Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my point is that if Matt 26:26 is not literal then it's possible 1 Cor 12:12 is not literal either.
Your logic seems to simply be that since 1 Cor 12:12 sounds literal it therefore must be literal. But if that's the only reason to consider it literal then you should apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.
Because unless you have a better explanation to claim the Body is literally Christ other than the literal sound of the text then you are cherry-picking if you don't apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.
|
Any particular topic or verse in the Bible may be literal, may be metaphorical, or may be both. It must be determined in its context.
For instance, the bread that Jesus broke and gave to his disciples was not His physical body. The bread was a symbol as was the cup. Yet, the symbol speaks to the literal body and blood being broken and the ongoing remembering through these symbols by the partaking of the life and ever-efficacious blood by His believers. That is the organic reality behind the symbols of the bread and blood.
In Cor 12 there are both metaphor and literal explanations about the Body of Christ. The metaphor is the human body Paul talks about and the literal is when he says:
...so also [is] the Christ, "
Though Christ is the Head, He is also, according to this plain statement, the Body.
Some will claim that such a teaching suggests that the members of the Body of Christ are actually Christ. And they would be right. That is not "bad Lee" that is just good sound bible teaching.
If we only have two choices then that would be "good Lee".