From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:00:02 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Rick Jelliffe (ricko@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
> Jesus said (John 6:56) "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink".

That's probably a Catholic translation.  Mine just says,
"My flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."
That leaves it open to a bit more interpretation, doesn't it?  Even so, "real"
food can still mean real sustenance, but not necessarily that which is taken
in through the mouth.  We have expressions such as "food for thought" and
"spiritual food".

> This was so offensive to some that they left: they understood he was
> speaking literally in some way. Now elsewhere in the Gospels
> Jesus doesn't attempt to confuse people with language: he uses parables

I think he always confuses those who take him too literally.  This is so
that people who are looking to twist his words will not be able to, while
those who are really seeking God will understand (Seeing they will not see,
hearing they will not understand etc).  In fact, the reason they were offended
is precisely because they _mis_understood what he was saying.  Jesus wouldn't
intentionally offend someone in a matter like this.  Remember when Jesus said
that you had to be born again.  They reacted in the same way, saying that it
wasn't possible for a man to climb back into his mother's womb.

> damnation to (them)selves for not recognising the Lord's body for what
> it is". He even says some people are sick and have died because of it.
> Now, if its just a symbol, why would eating and drinking it unworthily
> be so serious? If it was just prayed-over bread, what would be the
> problem: David and his men ate the temple bread out of hunger and that
> was alright. But 1 Cor 10:16 "Is not the bread we break a participation 
> in Christ's body?".

I don't see a difference.  It is a supernatural event (their death or sickness)
no matter which way you look at it.

> That is transsubstantiation: that the bread participates (though how is
> of course a mystery) in Christ's body. 

Especially when he was in it at the time...

> It is clear enough that no Christians disputed it for the first 1500
> years of Christianity (except for Berengarius d. 1088 for a few years).

Or was it that it was never mentioned, or only mentioned vaguely enough (as
it is in the bible) so that you could interpret it either way?  And do you
mean the first 1500 years of Christianity or of the Catholic church.  I guess
their wasn't anyone else around...

> The trouble is that both  to eat someone's flesh and to drink somone's
> blood were already in use as metaphors in Jesus' time: meaning
> to hate & persecute someone, and to severely punish someone, respectively.
> That is how Jesus' imediate audience would have understood his words
> figuratively. 

I've never heard of that.  I certainly can't recall any other use in the
bible of that metaphor.  And if that were so, then why didn't the people
Jesus were speaking to pick up on that and say, "Who is he going to persecute
or punish?" or some such thing?

> why would he resort to difficult metaphors? 

Is that so difficult?

> Metaphors are used to aid comprehension: the intent behind naming Peter 
> the Rock is obvious, it was a figure of speech in use then, and is
> still in use today. (Not to deny that 
> Jesus was doing far more than granting a nickname as well.)

And bread and drink are life-giving just as they are today.  So too is Jesus.
Hence the metaphor.  He also said to the woman by the well that he would give
her living water so she would never be thirsty again.  He wasn't about to
pop an artery for her, he was talking about spiritual thirst.  It's the same
thing with communion.  By remembering Jesus' death we are focussing on his
love and the grace by which he gives salvation to us.  There is no point
in having his real blood and real flesh to satisfy this spiritual need.

> No one claims the bread and wine undergo any physical change. That is
> grotesque indeed. Since no-one proposes that, it can be ignored. 
> The body of Jesus stands under the appearance of the bread and wine.

Pardon?  What exactly are you saying?  That the bread _becomes_ flesh but
still looks like bread?  Likewise the wine turns to blood but still looks
and tastes like wine?  Que?

> I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I should respond "Christ's words
> are so simple; why do people need to ignore them?": My flesh is real food.

Read a different translation.  Likewise, the message of salvation is simple.
Why confuse it with unnecessary dogma?  (ooh that's an ugly word.  Sorry).

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion