[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< God doesn’t have hands, but yes. God created all.[/quote]Ezra 7:28 for instance[quote]<<< I being strengthened by the hand of the Lord my God (Douay-Rheims Bible) >>>[/quote]This is called an anthropomorphism Christopher. That is where the incomprehensible God describes Himself by plainly figurative physical terms in gracious condescension to our creaturely finitude. I figure you knew that, but were just being difficult with me again.
You also dodged my question. I asked you if God created the first man and woman by a specific act of special direct action originating from the “dust of the earth”. Of course he created all. Practically everybody who says the word “god” believes that.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]John 6:35[quote]<<< I am the bread of life >>>[/quote]He must be baked flour, water and yeast.
John 10:7[quote]<<< I am the door of the sheep. >>>[/quote]Wood, hinges?
John 15:1[quote]<<< I am the true vine >>>[/quote]A plant?
1st Corinthians 10:4 [quote]<<< and that rock was Christ >>>[/quote]A bundle of minerals?
Rev. 5:5[quote]<<< The Lion of the Tribe of Judah >>>[/quote]A large wild cat?
What does this have to do with whether or not Adam and Ever were true historic persons whose emergence upon the scene is described in detail in the first three chapters of Genesis. What’s the answer. Were they real historic figures or not. Jesus said they were. Was He funnin then. Or Paul? I’m not yelling. I’m asking.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]
I don’t have much time to give a full answer, but I can throw out another question for you to think on:
Mat 18:8-9 (KJV) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I never did read thru the whole Cath Q&A 1.0, you mean this was never covered? Never in 2 years?[/quote]Not in detail actually. What’s coming of course is that there is figurative language all over the bible, which there is, and that only the one true apostolic church lead by the papacy and magesterium left by Christ Himself to guide us in these thing can ever possibly make sense of it. I couldn’t possibly disagree more. Cortes is asking why I take the creation account literally, but not when Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He should be back shortly saying “YEAH, why is that anyway? Answer the question”. I can’t keep up with everything. This is THE crux of the authority/ecclesiology debate that the Lord has mercifully seen fit to render impossible for the moment. Make no mistake Brother Chen. The Catholic(Big C Chris) intelligentsia haev an answer sufficient at least unto themselves for absolutely EVERYTHING. Nobody will quote them a verse or passage of scripture, a theological/philosophical conundrum or issue of history for which they are not more than readily prepared.
I’m not directly comparing the two, but it reminds me of when I get somebody who can’t wait to beat up on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Lemme at em, bless God I’ll show em what it is with my awesome biblical scholarship”. Then they come back eyes wide n sheepish: “wow, those guys are better n I thought =[”. Yes they are. The point? Never underestimate your opponent. Especially the colossal empire that is Roman Catholicism. That church has plodded through history helmed by some of the most undeniably capable intellectuals this earth has even seen. Neither them nor their arguments have to be stupid to be wrong. Well, there’s my mini diatribe for this beautiful Saturday morning. I have go get some computer parts now.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I never did read thru the whole Cath Q&A 1.0, you mean this was never covered? Never in 2 years?[/quote]Not in detail actually. What’s coming of course is that there is figurative language all over the bible, which there is, and that only the one true apostolic church lead by the papacy and magesterium left by Christ Himself to guide us in these thing can ever possibly make sense of it. I couldn’t possibly disagree more. Cortes is asking why I take the creation account literally, but not when Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He should be back shortly saying “YEAH, why is that anyway? Answer the question”. I can’t keep up with everything. This is THE crux of the authority/ecclesiology debate that the Lord has mercifully seen fit to render impossible for the moment. Make no mistake Brother Chen. The Catholic(Big C Chris) intelligentsia haev an answer sufficient at least unto themselves for absolutely EVERYTHING. Nobody will quote them a verse or passage of scripture, a theological/philosophical conundrum or issue of history for which they are not more than readily prepared.
I’m not directly comparing the two, but it reminds me of when I get somebody who can’t wait to beat up on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Lemme at em, bless God I’ll show em what it is with my awesome biblical scholarship”. Then they come back eyes wide n sheepish: “wow, those guys are better n I thought =[”. Yes they are. The point? Never underestimate your opponent. Especially the colossal empire that is Roman Catholicism. That church has plodded through history helmed by some of the most undeniably capable intellectuals this earth has even seen. Neither them nor their arguments have to be stupid to be wrong. Well, there’s my mini diatribe for this beautiful Saturday morning. I have go get some computer parts now.[/quote]
Glad you understood my point immediately without a lot of beating around the bush. You even offered more passages.
