THE LORD'S SUPPER

[Doug]

The passover and the new testament is for Israel. The Lord's supper is for the body of Christ, the church.

The Lord and the twelve disciples shared in the feast of unleavened bread in the day he would be sacrificed. This feast was a memorial and an ordinance dedicated to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 12). It was a feast to be observed forever by Israel.

Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Christ told the twelve to prepare the passover. This passover meal represented his bodily sacrifice for them. The passover was a shadow of the sacrificial death of Jesus.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Jesus had to shed his blood because the law demanded blood for remission (Hebrews 9:22). Jesus died to redeem the transgressions Israel committed under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

The passover will find fulfillment in the new testament at the coming of the Lord in his kingdom on earth.

The Lord Jesus Christ died and rose again to put into force the new testament (Hebrews 9:17). God made the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). The new testament will forgive Israel all their iniquity and cause them to walk in his commandments in the kingdom (Romans 11:26-27 Ezekiel 36:27). Israel will become a blessing and light to Gentiles who would come to God through them in the kingdom (Isaiah 60:3).

The church, the body of Christ has not been given the new testament, but rather, the blood of Christ as a propitiation (Romans 3:25). The Lord's supper is not the passover, nor does it commemorate the new testament. The Lord's supper is a new ordinance given to Paul by revelation from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23).

The passover meal in relation to the new testament is given as an account to be the basis of instruction for the body in regard to the Lord's supper.

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

The church, the body of Christ, was to exhibit unity and to be of one mind (Ephesians 4:13 Romans 15:6). They were to set aside divisiveness.

11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

There was to be order and consideration for the needs of the members of the body.

11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

Paul will now go on to remind them what the Lord revealed for Paul to deliver to the church.

11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The passover was to be observed at a specific date, but there was no such command for the Lord's supper; it was to be done often. When the church comes together they are to shew the Lord's death for our sins til he comes.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

For the church, the body of Christ, the cup that is blessed is not the cup of the passover, nor the cup of the blood shed for the new testament; the bread is not the broken physical body of the Lord Jesus for the passover or the new testament. The cup is the communion of the blood of Christ by which we are justified unto eternal life. The bread is the communion of the body, the church, not the physical body of Christ. The many members of the body, the church, are to be viewed as being one bread and one body by the sacrifice of Christ. The members were to have a sacrificial regard and consideration for others in the body.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Jew and Gentile were made one new man in the body by the sacrifice of Jesus (Ephesians 2:14-16) and should reflect that in their coming together by putting away their divisions and by their consideration for each other.

1 Corinthians11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Participating in the Lord's supper unworthily is warned against. They were to discern the Lord's body, the church, and to be mindful of how they were to behave in coming together. They were to remember that it was the by Lord's sacrificial death that made them members of the body and of each other.

11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

They were to behave orderly when they came together to eat the Lord's supper to avoid condemnation and remember that they were coming together for the communion and fellowship provided by the blood sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:


The members of the body were to be mindful of their purpose and fellowship of the mystery.

 

[Josiah]

https://christianityhaven.com/showt...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical

 

[Doug]

https://christianityhaven.com/showt...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical

Hello
Could you please expound on this....there is more than one use for justification Biblically.

 

[Josiah]

Could you please expound on this..

Do you desire me to post it here, too? If so, here it is:



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 subtracted, 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. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota (it says nothing else, nothing more).

Now, 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.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presence. The Catholic Church does too but it tends to be buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: The Roman 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 transubstatiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presence is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medieval 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. But it should not be forgotten that the older doctrine - Real Presence - is still officially embraced, as well.


From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The doctrine of transubstantiation 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.



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.

This view was invented in the late 16th Century by Zwingli. He invented this because he questioned the historic, orthodox view of The Two Natures of Christ (Jesus as both human and divine). "Jesus is in heaven and so cannot be here." Thus, to Zwingli, the words cannot mean what they state since that would be physically impossible.





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.







.

 

[Doug]

Do you desire me to post it here, too? If so, here it is:



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 subtracted, 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. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota (it says nothing else, nothing more).

Now, 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.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presence. The Catholic Church does too but it tends to be buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: The Roman 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 transubstatiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presence is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medieval 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. But it should not be forgotten that the older doctrine - Real Presence - is still officially embraced, as well.


From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The doctrine of transubstantiation 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.



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.

This view was invented in the late 16th Century by Zwingli. He invented this because he questioned the historic, orthodox view of The Two Natures of Christ (Jesus as both human and divine). "Jesus is in heaven and so cannot be here." Thus, to Zwingli, the words cannot mean what they state since that would be physically impossible.





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.







.

Hello

Sorry, but I was asking you to expound on your comment about justification......"We are justified by works - just not our own."
I am not sure what you mean by this

 

[MennoSota]

If it is real presence and/or literally the body and blood of Jesus, did Jesus literally cut off a flank of his body for his disciples to eat and then literally cut open a vein to drain a pint of his blood for his disciples to drink?
If people are going to take this as literal, then it must be literal at the last supper as well. Jesus has to have literally given them his flesh and his blood for them to consume. If it wasn't literal then, it certainly isn't literal today.

