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

[Josiah]

I choose not to accept the is as literal flesh and blood

Okay.... That's your political "right."


But you've stressed that we are to go by what Jesus said and Paul penned. And obviously, that's exactly what all Christians did for 1500 years until Zwingli came along and invented his "not so" view, his "can't be so" insistence - and then invented this new theory: "It's metaphor." Yes, of course, YOU can appoint one (YOU) to CHOOSE to not fully accept what what Jesus said and Paul penned.... YOU can appoint one (YOU) to CHOOSE to disagree with all Christians for over 15 centuries and agree with the man Zwingli who invented the "isn't so" view in the 16th Century. I'm not disallowing your "political right" here. I'm simply noting what it is: You have chosen to NOT fully accept the words of Scripture, of Jesus, of Paul.... while insisting all should do what you "choose" not to it.

because the context makes it obvious that it should not be taken literally

I wonder..... IF it's "obvious" why did not one person for 1500+ years notice that until one individual, Zwingli, came along when it's "obvious?? Weird.


Nearly half of the NT is from the pen of St. Paul. And of course, that includes the main Eucharistic text we're discussing. Perhaps you could go through Paul's writings and show us all the many places where what he writes is not true, not to be taken fully, where he uses metaphor? Is that Romans chapter 8? Where are the examples that prove Paul often didn't mean what he penned, the many times he uses metaphor? Why you (yourself) CHOOSE to pick out a sentence from his writings and individually insist, "AH - all Christians have been wrong for 15 centuries, no Christian noticed this before, but OBVIOUSLY here again, yet again, Paul is using metaphor and doesn't want us to fully accept what he pens!!!" Where is your evidence for this in the writings of St. Paul?

Once again, you forego Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is NOT "I appoint ME myself to determine when God meant what He says in Scripture and when He doesn't."

you rely upon faulty tradition as your source for belief

I think just accepting the words Jesus said and Paul penned in not faulty.


The view you are promoting is purely a gentile denominational tradition - it comes from Zwingli in the 16th Century. And he invented the view NOT because he appointed himself alone to "read" the letters of St. Paul as "not to be accepted" and "metaphor" but because he denied the inseparable two natures of Christ (his Christology was heretical) and thus viewed that what Jesus said and Paul penned "cannot be true." CANNOT. Thus, since it CANNOT be true - it must be seen as not what was said. Today, many parrot his view - even if they don't parrot his heretical concept of Christology: their issue is "CANNOT BE TRUE" and thus insist that all of a sudden, in a way so uncharacteristic of Paul, one word is "metaphor" but not the words around it... this he does NOT because he has any evidence that Pauls letters don't mean what they state but because he found what Jesus said and Paul penned to be impossible, his WRONG view of physics and his heretical views of Christology. This is the tradition you have CHOSEN to accept and promote. And you have offered exactly what Zwingli did to support it: nothing, just what you appoint yourself alone to do: choose to not accept it, choose to pick one word and appoint self to declare "Jesus and Paul didn't mean that!"



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&sour...AC4MQFgggMAI&usg=AOvVaw2MmoFvnCKZkC8HSNMpYrOn

Good luck reading it.
Too much effort for me.

I appreciate you posting that. It confirms that the early church thought that the Lord's Supper was "holy" and that they received the body of the Lord as mentioned within the document in multiple spots. I'm halfway through it now

 

[Lamb]

I choose not to accept the is as literal flesh and blood...because the context makes it obvious that it should not be taken literally. I just responded to Lämmchen regarding this.
You are reading with a gentile cultural mind and imputing gentile tradition over scripture. Once again, you forego Sola Scriptura and rely upon faulty tradition as your source for belief. I wonder if you really hold to the Sola's as you claim when you hold the position you are claiming. I do not doubt the sincerity of you and Lämmchen on this issue, but I find it is not based on a sound reading of scripture.

I think that even though I corrected you in the Lutheran thread that you have no clue what Lutherans believe in regards to the Real Presence in Holy Communion. This is why you believe there are only 2 belief systems in place. You err in this thinking.

