Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
sfousa-Note the "the" and the "this." Christ says "I am THE Light of the world; THE Door of the sheep; THE true Vine. But THIS is my body." I think that I am able to conjure up in my mind the light, the door, and the vine - and know that my mental images are but symbols of the Lord. But "THIS is my body" is very specific. It does not mean to include all the bread in the world, but only the particular bread that He held in His holy and venerable hands at that particular moment
You didn’t copy the next sentence after I pointed out how many times John used symbols, which was.
JH- Why is it only in John's account of these phrases that we see these symbolism’s that can be taken either way?
I made the point that the Gospel of John used a lot of symbolism’s, and then you went out of Johns Gospel, to bring in another quote, but the fact still remains, that Jesus said, I am the light, I am the door, I am the true vine, and, I am the bread, all of these quotes from the Gospel of John.
sfousa- The words, "This is my body" and "This is the cup of my blood" are in the Synoptics (Mt 26:26, 28; Mk 14:22; 24; Luke 22:19; 20),, and they are not symbols.
And this was Jesus speaking in present tense, which have nothing to do with my point in John’s Gospel.
JH-Please answer me, if the blood and flesh are literal and real presence, how could a Jew who kept the clean and unclean food laws ever take real presence Communion?
sfousa-As they said, "It was a hard saying."
The nearest explanation that could be given is to remember that the Discourse on the Eucharist (Jn 6) happened in Passover.
This discourse in John 6, didn’t happen on the Passover, but probably on the Sabbath in the synagogue, a few days prior to the Passover. See Jn 6:24 and V-59
sfousa -Some of them perhaps had heard the Baptist call Him, "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29-36) The Lord's hearers were about to go up to Jerusalem to eat the Passover lamb. Some of them perhaps had heard the Baptist call Him, "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29-36) Our Lord accordingly set before them His Person as the sacred reality of the Passover lamb. As in the Pascal meal the Israelites ate the flesh of the literal lamb, so in the feast which He came to prepare, they would eat the flesh and drink the blood of the True Lamb.
So your saying the disciples thought if Jesus was a (symbolic) Lamb of God, it would be OK to eat his flesh because he was a sheep, and not a man? NOT! Lol
They still saw him as a man, and eating another man would have been cannibalistic even back then, also, there were no circumstances when it was all right to drink the blood of anything, let alone a man.
JH- How could a newly converted Gentile who was told by the apostles to not eat things strangled or blood, take the Communion when they are told its the real blood and flesh of Jesus? Acts 15:20
sfousa- Hopefully, a Gentile, even before his conversion, was able to eat lamb. Also hopefully, the apostles were able to explain that the Blood of Christ was not any ordinary "things strangled or blood" but precious. The Lord said, "the Blood of the New Covenant," clearly proof of His death as atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
It wasn’t up to the Gentiles, it was up to the apostles, who told them what they were to consider wrong to do and to eat, and blood was one of them, be it sheep blood, chicken blood, or human, it was wrong for them to eat it, and it’s repeated 3 times, any way, I still don’t understand why RC’s always get into this argument over the blood, when you have eliminated it from most of your masses because it’s too messy, and because of the word “or”.
sfousa- If it weren't a mystery, it wouldn't be straining our faith so much. But the Lord requires faith. The Protestant bible commentary (One Volume Bible Commentary edited by Rev. J.R. Dummelow, MacMillan, NY 1909) that I am using, compassionately explains the Catholic belief
Please don’t copy and paste me any commentaries, and I’ll do the same for you, or it could turn into a broadband depleting copy and paste war, also, no one speaks for me.
sfousa- Sure that Peter believes that Jesus is the Lamb of God. Lamb is not unclean food. And the Blood of Christ is not common but Most Precious.
And puppies are cute, lambs are precious, and kittens are lovable, but this kind of fluff talk doesn’t deal with the fact that Peter refused to obey God when he was told to kill and eat, Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Peter was a Kosher eating Jew, and he could never eat blood or flesh from a human.
My point is this, none of the apostles ever ate what you call the real presence, as you define it today. That term was developed by the Church much later, and they complicated it with all the rituals and mysteries so no one else could claim the same communion as you have.
