What you Read is What you Get: Taking the Gospel Statements of Jesus at Face Value.
If the simple one sentence statements of Jesus (as recorded in the four Gospel accounts) can not be taken at face value, the question must be asked: What good are they? Moreover, at just what point are these clear and simple statements (if not taken at face value) make Jesus as a liar?
Lets look at a well know example; a situation where Jesus makes such a clear and simple statements when eating and drinking with his disciples before his death as recorded in all four Gospel accounts: Matt. 26: 26-29 = Mark 14: 22 -25 = Luke 22: 15 – 20 and John 6: 51 – 58:
Of the bread Jesus emphatically states: “This is my body.”
Of the wine Jesus emphatically states: “This is my blood.”
These two statements are not given either as parables or as symbols; they are (as understood in grammatical terms), used as simple demonstrative limiting adjective sentences of possession. Thus, Jesus’ statements are clear and simple; no parables or symbols mentioned or implied.
Now before Protestant Christians claim that Jesus did not know what he was talking about and that he MUST be understood as using metaphors or hyperboles, let see just how the oldest Christian Church – the Roman Catholic Church – understands these Gospel statements when used doing the consecration of the Eucharist as defined at a major church council:
The Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who "denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".
Furthermore, if the Catholic dogma is indeed just plainly mistaken and simply wrong in its understanding of Jesus (as I’m sure many non-Catholics Protestants are sure to argue in their forth coming comments) then - may I ask - just where and just when are the terms Heaven, Hell and Salvation not to be understood as simple metaphors, hyperboles or parables? Or, to put it another way, at what point does Jesus make logical sense for the simple believer who wants to take him at his word?
17 comments:
"These two statements are not given either as parables or as symbols"
Perhaps you are right Harry. But then again, perhaps you are not.
But both Catholics and Protestants would not quibble that what Jesus was doing here was concluding a new covenant.
Peace,
Chris
Chris,
Can we really be half right and half wrong about such an important elements or sacrament given by Jesus as his words are understood here in giving eternal salvation or damnation?
St. Paul said that if a Christian does not partake of the meal correctly, he drinks “…judgment to himself…” 1 Corth. 11:29.
Many an honest Christian soul has been burnt at the stake for second guessing the Roman Catholic Church’s Magisterium on Jesus’ Eucharistic words.
Shalom
Harry, regardless of the interpretation of the mechanisms of the ordinance, it is clear this ordinance is to be done 'in remembrance of' him, which is why you must worthily partake of it.
You are vastly overstating the difficulty. Come on - read John 15. Do you really think people are in conflict over whether Jesus is 'really' a vine, or a door? Is there really any doubt over what the authors meant?
Harry,
Shalom to you as well.
In context, Paul also described what it meant to partake "correctly". Partakers are to do so in rememberence of Jesus, acknowledging that it is his body and his blood that have forged this reconiliation with God on behalf of all mankind. Partakers acknowledge this atoning sacrifice before God. Those that do not acknowledge this, but partake nonetheless are warned. Subsequent to the verse you quote he describes those who have become weak or sick or have fallen asleep in the faith. These ones are no longer in fellowship and should not partake lest they fall into judgment.
I see no evidence that one must necessarily believe that the emblements are the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life. Christ himself was present when uttering those words to his disciples. It therefore follows that in that moment, his disciples were likely not under the impression that the bread and wine were actually his body and blood. They would have understood it at that moment to be a "symbol" of the new convenant.
Now, that does not foreclose against the possibility of the "transubstantiation" in subsequent memorial celebrations of the Lord's Meal because all things are possible with God.
What one must believe and have faith is that Christ is the atoning sacrifice and further, that in Christ's words to Martha, we believe that he is the resurrection and the life.
Peace Harry,
Chris
Check the context around 1 Corth. 11:29. Paul is saying that people shouldn't eat too much.
Don,
You can never have too much spiritual food.