 

[Lamb]

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&sour...AC4MQFgggMAI&usg=AOvVaw2MmoFvnCKZkC8HSNMpYrOn

Good luck reading it.
Too much effort for me.

I appreciate you posting that. It confirms that the early church thought that the Lord's Supper was "holy" and that they received the body of the Lord as mentioned within the document in multiple spots. I'm halfway through it now

I see now that in Chapter 3 your author has taken upon himself to give HIS interpretation of scripture. He also tries to redefine what a sacrament is which is his modern take of the word. I see he brings in the Didache but even the didache says that the Lord's Supper is holy as it includes the verse about not giving to dogs what is holy. A symbol has no holiness to it. So your author fails on that account as well. He missed out on the other Church Father quotes, choosing to ignore their wording about the Lord's body and instead giving his frail interpretation because it doesn't back up his own definitions.

Here's a history lesson on how Sacrament came to be:

"But where did they get this word and why did they choose it? They borrowed it from the Roman Army. A recruit for the Roman army became a soldier by undergoing a sacramentum. The sacramentum had two parts: the soldier took an oath of office, and the Army branded him behind the ear with the number of his legion. The sacramentum resulted in new responsibilities and new advantages. The soldier acquired the responsibility for conforming to military discipline and obeying military commands. He also acquired social and legal benefits, because living conditions in the Roman Army were very good and veterans received special privileges and benefits. Ancient Latin theologians seized upon sacramentum as the best Latin equivalent of the Greek word mystery when it referred to a church rite, because the church rite is simultaneously spiritual and physical, and because the person who undergoes the sacrament simultaneously receives new responsibilities and a new spiritual status before God." oh no...I closed the window before copying the link. You can Google it.

I found another link explaining and having early church father quotes with their definitions as well:
When sacramentum was adopted as an ordinance by the early Christian Church in the 3rd century, the Latin word sacer (“holy”) was brought into conjunction with the Greek word mystērion (“secret rite”). Sacramentum was thus given a sacred mysterious significance that indicated a spiritual potency. The power was transmitted through material instruments and vehicles viewed as channels of divine grace and as benefits in ritual observances instituted by Christ. St. Augustine defined sacrament as “the visible form of an invisible grace” or “a sign of a sacred thing.” Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that anything that is called sacred may be called sacramentum. It is made efficacious by virtue of its divine institution by Christ in order to establish a bond of union between God and man. In the Lutheran and Anglican catechisms it is defined as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/sacrament

 

[MennoSota]

Okay.... That's your political "right."


But you've stressed that we are to go by what Jesus said and Paul penned. And obviously, that's exactly what all Christians did for 1500 years until Zwingli came along and invented his "not so" view, his "can't be so" insistence - and then invented this new theory: "It's metaphor." Yes, of course, YOU can appoint one (YOU) to CHOOSE to not fully accept what what Jesus said and Paul penned.... YOU can appoint one (YOU) to CHOOSE to disagree with all Christians for over 15 centuries and agree with the man Zwingli who invented the "isn't so" view in the 16th Century. I'm not disallowing your "political right" here. I'm simply noting what it is: You have chosen to NOT fully accept the words of Scripture, of Jesus, of Paul.... while insisting all should do what you "choose" not to it.







I wonder..... IF it's "obvious" why did not one person for 1500+ years notice that until one individual, Zwingli, came along when it's "obvious?? Weird.


Nearly half of the NT is from the pen of St. Paul. And of course, that includes the main Eucharistic text we're discussing. Perhaps you could go through Paul's writings and show us all the many places where what he writes is not true, not to be taken fully, where he uses metaphor? Is that Romans chapter 8? Where are the examples that prove Paul often didn't mean what he penned, the many times he uses metaphor? Why you (yourself) CHOOSE to pick out a sentence from his writings and individually insist, "AH - all Christians have been wrong for 15 centuries, no Christian noticed this before, but OBVIOUSLY here again, yet again, Paul is using metaphor and doesn't want us to fully accept what he pens!!!" Where is your evidence for this in the writings of St. Paul?







Sola Scriptura is NOT "I appoint ME myself to determine when God meant what He says in Scripture and when He doesn't."








