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

[MennoSota]

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?

Doesnt it bother you that tradition goes against scripture?

 

[Lamb]

Doesnt it bother you that tradition goes against scripture?

The Real Presence does not go against scripture so to answer your question, no. Now, there might be other traditions that do go against scripture and I might be against those.

 

[MennoSota]

The Real Presence does not go against scripture so to answer your question, no. Now, there might be other traditions that do go against scripture and I might be against those.

Sure it does. There is no need for Jesus to die and bleed over and over so that you can eat his body and drink his blood. Christ died once and for all. Your desire for real presence begs Christ to continually die and bleed for you. It's just not a biblical position.

 

[Josiah]

real presence begs Christ to continually die and bleed for you.

Real Presence has NOTHING to do with an entirely different and unrelated view rejected by most who accept Real Presence, the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice. Friend, re-read the opening post. Real Presence and Transubstantiation are two DIFFERENT views...... and the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice is unrelated to ANY of them. I, for one, REJECT completely the idea of any "bloodness Sacrifice" of Christ and completely and passionately reject the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice in that sense. You are simply bringing up unrelated issues to try to rebuke what you demand: accepting/believing what Jesus said and Paul penned, what you demand but you then rebuke, reject and ridicule.

 

[MennoSota]

Real Presence has NOTHING to do with an entirely different and unrelated view rejected by most who accept Real Presence, the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice. Friend, re-read the opening post. Real Presence and Transubstantiation are two DIFFERENT views...... and the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice is unrelated to ANY of them. I, for one, REJECT completely the idea of any "bloodness Sacrifice" of Christ and completely and passionately reject the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice in that sense. You are simply bringing up unrelated issues to try to rebuke what you demand: accepting/believing what Jesus said and Paul penned, what you demand but you then rebuke, reject and ridicule.

You obviously don't believe in real presence.
Since God is always present in the Holy Spirit, we always have real presence in us. No need for some mystical hocus pocus during communion.

 

[Albion]

Real Presence has NOTHING to do with an entirely different and unrelated view rejected by most who accept Real Presence, the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice.

That's very true. But it may be that our friend understands neither transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of the Mass. We KNOW that he doesn't understand Real Presence, so it could be.

 

[user1234]

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.

Seriously, arent all these religious 'enjoyable discussions' (arguements) causing division and bad feelings? To the point where its starting to seem deliberate just so a couple few can say 'we win'?

You have a couple of Lutherans who INSIST their opinion is the only acceptable one, and no amount of clear explanation from anyone else has been met with any good cheer at all.

Its been the same mantra for months and months ,'''No one ever ever ever in the history of ever ever believed anything but the Lutheran position until some guy named Zwingles came along, and he made up the whole symbolism stuff out of his own wild imagination, and the only ppl for the last 500 years that ever agreed with him was just a tiny tiny fringe element that doesnt even really deserve to be considered as anything but sillybillies who dont believe the bible anyway, because when it says IS they think it says Grimble Grumble, besides we have every 'father' that ever lived to swear to it, and none of them was ever wrong about anything unless it disagreed with the loving tolerant Lutheran view''' is that about right?

Except maybe you're mistaken and some of those 'fathers' from the 3rd century were confused, or caught up in religious works, or there werent a whole lot of bibles being printed and circulated 1700 years ago, or maybe one or two were even heretics, (yep its possible) and the bread and wine were symbolic and Jesus knew it even if alot of other ppl misunderstood Him, and the bible writers knew it, and maybe on a chatsite its ok if some ppl see it differently isnt it?

Or we can keep arguing, but where is the edifying? No one is even willing to consider that the bread and wine are symbolic, not based on 16th century Roman Catholics or 3rd century 'fathers' but on sound doctrine from the bible and Jesus Himself.

You are free to believe in what your denomination teaches, but it seems they keep you from being free to consider anything else, or to afford others freedom as well, and that's a shame, because thats not the unity Jesus was talking about, thats conformity and/or oppression.

 

[Josiah]

Seriously, arent all these religious 'enjoyable discussions' (arguements) causing division

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




.