Peace,
Chris
Yeah, Don, but I can't help thinking that in
this day and age the verse has a wider application! :)
Spongjohn state: “You are vastly overstating the difficulty. Come on - read John 15. Do you really think people are in conflict over whether Jesus is 'really' a vine, or a door?”
First off, Jesus sets the entire context of John 15 as a metaphor in the open of the section by stating God is a vinedresser - a totally unknown Jewish anthropomorphism of God, plus the fact that Jesus himself defines “fruit” as loving one another (verse 12) something figs or grapes just don’t do. Jesus did not say “I am vine” (Greek does not have an indefinite article “a”, but only definite articles; thus Jesus says “I am THE vein” ..Which vine, the one described in the context of this entire section of John 15. Yes, Jesus is a vine in context to his followers bearing fruit also.
This is the same context of the with the “door” metaphor in John 10. This is not a simple “I am “a” door” period - end of statement. He is the door of the context of John 10 and he metaphorically describes his functions in the context just as he herds sheep.
Fact is, no heresy worshiped Jesus as a vine or a door and neither did the Church Fathers ever see a problem here. But that is not the case in John 6: 51 – 58 where both his own closely taught disciples and backed up with the objectivity of the listening Jews understood it: “For My flesh is true food and My Blood is true drink. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”
So Spongjohn, do you want the truth…the meal described in all three synoptic accounts is just that, they are eating Jesus very body and blood as transformed into such at the time by Jesus’ (magically, if you will) blessing it.
Want more proof of context? Would you not say that Jesus is the “Word” (Logos) in John 1 and this “Word was God”? Thus, the word was in the very beginning. Just which Word was it? Your guess is as good as mine, but it’s concrete that this “Word” was Jesus hands down!
In medieval times; claim or deny Jesus as either (a) door or (a) vine and you get an “Amen” from the Church…who cares! Claim Jesus WAS the Word; claim Jesus body IS food and his blood IS drink and you’ll get another “Amen” from the Church; but deny any of the last three and you’ll burn at the stake.
Chris stated: “I see no evidence that one must necessarily believe that the emblements are the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life. Christ himself was present when uttering those words to his disciples. It therefore follows that in that moment, his disciples were likely not under the impression that the bread and wine were actually his body and blood. They would have understood it at that moment to be a "symbol" of the new convenant.”
Chris, again I was submit John 6: 51-58. Jesus took two highly respected laws on impurity demanded by God in the Old Testament which were understood both by the Jews in general and his own Jewish disciples as highly repulsive and finally programmed his followers into rejecting the Torah of Moses by fully defiling themselves (under Jewish Law) by eating and drink human flesh and blood just as what Jesus said his flesh and blood were and what his disciples needed to do precisely for salvation: “He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood HAS eternal life…(salvation) John 6:54.
Don Stated: “Check context around 1 Corth. 11:29. Paul is saying that people shouldn’t eat too much.”
I could not disagree with you more. Paul makes clear that partying and debauchery should be done at home (verse 20- 22), thus those with corrupt souls are abusing the Lord’s Supper “he who eats and drinks judgment to himself…For this reason many among you are weak and sick and a number sleep.” Verse 30.
May I score the first round: Catholic Hermeneutics: ONE / Protestants 0.
Season Greetings!
Harry, you bring up john 6, with all due respect to my Catholic brethren, this is metaphorical, but it's not essential to salvation, so disagreement is adiaphora - but to ansewr the point: why is it metaphorical? See John 6:26-27 and John 6:31-35. It's obvious that Jesus is using the manna in the wilderness (which sustained *physical* life) as a transition (via metaphor) to an act of faith in Him which leads to everlasting life. That is the explanation of 51 - 58 that you cite.
You cannot deny this transition.
Also you cannot interpret one scripture such that it would be repugnant to another. Paul in Romans 4, 5 says that by *faith* we are justified. This faith may involve obeying Christ's ordinance of the Lord's Supper, but because it is by Faith, it means that it is not because physical mechanism via "real presence". Therefore, the Eucharist is done as the text says, a remembrance (Lu 22:19).
