• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 1 of 56 1231151 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 10 of 559
    1. #1
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905

      Arrow COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

      .


      Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


      Matthew 26:26-29

      26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
      27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
      28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
      29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


      First Corinthians 11:23-29

      For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
      24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
      25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
      26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
      27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
      28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
      29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



      There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....



      REAL PRESENCE:
      Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists


      Real Presence is:

      1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified.

      2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this is the Body of Christ."


      Real Presence is NOT..

      1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

      2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

      3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.

      Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist.


      Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.



      TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church


      This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church (alone), officially and dogmatically since 1551.

      The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and irrelevant ones at that), until western Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

      Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

      "Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

      This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

      In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


      From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

      The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518, Art. "Paschasius Radbertus;" / 6. Samuel Edgar. Tenth complete American edition, p. 405.



      SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations


      Look again at the Eucharistic texts. An important aspect is (with apologies to Bill Clinton), what the meaning of "is" is....

      While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common begining in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here - physically anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

      This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us), a matter of Law rather then Gospel.





      One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


      LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.


      ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.


      EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.






      Pax Christi



      - Josiah



      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 04-14-2017 at 09:26 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    2. #2
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      If it was literally His body then how could they eat it when He was alive with them and now His body is transformed, He also said to the Jews that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood btw. Don't even know how I see it, literal but not too literal or something? What I always found weird was the kids from church eating the leftover crackers after the service so they didnt have to throw them away but then I was like oh well, it's better than throwing it away.
      Last edited by Rens; 02-18-2017 at 10:28 AM.

    3. Likes Snerfle liked this post
    4. #3
      psalms 91's Avatar
      psalms 91 is offline Silver Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      69
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Pa
      Posts
      12,834
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      2,155
      CH Challenge
      89
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (3,643,050 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      56,185
      Level
      59
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      72.95%
      Rep Power
      591
      flesh makes it literal, spirit makes it spiritual
      Isaiah 40:31

    5. Likes Rens liked this post
    6. #4
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      Quote Originally Posted by psalms 91 View Post
      flesh makes it literal, spirit makes it spiritual
      yes spiritual

    7. #5
      TurtleHare's Avatar
      TurtleHare is offline Prodigy Member
      Yoyo
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2015
      Posts
      995
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      2,715
      CH Challenge
      115
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (5,719 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      7,531
      Level
      26
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      42.83%
      Rep Power
      222
      I don't think Jesus is going to return and tell us, Nah, y'all that ain't my body because those disciples misquoted me. Hehe Is means Is. So many believers that God can heal with nary a word but they can't at all believe that Jesus could be present with the wine and bread is ridiculous! It's still the same God who can cure cancer and heal the sick so you better believe that when he says This is my body that it is!

    8. Likes Josiah liked this post
    9. #6
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Rens View Post
      yes spiritual

      I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




      Thank you.


      - Josiah
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    10. Likes Confessional Lutheran liked this post
    11. #7
      Brighten04's Avatar
      Brighten04 is offline Veteran Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2015
      Posts
      2,184
      CH Cash
      22,482
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,326
      Level
      37
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      52.54%
      Rep Power
      220
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




      Thank you.


      - Josiah
      Huh??

    12. Likes Snerfle liked this post
    13. #8
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Brighten04 View Post
      Huh??

      Written to Rens. See what Rens posted.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    14. #9
      Rens's Avatar
      Rens is offline Expert Member
      48
      In Relationship
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Posts
      4,754
      Country
      Netherlands
      CH Cash
      20,366
      CH Challenge
      0
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      18,088
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      19.84%
      Rep Power
      374
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      I'm not following you.... So, if we say "Jesus is the Savior" it's wrong to say that's true because that would make it "literal" and not "spiritually" true? Is it bad to be literally true and good to be spiritually true? Can something just be TRUE? Such as "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" Can the verb "to be" just be true?




      Thank you.


      - Josiah
      I'm not eating literal flesh. I eat bread. It never changed in my mouth into literal flesh, so it's spiritual literal. Just like that He told those people after he fed them with fish and bread (that was literal, 2 fishes became more fishes) that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He has a new Body that can change from flesh to spiritual, go to heaven, walk through walls, I can't eat that. His old body changed into that and if bread changes into that then it's His spiritual body.
      I have no idea. Just believe what the text says and leave your brain out of it I think.

    15. Likes psalms 91 liked this post
    16. #10
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by Rens View Post
      I'm not eating literal flesh. I eat bread. It never changed in my mouth into literal flesh, so it's spiritual literal. Just like that He told those people after he fed them with fish and bread (that was literal, 2 fishes became more fishes) that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He has a new Body that can change from flesh to spiritual, go to heaven, walk through walls, I can't eat that. His old body changed into that and if bread changes into that then it's His spiritual body.
      I have no idea. Just believe what the text says and leave your brain out of it I think.

      You believe that Jesus is no longer literally flesh? That He now is only a SPIRITUAL reality, not physical?
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •