Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[hadit]

Apocalyptic literature was a popular literary style of that time. Revelation is a great example of apocalyptic literature. It was written to encourage early Christians that they would overcome the Roman persecutions, that God is always with us. In this literary form was the idea that what will come to earth is first being built in heaven. Despite the ruin Jerusalem had become at the hands of the Romans, it would be rebuilt because it was already being rebuilt in heaven.

Right, a new heaven and a new earth, where we will reside for eternity. That doesn't mean the book was all about the Roman empire.

The Book of Daniel is another example of apocalyptic literature.

Except that Daniel accurately foretold when Messiah would be revealed. It was apocalyptic literature with prophecy, same as Revelation. Why the reluctance to accept Revelation as an account of an encounter the risen, glorified savior, complete with what He revealed that was to come? I find it odd that all of a sudden, we want to consign a very important book of the Bible to just literature.

Jesus did not speak in the style of apocalyptic literature, his favorite style being one of parables. He did use figurative speech, but something to consider: Did he lose followers when he said, "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off?" Or, when he said people should first remove the log from their own eye? Hebrew/Aramaic is an objective, picture language. People of the time were used to this. But...when Jesus said, "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" people did not see it as the picture form of their language. They took it quite literally--and some left.

He didn't always explain that He was speaking metaphorically, when He spoke to the woman at the well for one example. In fact, that's a good example. He said He would give living water that would permanently cure thirst. We say, "Obviously He was speaking metaphorically", and why? Because we know that our bodies still demand water even as we walk with Him. Likewise, there's no need to believe that Jesus is somehow feeding us His un-resurrected body and blood just because He didn't explain He wasn't being literal.

 

[hadit]

Not sure how you can read Revelation literally. But to your point, each account must be read as the author intended. It's not one way for all accounts.

I can read it literally because it clearly describes the risen and glorified savior. There's no need to bring that in if it's all about the Roman empire. I mean, you have to take virtually every sentence in the book and invent completely different meanings for the whole thing.

 

[ding]

I can read it literally because it clearly describes the risen and glorified savior. There's no need to bring that in if it's all about the Roman empire. I mean, you have to take virtually every sentence in the book and invent completely different meanings for the whole thing.

I disagree. I believe I read these passages and accounts as the authors intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do try to remind all of us that we will not be rubbing elbows only with <fill in favorite group here> when we're on the new earth.

LOL. There's the old joke of the newcomer to Heaven getting the 50 cent tour and questioning one door that was closed and not available for viewing. And he was told that was the "X" group who thought they were the only ones there.

 

[Meriweather]

Right, a new heaven and a new earth, where we will reside for eternity. That doesn't mean the book was all about the Roman empire.

It was about the Roman persecution of the early Christians.

Except that Daniel accurately foretold when Messiah would be revealed. It was apocalyptic literature with prophecy, same as Revelation. Why the reluctance to accept Revelation as an account of an encounter the risen, glorified savior, complete with what He revealed that was to come? I find it odd that all of a sudden, we want to consign a very important book of the Bible to just literature.

Jews have a different interpretation. Daniel is amazing.

He didn't always explain that He was speaking metaphorically, when He spoke to the woman at the well for one example. In fact, that's a good example. He said He would give living water that would permanently cure thirst. We say, "Obviously He was speaking metaphorically", and why? Because we know that our bodies still demand water even as we walk with Him. Likewise, there's no need to believe that Jesus is somehow feeding us His un-resurrected body and blood just because He didn't explain He wasn't being literal.

As I said, Hebrew/Aramaic are picture-languages. From the account of the event itself, do you imagine the woman (or anyone) would miss what Jesus meant. Remember how she told others of the event? She said, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done."

 

[hadit]

It was about the Roman persecution of the early Christians.

Just stating that isn't credible. We're already seeing things shaping up to make Revelation not only possible, but inevitable.

Jews have a different interpretation. Daniel is amazing.

Of course, they do. They'll do anything to avoid accepting Jesus as Messiah.

As I said, Hebrew/Aramaic are picture-languages. From the account of the event itself, do you imagine the woman (or anyone) would miss what Jesus meant. Remember how she told others of the event? She said, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done."

From John 4:

14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw
16: Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

She didn't get it. She thought he was being literal, like those who insist Jesus is feeding us His real blood and flesh, and He didn't correct her.

 

[Meriweather]

From John 4:

14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw
16: Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

She didn't get it. She thought he was being literal, like those who insist Jesus is feeding us His real blood and flesh, and He didn't correct her.

Are you arguing that when she ran off to tell people about Jesus, she excitedly told them, "Come meet this man who provides water so that we will never be physically thirsty again!"?

As I attempted the point out by her very own words in the last post, she was past thinking about mere physical thirst. What was the result?

Unlike the account of, "Unless you eat my bread and drink my blood..." where many left him in this account many came out to meet him, they believed in him, and he remained with him for two days. What say you: Do you believe that during these two days, no one offered Jesus anything to drink, and that Jesus, during these two days, drank nothing?

 

[hadit]

Are you arguing that when she ran off to tell people about Jesus, she excitedly told them, "Come meet this man who provides water so that we will never be physically thirsty again!"?

As I attempted the point out by her very own words in the last post, she was past thinking about mere physical thirst. What was the result?

Unlike the account of, "Unless you eat my bread and drink my blood..." where many left him in this account many came out to meet him, they believed in him, and he remained with him for two days. What say you: Do you believe that during these two days, no one offered Jesus anything to drink, and that Jesus, during these two days, drank nothing?

Of course not, He asked her for a drink, remember? She got all excited when He was talking about living water and asked for that. I believe Jesus knew full well what people were thinking and didn't think He had to be explicit all the time. People would figure out He was speaking metaphorically.

"I am the vine, you are the branches"
"You must be born again"
"I am the bread of life"
"I am the light of the world"
"I have living water"
"This is my body and my blood"
"Whoever comes to me will never hunger or thirst again"
"Whoever comes to me will live forever"

Some of these confused people and He didn't go to great lengths to spoon feed them.

 

[Meriweather]

Some of these confused people and He didn't go to great lengths to spoon feed them.

None of these confused people. Even Nicodemus got the point right away, and the point was reiterated in the account. The same is true in the account of the Samaritan woman at the well. Each quickly got the point, and the point was reiterated in the story.

The account of Eat my flesh, drink my blood is entirely different. People in the story got the point, and it is the only story where Jesus lost followers because of what he was teaching. Further, early Christians held to Jesus' words--to the point non-Christians were accusing them of cannibalism. Next, are the Eucharistic miracles preserved over the centuries. But we've already gone over this and conclusions remain the same.

 

[ding]