. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[robrecht]

For now, it can be simply stated that we do not agree. We can discuss more later on this, if needed.

Does that mean you do not think the Eucharist is as much of a commitment as marriage vows? Or that marriage vows are merely metaphorical? Or do you just prefer not to answer?

I have been checking, and standard Greek interpretation, estin is taken to simply mean, "he is," "she is," or "it is." And that what I observed, estin, denoting meaning or metaphor is also true in the LXX.

Then why not discuss the examples I gave above? I can give you plenty more if you want to try and prove this point. For one more example, see below.

So what is the difference?

There may be no difference at all, as with the example I gave from Luke above. The verb can be included or excluded without necessarily there being a different meaning.

See, for example, these two phrases from Zecharaiah 1,7 LXX and 1 Maccabees 16,14. The translator of Zechariah used the verb, even 'though it does not appear in Hebrew, but the author of Maccabees does not use the verb. Obviously they mean exactly the same thing.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μὴν Σαβατ (Zec 1,7 LXX)
οὗτος ------ ὁ μὴν Σαβατ

[Quantum Weirdness]

About this whole Eucharist thing, JPH has a nice video on it.

As to the drinking blood and eating flesh thing, Miller has an article on that here.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/hn....html#eatblood

Thus, I am not so sure about the literality of the Eucharist.

[37818]

Does that mean you do not think the Eucharist is as much of a commitment as marriage vows?

Not even relevant. It is off topic. Marriage vows, so called, are irrelevant to the marriage covenant God established. And the observance of the Lord's table is a remembrance of the new covenant, which God made and God only Himself keeps. It is not our keeping, but our remembering of it.

Or that marriage vows are merely metaphorical?

Man made observance added to marriage. Such vows or the lack there of do not change God's standard. And this again is irrelevant to the Lord's table.

Or do you just prefer not to answer?

It was not really relevant. You believe it was. I do not.

Then why not discuss the examples I gave above? I can give you plenty more if you want to try and prove this point. For one more example, see below.

I have to take more time than I have right now. But I will get back to them.

There may be no difference at all, as with the example I gave from Luke above. The verb can be included or excluded without necessarily there being a different meaning.

See, for example, these two phrases from Zecharaiah 1,7 LXX and 1 Maccabees 16,14. The translator of Zechariah used the verb, even 'though it does not appear in Hebrew, but the author of Maccabees does not use the verb. Obviously they mean exactly the same thing.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μὴν Σαβατ (Zec 1,7 LXX)
οὗτος ------ ὁ μὴν Σαβατ

For now the simple answer based on common translation practices, what I observed and presented is not even considered. The use or absence of that Greek verb estin does not make any difference in interpretations, whether the text is taken as literal or metaphor.

I am going to discuss this further. That Greek verb esti(n) is used over 1500 times between the LXX and the NT. And so far, as I have checked, it does denote a meaning, representation or metaphor.

The reason I originally looked at this was regarding this interpretation of the "Real Presence in the Eucharist" issue. I noted use and non-use between 1 John 1:5, 1 John 4:7 and John 4:24. Which got my attention. And [the few] other refers I have checked thus far seem to support this. What I need is an example where that verb is used and it cannot be taken as mere meaning, representing something more, or metaphor.

An examlpe Luke 2:11, Savior is metaphor Christ the Lord.
An other example Matthew 1:20, Spirit is metaphor, denoting holy. Simply translated "which is of the Holy Spirit." Looking for exceptions.

I will comment on your examples such as the lack of the verb Isaiah 29 reference you gave. That God's commands light upon the earth.

[robrecht]

Not even relevant. It is off topic. Marriage vows, so called, are irrelevant to the marriage covenant God established. And the observance of the Lord's table is a remembrance of the new covenant, which God made and God only Himself keeps. It is not our keeping, but our remembering of it.

Man made observance added to marriage. Such vows or the lack there of do not change God's standard. And this again is irrelevant to the Lord's table.
It was not really relevant. You believe it was. I do not.

I'm guessing you're a Protestant and therefore do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. For those of us who do, it is entirely relevant.

For now the simple answer based on common translation practices, what I observed and presented is not even considered. The use or absence of that Greek verb estin does not make any difference in interpretations, whether the text is taken as literal or metaphor.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you agreeing with me that the absense or presence does not necessarily affect the interpretation, you seem to be agreeing with me.

I am going to discuss this further. That Greek verb esti(n) is used over 1500 times between the LXX and the NT. And so far, as I have checked, it does denote a meaning, representation or metaphor.

The reason I originally looked at this was regarding this interpretation of the "Real Presence in the Eucharist" issue. I noted use and non-use between 1 John 1:5, 1 John 4:7 and John 4:24. Which got my attention. And [the few] other refers I have checked thus far seem to support this. What I need is an example where that verb is used and it cannot be taken as mere meaning, representing something more, or metaphor.

What's wrong with the examples I gave you?