 

[atpollard]

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

 

[Albion]

Its been the same mantra for months and months ,'''No one ever ever ever in the history of ever ever believed anything but the Lutheran position until some guy named Zwingles came along, and he made up the whole symbolism stuff out of his own wild imagination, and the only ppl for the last 500 years that ever agreed with him was just a tiny tiny fringe element that doesnt even really deserve to be considered as anything but sillybillies who dont believe the bible anyway, because when it says IS they think it says Grimble Grumble, besides we have every 'father' that ever lived to swear to it, and none of them was ever wrong about anything unless it disagreed with the loving tolerant Lutheran view''' is that about right?

No. It is not. It is quite inaccurate in several ways.

For one, it is the case that there were dissenters in the first 1500 years, but they were so far outside the mainstream, you would not want to be associated with them. It's not just a matter, with them, of symbolic or literal, etc.

If a thousand people think the meaning is X and you (or I) think it says Y...good sense demands that we acknowledge that those people are as smart as we and are using the same book and might be correct! It is ridiculous to insist that only "me me me" can be right and that almost all of the rest of the people who have reached a conclusion are stupid or just follow along, never thinking for themselves. That just does not make sense, and the sensible person takes account of it.

And third, it is not the case that the early Christians must have been right. However, when the question was asked "When did this start?" or ''What I they say?'' and I said that it goes back to the beginnings of the church, THAT IS A FACT, like it or not. That has to be worth something, doesnt it? They were closer to the original than we. And there is no claim made that they must be right just because they could never be wrong about anything and never were wrong, etc. etc. Its a matter of likelihoods, just as if one person said the car must have run the red light and ten eyewitnesses swore that it was green.

And finally, when answers and evidence are requested--and they are given as requested--only to be told in return that the presenter is just mouthing what some denomination told him to believe is an insult and a groundless accusation as well. To do that.is a cop-out used when the speaker has no rebuttal but wont admit it.



.

 

[atpollard]

Nm

 

[MennoSota]

That's very true. But it may be that our friend understands neither transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of the Mass. We KNOW that he doesn't understand Real Presence, so it could be.

I know that none of that is taught in scripture and I know that many abide in hell because of the false belief that partaking of communion saves them from the guilt of their sin.

 

[MennoSota]

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




.

You have a strange concept of fully united when one group forces their dogma on a society, despite the dogma being biblically incorrect. No, there was not the unity you imagine, but there was the bully of Rome.

 

[MennoSota]

No. It is not. It is quite inaccurate in several ways.

For one, it is the case that there were dissenters in the first 1500 years, but they were so far outside the mainstream, you would not want to be associated with them. It's not just a matter, with them, of symbolic or literal, etc.

If a thousand people think the meaning is X and you (or I) think it says Y...good sense demands that we acknowledge that those people are as smart as we and are using the same book and might be correct! It is ridiculous to insist that only "me me me" can be right and that almost all of the rest of the people who have reached a conclusion are stupid or just follow along, never thinking for themselves. That just does not make sense, and the sensible person takes account of it.

And third, it is not the case that the early Christians must have been right. However, when the question was asked "When did this start?" or ''What I they say?'' and I said that it goes back to the beginnings of the church, THAT IS A FACT, like it or not. That has to be worth something, doesnt it? They were closer to the original than we. And there is no claim made that they must be right just because they could never be wrong about anything and never were wrong, etc. etc. Its a matter of likelihoods, just as if one person said the car must have run the red light and ten eyewitnesses swore that it was green.

And finally, when answers and evidence are requested--and they are given as requested--only to be told in return that the presenter is just mouthing what some denomination told him to believe is an insult and a groundless accusation as well. To do that.is a cop-out used when the speaker has no rebuttal but wont admit it.



.

The nation of Israel made a calf, called it Yahweh and worshipped it rather than go to Jerusalem and worship at the temple. They claimed they were honoring God. The point: Large groups can often be dead wrong...for hundreds of years. Look at how the minority prophets were killed by the masses and the religious leaders. Look at how Christ was killed by the religious leaders. Take heed and consider the problem of trusting in tradition over scripture.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You have a strange concept of fully united when one group forces their dogma on a society...

