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

[Imalive]

What does it actually matter?
For the ones saying it's cannibalism, you take it too but then symbolic. Thats just as weird for the mind.
What I don't understand though is that they believe His blood is in it spiritually. I believe you can apply the Blood to anything, if someone is sick, a bike so they keep their claws off of it so sure wine and bread you could do that too. But whats the use? If someone wanted to steal it then it'd make sense.
And I am the bread of Life, I am the living bread, so then you'd spiritually take His living body which we are part of and that's just Him living in you. The life of the flesh is in the blood. Spiritually you get His blood that cleanses you, not just if you take communion. He took it too. A kid asked: did He eat His own body? He is part of the same Body. He's the head. And because we are all part of His body it's utterly dumb to fight and get schisms over communion. Who cares who believes it how exactly. I don't even know. Yes its symbolic. Pascha was symbolic but if it wasnt on a door a kid would die and if youtake communion unworthily ppl can die, so it's not just some symbol that has no power. I think your body eats bread and drinks wine because giving them His real body would be weird and spiritually you're one w Him. His Life is in you and His presence. Oh yes. Real Presence. Of course. Jesus is in your midst if you gather w 2 or 3, but why in the eucharist? Too maybe. He's everywhere.
It's a mystery to me. A preacher couldnt feed all those orphan kids and saw Jesus take a bloody piece from His side and she gave it to the kids and it turned to wine and bread (that was a vision). He said: I died that there would always be enough.

 

[Albion]

The "some sense" is the same as the "some sense" of the Sadir meal reminding of the Passover. It's not a mystical thing.

No. "Reminding" is part of all of this, but it's what is involved in addition that is dividing us here.

 

[MennoSota]

As have I and Josiah and Albion and probably all the other members here.

Yet, you let the traditions of men dictate scripture to you.
That is your perogative. I choose to let scripture stand on its own.

 

[MennoSota]

No. "Reminding" is part of all of this, but it's what is involved in addition that is dividing us here.

There is no mystical "addition."

 

[user1234]

There used to be a commercial,
showing an egg...
"This is your brain."
then the egg in a hot frying pan...
"This is your brain on drugs...
...any questions?"

Jesus held broken bread...
"This is my body."
Jesus held a cup of wine...
"This is my blood."

(Any questions?)

 

[Imalive]

It's not just a powerless symbol. People died when they took it unworthily.
You have communion w Him and His body: the people.

Jesus “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
28: So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,
29: but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them.
30: When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
31: And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32: They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
33: And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
35: Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
There is certainly much that can be said about these passages, but I had always understood this experience to mean that by His acting out before them what He had done previously in the Upper Room, they all of a sudden recognized Him; in other words, like how I understood the Lord’s Supper to be merely a reminder. However, there is much more here. He explained to them all the typological references to Him in the Old Testament, but this was not enough to convince them; therefore, the Bible alone, even thoroughly explained by Jesus Himself (!), was not enough. It was in their reception and partaking, or as Paul said, their participation in the blessed, broken bread that “their eyes were opened” and “he was known to them.” This participation was more than a symbol or reminder.

https://chnetwork.org/2015/12/10/un...-there-is-no-life-in-you-symbolic-or-literal/

 

[Josiah]

Yet, you let the traditions of men dictate scripture to you.
That is your perogative. I choose to let scripture stand on its own.

No. Lamm and I and others have suggested you do as you demand: accept/believe/affirm what SCRIPTURE says. That's what we are doing when we argue it's good to accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. It is you, my friend, who are doing the opposite of what you demand, you argument that you are to determine if what Scripture says is to be accepted or not, you who are echoing and parroting a denominational view, a denominational tradition, it comes lock, stock and barrel from Zwingli in the 16th Century who invented your "NOT so, DON'T accept it, it's METAPHOR " view, and like you, Zwingli could find SO little from Paul that reveals he typically spoke in metaphors and that we typically should not accept what Paul penned.

No, you argue we must let Scripture stand... when when we do, you rebuke it and do the opposite - insisting it ain't so, we should not accept the words Jesus said and Paul penned, because you appoint you to decide when Scripture is to "stand on it's own" and when you yourself declare that it must not be (as you do with the Eucharistic texts). Friend, it's OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE. I encourage you to step back enough to see what, friend, is obvious. When we accept and believe the words of Jesus and Paul.... when we let them stand "as is" .... when is = is and body = body and blood = blood and bread = bread and wine = wine then it's WE who are accepting Scripture, letting it stand. When you repudiate that, it's you who are repudiating letting Scripture stand. It's undeniable, my friend.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

No. Lamm and I and others have suggested you do as you demand: accept/believe/affirm what SCRIPTURE says. That's what we are doing when we argue it's good to accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. It is you, my friend, who are doing the opposite of what you demand, you argument that you are to determine if what Scripture says is to be accepted or not, you who are echoing and parroting a denominational view, a denominational tradition, it comes lock, stock and barrel from Zwingli in the 16th Century who invented your "NOT so, DON'T accept it, it's METAPHOR " view, and like you, Zwingli could find SO little from Paul that reveals he typically spoke in metaphors and that we typically should not accept what Paul penned.

