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

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So the Calvinists do not believe in the Real Presence because they believe that one of Christ's natures is stuck someplace? At God's right hand? You do know God is everywhere. Right?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This view simply accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned, simply embracing it as literally true ...
I hear this phrase used a lot. What Jesus said at the Last Supper WAS NOT LITERALLY TRUE! He did not LITERALLY hand them a chunk of human flesh to eat. He did not LITERALLY pour them a cup of human blood to drink. At the flip side, the Earthly body of Jesus at the last supper was not made of matzo (unleavened bread) and fermented grape juice did not flow through his veins. Jesus was not making literal statements of fact.

Please explain this repeated insistence that you should be commended for just believing the LITERAL interpretation of Jesus words and the implication that we should be ashamed for not believing that the Apostles ate literal human flesh instead of bread and drank blood instead of wine (or the Christ was a man made of matzo and grape juice). You do realize that Passover is a celebration of the deliverance in Exodus and EVERYTHING in the Jewish Supper that they were sharing in stuffed full of symbolism and metaphorical meaning. To think that Jesus was talking about literal cannibalism, is to be blind to the culture and the setting. Is the parable of the Sheep and Goats about LITERAL sheep and goats?


lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/
adjective
1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
"dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus did not LITERALLY hand them a chunk of human flesh to eat. He did not LITERALLY pour them a cup of human blood to drink.

I have no biblical or theological reason to agree with that.

Now, I'll agree, our HUMAN SENSES only perceive the bread and wine but that, per se, does not make Christ wrong. Nor does it require we doubt Him. Jesus said He is (is..... same word) with us... my human sense of sight can't confirm that, does that make him a lair or mean it's gotta be a metaphor? I don't think so. There's a LOT of things the Bible states that my human senses can't confirm.... I hesitate to conclude that THEREFORE those teachings aren't true.



Is the parable of the Sheep and Goats about LITERAL sheep and goats?

Look at the Scriptures in the opening post. Please tell me what leads you to believe Jesus was teaching a parable?




lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/
adjective
1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.


Yes. As in the meaning of is is is. Probably over 90% of the time in the Bible. Usually, is means is. Again, I admit, there are symbols and metaphors in the Bible (RARELY, but yes) but I think the "burden of proof" is to show TEXTUALLY why it's metaphoric. I see nothing in the text to show that for 1500 years, 100% of Christians were wrong to just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, that the meaning of is is is. What IN THE TEXT mandates that every Christian for 1500 years was so wrong about this - until Zwingli got it right?

But again, my major "issue" with those who reject that the meaning of is is is here is not their insistence (with NOTHING textual or biblical or theological to support it) that this is metaphoric, my issue is the REASON they give for that - it ultimately seems to be a denial of the Trinity and/or the Two Natures of Christ, all flowing from "but it CAN'T be as Jesus said and Paul penned!" (based solely on how it doesn't jibe with THEIR view of physics, THEIR perceptions of their human senses - self trumping Jesus and Paul).


Pax Christi



- Josiah
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
So the Calvinists do not believe in the Real Presence because they believe that one of Christ's natures is stuck someplace? At God's right hand? You do know God is everywhere. Right?

Jesus went to heaven with His body and will come back the same way, so yes His physical body is not on earth, well we are His body here now.
I don't think He's outside His body if He's in my heart.
I'm seated in the heavenlies with Him btw.
Hey maybe Michael Brown is right with how he explains the Trinity.
Stephen saw Him at the right hand of God in heaven.
I'm not a calvinist. I heard a full preterist say Jesus came back already spiritual. I don't believe that.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus went to heaven with His body and will come back the same way, so yes His physical body is not on earth, well we are His body here now.



Rens,

Please review thread on the Two Natures of Christ that Lamm began some time ago..... http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?2038-Jesus-is-100-God-and-100-man-at-the-same-time

Friend, over and over again, Scripture teaches that JESUS is/was/ever will be BOTH God and man.... 100% BOTH..... always (eternally)..... inseparably.... This is taught in Scripture, in the Creeds, by the Ecumenical Councils (it's pretty much the whole point of Chalcadon).

Friend, I'd be the first to admit, this is a MYSTERY - beyond our severely limited and finite human ability to understand, beyond the ability of our human understandings of physics, beyond how things "are" in OUR created physical world of time/space - no one has ever denied that - which is why it's called the MYSTERY of the Two Natures of Christ. But, to be overly blunt, it just doesn't matter if we understand it... if it "fits" with our current understandings of physics, if it "fits" with how things are in this created world of time/space/matter. God is bigger than my brain, my understanding... God is bigger and beyond this world He created.

