The Eucharist

[ironmonk]

The Real Pressance is True, and it cannot happen without Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation to put simply the bread and wine becoming the body and blood and really being Christ's Body and Blood which is the apex of Christian life.

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Note it says "from the rising of the sun to its setting". There are Catholic Massess all over the world. 300,000 a day from my understanding. Each one offers that pure grain offering.

John 6:52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (His) flesh to eat?"

65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

NOTHING is impossible with God.... Do you want to be counted with those that walked away.

NOTE: It is GRACE that saves us!!! "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

I'm praying for you in my next Rosary.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited August 2, 2003 by ironmonk

[dUSt]

I'm not pointing to them as an infallible rule of faith.  I'm pointing to them as proof that historic Protestantism does not take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments.

Okay... So we determined that historic Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. Modern day Protestantism, for the most part, does. Where has this gotten us? Why would I care about what the historic views of Protestantism are? How does this further my understanding of God?

[Anna]

How is it that when Jesus says, "Truly, truly," so many protestants claim that He is speaking figuratively?

When He took Bread and said "This is My Body." He didn't say this is My Body and also bread...That is consubstantiation. And that theory came well after transubstantiation was understood and believed.

Why would Jesus only partially convert the bread? He never partially healed the sick, partially cured the lame, gave partial sight to the blind...partially suffered on the Cross, nor partially rose from the dead...

He gives us His ALL in Holy Communion.

Pax Christi. <><

[LivinTabernacle]

y'all can figure out how i feel on this, but to explain in my friend's words...

"Well, there are two levels that make up an object, the accidents and the substance. The accidents are the appearance, taste, look and feel of an object, but the substance is what it really is.

For instance, if you take a chair it has accidents and substance. Say that you saw the chair in several places and then take those pieces of wood and reconfigure them with nails to make a coffee table. You've changed the accidents of the chair into a table, but the substance of the chair has not been changed, it's still made up of the "wood molecules". Make sense?

So, at Mass...

The accidents of the bread and wine do not change.

The substance of the bread and wine are altered into Christ's body and blood."

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

(Dave) Who are you going to trust, Luther and Calvin, who are mere men who separated themselves from God's Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ? You said to dUSt that you were just trying to show that historical Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. That's irrelevant; you're still showing you're putting more trust in what Luther and Calvin taught than what Christ taught.

(Me) I don't possibly see how I'm showing that my trust is in Luther and Calvin but not Christ. I'm responding to the claim that Protestantism affirms a purely symbolic view. Jesus did not deliver history lectures over the development of doctrine in Reformational Protestantism, so if I want to establish a claim about Reformational Protestantism, I need to point to something not explicitly taught by Jesus.

I also tend to find Paul's statements on the Real Presence much more compelling (against a purely symbolic view) than Christ's.

(Previous) I have reposted what you said earlier in order to try to make my response more clear. Let's look back through the passages you cite:

Isaiah 49:26

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh,

and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.

Then all flesh shall know

that I am the Lord your Savior,

and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Micah 3:3

who eat the flesh of my people,

and flay their skin from off them,

and break their bones in pieces

and chop them up like meat in a pot,

like flesh in a cauldron.

Rev. 17:6, 16

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire,

What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English. We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context. For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!" Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

(Dave) Doesn't matter about English. Jesus spoke ARAMAIC.

(Me) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

(Dave) Besides, if all Jesus meant was to believe in him, why did many of his disciples leave him (John 6:66)?

(Me) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

(Dave) If Jesus’ message was simply to believe in him Peter should have no problem with it. But yet, Peter makes a statement suggesting that he would almost leave.

(Me) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) The Real Pressance is True, and it cannot happen without Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation to put simply the bread and wine becoming the body and blood and really being Christ's Body and Blood which is the apex of Christian life.

(Me) Please don't just assert your point. How is it that Christ cannot be really present if transubstantiation is false?

(ironmonk) Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Note it says "from the rising of the sun to its setting". There are Catholic Massess all over the world. 300,000 a day from my understanding. Each one offers that pure grain offering.

(Me) The New Testament seems to paint Communion as more of a receiving of God's blessings than an offering or sacrifice we make.

(ironmonk) I'm praying for you in my next Rosary.

(Me) Thanks.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I'm not pointing to them as an infallible rule of faith. I'm pointing to them as proof that historic Protestantism does not take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments.

(dUSt) Okay... So we determined that historic Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. Modern day Protestantism, for the most part, does. Where has this gotten us? Why would I care about what the historic views of Protestantism are? How does this further my understanding of God?

(Me) I'm mostly defending myself from an attack made upon me, so don't ask me where this gets us -- ask the person who made the statements to which I responded

The most immediately obvious point would be that, if transubstantiation is false, Adoration is idolatry.

(Anna) When He took Bread and said "This is My Body." He didn't say this is My Body and also bread...

(Me) But He did call it wine (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18)

(Anna) That is consubstantiation. And that theory came well after transubstantiation was understood and believed.

(Me) True, Luther's view was formalized a few centuries after the definition of transubstantiation.

(Anna) Why would Jesus only partially convert the bread? He never partially healed the sick, partially cured the lame, gave partial sight to the blind...partially suffered on the Cross, nor partially rose from the dead...

(Me) I think this is a misrepresentiation of Luther's view, because he never really claimed that Jesus converted half of the bread, or something like that. He said that Christ's body and blood are present with or under the elements.

(Anna) He gives us His ALL in Holy Communion.

(Me) Yes -- through faith, He spiritually feeds us (as Calvin rightly emphasized).

(LivingTabernacle) "Well, there are two levels that make up an object, the accidents and the substance. The accidents are the appearance, taste, look and feel of an object, but the substance is what it really is.

For instance, if you take a chair it has accidents and substance. Say that you saw the chair in several places and then take those pieces of wood and reconfigure them with nails to make a coffee table. You've changed the accidents of the chair into a table, but the substance of the chair has not been changed, it's still made up of the "wood molecules". Make sense?

So, at Mass...

The accidents of the bread and wine do not change.

The substance of the bread and wine are altered into Christ's body and blood."

(Me) Yes, I agree that this accurately describes the Catholic Church position (although I don't see why someone would want to tie themselves down to Aristotle's metaphysics).

Edited August 29, 2003 by mustbenothing

[Dave]

(Dave) Who are you going to trust, Luther and Calvin, who are mere men who separated themselves from God's Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ? You said to dUSt that you were just trying to show that historical Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. That's irrelevant; you're still showing you're putting more trust in what Luther and Calvin taught than what Christ taught.

(Me) I don't possibly see how I'm showing that my trust is in Luther and Calvin but not Christ. I'm responding to the claim that Protestantism affirms a purely symbolic view. Jesus did not deliver history lectures over the development of doctrine in Reformational Protestantism, so if I want to establish a claim about Reformational Protestantism, I need to point to something not explicitly taught by Jesus.

I also tend to find Paul's statements on the Real Presence much more compelling (against a purely symbolic view) than Christ's.

Christ and Paul taught the same thing -- that the Eucharist is TRULY Jesus -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

(Dave) Doesn't matter about English. Jesus spoke ARAMAIC.

(Me) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

Ummmm . . . excuse me, but the passages I provided were perfectly clear; it seems you're just trying to grasp at straws to try and prove yourself right by making conjectures. Actually, now that I think about it, regardless of the language it was written in, to "eat one's body" and "drink one's blood" figuratively means to slander and betray among the Jews during that time, and it still means that among many Middle Easterners today. It's a fact that I've effectively demonstrated but that you refuse to admit is true. Tell me, how many idioms do you know of are there that can mean something different figuratively in the English language? Let me think of some . . .

"Rain on one's parade" -- means to upset someone who's in a good mood; no other figurative meaning for it.

"See eye to eye" -- means to agree entirely; no other figurative meaning for it.

"Blow your own horn" -- means to brag; no other figurative meaning for it.

I could think of many other idioms as well. Not one of them can mean something different figuratively from their normal figurative meanings. Thus, your claim is reduced to pure absurdity.

(Dave) Besides, if all Jesus meant was to believe in him, why did many of his disciples leave him (John 6:66)?

(Me) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

You conveniently ignored my statement that the disciples who left ALREADY believed in Him and that He was their Savior. They had understood everything UNTIL Jesus told Him they needed to eat His Body and drink His blood.

(Dave) If Jesus’ message was simply to believe in him Peter should have no problem with it. But yet, Peter makes a statement suggesting that he would almost leave.

(Me) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

You're not even addressing what I wrote. They were already following Him -- both the disciples who eventually left and the disciples who stayed. Peter's response indicates that it was hard to understand Jesus' presence in the Holy Eucharist, but He, along with the rest, already knew that in Jesus they were to find their redemption, so despite the fact they were confused by His statement, they knew there was no place else for them to go. Besides, why didn't Jesus call those who left back and say, "Hey, I was just speaking figuratively!"?