I will post more on this subject later. (^g^) JH
And you seem unable to distinguish between the Mass as sacrament and the mass as sacrifice. In the sacrifice,the offerings of bread and wine are parted as the blood was from the body, so both elements are required. In communion, Christ is given to the recepient under the form of bread or the form of wine. The only reason for communion under both kinds is to stress the communality of the celebrant in his own person and the members of the congregation.
This is a bunch of double talk Robby, and I think you know it.
Your own CE said it had become a problem serving wine because of the spillage and time consumed and confusion in serving it, the chance of picking up a decease, and also the belief it was real blood when spilt on the floor..
So once you decided to do away with it, all you had to do was dig for an explanation that your sculls full of mush would accept, and that was the word "or", and the separation you mentioned.
But that's fine with me, but don't expect other Christians to follow your half communion example you use.
JH
Wanted to let you know that I'm taking a little sabbatical from this thread and from FR. No, nobody has offended me or anything. I have a busy week at work ahead of me. Additionally, I'm a little burned out and I need a break. Y'all play nice, and I'll see ya when I get back.
Shalom.
Uhhh, your not going to Israel are you?????
I'll say a prayer for you and your family, and as usual, address it to the Creator just for you. (^g^) JH
sfousa: I thought you were asking about the Eucharist, which is not a symbol at all, that's why I did not stick to the topic of symbols.
Okay, the light, the door, and the vine are symbols and they are all found in John's Gospel. And you're right, the Gospel of John contains plenty of symbolism.
The characteristics of John's Gospel. The writer had an unusual gift of presenting the profoundest ideas in language of childlike simplicity. Also, John's Gospel contains both history and allegory. We must not, however, press the idea of allegory too far. The Gospel of John is not a biography but an interpretation of the Life of Christ. There are plenty of symbols, true, but he had also chosen historical incidents in the Lord's life on earth whether taken up or not by the Synoptics.
JH: And this was Jesus speaking in present tense, which have nothing to do with my point in John’s Gospel.
sfousa: In John's Gospel, Jesus was teaching the people and promising (future tense, if you like) of a feast greater than the shower of manna in the OT or the (NT) multiplication of the loaves and fishes, both of which were taken in by people's bodies (eaten) but did not nourish their souls. Jesus promised that He would give them bread - Himself as food - that would also be eaten but will nourish their spirits. The "Bread of Life" was a promise - not a symbol - that He fulfilled at the Last Supper.
JH: This discourse in John 6, didn’t happen on the Passover, but probably on the Sabbath in the synagogue, a few days prior to the Passover. See Jn 6:24 and V-59
sfousa: I said "in Passover," meaning the season, not "on" a particular Passover day. Sorry about my English ;).
JH: So your saying the disciples thought if Jesus was a (symbolic) Lamb of God, it would be OK to eat his flesh because he was a sheep, and not a man? NOT! Lol They still saw him as a man, and eating another man would have been cannibalistic even back then, also, there were no circumstances when it was all right to drink the blood of anything, let alone a man.
sfousa: I know you'd come to that LOL! But I was respecting the parameters you had set for our discussion - i.e., the subject of ANIMAL meat, blood, and other foods considered unclean by the Jews. My emphasis was on the SACRIFICIAL nature of the Pashcal Lamb, believed by the Jews to take away people's sins. Jesus used the Jewish doctrine of the sacrificial lamb as a foundation in developing His very own doctrine.
So - LOL! (Pardon me but I can't help laughing with you -I wondered why you did not jump right into the question of cannibalism, if that's what you were leading to - LOL!) And perhaps more than just cannibalism. Our Lord is indeed capable of shocking people, just by telling the truth! The fact is, the Lord Jesus Christ is God. If you call eating human flesh "cannibalism," what do you call eating God's flesh and drinking God's blood?
"Many of his disciples therefore, when they heard this, said, 'This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it? (Jn 6:61) "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. (Jn 6:67)
JH: It wasn’t up to the Gentiles, it was up to the apostles, who told them what they were to consider wrong to do and to eat, and blood was one of them, be it sheep blood, chicken blood, or human blood,
sfousa: Or God's Blood?
JH: any way, I still don’t understand why RC’s always get into this argument over the blood, when you have eliminated it from most of your masses because it’s too messy, and because of the word “or”.
sfousa: The Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is proof that He really is atonement for our sins, THE Sacrifice in which He is both Priest and Victim. We've never eliminated it from our Masses. Wine is consecrated and transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ at all Masses.