No, you argue we must let Scripture stand... when when we do, you rebuke it and do the opposite - insisting it ain't so, we should not accept the words Jesus said and Paul penned, because you appoint you to decide when Scripture is to "stand on it's own" and when you yourself declare that it must not be (as you do with the Eucharistic texts). Friend, it's OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE. I encourage you to step back enough to see what, friend, is obvious. When we accept and believe the words of Jesus and Paul.... when we let them stand "as is" .... when is = is and body = body and blood = blood and bread = bread and wine = wine then it's WE who are accepting Scripture, letting it stand. When you repudiate that, it's you who are repudiating letting Scripture stand. It's undeniable, my friend.



- Josiah

You are forcing literalism on a passage that clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. That's just poor hermaneutics on your part.

 

[Imalive]

Jesus said, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” We must understand this because it is Communion that lets us partake of all that Jesus did for us. We must learn that when we take Communion in our spirits, the blood of Jesus is literally invading us and filling us with Him.”

https://sidroth.org/articles/power-communion/

https://sidroth.org/articles/power-lords-supper/

 

[Albion]

Or at least wse can say that's what Sid Roth hypothesizes.

 

[Lamb]

Yet, you let the traditions of men dictate scripture to you.
That is your perogative. I choose to let scripture stand on its own.

No. Tradition validates what Jesus said. This is my body. This is my blood. You chose to believe what Zwingli introduced and made popular symbolic view:

He developed the symbolic view of the Eucharist. He denied the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and following Cornelius Henrici Hoen, he agreed that the bread and wine of the institution signify and do not literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli

Doesn't it bother you that your viewpoint is so new?

 

[atpollard]

I'm not desperate for anything. I just have over a thousand years of proof as my back up along with scripture. And again, you're thinking that transubstantiation is what people mean when they say Real Presence. How many times do you need to be corrected on that?

Then IS doesn't mean IS?
Or BODY doesn't mean BODY.
Of BLOOD doesn't mean BLOOD.

How can you really claim it both ways .. Jesus was completely literal, except for the physical part?
Where does Jesus say that in those verses?
Where do the Church Fathers say that about those verses?

I am not against your belief, I am tired of it being presented as fact and all other views being called heresy.
Your view is not as literally supported by Scriptire as you and Josiah claim.

 

[Lamb]

Then IS doesn't mean IS?
Or BODY doesn't mean BODY.
Of BLOOD doesn't mean BLOOD.

How can you really claim it both ways .. Jesus was completely literal, except for the physical part?
Where does Jesus say that in those verses?
Where do the Church Fathers say that about those verses?

I am not against your belief, I am tired of it being presented as fact and all other views being called heresy.
Your view is not as literally supported by Scriptire as you and Josiah claim.

If you understood the Lutheran position you wouldn't be asking those questions.

 

[user1234]

Well, another version and interpretation of scripture, that time by a presbyterian turned RomanCatholic.
Thats nice for him.

And then the added quotes similar to post#221 .
It proves nothing.
Jesus knew He was sitting there with the disciples. He knew He would be the Lamb slain to pay for our sins.

He knew, and the disciples at the last passover supper would soon know, that the broken bread and the poured wine represented Jesus' broken body and shed blood for our sins.

What I find amazing is that 2000 years later, here is ANOTHER religious issue that ppl would rather divide themselves over.
And it seems that once again, its the religious RULES keepers that want to ostracize and ridicule the 'freedom-lovers'.
If some ppl want to say there's a real presence in or over or under the bread and wine, I say go ahead, I wouldnt kick you out or ignore you over it.
I and millions of others believe its symbolic.
Where's the harm in that?
We're all saved by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, ARE WE NOT?? Yes? No?
So why not focus on our unity in HIM instead of dividing some ppl out of fellowship just because they have faith in Jesus alone to save them, and see the bread and wine as beautiful symbols of His sacrifice?

I just dont get some ppls desire to divide or even excommunicate other brothers and sisters in Christ at every chance they can find, and it's almost always over religious works of some sort.