 

[Josiah]

If it is real presence and/or literally the body and blood of Jesus, did Jesus literally cut off a flank of his body for his disciples to eat and then literally cut open a vein to drain a pint of his blood for his disciples to drink?
If people are going to take this as literal, then it must be literal at the last supper as well. Jesus has to have literally given them his flesh and his blood for them to consume. If it wasn't literal then, it certainly isn't literal today.

1. Questions don't make or break dogma. Your premise that Truth depends on the questions you ask and the answers you give to them is one I reject. I hold that doctrine depends on Scripture. IF your premise was true, we'd likely be forced to reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ.... why. pretty much all of Christianity.


2. Jesus is BOTH - FULLY - INSEPARABLY - ALWAYS God and man. So, telling Jesus "You can't do that" is identical to telling God He can't do that. Was the Sacrament Jesus gave the Apostles His Body and Blood? Well, He said it was. Can Jesus give His body and blood before, during and after His resurrection? Well.... I'd hesitate to tell God "No, you cannot." Your question seems to ASSUME (always dangerous to make or deny dogma based on personal assumptions) that Jesus can't be where He chooses to be.





.

 

[MennoSota]

1. Questions don't make or break dogma. Your premise that Truth depends on the questions you ask and the answers you give to them is one I reject. I hold that doctrine depends on Scripture. IF your premise was true, we'd likely be forced to reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ.... why. pretty much all of Christianity.


2. Jesus is BOTH - FULLY - INSEPARABLY - ALWAYS God and man. So, telling Jesus "You can't do that" is identical to telling God He can't do that. Was the Sacrament Jesus gave the Apostles His Body and Blood? Well, He said it was. Can Jesus give His body and blood before, during and after His resurrection? Well.... I'd hesitate to tell God "No, you cannot." Your question seems to ASSUME (always dangerous to make or deny dogma based on personal assumptions) that Jesus can't be where He chooses to be.





.

My statement is that if you take it literally, then you must take Jesus words literally for the last supper as well. Jesus must have carved out some of his flesh and drained some of his blood for the disciples to partake.
So, is your tradition going to be consistent from beginning on forward or does your tradition get to pick and choose when it wants to be literal or symbolic?

 

[Josiah]

My statement is that if you take it literally, then you must take Jesus words literally for the last supper as well.

And as I posted to you, I do. Why? Because Jesus (who is GOD) said so. And being God, He can do whatever He chooses; I reject y our premise that if YOU can't wrap your brain around the physics of it, the HOW of it.... if you think it's IMPOSSIBLE for GOD to do this, then it cannot be true.





.

 

[Arsenios]

Jesus was of sound body when
He broke bread,
gave thanks,
and said:

Take...
Eat...
This My Body IS...
Broken for you...

The Bread IS His Body...
Literally...
Not His Flesh...

A.

 

[MennoSota]

And as I posted to you, I do. Why? Because Jesus (who is GOD) said so. And being God, He can do whatever He chooses; I reject y our premise that if YOU can't wrap your brain around the physics of it, the HOW of it.... if you think it's IMPOSSIBLE for GOD to do this, then it cannot be true.





.

So...Jesus physically cut off his flesh and drained a pint of blood for the disciples to eat and drink?
Do you believe this is what he did? If you take it literally then you must believe it.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus was of sound body when
He broke bread,
gave thanks,
and said:

Take...
Eat...
This My Body IS...
Broken for you...

The Bread IS His Body...
Literally...
Not His Flesh...

A.

So...Jesus body is bread, not human and the liquid in his bread body is wine? Most interesting. He is the only human I have ever known to be made up of bread and wine.

 

[Josiah]

If you take it literally then you must believe it.

I believe what He said. You seem to need to delete what He said and replace it with very different words because you don't understand how what Jesus said could be true.

I believe that Jesus is also God. And I'm not in the habit of building dogma out of "But God can't do that!"

I reject your premise that dogma is to be founded not on the words of Scripture but on questions you ask.

For 1500 years, not one Christian on the entire planet had any problem believing what Jesus said or in accepting the words the Holy Spirit caused to be penned or in believe God can do whatever God wants. I don't either.

 

[MennoSota]

I believe what He said. You seem to need to delete what He said and replace it with very different words because you don't understand how what Jesus said could be true.

I believe that Jesus is also God. And I'm not in the habit of building dogma out of "But God can't do that!"

I reject your premise that dogma is to be founded not on the words of Scripture but on questions you ask.

For 1500 years, not one Christian on the entire planet had any problem believing what Jesus said or in accepting the words the Holy Spirit caused to be penned or in believe God can do whatever God wants. I don't either.

You're tiptoeing.
Since Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" you must therefore believe one of two things.
One, Jesus had a bread body that pumped wine through his system Or... Jesus cut off a chunk of his human flesh and drained a pint of his human blood for the Boyz.
Anything else is not a literal interpretation.
I believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically as he shared the seder meal at Passover with his disciples. He changed the seder meal so that in the supper the meal would be in remembrance of him as the Lamb that was slain for his chosen people.
The context seems to clearly support the metaphor, but if you wish to take it literally you certainly may.

 

[Josiah]

You're tiptoeing.

