Chris Weimer

What a coincidence, eh? OK, chili, amos, whatever, I got your point now. The Bible is just poetry (which a lot of it is) and is not under any circumstances to be taken literally. There was no flood, no plagues, no messiah, no philistines, no proven archaeological remains of Canannite and Egyptian civilisations, no resurrection, no Roman empire, no Jews even, all that is made up. Yeah, it makes sense.

Chili

That is not true. There is a place in John where it says "my body is real food and my blood is real drink." Notice the words "real" to indicate that these words are not to be used as metaphor.

I think the point here is that the very people who read the bible literally will never take the above passage in its literal context (Jn.6:55).

This is good, of course, because one must be going in the wrong direction before you can do a 180 (metanoia) and go the other way.

Ted Hoffman

<Ted feels dizzy collapses on the floor>

Chris Weimer

how do you know though that Jesus wasn't just a metaphor? Your whole entire basis is flawed.

Chili

Then read the next passage: "this sort of talk is hard to endure" to which Jesus replied "does this shake your faith?" and I think it was about here that many left and nothing has changed ever since. In fact, the concept behind it is really quite simple and revealing: the transubstantiation must take place in our mind through comprehension.

Chris Weimer

um, non sequitur? You are not following me, are you?

Magdlyn

Chili is trippin. He even spelt his own name wrong in the subject title. How can anyone take him seriously enough to try to dismantle his ravings, er, arguments? :Cheeky:

Toto

<embarrassed> The misspelling is the moderator's fault. I'll fix it.

Chili

Except that Chili did not write the subject title of this tread that was split from another one. My writings are quite simple and easy to understand except maybe for those who have a problem with the meaning of the words "real food and real drink" in that context.

The question was if Jesus was a metaphor or not. Well of course Jesus was a metaphor which does not means that Jesus did not exist. Jesus was a name given to an identity when Christ was born. If Jesus was Christ and only Christ they could have just called him Christ so the next question would be: if Jesus was not Christ who was he, this man that was called Jesus? and at whom is this metaphor pointing?

Chris Weimer

OK, I see where you're going now. The past is irrevelant, because all that matters is that the literature of the past is metaphorical for today. Pretty selfish, IMHO.