[cmotherofpirl]

THe words Jesus used mean to much, chew and naw on something. Hardly symbolic.

[Aloysius]

i have come to a conclusion.

MustBeNothing must be thinking nothing when he reads John 6.

Thank you, that is all.

[Dave]

Another thing:

Mustbenothing, you said to Anna that at the Last Supper, Jesus called the wine "wine" even after He said it was His blood.

Well, how do you explain the fact that in the book of Exodus, when God causes Aarons' staff to turn into a snake, it's still referred to as a staff (Exodus 7:12)?

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) I've already dealt with this argument. Continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion.

(Previous) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

(Dave) Ummmm . . . excuse me, but the passages I provided were perfectly clear; it seems you're just trying to grasp at straws to try and prove yourself right by making conjectures. Actually, now that I think about it, regardless of the language it was written in, to "eat one's body" and "drink one's blood" figuratively means to slander and betray among the Jews during that time, and it still means that among many Middle Easterners today. It's a fact that I've effectively demonstrated but that you refuse to admit is true. Tell me, how many idioms do you know of are there that can mean something different figuratively in the English language? Let me think of some . . .

(Me) Ummm... YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.

As I said, the fact that a figure of speech exists does not mean that you cannot use the verbal components of that speech in other metaphors!!! For instance, the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me. The fact that one idiom uses a specific word does not mean that the word cannot be used in a metaphor!

(Previous) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

(Dave) You conveniently ignored my statement that the disciples who left ALREADY believed in Him and that He was their Savior. They had understood everything UNTIL Jesus told Him they needed to eat His Body and drink His blood.

(Me) He actually said, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64).

(Previous) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

(Dave) You're not even addressing what I wrote. They were already following Him -- both the disciples who eventually left and the disciples who stayed. Peter's response indicates that it was hard to understand Jesus' presence in the Holy Eucharist, but He, along with the rest, already knew that in Jesus they were to find their redemption, so despite the fact they were confused by His statement, they knew there was no place else for them to go.

(Me) You're making quite a leap. Sure, they were already following Him. However, following Him -- even looking to Him as Messiah -- does not presuppose the high Christology presented in this chapter.

(Dave) Besides, why didn't Jesus call those who left back and say, "Hey, I was just speaking figuratively!"?

(Me) I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

(Dave) Mustbenothing, you said to Anna that at the Last Supper, Jesus called the wine "wine" even after He said it was His blood.

(Me) Yes, which is why the Roman Catholic hermeneutic is inconsistent here.

(Dave) Well, how do you explain the fact that in the book of Exodus, when God causes Aarons' staff to turn into a snake, it's still referred to as a staff (Exodus 7:12)?

(Me) Verse 15 indicates that it should still have been considered a staff, because it later reverted into a staff.

(cmotherofpirl) THe words Jesus used mean to much, chew and naw on something. Hardly symbolic.

(Me) I don't see how such words cannot be used in an extended metaphor. I would imagine that Thoreau might have said something like, "I want to munch, chew, gnaw on the the marrow of life."

(Aloysius) i have come to a conclusion.

MustBeNothing must be thinking nothing when he reads John 6.

(Me) * roll eyes *

And you guys call fundamentalists dogmatic :-/

Edited September 3, 2003 by mustbenothing

[dUSt]

(Me) I've already dealt with this argument.  Continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion.

Please provide links to your previous answers, as I have a very hard time finding where you've previously answered.

As I said, the fact that a figure of speech exists does not mean that you cannot use the verbal components of that speech in other metaphors!!!  For instance, the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me.  The fact that one idiom uses a specific word does not mean that the word cannot be used in a metaphor!

Aaagggh! Senior year English teacher, Ms Michener flashbacks!!! NOOO!!!

I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

But they already believed. It doesn't make sense that they'd leave because of that.

God bless.

[Dave]

(Previous) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) I've already dealt with this argument. Continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion.

No, you haven't, or at least, you haven't shown your counter-argument to be valid.

(Previous) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

(Dave) Ummmm . . . excuse me, but the passages I provided were perfectly clear; it seems you're just trying to grasp at straws to try and prove yourself right by making conjectures. Actually, now that I think about it, regardless of the language it was written in, to "eat one's body" and "drink one's blood" figuratively means to slander and betray among the Jews during that time, and it still means that among many Middle Easterners today. It's a fact that I've effectively demonstrated but that you refuse to admit is true. Tell me, how many idioms do you know of are there that can mean something different figuratively in the English language? Let me think of some . . .

(Me) Ummm... YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.

