Thread 17916072

Now, there are some considerations to be made of the words "This is my body". When the context and composition of the statement are considered as well as the analogy of faith it becomes clear that the meaning of the words is figurative. Indeed, so clear is the symbolic nature of the elements that nobody would (or does) believe otherwise for a reason besides traditions of men. There is nothing in scripture which compels us to take the literal sense.

(1/4)

why are christ dweebs so stinky?

Now let us define every part of the statement. Firstly, "this" refers to bread, as it is a demonstrative pronoun referring to a thing existing and then present, which He took in His hands and offered to His disciples, the same as it was before He picked up and blessed it. The context shall not tolerate anything but the meaning of bread, if it does not mean bread we may as well adopt Carlstadt's reading and suppose He was pointing at Himself while saying this. The text contains absolutely no plausible referent save bread. Next, "my body", which refers to His true body assumed from the virgin Mary, in a dead and crucified state represented by the separation of the bread and wine and expressed in the words "broken for you" "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". Therefore the Lord here uses the present tense for a future event, the signification of His crucifixion is not contingent on the time in which it occurred.

Now finally, we come to the copula "is". The natural reading of this word is that it identifies the subject "this" with the predicate "my body" so that the two are totally identical. This identification may be proper and literal, or metaphorical and figurative, as literally Christ is human, but figuratively Christ is the door. Now, that its sense is figurative is clear since where two things of totally disparate nature are joined the natural sense is figurative, the Lord frequently spoke in figures which would be understood by the disciples, and it is the tendency of scripture to speak of the sacraments generally under metonyms e.g. "circumcise your heart" "the rock was Christ". Therefore the meaning is, "This represents my body", as this proposition "the bread is my body" is totally absurd unless taken figuratively. Nor do the Romanists and Lutherans, despite their insistence, actually retain the literal sense: the former takes "is" to mean "becomes", the miracle of transubstantiation not being performed until the words are spoken, the latter taking it to mean "contains", the bread not being totally identical to His body. Neither takes it in the literal sense "constitutes", nor can it be taken in this sense since it would be to define "this" as something other than bread.

But realizing on some level that if exegesis is permitted and we are allowed to seek the actual meaning of Christ's words as in every other text of scripture their absurdist doctrine will explode, they insist that such investigation is not permitted and we must cleave to that which they defend only with this exegesis by bludgeon, that the meaning of the words is literal as they declare, and that if we do not accept that which they declare to be its meaning we are unbelieving for daring to interpret the text. This abuse of scripture which is an appeal to emotion we will not tolerate for a moment, but we note how our opponents undo themselves with it. For, Luke and Paul record the Lord's words as "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". We must inquire then, what is the meaning of "cup"? Is it figurative, or literal? If it is literal, then the very substance of the cup (and not its contents) are subject to transubstantiation or consubstantiation as the elements of bread and wine are, which nobody believes (nor should they). And if it is figurative, then the demand for merely literal interpretation is overthrown, and a figure is directly asserted in the words of institution. Either the words "This is my body" may be figurative, or the word "cup" must be literal.

>>17916072 (OP)
shut and eat the jesus cookie

>>17916072 (OP)
>so clear is the symbolic nature of the elements that nobody would (or does) believe otherwise for a reason besides traditions of men.

Lol no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykEnj_I9eIw

>>17916134
>multiple paragraphs of exegesis DESTROYED by a 10 minute youtube video by an androgynous zoomer
Normally my habit is to reject the citation of a link in place of an argument, but as her confusion is fairly common I will respond.
Her mistakes in general reflect a flawed method of looking at particular verses and moving back and forth between them, and seeking to theologize between them, instead of beginning at the beginning of a passage and ending at its ending, and seeking to derive theological conclusion from the actual meaning of the text.
Her first argument is a strawman, as the point is not that the words must be metaphorical as Christ elsewhere speaks in metaphors, but that if "This is my body" must absolutely be literal it should logically follow the same thing in "I am the door".
The supposition that Protestant interpretation of John 6 is naturalistic is deeply confused; there is nothing about the words "eat my flesh" in any sense which implies a miracle. The reason the Jews were interpreting Him literally is because it began with them desiring food and Jesus seeming to appeal to that desire by offering bread out of heaven. He expressly corrects their interpretation from v. 35 on and shows that He "is" the bread of life, which can only be "eaten" spiritually by faith and not physically with the mouth. Start reading the chapter from verse 1 instead of jumping to the parts that sound good to you.
The sacrament is indeed a participation in the Lord's body, insofar as those who partake in faith also spiritually receive the true body of Christ which is as present to the believer's mind as the bread is to their senses. But Paul gives no indication unbelievers so participate. In the following chapter Paul refutes transubstantiation by saying that which we eat and drink is bread and wine, and for the purpose of proclaiming the Lord's death.
So the point is proven there is no reason to believe in this carnal presence besides traditions of men.

Mr. Rabbi, why did Jesus get stabbed by the spear?

>>17916224
>Start reading the chapter from verse 1 instead of jumping to the parts that sound good to you.
And end at 3 instead of 4 exactly as you had began.