 

[Lamb]

Well, another version and interpretation of scripture, that time by a presbyterian turned RomanCatholic.
Thats nice for him.

And then the added quotes similar to post#221 .
It proves nothing.
Jesus knew He was sitting there with the disciples. He knew He would be the Lamb slain to pay for our sins.

He knew, and the disciples at the last passover supper would soon know, that the broken bread and the poured wine represented Jesus' broken body and shed blood for our sins.

What I find amazing is that 2000 years later, here is ANOTHER religious issue that ppl would rather divide themselves over.
And it seems that once again, its the religious RULES keepers that want to ostracize and ridicule the 'freedom-lovers'.
If some ppl want to say there's a real presence in or over or under the bread and wine, I say go ahead, I wouldnt kick you out or ignore you over it.
I and millions of others believe its symbolic.
Where's the harm in that?
We're all saved by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, ARE WE NOT?? Yes? No?
So why not focus on our unity in HIM instead of dividing some ppl out of fellowship just because they have faith in Jesus alone to save them, and see the bread and wine as beautiful symbols of His sacrifice?

I just dont get some ppls desire to divide or even excommunicate other brothers and sisters in Christ at every chance they can find, and it's almost always over religious works of some sort.

You're free to stop discussing Holy Communion at any time. Some of us would like to continue.

 

[user1234]

You're free to stop discussing Holy Communion at any time. Some of us would like to continue.

Nice.
How about letting brotherly love continue instead of causing divisions over something Jesus did (broke His body, shed His blood) that was meant to unite?

 

[Lamb]

Nice.
How about letting brotherly love continue instead of causing divisions over something Jesus did (broke His body, shed His blood) that was meant to unite?

Seriously Snerfle, you haven't anything more to say about Holy Communion, do you? Some of us would like to continue talking about it so please don't think that we're purposely causing divisions by enjoying discussions of scripture.

 

[Lamb]

Here is a great quote from Luther and it's along the lines of how I see it when God said Let there be light, there was light.

"When the living Christ comes into the midst of His gathered congregation today and says “This is My body” and “This is My blood,” it is not a matter that human speculation can change. Luther says it clearly: “This is His Word, when He says, ‘This is my body,’ just as He says in Genesis [1:3], ‘Let there be light,’ and there is light. My friend, it is God who names or calls, and what He names immediately comes into existence, as Psalm 33 says, ‘He spoke, and it came to be.'”"https://blogs.lcms.org/2007/ordinary-means-extradordinary-gifts-3-2007

 

[Josiah]

How about letting brotherly love continue instead of causing divisions over something Jesus did (broke His body, shed His blood) that was meant to unite?

I see your point.... And for 1500 years, all Christians were united in fully accepting the words of Jesus and in them, finding much comfort, strength and unity. Holy Communion.... and it as receiving Jesus.... was VERY important!!!

Then along came a man.... Ulrich Zwingli..... in the 16th Century. Because of his (well, heretical) views of Christology and because of his (well, wrong) view of physics, he "read" the words and pronounced, "Can't be true." And so, he came up with an approach that none had before, "it's just gotta be metaphor!" But of course, Paul very, very, very rarely used metaphor but that didn't bother him because what all Christians had always believed and always treasured and always found a point of unity was conflicted with his (wrong) Christology and (wrong) physics - the sudden conclusion of he himself that what Jesus said and Paul said just can't be true. IMO, it isn't those who stand with all Christians for 1500 years in fully accepting the words of Jesus and Paul that created the division you RIGHTLY decry, I think that belongs to Ulrich.



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

I see your point.... And for 1500 years, all Christians were united in fully accepting the words of Jesus and in them, finding much comfort, strength and unity. Holy Communion.... and it as receiving Jesus.... was VERY important!!!

Then along came a man.... Zwingli..... in the 16th Century. Because of his (well, heretical) views of Christology and because of his (well, wrong) view of physics, he "read" the words and pronounced, "Can't be true." And so, he came up with an approach that none had before, "it's just gotta be metaphor!" But of course, Paul very, very, very rarely used metaphor but that didn't bother him because what all Christians had always believed and always treasured and always found a point of unity was conflicted with his (wrong) Christology and (wrong) physics - the sudden conclusion of he himself that what Jesus said and Paul said just can't be true. IMO, it isn't those who stand with all Christians for 1500 years in fully accepting the words of Jesus and Paul that created the division you RIGHTLY decry.



- Josiah

You're right, Josiah! We never read about arguing amongst the early church fathers concerning the Real Presence. That's because they didn't think it was purely symbolic. They knew it was HOLY Communion