That's a strange statement, given the overwhelming influence of the Evangelical Right in the Western world, but that's for another thread.

 

[Imalive]

You obviously don't believe in real presence.
Since God is always present in the Holy Spirit, we always have real presence in us. No need for some mystical hocus pocus during communion.

No but why then is there communion? I notice our church almost never does it cause it's not important enough I guess. Communion. You have communion w Him. I dont believe in mystical hocus pocus either but it is powerful. I once got set free from a huge sin problem after taking it and I once got healed while taking it.
I kept falling for that same sin and I had communion and then I just couldn't do it anymore.

 

[Imalive]

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

Ana Mendez Ferrell. Hmm she sells oils.
https://store.votlm.com/essential-oils

Buy my oil for 30 euro. Bye! I don't trust that.

 

[user1234]

No. It is not. It is quite inaccurate in several ways.

For one, it is the case that there were dissenters in the first 1500 years, but they were so far outside the mainstream, you would not want to be associated with them. It's not just a matter, with them, of symbolic or literal, etc.

If a thousand people think the meaning is X and you (or I) think it says Y...good sense demands that we acknowledge that those people are as smart as we and are using the same book and might be correct! It is ridiculous to insist that only "me me me" can be right and that almost all of the rest of the people who have reached a conclusion are stupid or just follow along, never thinking for themselves. That just does not make sense, and the sensible person takes account of it.

And third, it is not the case that the early Christians must have been right. However, when the question was asked "When did this start?" or ''What I they say?'' and I said that it goes back to the beginnings of the church, THAT IS A FACT, like it or not. That has to be worth something, doesnt it? They were closer to the original than we. And there is no claim made that they must be right just because they could never be wrong about anything and never were wrong, etc. etc. Its a matter of likelihoods, just as if one person said the car must have run the red light and ten eyewitnesses swore that it was green.

And finally, when answers and evidence are requested--and they are given as requested--only to be told in return that the presenter is just mouthing what some denomination told him to believe is an insult and a groundless accusation as well. To do that.is a cop-out used when the speaker has no rebuttal but wont admit it.



.

I am more glad every day Jesus saved me from religious bunkem and the nonsense that causes so much disunity, but maybe I've been looking for and expecting unity in all the wrong places. First we're told we HAVE to assume everyone's a christian, then we're told if we disagree, WE must not be christians.
MennoSota brought up a good point about the golden calf. Both the Word of God and common sense are being (have been?) replaced by idol worship.
But once you effectively close the door on the ability to share the gospel, expose false doctrine and practice, and pray for and with each other for salvation and unity of The Faith, I guess the door to anything else gets flung wide open.
Or as we say in Dunglish ... fingeflüngde. :borladuck:

 

[Lamb]

Sure it does. There is no need for Jesus to die and bleed over and over so that you can eat his body and drink his blood. Christ died once and for all. Your desire for real presence begs Christ to continually die and bleed for you. It's just not a biblical position.

Lutherans don't believe in re-sacrifice but nice tangent. Is still means is.

 

[Lamb]

I am more glad every day Jesus saved me from religious bunkem and the nonsense that causes so much disunity, but maybe I've been looking for and expecting unity in all the wrong places. First we're told we HAVE to assume everyone's a christian, then we're told if we disagree, WE must not be christians.
MennoSota brought up a good point about the golden calf. Both the Word of God and common sense are being (have been?) replaced by idol worship.
But once you effectively close the door on the ability to share the gospel, expose false doctrine and practice, and pray for and with each other for salvation and unity of The Faith, I guess the door to anything else gets flung wide open.
Or as we say in Dunglish ... fingeflüngde. :borladuck:

There WAS unity in belief of the Real Presence until Zwingli turned against scripture and brought the symbolic only belief into the churches causing discord. To this day that discord exists. Maybe you should not believe what Zwingli taught since it's what is causing discord and isn't what the early church believed...early church being those churches throughout the world that the apostles began.