I see abundant use of metaphor in the "I am the X" constructs, yet in the "This is/these are my X" sayings, only statements of literal truths, similar to the Resurrection and Ascension.
Here is a set from the books of the New Testament books: This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 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. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 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: 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. 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
John, Catholic chapter fifteen, Protestant verse twelve,
Like, Catholic chapter twenty four, Protestant verse forty four,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty six, Protestant verses twenty six to twenty eight,
Mark, Catholic chapter fourteen, Protestant verse twenty two to twenty four,
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter eleven, Protestant verses twenty three to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored by, King James
Asked and answered in previous discussion. The short form is:
1) that’s a circular argument. You are entering as evidence of non-metaphoric usage, passages that most certainly DO meet the criteria for metaphor, and which others before us and well before the Reformation have read as metaphor. Logically, you can’t use them as evidence when they are the very passages you are trying to prove something about. That’s called begging the question, baking a predetermined answer into the formulation of the question.
2) It doesn’t matter whether there are any other examples besides those that describe the Lord’s Supper. Metaphor does not rely on a particular conjugation of verb or the presence or absence of possessive pronouns. It is a nearly universal function of human psychology. All that is needed is a comparison of two domains not normally associated with each other. The verb of being “to be” links the two domains, and the mind starts looking for the metaphorical relationship.
A simple example in English: A proud Grampa looks at his beloved granddaughter and says “This is my little angel.” Does any reasonable listener think he is speaking of a small, non-human, angelic being? Or do they know, from the combination of physical and verbal cues, he is using a metaphor to describe his wonderful granddaughter? Of course they know.
But somehow, when we come to this passage, even though the same structure is there, the same kind of physical and verbal cues, we get this big fight. It makes no sense. I truly believe no one would find this the least bit controversial if there were not some deep seated resistance to the lesson of the metaphor.
Peace,
SR