Replies

“That’s a pretty good Alex, darn good.”

No, it is silly. It is taking literally something that obviously is not literal.

About John the Baptist, Jesus said, “He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.”

So John the Baptist was a torch?

John 4: “Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

I live in a desert...so water that means I’ll never be thirsty again, and will also, as a bonus, give me eternal life? Sounds great - I’ll take a 12 pack. But that wasn’t what Jesus meant, was it?

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

And you want me to believe he was saying, “This bread I hold in my hand is actually my flesh, that only looks and tastes like bread, but is really and truly my flesh, just as much as is the hand that holds it”?

Sorry, kosta50 & annalex. Believe as you wish, but that argument seems silly to me.

No, it is silly. It is taking literally something that obviously is not literal

I was referring to the way he explained Catholic/Orthodox belief, or point of view.

About John the Baptist, Jesus said, “He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.” So John the Baptist was a torch?

And Jesus was the "son of man" (literary ben adam in Hebrew), or was he just joking? Or was a talking donkey just a symbolic donkey...or maybe just symbolically 'talking?' Or is God maybe just a Platonic ideal? I'm sure you believe that the HS descended like a dove, and a voice came from the heaven [sic] saying "This is my beloved Son..." or was it just a hallucination?

You know, I think there is nothing sillier than when two groups that believe all sorts of magical stuff begin to call each others' beliefs "silly."

taking literally something that obviously is not literal

Indeed metaphors abound in the scripture. No, St. John is not a literal torch and Jesus is not a literal door.

In order to understand the scripture we need to examine both immediate and extended contexts. With most metaphors we easily find that the literal interpretation fails, because nothing in the context supports it. Jesus does not enter into an argument whether or not St. John the Baptist is a literal lamp with anyone; no ceremony is attached to St. John being a lamp; the Early Church did not understand it literally.

However, with "this is my body" line, the context points to the literal meaning:

Whether or not the Eucharistic elements are purely symbolic representation of Jesus is discussed directly in John 6, and Jesus insists that His body is "food indeed". It is a prolonged discussion that results in a loss of a group of the disciples who leave over that issue. It is linked to the prefigurement of the Eucharist in the mannah and to the ascention of Christ to His heavenly throne. It is therefore not a single-time metaphor like the "lamp", the "door" and a yoke animal that Jesus compares Himself to.

In 1 Cor. 11 the supernatural essence of the Eucharist is clearly taught, as the sin of not discerning the body of Christ in it (1 Cor. 11:27-30) is described as leading to excommunication and spiritual death. Emblems do not render judgement.

The Early Church did not understand it metaphorically. While the happy meal that St. Paul condemns was an error, it was an actual meal. When St. Paul corrects the Corinthians he does not teach them to treat is metaphorically as a reminder of Christ, but rather he teaches that the body is right there with them.

At the Last Supper Jesus does not speak of a thing that would be difficult to understand and so requires a metaphor. He presents to the disciples His future suffering, explains to them His Kingdom where they will eat (sic!) with him again, and prepares them for the work of building His Church. His language is plain and straightforward: this and this will happen: behave like this, don't behave like that. But among His instructions is the command to "do this" (Luke 22:19). Do what? As He instructs he shows the bread and says "this is my body". This is how a priest "does this" today:

This is not metaphorical talk, in context.

What of the living water of John 4? The gift of Baptism that Christ gave us is real, not metaphorical water. It does give eternal life and we do not need a second baptism. Neither is that a pure metaphor. The two fundamental sacraments of the Church are promised us in these two Johannine chapters.