As I said, the fact that a figure of speech exists does not mean that you cannot use the verbal components of that speech in other metaphors!!! For instance, the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me. The fact that one idiom uses a specific word does not mean that the word cannot be used in a metaphor!

Do you think by saying it louder (which the triple exclamation points demonstrate) is going to make what you say true? You're just repeating yourself.

In addition, what you say just plain makes no sense. Again, more conjecture on your part. Either support your arguments with valid evidence to back them up, or don't argue at all.

(Previous) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

(Dave) You conveniently ignored my statement that the disciples who left ALREADY believed in Him and that He was their Savior. They had understood everything UNTIL Jesus told Him they needed to eat His Body and drink His blood.

(Me) He actually said, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64).

He's saying that He knew who would refuse to believe in His Real Presence and who would betray Him. Judas apparently didn't believe in the Real Presence, but unlike the others who left, he didn't have enough honesty to admit his unbelief and leave.

(Previous) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

(Dave) You're not even addressing what I wrote. They were already following Him -- both the disciples who eventually left and the disciples who stayed. Peter's response indicates that it was hard to understand Jesus' presence in the Holy Eucharist, but He, along with the rest, already knew that in Jesus they were to find their redemption, so despite the fact they were confused by His statement, they knew there was no place else for them to go.

(Me) You're making quite a leap. Sure, they were already following Him. However, following Him -- even looking to Him as Messiah -- does not presuppose the high Christology presented in this chapter.

It's no leap; just a logical conclusion. You say the chapter is merely presenting a high Christology, but as always, you're reading your own interpretation into the passage. Please cease and desist from doing so; every time you do this we just go round and round. Besides, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Dave) Besides, why didn't Jesus call those who left back and say, "Hey, I was just speaking figuratively!"?

(Me) I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

You imagine . . . so in other words you're basing it on your opinions of what it means rather than what it really means. And I've just shown you there's no metaphor -- again, more putting your own spin on scripture -- so your argument is nonsense. What these people understood was that Jesus was speaking literally.

(Dave) Mustbenothing, you said to Anna that at the Last Supper, Jesus called the wine "wine" even after He said it was His blood.

(Me) Yes, which is why the Roman Catholic hermeneutic is inconsistent here.

(Dave) Well, how do you explain the fact that in the book of Exodus, when God causes Aarons' staff to turn into a snake, it's still referred to as a staff (Exodus 7:12)?

(Me) Verse 15 indicates that it should still have been considered a staff, because it later reverted into a staff.

So what? A snake is a snake. A snake is not a staff. It wasn't a staff at that moment. The staff didn't just pretend to be a snake; it actually was a snake.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I've already dealt with this argument. Continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion.

(dUSt) Please provide links to your previous answers, as I have a very hard time finding where you've previously answered.

(Me) It was basically: the fact that sometimes words are used in one idiom does not mean that every time that they are used figuratively, it must be in that idiom, especially since this ignores the existence of multiple idioms or metaphors. In other words:

1. There exists a figure of speech using these words

2. John 6 used figurative language

----------

Therefore, John 6 uses that figure of speech

Does not follow. Rather, it requires:

1. All figurative language using these words falls into one figure of speech

2. John 6 used figurative language

----------

Therefore, John 6 uses that figure of speech

For another example:

1. There exists a cat that is black

2. Fluffy is a cat

----------

Therefore, Fully is black

Does not follow. Rather, it requires that all cats be black. Yet, of course, some cats are white, gray, brown, orange, etc. Likewise, the fact that one idiom uses specific words does not mean that every figurative use of those words is that idiom specifically.

(Previous) As I said, the fact that a figure of speech exists does not mean that you cannot use the verbal components of that speech in other metaphors!!! For instance, the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me. The fact that one idiom uses a specific word does not mean that the word cannot be used in a metaphor!

(dUSt) Aaagggh! Senior year English teacher, Ms Michener flashbacks!!! NOOO!!!

(Me) LOL!! Welcome to my world, haha

(Previous) I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

(dUSt) But they already believed. It doesn't make sense that they'd leave because of that.

(Me) As I said above, I think that "they already believed" is a bit of an overstatement, since Jesus remarks on their leaving as follows: "But there are some of you who do not believe." However, I think that's a minor point, and doesn't get to the thrust of your objection.

More or less, you're saying, if they were already following Him, why leave? Weren't they already disciples? I would basically depict them as remarking as follows: "I didn't sign up for this!" In other words, they knew some about being His followers, but they didn't know everything. Maybe they loved the whole guru scene, but they certainly weren't looking for the weighty metaphysical notion of partaking of a slain Jesus for their salvation!

(Previous) I've already dealt with this argument. Continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion.

(Dave) No, you haven't, or at least, you haven't shown your counter-argument to be valid.

(Me) Which is why "continued reasoning should funnel into that discussion" -- it would really be fruitless for us to have five different sets of the same arguments going on. So, we should consolidate.

(Previous) Ummm... YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.

As I said, the fact that a figure of speech exists does not mean that you cannot use the verbal components of that speech in other metaphors!!! For instance, the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me. The fact that one idiom uses a specific word does not mean that the word cannot be used in a metaphor!

(Dave) Do you think by saying it louder (which the triple exclamation points demonstrate) is going to make what you say true? You're just repeating yourself.

(Me) I've been repeating myself since day one, for the most part.

(Dave) In addition, what you say just plain makes no sense. Again, more conjecture on your part. Either support your arguments with valid evidence to back them up, or don't argue at all.

(Me) I presented evidence above: "the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me."

(Previous) He actually said, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64).

(Dave) He's saying that He knew who would refuse to believe in His Real Presence and who would betray Him. Judas apparently didn't believe in the Real Presence, but unlike the others who left, he didn't have enough honesty to admit his unbelief and leave.

(Me) This is the same argument made in the last statement of dUSt's to which I responded, so continuation should funnel there.

(Previous) You're making quite a leap. Sure, they were already following Him. However, following Him -- even looking to Him as Messiah -- does not presuppose the high Christology presented in this chapter.

(Dave) It's no leap; just a logical conclusion. You say the chapter is merely presenting a high Christology, but as always, you're reading your own interpretation into the passage. Please cease and desist from doing so; every time you do this we just go round and round.

(Me) The point is, you are resting your case on the fact that people left. You say, people left, therefore, Jesus must have been teaching transubstantiation. In other words, the mere fact that He was teaching His supremacy in salvation was not sufficient to cause people to leave. However, I see no reason to think that! And, inDouche, even if He had been teaching transubstantiation, it wouldn't make too much of a difference unless He explained Communion to them, and He certainly didn't do that. All I'm doing is pointing out that your conclusions are not required by your arguments, nor even plausibly favored over the view I have presented. And, inDouche, if I can show that there is no good reason to favor your reading over my own, I "win," more or less, because you are basing the argument for your view of Communion on your interpretation of this passage. It all builds on itself; if one piece is not adequately proved, the entire argument falls.

(Dave) Besides, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Me) Have you got an Ex Cathedra statement teaching you how to interpret this passage? If so, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret it? If not, what makes you so sure you knwo how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Previous) I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

(Dave) You imagine . . . so in other words you're basing it on your opinions of what it means rather than what it really means. And I've just shown you there's no metaphor -- again, more putting your own spin on scripture -- so your argument is nonsense. What these people understood was that Jesus was speaking literally.

(Me) Rhetoric.

(Previous) Verse 15 indicates that it should still have been considered a staff, because it later reverted into a staff.

(Dave) So what? A snake is a snake. A snake is not a staff. It wasn't a staff at that moment. The staff didn't just pretend to be a snake; it actually was a snake.

(Me) The point is, it continued to hold the identity of being his staff, because it was not permanently changed into a staff. There was no change of identity -- just a change of form. With the bread and wine, on the other hand, you say that there is a change of identity.

[Dave]

(Dave) In addition, what you say just plain makes no sense. Again, more conjecture on your part. Either support your arguments with valid evidence to back them up, or don't argue at all.

(Me) I presented evidence above: "the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me."

And if someone from the Middle East, if they used the expression "eat my body and drink my blood," they could perhaps picture someone else's slanderous words issuing from the mouth and eating away at the flesh of the one being slandered and sucking up their blood. So what?

(Previous) He actually said, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64).

(Dave) He's saying that He knew who would refuse to believe in His Real Presence and who would betray Him. Judas apparently didn't believe in the Real Presence, but unlike the others who left, he didn't have enough honesty to admit his unbelief and leave.

(Me) This is the same argument made in the last statement of dUSt's to which I responded, so continuation should funnel there.

What you said to dUSt regarding that was just mere conjecture, as was what you said to me.

(Previous) You're making quite a leap. Sure, they were already following Him. However, following Him -- even looking to Him as Messiah -- does not presuppose the high Christology presented in this chapter.