I hope you did not leave over quibbles such as this - Ehrman left because copyists made typos, although Jesus never said he would guarantee no true believers would make typos.
Harry,
You may find it interesting, as I did, that during a Seder meal there are three flats of "bread" (more like a cracker) stacked on top of one another. The middle one is taken out, broken in half, and the larger portion is wrapped in a cloth and hidden somewhere in the room while the lesser half is replaced between the layers.
When Jesus celebrated Passover and had a Seder with his disciples, He was telling them that HE was the fulfillment of the covenant which was portrayed in the Seder. This is why the Catholic Church does not practice Seder, but has replaced it with the Eucharist.
In the Seder, there is much symbolism. In fact every item on the table is symbolic. So...when Jesus said that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood, he would have been right in the vein of symbolism..along with the shank bone and bitter herbs etc.
When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, was He telling her that He was water? Literally? He promised her eternal life too but mentioned nothing of her need to drink His blood or eat His flesh.
Eating and drinking, especially in the Eastern mindset, are often thought of in mystical terms...I think it's helpful to understand these sayings in context of time, audience, circumstances etc.
Attending a Seder meal is an enlightening cultural experience. There are still Rabbis who have memorized the whole Torah ver batem!!
Andrew you're an idiot. You could not begin to tell me what a lie is or when lying is wrong. That was my point. Read Sissla Bok's book Lying to get you up to snuff ont this. You are banned and you're alias' too.
>>>Harry, you bring up john 6, with all due respect to my Catholic brethren, this is metaphorical, but it's not essential to salvation, so disagreement is adiaphora...
Spong, thanks for introducing me to a new word. I love to learn new terms and that definitely required looking up.
http://www.spirithome.com/adiaphora.html
Apparently this is a word used mostly by Lutherans. This then begs the question whether Luther would have considered transubstantiation adiaphora or not. I say not. He was an adamant consubstantiationist and his followers killed transubstantationists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
"...By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a source of extreme controversy. Martin Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the bread and wine of the sacrament (a view often called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans). But by 1525 Huldrych Zwingli taught that the sacrament is purely symbolic and memorial in character, claiming that this was the meaning of Jesus' instruction: "Do this in remembrance of me". Later, in the five-year reign (1553-1558) of Mary I of England, rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation was considered in England proof of heresy, and many, including John Frith, John Rogers (Protestant minister), and Rowland Taylor refused, even under pain of torture and death, to accept it, as recounted in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Her successor Elizabeth declared that: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions";[30] and made assistance at Mass illegal.[31]...
I think an important lesson here is to recognize the degree to which the age in which we live has been influenced by secularism and the Beatles. There have been HUGE revolutions and innovations in the last two hundred years that make the society and Churches (in the West) more enlightened and humane. The Church has lost a tremendous amount of power and influence and so we now have democracy, equality and science flourishing and relatively docile Churches.
So, don't be deceived into thinking that the Church has always had a "live and let live" attitude about differences of opinion or conduct.
In fact, the Churches are very prone to re-writing history to make themselves the heroes, but that is a lie. Read history and you will see it is not so.
I really hope everyone will watch that movie "Magdalene Sisters" as soon as possible.
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Helo Harry,
I like your post here.
It is tempting to scrutinize scripture and to form a dogma about approaching it. Shall we take it all literally or shall we take it all metaphorically?
I don't worry too much about approaching scripture in any particular way because by faith, I tend to take life literally (and more valuably), and from that standpoint, I can see and divide the words in scripture.
When I take life literally I can easily see that, gee whiz, cannibalism is a very real fact of life and not a historical event at all, but a very real nowadays phenomenem. I can also recognize the pain and suffering of mental/emotional "cannibalism" as well.
Y'shua spoke about eating and drinking His body and blood twice -I believe there is a scripture detailing a time before the last supper when Y'shua addressed a crowd and people got offended because they understood the inference towards cannibalism. Those who were offended left.
Then later, at the Last Supper, Y'shua invites people to drink wine and eat bread as a remembrance of Him and His very real offering of His very real body and blood.
Now, while I've never met an honest to goodness person infected with cannibalism,I have been mistreated emotionally and on that level, felt cannibalized by others. I wish that these souls would not have been so conceited and offended to believe themselves "above it all" and would have trusted and taken Y'shua up on His offer to take their "biting and devouring" (a term used in scripture to describe the way we mistreat one another)to Him (He can withstand it) rather than on me! But then, I remember that I have reacted in kind and done some "biting and devouring" in turn so I take communion in remembrance of His mercy and grace and also from time to time, take Him up on His offer for me to bare my soul to Him (demons and all). The people around me appreciate this.
There is much more I could write in response to the coercion of religous tradition/beliefs but am getting ready to leave for the evening.
The word of God is for all levels of a person's life - "literal", spiritual and otherwise.
Take care!
Spongjohn stated: “… with all due respect to my Catholic brethren, this is metaphorical…”
Again, as defined by the doctrine of transubstantiation as formalized at the Council of Trent, all scripture (Including John 6) is a “Post Easter” (post 80 CE) statements given authority by Jesus. “No longer are we told that eternal life is the result of believing in Jesus; it comes from feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood (54)…The first indication is the stress on eating (feeding on) Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. This cannot possibly be a metaphor for accepting his revelation.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel of John l – Xll. The Anchor Bible p. 284).
You also stated: “Also you cannot interpret one scripture such that it would be repugnant to another.” Really? The Gospel accounts of Jesus reinterpreting set Jewish hermeneutics caused them to thinking Jesus had a demon. The very fact that God now accepts human sacrifice in the New Testament is “repugnant” when compared to the animal offerings in the Hebrew Bible.
Again, you stated: “I hope you did not leave over quibbles such as this…”
I was asked to leave. Dogma exceeds faith in Christianity.
Jennifer stated: “Eating and drinking, especially in the Eastern mindset, are often thought of in mystical terms...I think it's helpful to understand these sayings in context of time, audience, circumstances etc.”
I agree. Just attend a Greek Orthodox Church mass and the service is loaded with “mystical terms” from the icons on down. But the bottom line is that only the Orthodox accept their mystical mass and its veneration to their icons. This makes faith VERY SUBJECTIVE; just consider the iconoclastic controversy.
So if something is s subjectively sectarian, just how universally true can it be? Thus, circumcision for Jesus and Peter is factual, while with Paul it’s spiritual (Gal. 1 & 2).
WoundedEgo: A great example of how a dogma was development. Thanks!
Harry,
I can only speak for myself, and for me the Eucharist only makes sense to me as a sacrament, which is defined in the Episcopal Catechism as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace.
The truth is, no one can tell us for sure whether or not a man named Jesus actually said the words as recorded in the gospel narratives. All we have about the who, what, where, when and why of the gospels and the books of the bible are a lot of educated guesses. The educated guessers I most appreciate are: John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. I also really like the Christian vision that Matthew Fox spells out in his Creation Spirituality. Now, you can argue that these are not the dominant voices in all of Christianity, but Christianity is not a monolith. The Church is a living organism.
This is not meant to be disrespectful, but it sounds like the DC gang is still looking for what it thought it had and lost in evangelical Christianity, and thinks it has in its opposition to all Christianity - TRUTH. It is still the same "We got the Truth and I dare anyone to prove that we don't!" It is a trip from one stance of certainty to another.
For me, God in Christ is an experience that transcends human language. All that has been written is less then adequate for me. We are talking about Mystery, which is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be lived into. Now for someone that needs the world all logically neat and clean, this may sound too loose and messy, but that is the nature of Life.
So, did Jesus say the words that are used in the Eucharist liturgy? I have no idea, but the Eucharist can be a powerful portal into the mystical and mysterious Body of Christ.
Respectfully,
John B
Post a Comment