To answer your question, yes, they were real people, there was one man and one woman. Which part are we supposed to not believe the literal truth of that is literally true?
And, well, whenever you get the chance, YEAH, why is that anyway?
You could have just taken the time it took you to write that second paragraph to go ahead and answer this question.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
Are you comparing what Jesus said here to what was said in Genesis? Because you’re confusing me. You’re saying God doesn’t literally have hands, but he literally created man from dust. Is he being literal or figurative in Genesis Tirib?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]
I don’t have much time to give a full answer, but I can throw out another question for you to think on:
Mat 18:8-9 (KJV) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Why do we not take these verses literally?[/quote]
If you look at the context of the eat my flesh and drink my blood, if he was being symbolic or whatever, then he’d be saying, “insult me.”
That’s not what Jesus was doing here. He was being very literal. All the early Church fathers are in accord with each other. Even your beloved Calvin agreed, so does Luther.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you look at the context of the eat my flesh and drink my blood, if he was being symbolic or whatever, then he’d be saying, “insult me.” [/quote]I don’t follow this reasoning.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: That’s not what Jesus was doing here. He was being very literal. All the early Church fathers are in accord with each other. Even your beloved Calvin agreed, so does Luther. [/quote]One more good reason not to be a Lutheran.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]
I don’t have much time to give a full answer, but I can throw out another question for you to think on:
Mat 18:8-9 (KJV) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Why do we not take these verses literally?[/quote]
We do, ask Origen about his auto-castration.[/quote]
This is a tongue in cheek reply, is it not? Unless you agree with what he did.
Luther believed the actual body and blood of Christ was “in with and behind” the host elements and Calvin did not believe that there was any material presence of the actual 2nd person of the Godhead present though he did believe, as do I, that real grace was was made available through the sacrament.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< John 6:53-66 (NIV) >>>[/quote]Please see my post to Brother Chris
[/quote]
You don’t read a literal interpretation of the passage I posted above, when the apostles in that very passage understood the meaning to be starkly literal.
Why do you get to pick and choose the passages that must be literal, and those where Jesus was just funnin’?
[/quote]
I don’t have much time to give a full answer, but I can throw out another question for you to think on:
Mat 18:8-9 (KJV) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Why do we not take these verses literally?[/quote]
We do, ask Origen about his auto-castration.[/quote]
This is a tongue in cheek reply, is it not? Unless you agree with what he did.[/quote]
I agree with the literal meaning of the holy scrit, yes.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Luther believed the actual body and blood of Christ was “in with and behind” the host elements and Calvin did not believe that there was any material presence of the actual 2nd person of the Godhead present though he did believe, as do I, that real grace was was made available through the sacrament.[/quote]
Yes, as we’ve established before. Luther is basically an idiot when it comes to metaphysics of the Eucharist. He and Calvin both attested to the Real Presence. Other things they like: private confession to a priest and the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you look at the context of the eat my flesh and drink my blood, if he was being symbolic or whatever, then he’d be saying, “insult me.”
That’s not what Jesus was doing here. He was being very literal. All the early Church fathers are in accord with each other. Even your beloved Calvin agreed, so does Luther. [/quote]
The passage is even further punctuated by the inclusion of the objections of the other disciples. It could have read just as easily without their negative comments, but they were included, for a reason. What other reason could it possibly be?
I don’t remember any part of Genesis where Adam says, “A snake? Talking? You’re joking right? No, hold on, for real? A talking serpent. Oooooookaaaaaaaay. Well, wth, hand over that fruit, woman.”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Luther believed the actual body and blood of Christ was “in with and behind” the host elements and Calvin did not believe that there was any material presence of the actual 2nd person of the Godhead present though he did believe, as do I, that real grace was was made available through the sacrament.[/quote]
Yes, as we’ve established before. Luther is basically an idiot when it comes to metaphysics of the Eucharist. He and Calvin both attested to the Real Presence. Other things they like: private confession to a priest and the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God. :)[/quote]
I don’t even understand the point of this argument. Seriously. As far as demonstrating anything worthwhile is concerned, it’s as useless as your implicit claim that Jesus MUST have been speaking literally because ALL the church fathers agree that he was.
I will not set about at this time to undo the violence that you have here perpetrated upon Calvins’ views which range from oversimplification to outright (I’m sure unintentional) falsehood. Make no mistake Christopher, both Calvin and Luther would have burned themselves at the stake before rejoining themselves to the vatican. One more thing before I forget. I did not, by the comical nick name of T1, intend to portray myself in any way as a self exalted pope or any other position. It was simply a play on your use of B16. Just to clear that up.