(Dave) It's no leap; just a logical conclusion. You say the chapter is merely presenting a high Christology, but as always, you're reading your own interpretation into the passage. Please cease and desist from doing so; every time you do this we just go round and round.

(Me) The point is, you are resting your case on the fact that people left. You say, people left, therefore, Jesus must have been teaching transubstantiation. In other words, the mere fact that He was teaching His supremacy in salvation was not sufficient to cause people to leave. However, I see no reason to think that! And, inDouche, even if He had been teaching transubstantiation, it wouldn't make too much of a difference unless He explained Communion to them, and He certainly didn't do that. All I'm doing is pointing out that your conclusions are not required by your arguments, nor even plausibly favored over the view I have presented. And, inDouche, if I can show that there is no good reason to favor your reading over my own, I "win," more or less, because you are basing the argument for your view of Communion on your interpretation of this passage. It all builds on itself; if one piece is not adequately proved, the entire argument falls.

He certainly didn't do that . . . all you're basing that own is your own biased interpretation. I've adequately proved my point, as has dUSt, but you just refuse to concede. You're just going around and around, repeating yourself as always.

But consider Corinithians, where Paul says that if we partake unworthy, we eat Judgment on ourselves... How could eating a piece of bread condemn us? Jesus says unless you eat my body, drink my blood, you will have NO life in you. How can bread give us life?

Also, please reread my post from August 29 and the one prior to that in this thread. Do you want to be counted among those who walked away?

(Dave) Besides, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Me) Have you got an Ex Cathedra statement teaching you how to interpret this passage? If so, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret it? If not, what makes you so sure you knwo how to interpret the Bible correctly?

It's infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium, which is why I know how to interpret this passage. And I know how to interpret the Bible correctly because I let the Church Jesus founded guide me. You, on the other hand, choose to use your feelings, opinions, and biases.

(Previous) I imagine it would be because they understood the metaphor, and were leaving because of the metaphor's meaning.

(Dave) You imagine . . . so in other words you're basing it on your opinions of what it means rather than what it really means. And I've just shown you there's no metaphor -- again, more putting your own spin on scripture -- so your argument is nonsense. What these people understood was that Jesus was speaking literally.

(Me) Rhetoric.

No, what I say is the truth. I said in another thread that you have a hypocritical double standard -- when you attack my scholarship, it's supposedly justified, but when I attack yours, it's rhetoric.

(Previous) Verse 15 indicates that it should still have been considered a staff, because it later reverted into a staff.

(Dave) So what? A snake is a snake. A snake is not a staff. It wasn't a staff at that moment. The staff didn't just pretend to be a snake; it actually was a snake.

(Me) The point is, it continued to hold the identity of being his staff, because it was not permanently changed into a staff. There was no change of identity -- just a change of form. With the bread and wine, on the other hand, you say that there is a change of identity.

That's utter nonsense. The staff turned completely into a snake -- form and substance. It doesn't matter that it turned back into a staff. With the bread and wine, the form doesn't change, but the substance DOES. And after the Host as been digested, the Real Presence leaves it.

Edited September 5, 2003 by Dave

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I presented evidence above: "the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me."

(Dave) And if someone from the Middle East, if they used the expression "eat my body and drink my blood," they could perhaps picture someone else's slanderous words issuing from the mouth and eating away at the flesh of the one being slandered and sucking up their blood. So what?

(Me) Yes, they could perhaps. In the context of Jesus' teaching, though, such a reading would be absurd. He's talking about partaking of His sacrifice, and uses an extended metaphor to do so.

(Previuos) This is the same argument made in the last statement of dUSt's to which I responded, so continuation should funnel there.

(Dave) What you said to dUSt regarding that was just mere conjecture, as was what you said to me.

(Me) Ignoring or insulting my arguments does not demonstrate that they are bad arguments.

(Previous) The point is, you are resting your case on the fact that people left. You say, people left, therefore, Jesus must have been teaching transubstantiation. In other words, the mere fact that He was teaching His supremacy in salvation was not sufficient to cause people to leave. However, I see no reason to think that! And, inDouche, even if He had been teaching transubstantiation, it wouldn't make too much of a difference unless He explained Communion to them, and He certainly didn't do that. All I'm doing is pointing out that your conclusions are not required by your arguments, nor even plausibly favored over the view I have presented. And, inDouche, if I can show that there is no good reason to favor your reading over my own, I "win," more or less, because you are basing the argument for your view of Communion on your interpretation of this passage. It all builds on itself; if one piece is not adequately proved, the entire argument falls.