I think just accepting the words Jesus said and Paul penned in not faulty.


The view you are promoting is purely a gentile denominational tradition - it comes from Zwingli in the 16th Century. And he invented the view NOT because he appointed himself alone to "read" the letters of St. Paul as "not to be accepted" and "metaphor" but because he denied the inseparable two natures of Christ (his Christology was heretical) and thus viewed that what Jesus said and Paul penned "cannot be true." CANNOT. Thus, since it CANNOT be true - it must be seen as not what was said. Today, many parrot his view - even if they don't parrot his heretical concept of Christology: their issue is "CANNOT BE TRUE" and thus insist that all of a sudden, in a way so uncharacteristic of Paul, one word is "metaphor" but not the words around it... this he does NOT because he has any evidence that Pauls letters don't mean what they state but because he found what Jesus said and Paul penned to be impossible, his WRONG view of physics and his heretical views of Christology. This is the tradition you have CHOSEN to accept and promote. And you have offered exactly what Zwingli did to support it: nothing, just what you appoint yourself alone to do: choose to not accept it, choose to pick one word and appoint self to declare "Jesus and Paul didn't mean that!"



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

It's not a "political" right. It's a biblical observation that also observes the celebration of Passover and the actual meal that Jesus was partaking in with his disciples.
You are ignoring all of the context and making a miniscule argument based upon the literal interpretation of the word "is." That's just poor hermaneutics on your part. It has nothing to do with politics.
You then make the argument that early church writings uphold real presence, even though other authors refute that and show the early church writings do not uphold real presence.
Furthermore I point out that the people you quote are all former pagan Gentiles who missed the Jewishness of Jesus teaching to the disciples in relation to the Passover.
If you wish to ignore all that and cling to your "is" argument, be my guest. I think it's a really poor argument and neglects the scripture in favor of church tradition. Don't claim Sola Scriptura when you don't follow it, Josiah.

 

[MennoSota]

I think that even though I corrected you in the Lutheran thread that you have no clue what Lutherans believe in regards to the Real Presence in Holy Communion. This is why you believe there are only 2 belief systems in place. You err in this thinking.

I write what the scripture teaches, not what tradition teaches.

 

[Lamb]

I write what the scripture teaches, not what tradition teaches.

I write what scripture teaches and the early churches (started by the apostles) and the early church fathers back it up. Your symbolic tradition didn't begin until Zwingli started promoting it.

 

[MennoSota]

I write what scripture teaches and the early churches (started by the apostles) and the early church fathers back it up. Your symbolic tradition didn't begin until Zwingli started promoting it.

Why do you desperately want a tradition as your teacher? I don't care what Zwingli or any person outside of Jesus and the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura.
Did Jesus have his disciples literally eat his flesh and drink his blood during their partaking of the Passover Sadir meal? Yes or No?
Was there a mystical change over after they had the meal? Yes or No?

 

[Lamb]

Why do you desperately want a tradition as your teacher? I don't care what Zwingli or any person outside of Jesus and the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura.
Did Jesus have his disciples literally eat his flesh and drink his blood during their partaking of the Passover Sadir meal? Yes or No?
Was there a mystical change over after they had the meal? Yes or No?

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?

 

[Albion]

Why do you desperately want a tradition as your teacher?

Don't miss the point, and don't mischaracterize the point. It is not that tradition is her (or anyone else's) teacher and it is not that everyone who disagrees with you is only mouthing what some denomination says, either.

Those are the arguments that are typical of people who stand nearly alone in Christian history facing billions of Christians of similar intelligence reading the same Bible who reached the opposite conclusion from yours.

A slogan goes "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Well, if so, tens of billions of Christians are unlikely to have been wrong while a relative handful of Anabaptists and latter day Fundamentalists have come up with the right interpretation.

 

[MennoSota]

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?

You have 1000 years of tradition. That is not proof at all. That's like claiming the earth is flat because we have tradition. Let the scripture be our guide and every man a liar.

