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

[Lamb]

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.

Rome wasn't the only church that believed in the Real Presence and that has been pointed out to you a few times.

 

[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.

Another thought concerning re-sacrifice not being true...

Jesus fed the crowd without having to go back and get more fish/bread because it was sufficient the first time his miracle happened. No one went without. Christ's death was sufficient and He gives us His body and blood without having to be re-sacrificed because Jesus keeps on giving to us, His grace and mercy is unending. It's a mathematical impossibility but Jesus is God so we know we can trust Him when He says This is my body. This is my blood. Our sinful human minds can't wrap reason around that but we don't have to reason it out. When God wants to give to use, He will and He does. Jesus didn't have to explain to his disciples how he was able to create a miracle with fish/bread. They accepted it.

 

[MennoSota]

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

State and church were merged as one. Today we have separation of church and state. This is easy to understand.

 

[user1234]

Another thought concerning re-sacrifice not being true...

Jesus fed the crowd without having to go back and get more fish/bread because it was sufficient the first time his miracle happened. No one went without. Christ's death was sufficient and He gives us His body and blood without having to be re-sacrificed because Jesus keeps on giving to us, His grace and mercy is unending. It's a mathematical impossibility but Jesus is God so we know we can trust Him when He says This is my body. This is my blood. Our sinful human minds can't wrap reason around that but we don't have to reason it out. When God wants to give to use, He will and He does. Jesus didn't have to explain to his disciples how he was able to create a miracle with fish/bread. They accepted it.

Yet you seem to keep equating 're-receiving' His grace and mercy (and forgiveness? but idk...someone said it somewhere, idk if it was you, sorry)
But even at that, if you believe you are receiving grace and mercy thru ingestion of bread and wine, rather than by faith.....

Okay, let me try it this way...
Since you say its site rules that we must assume everyone is saved, HOW then, were you saved? By ingestion of the Holy communion elements of bread and wine as you put it, or by faith?

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Jesus tells us.
"Do this in remembrance of me."
Just like the Jews remember the freedom from slavery in the Passover, so we remember our freedom from the bondage of sin by Jesus atonement. There is nothing mystical about remembering, but there is something somber about remembering and memorializing Christ's atonement.

 

[MennoSota]

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

If it means is, then it "is" really taking place. You are celebrating a real and present sacrifice...over and over again.
You want to philosophize this away, but you "really" cannot. In your argument, "is" means "is." Please own that you crucify Christ over and over again.

 

[MennoSota]

Rome wasn't the only church that believed in the Real Presence and that has been pointed out to you a few times.

I understand, there was no separation of church and state in the orthodox or Lutheran worlds. If you didn't want your head chopped off or to be burned at the stake, etc., you let the error keep being propagated.
The Bible is clear. You just need to read it outside of the lense of your church leadership. For some that seems like a very difficult task.

 

[MennoSota]

Another thought concerning re-sacrifice not being true...

Jesus fed the crowd without having to go back and get more fish/bread because it was sufficient the first time his miracle happened. No one went without. Christ's death was sufficient and He gives us His body and blood without having to be re-sacrificed because Jesus keeps on giving to us, His grace and mercy is unending. It's a mathematical impossibility but Jesus is God so we know we can trust Him when He says This is my body. This is my blood. Our sinful human minds can't wrap reason around that but we don't have to reason it out. When God wants to give to use, He will and He does. Jesus didn't have to explain to his disciples how he was able to create a miracle with fish/bread. They accepted it.

Did Jesus keep feeding the crowd at every Sunday lecture?
Second, the feeding of the crowd was not a remembrance of his upcoming atonement on the Passover weekend.
Why is it so hard to see that Jesus is foreshadowing his atonement on Passover, for sins of the elect, just as God had covered the sins of Israel when He passed over that night in Egypt?

 

[user1234]

Jesus tells us.
"Do this in remembrance of me."
Just like the Jews remember the freedom from slavery in the Passover, so we remember our freedom from the bondage of sin by Jesus atonement. There is nothing mystical about remembering, but there is something somber about remembering and memorializing Christ's atonement.

Yes, its a memorial/prophecy/celebration!
We show His death til He comes.
It demonstrates that we acknowledge that He not only died for our sins, but that He's alive and He's coming again.
There's no magic in the symbols of bread and wine...the sharing of the bread and wine is a declaration of our faith, MOST SPECIFICALLY in whom we believe and what it is about Him we believe.