(Dave) He certainly didn't do that . . . all you're basing that own is your own biased interpretation. I've adequately proved my point, as has dUSt, but you just refuse to concede. You're just going around and around, repeating yourself as always.

But consider Corinithians, where Paul says that if we partake unworthy, we eat Judgment on ourselves... How could eating a piece of bread condemn us? Jesus says unless you eat my body, drink my blood, you will have NO life in you. How can bread give us life?

(Me) Hopefully now you'll see why I'm repeating myself so much: you're not listening to me. I've said at least five dozen times on this board that I reject mere symbolism. That is a ludicrous denigration of the sacraments just as foreign to the Reformation and historic Christianity as the other unique characteristics of modern Fundamentalism. I simply reject transubstantiation. The rejection of transubstantiation does not entail the affirmation of symbolic memorialism.

(Dave) Also, please reread my post from August 29 and the one prior to that in this thread. Do you want to be counted among those who walked away?

(Me) No, of course not.

(Previous) Have you got an Ex Cathedra statement teaching you how to interpret this passage? If so, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret it? If not, what makes you so sure you knwo how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Dave) It's infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium, which is why I know how to interpret this passage. And I know how to interpret the Bible correctly because I let the Church Jesus founded guide me.

(Me) You didn't answer the question. How do you know how to interpret the teaching of the magisterium? Are you an infallible interpreter?

And, inDouche, all you're doing is proving my Sola Ecclesia argument: the Roman Catholic has no need for a Bible, and gives the Bible in itself no creedence or authority, because its content is entirely controlled by the Magisterium.

(Dave) You, on the other hand, choose to use your feelings, opinions, and biases.

(Me) Please stop forcing a position upon me that I do not hold. It's really unimpressive that you and ironmonk badger me (wrongly) about how I'm not listening to a word you're saying, and I haven't got a clue what the Catholic Church teaches, and I've only read Protestant quote books (I've not read one), and I've never read official Catholic Church teaching, when you don't even have a clue what my own position is, and ignore the lengthy descriptions I offer of my position!

(Previous) Rhetoric.

(Dave) No, what I say is the truth. I said in another thread that you have a hypocritical double standard -- when you attack my scholarship, it's supposedly justified, but when I attack yours, it's rhetoric.

(Me) This is because I use arguments, not unsupported assertion. I didn't see any premises or inferences in what you said above. All I saw was the assertion of your position. And, inDouche, I have read you describe your position over and over. I don't need you to assert it or to insult me again. What I need is reasoning.

(Previous) The point is, it continued to hold the identity of being his staff, because it was not permanently changed into a staff. There was no change of identity -- just a change of form. With the bread and wine, on the other hand, you say that there is a change of identity.

(Dave) That's utter nonsense. The staff turned completely into a snake -- form and substance. It doesn't matter that it turned back into a staff. With the bread and wine, the form doesn't change, but the substance DOES. And after the Host as been digested, the Real Presence leaves it.

(Me) You haven't dealt with the argument. The staff's identity did not change, although many of its properties did. You claim that the host's identity changes from bread and wine to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, there would be no Adoration.

[Dave]

(Previous) I presented evidence above: "the fact that it can rain on my parade does not mean that I cannot picture sadness as raining all over me."

(Dave) And if someone from the Middle East, if they used the expression "eat my body and drink my blood," they could perhaps picture someone else's slanderous words issuing from the mouth and eating away at the flesh of the one being slandered and sucking up their blood. So what?

(Me) Yes, they could perhaps.  In the context of Jesus' teaching, though, such a reading would be absurd.  He's talking about partaking of His sacrifice, and uses an extended metaphor to do so.

In the context of Jesus' teaching, there's nothing absurd about reading it literally. Besides, in the Mass, when we receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, we ARE taking part in His Sacrifice. The Mass is the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Calvary, which transcends all time and space.

(Previuos) This is the same argument made in the last statement of dUSt's to which I responded, so continuation should funnel there.

(Dave) What you said to dUSt regarding that was just mere conjecture, as was what you said to me.

(Me) Ignoring or insulting my arguments does not demonstrate that they are bad arguments.

I haven't done either.

(Previous) The point is, you are resting your case on the fact that people left. You say, people left, therefore, Jesus must have been teaching transubstantiation. In other words, the mere fact that He was teaching His supremacy in salvation was not sufficient to cause people to leave. However, I see no reason to think that! And, inDouche, even if He had been teaching transubstantiation, it wouldn't make too much of a difference unless He explained Communion to them, and He certainly didn't do that. All I'm doing is pointing out that your conclusions are not required by your arguments, nor even plausibly favored over the view I have presented. And, inDouche, if I can show that there is no good reason to favor your reading over my own, I "win," more or less, because you are basing the argument for your view of Communion on your interpretation of this passage. It all builds on itself; if one piece is not adequately proved, the entire argument falls.

