Brian, it is not right to imply that by disproving the doctrines of Transubstantiation and Universalism, that you have torn down the doctrine of the Resurrection of the physical body.
In effect, you are saying, "Transubstantiationists turn figurative language improperly into literal language and Universalists (among other things) use a proof text with a synecdoche (all) and turn it improperly to literal use. Therefore, Stan, see?? They are wrong because of what they are doing. You are wrong for the same reasons! If only you could see it."
Well, I heartily agree that both of those doctrines are false because their adherents are ignorant of biblical language modes. Many of them simply will not accept the notion that the Bible uses common language features that include all sorts of figures of speech even though there is ample internal evidence of their use throughout Scripture, including Jesus' words.
As to Transubstantiation, you wish me to agree that a figurative use of "bread" and "flesh" in Jesus' words connects in primarily the same way as my use of "resurrection" and "physical body."
But, you would have to prove that the term "flesh" was used primarily as figurative in the teachings and incidents of resurrections. Further, you stated that Jesus is an exception. That is an critical doctrine for which you gave no supporting scriptures.
"Everybody came to my party last night. At 8:00 I told a joke and everyone died laughing. At 11:00 pm they all went home." In these sentences, such errors could be employed to draw the following doctrines:
1. 3.5 billion people attended my party.
2. Everyone was killed by a lethal joke.
3. They all came back to life miraculously before 11:00 p.m. so they could go home.
In a separate case: "I told a joke and my friend died laughing. I called 911 and the EMTs came and they were able to revive him after 10 minutes."
One is a resurrection and one isn't. If you do not believe in physical resurrections, you point constantly to the first example and like kinds as a use of figures of speech and compel the second example and any other of its kind to maintain the same use as the first. The EMTs are a complication that one can safely turn into a figurative term by "accurately" understanding the first example.
There is really only one reason why someone does this: They have a prejudicial doctrine that rules their thinking. The Bible no longer teaches the man, the man teaches the Bible. From what I am reading here, the preterists are more at fault than most at this sort of thing. |
