What is there besides your Church's tradition (i.e. Scritpurally) to indicate without a doubt that he was being "literally true" regarding "This is my body."?
"All that you have been able to offer to refute that is that he sometimes made statement that were only figuratively true. That is not a logical argument!"
On the contrary, I have given scriptural evidence that Jesus sometimes rather simple, clear statements were communicating spiritual truths -just as I contend regarding "This is my body".
Furthermore, I have shown Scriptural evidence that Christ's likening himself to "bread" is to be understood as a Spiritual likeness. The Scriptures inform us that many Jews were mistaken when they took Christ literally.
In other words, Scripture has established for us the idea that Christ's body is for our Spiritual nourishment -not our Physical nourishment.
In the end, it is Scriptural evidence rather than a philosophical rational evidence that I have presented. I could not care less about a purely "logical" argument. I want Scriptural evidence.
You, on the other hand, have only given me, "I believe Christ was telling the truth". You gave no scriptural support for your conclusion.
And when I showed you that Jesus makes the same claim about "truthfullness" in informing us that he is a "door", you changed your argument to "I believe he was being literally true." -as if Jesus was not being "literally true" when he "truly" informed us that he was a "door".
Could you tell us what the difference between someone being "literally true" and someone being "figuratively true"?
Jean
As for the traditional believers in Christ:
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.
When using a metaphor, someone can make a statement which is not literally true (Jesus was not a 6' x 3' piece of wood with hinges) while remaining figuratively true because the meaning of the metaphor is accurate (Christ is the one who permits us to enter the presense of the Father). It isn't difficult, you see.
By the way, stringing them together creates a statement that is self-contradictory. How can it be anything "alone" when it is immediately followed by yet another thing which must also be "alone?" They must either be taken together to represent a whole, as you have done by connecting them, or they must be taken alone as they each proclaim. Which is it?