No. You are simply uncomfortable with what Jesus and Paul clearly, literally, often STATED. You have a rubric that what Jesus said is subject to the questions YOU ask and if you can't answer all your questions about what Jesus said, then it can't be true.

I believe what He said. You seem to need to delete what He said and replace it with very different words because you don't understand how what Jesus said could be true so it's not true.

I believe that Jesus is also God. And I'm not in the habit of building dogma out of "But God can't do that!"

I reject your premise that dogma is to be founded not on the words of Scripture but on questions you ask.

For 1500 years, not one Christian on the entire planet had any problem believing what Jesus said or in accepting the words the Holy Spirit caused to be penned or in believe God can do whatever God wants. I don't either.

Since Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood"

... I believe Him.

So did EVERY Christian for over 1500 years.

You seem to demand that God be placed in your little box, a box formed by YOUR limited modern brain and limited understanding of physics. You might consider that perhaps God is bigger than your box you've stuffed Him in.




Blessings


- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

No. You are simply uncomfortable with what Jesus and Paul clearly, literally, often STATED. You have a rubric that what Jesus said is subject to the questions YOU ask and if you can't answer all your questions about what Jesus said, then it can't be true.

I believe what He said. You seem to need to delete what He said and replace it with very different words because you don't understand how what Jesus said could be true so it's not true.

I believe that Jesus is also God. And I'm not in the habit of building dogma out of "But God can't do that!"

I reject your premise that dogma is to be founded not on the words of Scripture but on questions you ask.

For 1500 years, not one Christian on the entire planet had any problem believing what Jesus said or in accepting the words the Holy Spirit caused to be penned or in believe God can do whatever God wants. I don't either.





... I believe Him.

So did EVERY Christian for over 1500 years.

You seem to demand that God be placed in your little box, a box formed by YOUR limited modern brain and limited understanding of physics. You might consider that perhaps God is bigger than your box you've stuffed Him in.




Blessings


- Josiah

You have accepted a western concept of the Lord's supper, not established by the Apostles or Jesus, but created by former pagans who had no concept of Jewish culture or the Passover supper. Therefore they created a mystical magic conjuring where human blood and human flesh had power to save when other humans drink blood and eat human flesh.
But, feel free to follow the magic tradition if you wish.

 

[Lamb]

You have accepted a western concept of the Lord's supper, not established by the Apostles or Jesus, but created by former pagans who had no concept of Jewish culture or the Passover supper. Therefore they created a mystical magic conjuring where human blood and human flesh had power to save when other humans drink blood and eat human flesh.
But, feel free to follow the magic tradition if you wish.

The Eastern Orthodox do not follow western concepts or traditions and yet they believe that the Lord's body and blood are present in Holy Communion.

 

[MennoSota]

The Eastern Orthodox do not follow western concepts or traditions and yet they believe that the Lord's body and blood are present in Holy Communion.

Both groups are former pagan gentiles who didn't recognize the seder meal as the last supper.

 

[Josiah]

No. You are simply uncomfortable with what Jesus and Paul clearly, literally, often STATED. You have a rubric that what Jesus said is subject to the questions YOU ask and if you can't answer all your questions about what Jesus said, then it can't be true.

I believe what He said. You seem to need to delete what He said and replace it with very different words because you don't understand how what Jesus said could be true so it's not true.

I believe that Jesus is also God. And I'm not in the habit of building dogma out of "But God can't do that!"

I reject your premise that dogma is to be founded not on the words of Scripture but on questions you ask.

For 1500 years, not one Christian on the entire planet had any problem believing what Jesus said or in accepting the words the Holy Spirit caused to be penned or in believe God can do whatever God wants. I don't either.





... I believe Him.

So did EVERY Christian for over 1500 years.

You seem to demand that God be placed in your little box, a box formed by YOUR limited modern brain and limited understanding of physics. You might consider that perhaps God is bigger than your box you've stuffed Him in.




.

You have accepted a western concept of the Lord's supper

1. It's also the Eastern concept.


2. I'm believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Just like EVERY OTHER Christian for over 1500 years. I have no need to reject the words of Scripture or declare them false because I can't answer all your questions and you can't seem to wrap your understanding of physics around them and limit God to your own tiny box. Your invention, reversing 1500 + years of UNIVERSAL acceptance, is simply that your brain says God cannot do what He says (I find that a particularly bad basis for invented new dogma).





.

 

[MennoSota]

1. It's also the Eastern concept.


2. I'm believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Just like EVERY OTHER Christian for over 1500 years. I have no need to reject the words of Scripture or declare them false because I can't answer all your questions and you can't seem to wrap your understanding of physics around them and limit God to your own tiny box. Your invention, reversing 1500 + years of UNIVERSAL acceptance, is simply that your brain says God cannot do what He says (I find that a particularly bad basis for invented new dogma).





.

It pagan, gentile, concept with little regard to the seder meal and what it symbolizes.
It is added mysticism from pagan gentiles, looking for mystical energy forces in bread and wine while saying they are literally human flesh and human blood.
It's too bad these gentile believers missed the symbolism Jesus was confering to his disciples in the seder meal.