 

[Imalive]

If it means is, then it "is" really taking place. You are celebrating a real and present sacrifice...over and over again.
You want to philosophize this away, but you "really" cannot. In your argument, "is" means "is." Please own that you crucify Christ over and over again.

No that'd be if they were in wilful sin or hating someone staying bitter not repenting and still taking it.
They believe He's spiritually in the bread and wine if I get what they believe. Maybe they're wrong about that but I don't see how that matters.
I believe His blood still cleanses me. That has nothing to do w a new offer.

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

What I believe is that when you eat and drink it, in the spiritual He cleanses you from sin and you have communion with Him. Not only through communion but it's extra powerful. Just don't worship the bread and wine instead of Him like they did w the snake on the pole.

 

[Albion]

I understand, there was no separation of church and state in the orthodox or Lutheran worlds. If you didn't want your head chopped off or to be burned at the stake, etc., you let the error keep being propagated.

In other words, you do not have an answer about how everyone can be wrong except you.

I understand, there was no separation of church and state in the orthodox or Lutheran worlds.

Wrong again. At least so far as the Lutherans are concerned.

 

[Josiah]

If it means is, then it "is" really taking place. You are celebrating a real and present sacrifice...over and over again.

Wrong.


You continue to show your enormous misunderstanding of Real Presence, your confusion with it and Transubstantiation and your infusion of the idea of Sacrifice into views it is entirely unrelated to.

And your desire to shift the discussion to the idea of Sacrifice and to the separation of church and state does NOTHING to support the 16th Century invention of the dogma that "is" means "is not," NOTHING to support your insistence that we must not accept exactly what Scripture states while you insist we must accept what Scripture states while you shout we must not accept what Scripture states. You insist we must not echo denominational tradition while you perfectly echo Zwinglian denominational tradition.



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

No that'd be if they were in wilful sin or hating someone staying bitter not repenting and still taking it.
They believe He's spiritually in the bread and wine if I get what they believe. Maybe they're wrong about that but I don't see how that matters.
I believe His blood still cleanses me. That has nothing to do w a new offer.

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

What I believe is that when you eat and drink it, in the spiritual He cleanses you from sin and you have communion with Him. Not only through communion but it's extra powerful. Just don't worship the bread and wine instead of Him like they did w the snake on the pole.

This sounds pretty good, but the parts I hi-lighted in red seem to contradict each other.

Also the first line about being in 'willful' sin, Im not sure of a difference unless you mean the sin of unbelief, but I still agree with what MennoSota said, if they are taking the literal IS every time, then they are re-crucifying Jesus each time ... Though perhaps not like the RomanCatholic version in the physical sense, but in a 'metaphysical' or 'spiritual' sense, right?
Or else, what does their version of IS mean, and when does it apply?
And I cant believe Im even asking these questions, lol.
Ahhh, religion.

 

[Lamb]

Yet you seem to keep equating 're-receiving' His grace and mercy (and forgiveness? but idk...someone said it somewhere, idk if it was you, sorry)
But even at that, if you believe you are receiving grace and mercy thru ingestion of bread and wine, rather than by faith.....

Okay, let me try it this way...
Since you say its site rules that we must assume everyone is saved, HOW then, were you saved? By ingestion of the Holy communion elements of bread and wine as you put it, or by faith?

Those are a lot of questions. Our site rules do not say that we must assume everyone is saved. But you have a tendency to assume Roman Catholics are not saved and CH considers that denomination to be a Christian one.

I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus our Savior who died on the cross for the forgiveness of my sins. God has chosen to use means to bring that to me through the waters in baptism BY HIS WORD and also I receive the same forgiveness won at the cross as I receive the body and blood of the Lord that HE gives to me. Our Lord is ever wanting to give to us. He does not let His children starve and we are fed on His Word and strengthened by faith by that same Word that is found in scriptures, in the waters of baptism and in Eucharist where we receive our Lord's Body and Blood. It is not a new forgiveness. It is not separate from the cross but all connected because God has chosen to bring us the blessings of the cross in those manners.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus tells us.
"Do this in remembrance of me."
Just like the Jews remember the freedom from slavery in the Passover, so we remember our freedom from the bondage of sin by Jesus atonement. There is nothing mystical about remembering, but there is something somber about remembering and memorializing Christ's atonement.