(Dave) He certainly didn't do that . . . all you're basing that own is your own biased interpretation. I've adequately proved my point, as has dUSt, but you just refuse to concede. You're just going around and around, repeating yourself as always.

But consider Corinithians, where Paul says that if we partake unworthy, we eat Judgment on ourselves... How could eating a piece of bread condemn us? Jesus says unless you eat my body, drink my blood, you will have NO life in you. How can bread give us life?

(Me) Hopefully now you'll see why I'm repeating myself so much: you're not listening to me. I've said at least five dozen times on this board that I reject mere symbolism. That is a ludicrous denigration of the sacraments just as foreign to the Reformation and historic Christianity as the other unique characteristics of modern Fundamentalism. I simply reject transubstantiation. The rejection of transubstantiation does not entail the affirmation of symbolic memorialism.

Ah, but I am listening to you, and I've shown you that your interpretation of it, regardless of your claim that it's not mere symbolism, is still wrong.

(Previous) Have you got an Ex Cathedra statement teaching you how to interpret this passage? If so, what makes you so sure you know how to interpret it? If not, what makes you so sure you knwo how to interpret the Bible correctly?

(Dave) It's infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium, which is why I know how to interpret this passage. And I know how to interpret the Bible correctly because I let the Church Jesus founded guide me.

(Me) You didn't answer the question. How do you know how to interpret the teaching of the magisterium? Are you an infallible interpreter?

And, inDouche, all you're doing is proving my Sola Ecclesia argument: the Roman Catholic has no need for a Bible, and gives the Bible in itself no creedence or authority, because its content is entirely controlled by the Magisterium.

Oh, but I did answer the question. The Magisterium itself is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals, so I don't have to interpret it -- it's done the interpreting for us. And no, I haven't proven your Sola Ecclesia argument. You forget that the Church came well before the Bible, and it was the Church that compiled it. You forget that the Magisterium doesn't teach on its own authority, but by God's authority. God has endowed it with infallibility, and it merely passes on the teachings of Christ as contained in the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

(Dave) You, on the other hand, choose to use your feelings, opinions, and biases.

(Me) Please stop forcing a position upon me that I do not hold. It's really unimpressive that you and ironmonk badger me (wrongly) about how I'm not listening to a word you're saying, and I haven't got a clue what the Catholic Church teaches, and I've only read Protestant quote books (I've not read one), and I've never read official Catholic Church teaching, when you don't even have a clue what my own position is, and ignore the lengthy descriptions I offer of my position!

Yes, you DO hold such a position. You don't listen to what we say; instead you continue to grasp at straws to salvage your position! And yes, we HAVe read your descriptions of your positions and have refuted them.

(Previous) Rhetoric.

(Dave) No, what I say is the truth. I said in another thread that you have a hypocritical double standard -- when you attack my scholarship, it's supposedly justified, but when I attack yours, it's rhetoric.

(Me) This is because I use arguments, not unsupported assertion. I didn't see any premises or inferences in what you said above. All I saw was the assertion of your position. And, inDouche, I have read you describe your position over and over. I don't need you to assert it or to insult me again. What I need is reasoning.

I've shown my reasoning over and over, and yet you ignore it and falsely say that I'm just insulting you or asserting my position.

(Previous) The point is, it continued to hold the identity of being his staff, because it was not permanently changed into a staff. There was no change of identity -- just a change of form. With the bread and wine, on the other hand, you say that there is a change of identity.

(Dave) That's utter nonsense. The staff turned completely into a snake -- form and substance. It doesn't matter that it turned back into a staff. With the bread and wine, the form doesn't change, but the substance DOES. And after the Host as been digested, the Real Presence leaves it.

(Me) You haven't dealt with the argument. The staff's identity did not change, although many of its properties did. You claim that the host's identity changes from bread and wine to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, there would be no Adoration.

Once again, you say I haven't dealt with an argument that I really have dealt with. A classic ploy by those who have too much pride to concede the argument.

Yes, I have dealt with it, but you refuse to see it. The staff turned into a snake, and as I've said before, the fact that it gets called a staff doesn't make it any less of a snake. So it is with the bread and wine after the consecration, except that we always make sure to call it what it is -- the Body and Blood of Christ.