Either you are simply a very slippery fellow, or you weren't following what you said in post #272 -- and why I introduced the word "real" in post #279 (my response).
Here's what you said in 272 -- you were covering All of John 6: Cothrige, #272 If a pope comes out tomorrow and says that John 6 doesn't really reflect a teaching on the Eucharist no Catholic would accept it. It would be one man's opinion, and a bad one.
In case you want to look at John 6:55, the word "real" is there (twice). It's not imagined as you now claim. [So not only did I bring a verse from John 6 into play after you mentioned John 6, I was also introducing this Biblical word as a contrast to how Catholics like to emphasize John 6 as the "literal" body and blood of Christ...the word "literal" isn't ever mentioned in John 6...the word "real" is...]
I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. .. I have never argued about Catholic literalness...I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. (your post #310)
Cothrige, post #102: ...don't think inspiration was in question, but rather LITERAL truth. (1)
It seems to me that it is entirely possible for certain discrete statements in the Bible to not be "literally true" (2)
and yet for the Bible to still be inspired and true...Personally, I consider the entire Bible inspired, but I don't know if that inspiration means that every number in every instance is identical exactly to the LITERAL truth. (3)
I can tell you that it would be strange indeed if reality always happened in neat rounded numbers. That doesn't reflect MY EXPERIENCE of LITERAL truth. (4)
Not emphasized "literalness" by anybody? (Yeah, right...you're entirely too slippery)
Oh, and you didn't stop there in deciding that the subject of "literalness" was "in play" for thee, but not for me:
Cothrige, #273: Every reasonable Christian knows that one has to consider any single statement from Scripture within the whole context in order to know whether it is meant to be taken as LITERALLY true on its own, (5)
or rather as contributing to a point being made through a greater segment of text. For instance, is it "LITERALLY true" when Christ said "This is my body" over bread? (6)
We say yes, given the context of the entire Scriptures and their witness to the Eucharistic faith of the Church. We also say yes given the historic witness of the Church throughout history. However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "LITERALLY true," (7)
would say this single sentence is actually not LITERALLY true. (8)
What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible. Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.
Nice to know that after you mentioned "literal" and its similar words eight times in two posts that you...
...(1) now claim you "have not emphasized liternalness"
...and (2) accuse me of suddenly "decided now that this is what is in play."
Perhaps if you had simply recalled what you typed in two posts, the subject of "literalness" wouldn't have popped up to surprise you & bite you in the nose.
You then added Its laughable.
The above really is.
Nice to know that after you mentioned "literal" and its similar words eight times in two posts that you... ...(1) now claim you "have not emphasized liternalness" ...and (2) accuse me of suddenly "decided now that this is what is in play."
Look at point 1. You quote me as having claimed that I "have not emphasized literalness." Full stop. Close quote. Is that an honest quote? Did I say this, with the implications you have given it throughout that I have argued against discussions regarding literalness? Let us look at the actual full quote, and its context:
YOU:And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?ME:I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another.
I have not emphasized the literalness "by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another." And what was I replying to? Your statement that I emphasized so-called "RC literalness." My comment never suggested that literalness was not the issue, but rather that arguments about which church is more or less literal, and the relative value of those opinions, were never in my comments. I never brought such things up but you argued against my imagined view of it anyway. You imply, and then twist the implication, and now even quote segments of sentences to try to prove what isn't so. I don't trust your purpose or intent, and can see nothing constructive in continuing with you.
Have a nice day.