 

[user1234]

Why do you desperately want a tradition as your teacher? I don't care what Zwingli or any person outside of Jesus and the apostles taught. Sola Scriptura.
Did Jesus have his disciples literally eat his flesh and drink his blood during their partaking of the Passover Sadir meal? Yes or No?
Was there a mystical change over after they had the meal? Yes or No?

I read those horrible things in post #221 .
Cant understand why anyone would want to hold them up as 'folks to follow' especially regarding Jesus' passover supper. Mysticism, heresy, works-righteousness ... I thought we would have moved passed the dark ages by now.
The bread and wine are symbolic.
You proved it, Imalive proved it, I proved it, scripture proves it.
Some ppl are just stuck in religious/denominationalism and want what they want.
Let them eat ... what they want. :cake:

 

[MennoSota]

Don't miss the point, and don't mischaracterize the point. It is not that tradition is her (or anyone else's) teacher and it is not that everyone who disagrees with you is only mouthing what some denomination says, either.

Those are the arguments that are typical of people who stand nearly alone in Christian history facing billions of Christians of similar intelligence reading the same Bible who reached the opposite conclusion from yours.

A slogan goes "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Well, if so, tens of billions of Christians are unlikely to have been wrong while a relative handful of Anabaptists and latter day Fundamentalists have come up with the right interpretation.

Scripture is correct. Men are liars.

What did Jesus teach at the Passover? What we can know for certain is that he was not being literal in regard to the bread being his body and the wine being his blood.

 

[Albion]

Scripture is correct. Men are liars.

What did Jesus teach at the Passover?

Thanks for asking. He said that, in some sense, he was giving them his body and his blood. He nailed down that surprising announcement by saying, in addition, that this was a new arrangement (a 'new covenant'). Of course he also indicated that every time his followers celebrated that ritual thereafter they would be remembering Him and his sacrifice by it.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture is correct. Men are liars.

Friend, that's EXACTLY why I think we should accept what Scripture says and perhaps call Zwingli a "liar" (although I'd be less harsh than you). It's why I accept Real Presence but reject the two new "is NOT" inventions: Transubstantiation and Zwingli's CAN'T be true so MUST be a metaphor.



.

 

[Lamb]

You have 1000 years of tradition. That is not proof at all. That's like claiming the earth is flat because we have tradition. Let the scripture be our guide and every man a liar.

There seems to be some inability for you to read what has been written in this thread. I didn't say I only had a thousand years but OVER a thousand.

Ren's pdf file was not proof as I clearly showed since early pages into it actually proved that the early church believed the Lord's Supper was "holy" and that they were eating the Lord's body. Did you read the PDF? I did. In chapter 3 is when the author of the article decided to add his opinion and I pointed that out as well.

You were taught that the Lord's Supper is a symbol by a man. You have trusted in some man who taught you that and deny what Jesus said, "This is my body." "This is my blood." Perhaps listening to Jesus would be a better teacher.

 

[MennoSota]

Thanks for asking. He said that, in some sense, he was giving them his body and his blood. He nailed down that surprising announcement by saying, in addition, that this was a new arrangement (a 'new covenant'). Of course he also indicated that every time his followers celebrated that ritual thereafter they would be remembering Him and his sacrifice by it.

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

 

[MennoSota]

There seems to be some inability for you to read what has been written in this thread. I didn't say I only had a thousand years but OVER a thousand.

Ren's pdf file was not proof as I clearly showed since early pages into it actually proved that the early church believed the Lord's Supper was "holy" and that they were eating the Lord's body. Did you read the PDF? I did. In chapter 3 is when the author of the article decided to add his opinion and I pointed that out as well.

You were taught that the Lord's Supper is a symbol by a man. You have trusted in some man who taught you that and deny what Jesus said, "This is my body." "This is my blood." Perhaps listening to Jesus would be a better teacher.

I have read the Bible.

 

[Lamb]

I have read the Bible.

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

 

[Imalive]

I appreciate you posting that. It confirms that the early church thought that the Lord's Supper was "holy" and that they received the body of the Lord as mentioned within the document in multiple spots. I'm halfway through it now

Really? LOL
It seemed really good, but it was a bit too much for me, 350 pages.