JH: Please don’t copy and paste me any commentaries, and I’ll do the same for you, or it could turn into a broadband depleting copy and paste war, also, no one speaks for me.
sfousa: I'm sorry. I was just deeply touched by that part from a Protestant commentary on the subject (so was RobbyS - Hi, Robby! :)), and wanted to share. I hope you'd open your heart and see there was no malice there.
JH: Peter was a Kosher eating Jew, and he could never eat blood or flesh from a human.
sfousa: "...and we have come to believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."Jn 6:70 So Peter knew that he would be eating not just human flesh but the flesh of God Himself.
JH: My point is this, none of the apostles ever ate what you call the real presence, as you define it today.
sfousa: As we defined it today was exactly how Christ defined it in Gospel - no corrections. The apostles and disciples ate of the Body and Blood (1 Cor 23-30, for example.)
JH: That term was developed by the Church much later,
sfousa: The term "Real Presence" was developed by the Church, perhaps later, and only by way of an explanation. The term - not the fact. The fact of the Real Presence has always been there from the time the Lord instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood.
JH: and they complicated it with all the rituals and mysteries so no one else could claim the same communion as you have.
sfousa: Rituals, yes. So do various earthly kingdoms in honoring their monarchs (the British, for instance.) How much more do Our Lord and King deserve such rituals!
Mysteries, yes! - how could you deny this with God? Knowing how limited our human faculties are, we cannot really understand everything in this realm. Faith in God is necessary. We do not see clearly now, but He promised that in the end we will see Him face-to-face. And there will be no more mysteries. No more need for faith nor hope. Only charity.
God bless you, JH.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
For example, "As we defined it today was exactly how Christ defined it in Gospel." should read "As we define it today is exactly how Christ defined it, etc."
Also, "How much more (rituals) does (not do) deserve Our Lord and King."
(Sigh!) English is such a difficult language!
Thank you for the reply!
We'll respectfully disagree here. Absolutely yes these are metaphors.
Yes, we will have to disagree ;). Starting with Malachi 1:11, God meant the Eucharist to be a non-symbolic act, as opposed to a symbolic only act:
John 6 moves from symbolic to non-symbolic language. Let's examine that in more detail below.
In Lev. 17:14, the reference is to all blood, not just that of animals taken, but any living entity. It's funny how metaphors are taken literally and things to be taken literally are spiritualized and treated like metaphors. As stated in another post, context rules and the context in John 6 is about the Passover and eating, so it's easy for Jesus to use language and metaphors that relate to what's on their minds.
Christ was explaining that the New Covenant that he was explaining to in part, the Jews, was about to replace and supplant the Old Covenant that they had been using for centuries, and which did not have the power to grant life. Romans 7:10 makes it clear (to me at least) that blood was necessary for sacrifice in order to elicit temporary appeasement from God, but it could not bring life. Are you saying that Christ was saying that the Old Covenant was still in force and effect after what He described about His death and the New Covenant?
Possibly my concordance is wrong, but phago is used as "eat" in John 6:53 and 58. It is also used in verses 5, 23, 26, twice in 31, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the same chapter. Trogo is used in verses 54, 56, 57 and 58 with the word translated as "eateth." The only other time trogo appears is in Mt. 24:38 where it is rendered "eating." This is according to the KJV and I am not going to look the words up in the DRB. This interchanging of words does leave one to wonder what John did mean. The important issue is in verse 63 where the "words" are "spirit" and "life." God's Word and His Spirit are intertwined and bring life to the natural man who is dead in his sins. Read Ps. 119 and see the many times this connection is stated.
I'm using a DRB, Strong's, and several on-line references. I show trogo as being used in John 6: 54, 56, 57, and 58. Trogo is a very specific process of masticating one's food. In Greek literature, trogo referred to the act of chewing, gnashing, munching, etc (see Liddlee & Scott, Greek English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 1871; Bauer, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, University of Chicago Press, 1979).
In each of these cases, trogo is preceded by a definite article in the present participle form, and this is an emphasis which pays particular attention to the individual.
Phago's symbolic use is not well established in John 6. Phago appears for use the first time in verse 49, with Christ referring to the physical eating of manna. The following verse, Christ speaks of Himself as the "bread from heaven, which a man may eat (phago) and not die". Prior to these two references, John had ample opportunity to establish the symbolic weight to the use of phago, especially when Jesus referred to himself as the bread from Heaven and which people should hunger and thirst, but importantly, he did not do so. Thusly, if the first instance of phago is used to refer to physical, non-symbolic eating (verse 49), then one must show why Christ then changed the meaning of phago to a non-symbolic meaning in the very next verse, verse 50.
As you point out, the remainder of John 6 interchanges phago and trago. The use of phago in verse 53 is non-symbolic. Symbolic use of phago has neither a contextual basis not etymological support, as John 6 never uses phago in a symbolic sense prior to the verses in question (verses 54-58).
If John's intention was to have Jesus change phago into a metaphor, he could have easily have followed up with a word other than trogon/trago, as there were plenty of ways to create a symbolic meaning in the Greek language.
I agree that the word anamnesis refers to more than commemorating the Last Supper. If by sacrificial in nature you mean all the benefits Christ procured for us by His death on the cross, then we also agree on this point. I just completed a teaching on the things freely given us by God the very instant a person is saved. In it there were 66 major benefits with several others incorporated. That's what we're to remember and commorate as most assuredly be exceedlingly thankful for.
Yes!
Other than a few word differences,the DRB and the KJV are similar. It's important to note what Paul doesn't drive home. He does not say as in Mt. 26:28 "which is shed for many for the remission of sins," or in Mk. 14:24, "which is shed for many." Luke in his more global view, says in Lk. 22:20, "which is shed for you." Of course the context in 1Cor. is much different in that Paul is addressing a body of believers who were abusing the "remembrance." In the Gospel accounts, the Nation Israel was being addressed, hence "the many," not the all. 1Tim. 2:4 tells us that God will is for "all" to be saved, not just the "many."
We'll have to discuss the differences between the DR and the KJV at another time, as the differences are somewhat concerning.
Concerning Matthew 26:28, I believe you are correct in that interpretation, but I also interpret that to also mean that the connection of the sacrament and the sacrifice to the propitiation of sins is a strong connection, certainly the normal tautology for shedding blood.
My response above suffices. If not, then we disagree because the only other use that I'm aware of is to associate oneself with the event in remembrance. Paul gives us a definition of remembrance in 1Cor. 11:26. The Bible is the best interpreter of itself.
Paul has also been counseling the Corinthians on the proper respect and differences due a love feast and the actual consecration.
Paul has been rebuking and admonishing the Corinthian believers because of their bad behavior. As a result, they were carnal and babes in Christ, not mature even though they had received instruction for somewhere around three years. They, among other things, were profaning the breaking of the bread. However, Paul tells them earlier in 1Cor. 3 that the fire shall reveal the quality of what they build their doctrines on. So these Corinthians are not subject to the curses and punishments for the Jews for two reasons; first is they are already believers and secondly they are under grace not law. Since they are believers, they are saved from the wrath of God the very instant they believed and were saved unto eternal life. If that's your definition of eschatological salvation, then you're correct. If your definition is that this salvation only occurs at the end times, then we disagree.
Hmmm. Paul clearly tells the Corinthians in verses 28-29 that there will be judgment for them not recognizing the body of the Lord. I will admit there are some translation discrepancies for the phrase "recognizing" and there is still dispute as to if the Byzantine text types or copies originating from the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus of the 4th century are the older and more reliable.
There are also other clear signs that Paul means to show that wrath and judgment await those, even believers who profane the body and blood of Christ.
He says "do" this if you are a Jew under the law. Note this is conditional. We are saved by and operate under God's grace and not the law. Under grace, we're told "don't do" because Christ did it all for us on the cross. That's why we celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Christ was not just speaking to Jews in John 6, even through he was speaking *to* the Jews at the time. Again it comes down to symbolic and non-symbolic language of Christ.
John 10:9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
And Jesus is a door????????????
Is it just possible you are selective in which passages you take literally and which you accecpt as metaphor
Focusing on John 10:7-9, some claim that because Jesus is not claiming to be a literal door with a knob and hinges, we must interpret such passages metaphorically. And such symbolic interpretation is granted. Jesus speaks figuratively many times in His teaching, as does much of Scripture.
I guess my concern would be that to force a symbolic meaning on one passage because another passage employs a symbolic meaning is an error in regards to biblical hermeneutics. The differences between John 6 and John 10 could be summed up as follows:
- a figurative meaning of John 6 is already taken into account in Catholic theology. In John 6:29-47, Christ is focused on a figurative interpretation of the bread. Jesus is not literally a piece of bread. "I am the bread" could rely on the same figurative interpretation as "I am the door".
- the language of John 6 contains a dramatic shift from figurative wording to intensely literal wording - even the Jews note this in verse 52. John 10 has no such development or internal interpretative markers.
- once John 6 shifts into a more literal usage of words, it continues more emphatically with physical language such as "eat", "drink", "flesh", "blood", and "real" (verses 51-58), with this not being done in John 10.
- interpreting John 6: 54-58 as a command to consume the body and blood of Christ as precedent in the New Testament, since the same command is repeated in all the Synoptic gospels *and* in 1 Cor 10-11. John 10 is the only time that Jesus says "I am the door", or even referred to as a door in all of Scripture. I believe there is no precedent for interpreting it other than figuratively, from this perspective.
True only if you first address Invicibly Ignorant. ;o)
As Jesus once said ... "All are welcome."
Was the holy place realy the throne room? Or a copy?
Hi Nate. Interesting thought. I like the idea of the sacramental practices of the Church in this world as "copies" of heavenly truths. The Orthodox speak of the Liturgy as a copy of the eternal heavenly Liturgy that is described in Revelation.
BUT...
What is a copy?
I'd propose that a copy is not necessarily the opposite of "reality," as you seem to say - it doesn't have to be either/or. It can also be a "re-creation" or a "remembrance" in the full sense of the often-debated term anamnesis. If I copy the way someone sings a song, there's no doubt I'm "really" singing it. The copy participates in and perpetuates the original.
If you'll attack Jesus like you do the rest of Catholicism, you will see us defend Him with fervor.
Don't ignore 1 Corinthians 11:24-28.
Why don't y'all just read the whole darn book of Corinthians? ;o)
Hi JH. I guess I don't see this as any kind of a stumbling block. The Apostles would have immediately and completely understood the qualitative difference between the two. Eating the Flesh and Blood of God seems hardly comparable with eating the flesh and blood of animals.
I think it likely that the Apostles understood it as transcending the Law. It would have been obvious that a different dynamic was at play.
Do you think that the Apostles rejected Mary Theotokos as a Lawbreaker? Didn't she break the Law by bearing a child by someone other than her husband?
I think this is a ridiculous question - of course they didn't think of her as less observant of the Law because of the Virgin Birth. Likewise, I don't think it would have even occurred to them to think of partaking of Christ's Body and Blood as a violation of the Law.
If you think the comparison of the Virgin Birth with the Eucharist is not valid, I'd be interested in hearing why. God Bless.
Of course it's not. "Tradition" simply means something that is passed down from one generation to the next. The Bible is an example of a tradition.
| Monday, May 6, 2002 Easter Monday |
||
|
The scene that Luke recounts between Paul and Lydia is reminiscent of the encounter between Jesus and the woman at the well in John's Gospel (4:7-30). Both Jesus and Paul spoke to women--a very unusual occurrence in those days. What's more, neither of these women was Jewish! And finally, these women were open to and immediately affected by God's word.
The Samaritan woman went back to her city and told everyone about Jesus. Lydia, who was a wealthy widow, a businesswoman, and head of her household, immediately invited Paul and Timothy to come and stay with her. Her home probably served the members of the Christian community in Philippi as their meeting place. God opened the hearts of both Lydia and the Samaritan woman to become believers, although they must have seemed like unlikely candidates given the cultural dictates of that time.
God often chooses unlikely people to do his work. Our past, our physical limitations, or our education level mean nothing to him. For example, in fourteenth-century Italy, women were expected to stay out of public life. So, when the Lord revealed to Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) that she must go out and mingle with those in the world, she protested that she would be unable. But God told her that he had chosen a woman to humble proud and learned men.
God can choose us, too, even if we think we're not qualified. None of our "limitations" are hindrances to the Lord. Like the woman at the well, all we need is to be thirsty for God. Like Lydia, we only need to be open to the truth. Then, we can do whatever God asks of us. He is the source of all wisdom and the giver of every good gift and talent. He can bestow on us blessings and abilities we never thought we had.
"Father, help me to be open to all that you are asking of me. I want to do the work you have called me to. I want to build your kingdom on earth so that your glory may be visible to all."
----------
God bless.
AC
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.