And the original Passover was not just a symbol was it?

How many symbols in scripture can you come up with that bring a warning from God concerning falling ill and dying? It would not be consistent with who God is to have a warning for something that is symbolic only.

 

[Lamb]

If it means is, then it "is" really taking place. You are celebrating a real and present sacrifice...over and over again.
You want to philosophize this away, but you "really" cannot. In your argument, "is" means "is." Please own that you crucify Christ over and over again.

No, it is the same one and only sacrifice. Don't limit God.

 

[Lamb]

I understand, there was no separation of church and state in the orthodox or Lutheran worlds. If you didn't want your head chopped off or to be burned at the stake, etc., you let the error keep being propagated.
The Bible is clear. You just need to read it outside of the lense of your church leadership. For some that seems like a very difficult task.

You were taught by someone that communion is symbolic only. You did not see that word in scripture.

 

[Lamb]

Did Jesus keep feeding the crowd at every Sunday lecture?
Second, the feeding of the crowd was not a remembrance of his upcoming atonement on the Passover weekend.
Why is it so hard to see that Jesus is foreshadowing his atonement on Passover, for sins of the elect, just as God had covered the sins of Israel when He passed over that night in Egypt?

Is it so hard to believe that the original Passover was real? We are now allowed to receive the true lamb of God in Holy Communion as the Apostles taught the early church fathers.

 

[user1234]

No, it is the same one and only sacrifice. Don't limit God.

Doesnt your leader say 'Take eat/drink, this IS my body/blood' when he offers the bread/wine. What does the IS mean at the time?

 

[Josiah]

Or else, what does their version of IS mean

Typically, the meaning of is is is. It has to do with reality, existence, presence. "This is an apple" means an apple is present and here it is.

Real Presence simply accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned. As is. No doubts, no denials, no deleting what they stated and replacing it with what self things must be the truth.
It's not rocket science. It's not complicated.
"Is" = is.
"Body" = body
"Blood" = blood
"Bread" = bread

It's not rocket science, it's not complicated.

Real Presence does NOT insert into the mouth of Jesus words He didn't say such as "NOT" "represents" "symbolizes" "metaphor" "change" "alchemy" "Transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "sacrifice" while deleting words He did say.

It's not rocket science, it's not all that complicated.


Now, yes, this raises physics questions. Just as we have with the Two Natures of Christ and the Trinity and a whole LOT of other truths. But for 1500+ years, all Christians were humble enough to accept that God just may know more about the things of God than our current scientists do, there's no reason to shout "NO WAY!" to what God so clearly states just because we have difficulty explaining it via our current understandings of physics. For 1500 years, Christians didn't use words like "theology" and "doctrine" very much, rather the truths of God were called "The MYSTERIES of God." Scripture calls on Christians to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God," not "Correctors of God getting God out of trouble and falsehood by making it fit our human ideas of philosophy and physics." As with the Trinity and the Two Natures and so many other things, accept what God says because God knows and God says.... if our puny, fallen, sinful, limited brains can't totally wrap themselves around it, that's really not shocking and doesn't make God wrong.



The "is NOT" view, the "it's not really true but metaphor" view was invented by Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th Century because his (wrong) Christology and his (wrong) view of physics read what Jesus said and Paul penned... what all Christians up until then had accepted and believed and treasured in unity..... and shouted "NO WAY! CAN'T BE TRUE!" So he did something new and radical: insisting that we cannot accept what Jesus said and Paul penned because it didn't jibe with Ulrich's (wrong) Christology and (wrong) view of physics. Today, much of modern "Evangelicalism" and some of modern Calvinism has bought into his revolution, his new theory dividing Christianity in the process and of course raising HIGH the thought that if Scripture states something that doesn't "jibe" with an individual's own philosophy and concepts of science, then Scripture is wrong and we must "spin" it to "say" the opposite of what it states in order to keep God from being wrong. Much of liberalism traces back to Zwingli and his revolution.

And I cant believe Im even asking these questions, lol.

Me, too. Real Presence seems like a "DUH" and it was for all Christians for 1500 years until Zwingli's revolution....



I hope that helps.....


A blessed Advent and Christmas!


- Josiah




.