What this means is that JESUS (divine and human) was at the Big Bang (because that's exactly what the Bible says; NOT that God the Son was at Creation but that JESUS was).... it means that JESUS (divine and human) is with us even now, all over the world (because that's exactly what the Bible says; NOT that God the Son is with us but not Jesus, no, that JESUS is with us right now). Can I see the physical Jesus? No. Does that make the bible wrong, does that makes Jesus' promise wrong? Not in my view. It just means we have a TRUTH here that is beyond our comprehension, beyond our human senses, beyond the ability of our puny, limited brains to understand.


Yes, Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. He's also seated right next to me. And you. Because He promised it. And because Jesus is BOTH 100% divine and 100% human..... ALWAYS..... inseparably. I can't wrap my finite, puny, limited brain around the physics of that (and I have a Ph.D. in physics, lol) but then God doesn't need MY understanding of something for it to be true.



I don't think He's outside His body if He's in my heart

Or outside His body if He's in the bread and wine of Communion....



Thank you!


Pax Christi



- Josiah
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I have no biblical or theological reason to agree with that.
Then I wish you well.
This ends my participation in this foolish discussion.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hi to everyone on all sides, and there seems to be a few ....
I don't mean to seem like I'm implying that anyone is on drugs,
it's just that this old PSA keeps coming to mind.

This is ...
Isn't it possible that when Jesus was saying, This is ... He was
saying it similar to the way it's said in this PSA?
Even tho the Ad itself was a bit skewed, I'm just using the example ...
that This IS your brain doesnt mean they actually were saying
that it was actually literally a persons brain.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
nm
 
Last edited:

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hi to everyone on all sides, and there seems to be a few ....
I don't mean to seem like I'm implying that anyone is on drugs,
it's just that this old PSA keeps coming to mind.

This is ...
Isn't it possible that when Jesus was saying, This is ... He was
saying it similar to the way it's said in this PSA?
Even tho the Ad itself was a bit skewed, I'm just using the example ...
that This IS your brain doesnt mean they actually were saying
that it was actually literally a persons brain.
You know that it's an analogy because of the example of an egg frying on a hot surface showing cause and effect. I don't see a hint, clue or example changing the statement "this IS my body/blood" from being literal to figurative especially considering the statement is coming from the creator or the universe making this statement possible. I mean if the statement was not coming from someone who could make it possible then you'd assume it was figurative.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The opening post...






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.

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, like many other doctrines of the papal church, 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, pp. 405-409.



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




.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You know that it's an analogy because of the example of an egg frying on a hot surface showing cause and effect. I don't see a hint, clue or example changing the statement "this IS my body/blood" from being literal to figurative especially considering the statement is coming from the creator or the universe making this statement possible. I mean if the statement was not coming from someone who could make it possible then you'd assume it was figurative.
Ok, but you missed my point about using it as an example, not making a comparison.
I was afraid that would be confused when I posted that, thats why i tried to explain it.

I was only using the example of the usage of the word IS.
This IS your brain on drugs.
But not really, its an egg frying.

This IS my body ...
But not really, it's bread in my hands.

When you break bread with your brothers and sisters,
Remember that I am the one who's body was broken for you,
I am the one who's blood was shed for you.
You eat, you drink, you share, remember me when you do.
I will with you again ... In My Father's Kingdom.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
He said if you dont eat My flesh and drink My blood you dont have eternal Life, but the man on the cross went to Paradise, so He meant that spiritually, become one with Him. He's the Bread of Life. Peter said: Where can we go? You have Words of eternal Life.
You dont literally drink the Holy Spirit either.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As taken from OP :

~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. ~

It's starting to seem in summary...
LUTHERANS : Don't know ... We say it's a mystery.
ROMAN CATHOLICS : Don't care ... We make things up.
EVANGELICALS : Don't be silly ... We believe Jesus saved us.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
He said if you dont eat My flesh and drink My blood you dont have eternal Life, but the man on the cross went to Paradise, so He meant that spiritually, become one with Him. He's the Bread of Life. Peter said: Where can we go? You have Words of eternal Life.


Friend, I don't see that statement by Jesus or Paul.....


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.




Now, you MAY be thinking of John Chapter 6 where Jesus teaches some thing THREE YEARS before He institutes Holy Communion and where obviously He can't be speaking about Holy Communion. Friend, are you confusing John 6 with the Institution?? They have nothing to do with each other.