An examlpe Luke 2:11, Savior is metaphor Christ the Lord.
An other example Matthew 1:20, Spirit is metaphor, denoting holy. Simply translated "which is of the Holy Spirit." Looking for exceptions.

ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. So are you saying that the Savior born to us is not really Christ the Lord, but only a metaphor?

I will comment on your examples such as the lack of the verb Isaiah 29 reference you gave. That God's commands light upon the earth.

When, in Isaiah 26,9 LXX it is said that God's commandments are light, without the verb 'to be', (φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου), you believe that Isaiah is not using a metaphor to speak of God's commandments (plural), but is mearly refering to God's single statement in Genesis 1,3? Seriously?

[TimelessTheist]

She referred to Him as "a prophet" based on when He told her about her past relationships as well as her current one (John 4:19).
However, she hadn't yet believed He was the Messiah until later on (John 4:25-26). It is only when Christ affirmed He was the Messiah that she could possibly connect "living water" with His future role in baptizing people with the Holy Spirit (John 1:20, 33 cf. John 7:39).

Your assertion is simply a wild guess. Please supply a source where anyone else agrees with your interpretation of what you are espousing.

And please provide a source that supports your interpretation.

He was the Messiah that she could possibly connect "living water" with His future role in baptizing people with the Holy Spirit

You do realize you've just stated why he didn't explain it to her at that point, right? Although, he had no reason to withhold explanation from the apostles, as they already knew he was the Messiah and, unlike that women who we don't see much of afterwards, the apostles were the central figures of the Gospels. Why is it never shown that they understood it?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that the statements he made about the Eucharist were metaphorical, not to mention that there's plenty of evidence that the early church fathers supported transubstantiation.

[foudroyant]

And please provide a source that supports your interpretation.

I asked you first for a source for your assertion.


You claim you are waiting for "any evidence" when I already supplied the woman at the well. There is no hint in Scripture that when speaking metaphorically about the Holy Spirit to her that Christ explained it to her at that time. It was only later (John 7) do we see that water refers to the Holy Spirit.

[TimelessTheist]

I asked you first for a source for your assertion.


You claim you are waiting for "any evidence" when I already supplied the woman at the well. There is no hint in Scripture that when speaking metaphorically about the Holy Spirit to her that Christ explained it to her at that time. It was only later (John 7) do we see that water refers to the Holy Spirit.

This is simply not true. Using water to refer to spiritual cleanliness, or God's Spirit, and the like, has a long standing place in ancient Jewish theology.

[foudroyant]

She was a Samaritan.

[37818]

I'm guessing you're a Protestant and therefore do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. For those of us who do, it is entirely relevant.

Not exactly. Protestants believe in sacraments, Baptist's generally do not. From my sectarian baptist understanding there really are no sacraments.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you agreeing with me that the absense or presence does not necessarily affect the interpretation, you seem to be agreeing with me.

I'm not agreeing with the view. But acknowledging the view as the standard interpretation.

What's wrong with the examples I gave you?

Nothing. We are not in agreement as to understanding those passages in every case.

ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. So are you saying that the Savior born to us is not really Christ the Lord, but only a metaphor?

No. The one born to us was literally the Savior. And literally the Christ our Lord. What was metaphor is the term "savior." Savior literally means savior, but metaphorically "Christ the Lord." So to mean the one born was literally the Savior and Christ the Lord. The term "Savior" was used as the metaphor. As I just explained.

When, in Isaiah 26,9 LXX it is said that God's commandments are light, without the verb 'to be', (φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου), you believe that Isaiah is not using a metaphor to speak of God's commandments (plural), but is mearly refering to God's single statement in Genesis 1,3? Seriously?

The Greek ἐστιν is not a requirement in order for there to be metaphor. Do you really interpret Isaiah 26:9 to refer to Genesis 1:3? I do not.

. . . ὁ θεός, διότι φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. . . .
". . . O God, for thy commandments are a light on the earth: . . . "

[37818]

This is related both in the context of the feeding of the five thousand (which had just happened) and the manna provided the Jews during the Exodus. Are either of those metaphorical?

Jesus v.48 is referring to Himself metaphorically v.50 to be the real bread (metaphor) of life. Him being the real source of life, bread being metaphor.

When the Jews protest, Jesus reiterates his statement, with verse 55 for emphasis. Verse 58 is also incredibly clear. "This is the bread which came down from heaven" - did Jesus only metaphorically come down from heaven? "...not as your fathers ate the manna" - did their fathers only metaphorically eat the manna? "He who eats this bread will live forever." - Why is this metaphorical when everything which comes before it is not?

v.55 Jesus is speaking metaphorically. And v.58 uses metaphor the same way as in v.50. And then explains this more fully v.63.

Why is this metaphorical when everything which comes before it is not?

Please explain your complaint. What was it that was not metaphor that you are referring to?

Be careful of equating your opinion with fact.

Where does the word of God teach real presence in the elements of Eucharist? The argument is interpretation. What is being interpreted differently, how and why? We are reading the same text are we not? Which goes to the question, why is it important that the "real presence" be in the Eucharist?

The action of eating and drinking was to be a remembrance. The doctrine of the Real Presence doesn't change that.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is what we are disagreeing on. I do not believe the doctrine is true. Why should I? Again to the question, why is it important that the "real presence" be in the Eucharist?

We agree that the Eucharist should be offered and consumed in remembrance of Jesus. Why is the fact that I show more reverence for the Eucharist necessarily a different gospel? That just seems petty to me.

What do you mean by "should be offered?" Either one has eternal life through faith in Christ alone, or one must physically eat the "real presence" in some way, in which the "real presence" is another Jesus. Not the Jesus I believe (John 6:47) in. Coming to Him by faith alone without any need of any kind of false sacraments. [While Protestants who accept some kind of concept of sacraments hold salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And not do to any sacrament whether being the rites of "baptism" and the Lord's table. That disagreement is over calling those two observances "sacraments" when they are not.]

[robrecht]

Not exactly. Protestants believe in sacraments, Baptist's generally do not. From my sectarian baptist understanding there really are no sacraments.

Not believing the Eucharist and marriage to be sacraments, you do not see the relevance.

ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ.
No. The one born to us was literally the Savior. And literally the Christ our Lord. What was metaphor is the term "savior." Savior literally means savior, but metaphorically "Christ the Lord." So to mean the one born was literally the Savior and Christ the Lord. The term "Savior" was used as the metaphor. As I just explained.

I am not following what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that Jesus is literally our savior and that the term savior is a metaphor and that "Christ the Lord" is also to be taken literally and as a metaphor.

The Greek ἐστιν is not a requirement in order for there to be metaphor. Do you really interpret Isaiah 26:9 to refer to Genesis 1:3? I do not.

. . . ὁ θεός, διότι φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. . . .
". . . O God, for thy commandments are a light on the earth: . . . "

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me here. Is that correct?

[One Bad Pig]

Jesus v.48 is referring to Himself metaphorically v.50 to be the real bread (metaphor) of life. Him being the real source of life, bread being metaphor.

Conceded.

v.55 Jesus is speaking metaphorically. And v.58 uses metaphor the same way as in v.50. And then explains this more fully v.63.

Please explain your complaint. What was it that was not metaphor that you are referring to?

The action of eating. The "bread of life" is to be eaten just as the manna in the wilderness was eaten. The "bread of life" is to be considered, in some sense, His flesh.

Where does the word of God teach real presence in the elements of Eucharist? The argument is interpretation. What is being interpreted differently, how and why? We are reading the same text are we not?

Yes, we are interpreting the same verses differently. I do not expect to convince you of the correctness of the interpretation I accept. You're not the only one reading my responses, however.

Which goes to the question, why is it important that the "real presence" be in the Eucharist?

The doctrine of the Real Presence is what we are disagreeing on. I do not believe the doctrine is true. Why should I? Again to the question, why is it important that the "real presence" be in the Eucharist?

The "real presence" in the Eucharist has been the Church's nearly universal belief for as far back as we have discussions about the Eucharist. It has been an integral part of the liturgy as far back as we have liturgical texts. Even today, a decided majority of Christians hold the belief. I will freely grant that not everyone who has claimed Christianity will be saved, but condemning the vast majority of the Church to hell because of disagreement over how a relatively small portion of texts should be interpreted is not wise IMO.

What do you mean by "should be offered?"

You do believe that the Lord's Supper should be observed, yes? I'm just trying to establish *some* common ground.

Either one has eternal life through faith in Christ alone, or one must physically eat the "real presence" in some way, in which the "real presence" is another Jesus. Not the Jesus I believe (John 6:47) in.

Views like yours are why Protestantism is hopelessly divided. Jesus thought that unity was pretty important (John 17:20-23). I'm not certain that one must physically eat what one believes to be the "real presence" to be saved; God is free to make exceptions.

Coming to Him by faith alone without any need of any kind of false sacraments. [While Protestants who accept some kind of concept of sacraments hold salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And not do to any sacrament whether being the rites of "baptism" and the Lord's table. That disagreement is over calling those two observances "sacraments" when they are not.]

We believe sacraments are works of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not present, then all we're doing is bad theater (a phrase quoted approvingly by my priest today). If the Holy Spirit is present, then your views might be considered blasphemy.

[foudroyant]

Still waiting for those who worship the wafer god to respond to my comments about the woman at the well and "living water" (John 4).

[TimelessTheist]

She was a Samaritan.

I know that, bud. Still doesn't change the fact that water had a long-standing place in Jewish literature as a metaphor for spiritual cleanliness, or God's Spirit. What's your point?

[foudroyant]

Already addressed this in Post #113.

Now water did stand for spiritual cleanliness in relation to the Holy Spirit in Isaiah and other prophetic books but the Samaritans base their beliefs on the Samaritan Pentateuch. If you can find something from the Samaritan Pentateuch that made this association I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.