routine. It is a well rehearsed attack on the real presence in the Eucharist that attempts to use a volume of rhetoric to overwhelm the target. I'm not impressed by it in anyway.
It is my contention that when Jesus spoke "This is my body," He was speaking the truth and not in a parable or metaphor. To get me to change my mind, you need only prove that He was lying.
I didn't know you were Orthodox. My apologies for the oversight.
However, you should be made aware that the reformational churches (both Lutheran and Reformed) also profess a belief in the "Real Presence" during the Lord's Supper.
""The Lord's Supper!" Yes, absent the real presence in the Eucharist, it is just like any other commemorative meal, isn't it?"
In the reformational churches, the Lord's Supper is not merely memorial:
...Now it is certain that Jesus Christ did not prescribe his sacraments for us in vain, since he works in us all he represents by these holy signs, although the manner in which he does it goes beyond our understanding and is uncomprehensible to us, just as the operation of God's Spirit is hidden and incomprehensible.Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood-- but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.
In that way Jesus Christ remains always seated at the right hand of God the Father in heaven-- but he never refrains on that account to communicate himself to us through faith.
This banquet is a spiritual table at which Christ communicates himself to us with all his benefits. At that table he makes us enjoy himself as much as the merits of his suffering and death, as he nourishes, strengthens, and comforts our poor, desolate souls by the eating of his flesh, and relieves and renews them by the drinking of his blood...
from Article 35 of the Belgic Confession of 1561"
_______________________________________
Question 77. Where has Christ promised that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and bleed, as they eat of this broken bread, and drink of this cup?
Answer: In the institution of the supper, which is thus expressed: (a) "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and: said: eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor.11:23-26. This promise is repeated by the holy apostle Paul, where he says "The 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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Cor.10:16,17.
(a) 1 Cor.11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 1 Cor.11:24 And 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. 1 Cor.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Matt.26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Matt.26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Matt.26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Mark 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Luke 22:19 And 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. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1 Cor.10:16 The 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? 1 Cor.10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.from Lord's Day 28 of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563
________________________________________
Question 79. Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"?
Answer: Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God.
(a) John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (b) 1 Cor.10:16 The 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? 1 Cor.10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.from Lord's Day 29 of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563.
Your claim that the "Lord's Supper" is merely a memorial event is a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.
We in the Reformed Churches refer to the "Lord's Supper" as a "Means of Grace". The Holy Spirit works in our hearts through participation in the Lord's Supper as he does through preaching of the Word.
Jean
No rehersal was done. I typically don't take part in this kind of discussion and I am not aware of standard arguments. If this is considered a part of a "standardized" argument against Catholic/Orthodox doctrines, then there might be some validity to it if I just simply applied Biblical ideas without studying up on any "rehearsed" argument.
"It is my contention that when Jesus spoke "This is my body," He was speaking the truth and not in a parable or metaphor. To get me to change my mind, you need only prove that He was lying."
Of course Jesus spoke the truth. He also spoke the truth in telling us that he was a "door":
John 10 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."
Jean
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.