As I've stated, I DO accept that there (VERY RARELY!) is metaphor in the Bible. Usually (like 99.9% of the time, lol) the meaning of is is is. But as I've stated, it IS theoretically possible that's the case here. I don't dismiss that possibility. I just have 3 replies to that...

1. There's NOTHING textually, biblically or theologically to suggest that's the case. If we just ASSUME it's metaphoric - with nothing in the context that suggests that - then why isn't the incarnation metaphoric? Or the Resurrection? Or John 3:16? Or Peter's statement, "You ARE (same verb as here) the Christ, the Son of the living God?" If the Bible is metaphor simply because we choose to "take" it so, then isn't anything and everything metaphor?

2. Why didn't a single Christian until Zwingli notice the textual mandate that we take this metaphorically? For over 1,500 years no one, not one Christian, not one person on the planet Earth, not anyone saw this as metaphoric. The first was Zwingli (a bit after Luther) in the 16th Century. What happened to the texts, to the words, in the late 16th Century that suddenly - out of the blue - mandated this metaphoric view that not one person on the planet saw until then?

3. I actually have less of a problem with "IMO, it's metaphor" than I do for the REASONS given for imposing that view. Often, it's the reasons modern "Evangelicals" and neo-Zwinglians give that I find far more problematic and dangerous.... the denial of the Nicene and Chalcadon Councils, the denial of the two inseparable natures of Christ... the whole premise that if WE suddenly "think" it's not possible, then we have to reject it and declare it symbolic or metaphoric. That's what I find disconcerting.... and dangerous.



Pax Christi


- Josiah


.
 
Last edited:

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If it wasn't figurative, then considering the stern warning, they should have been eating the bread right out of His hands, and continue chomping on His fingers as well, why stop there?

How is it we are somehow expected to believe that a stamped out communion wafer in 2017 is the ACTUAL body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we must eat Him to live, but the 12 were somehow supposed to know that they WEREN'T supposed to eat the ACTUAL body and blood of the one sitting at the passover table breaking bread with them?

(And please know, im not trying to be antagonistic regarding this, I just honestly cant see how some religious people have come to some of the conclusions they do, especially when tgey seem so right on and reasonable in so many other areas. This one really IS a mystery to me, but if a different kind. Peace)
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
John 6:51-68

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
Footnotes:








Surely in verse 66 Jesus would of mentioned to them by then that it was merely figurative like He did when speaking in parables.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
I want to know where that idea came from.
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lords-supper/history-real-presence.htm
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/meal-divides/

According to Radbertus, the body of Christ in the sacrament is the same historical body of Christ that was visible during His earthly life and in which He suffered and died. If this is the case, then Radbertus must explain how the historical body of Christ can be present in multiple locations simultaneously. This he does by appealing to the creative power of God. The Holy Spirit “daily creates the flesh and blood of Christ by invisible power through the sanctification of his sacrament, though outwardly understood by neither sight nor taste”

Here, this makes more sense to me than that it would be His body now, but this makes no sense at all, because they had to eat the lamb and burn the rest, death is swallowed in victory, He's the firstborn, there is no old body of Him anymore.

http://www.sohmer.net/GoR/15-transubstantiation.php
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's starting to seem in summary...
LUTHERANS : Don't know ... We say it's a mystery.
ROMAN CATHOLICS : Don't care ... We make things up.
EVANGELICALS : Don't be silly ... We believe Jesus saved us.

Actually Lutherans and Roman Catholics also believe Jesus saved us. I'm not sure why you think otherwise?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Actually Lutherans and Roman Catholics also believe Jesus saved us. I'm not sure why you think otherwise?
Because every time we ask a question of Lutherans, the answer is "MYSTERY". :) [Just teasing.]
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
LUTHERANS : Don't know ... We say it's a mystery.
ROMAN CATHOLICS : Don't care ... We make things up.
EVANGELICALS : Don't be silly ... We believe Jesus saved us.

Just for the record, I read this as humor:

Q. Body and Blood?
Lutheran Answer: (It is a Mystery.)
Catholic Answer: (Make something up.)
Evangelical Answer: (Change the subject.)


[EDIT]
Like all good humor, there is a bit of truth hidden in it:
Lutherans accept the paradox and embrace it as an unknowable mystery.
Catholics look to the authority of the Church to provide a definitive answer.
Evangelicals see EVERYTHING as being symbolic of Jesus and salvation.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom